If my family name came from England would i have a coat of arms?

Question

faily tree

coat of arms

Answer 1

You do not have a Coat of Arms.  If you legally, legitimately had one, you would already know it.  Coat of Arms were granted to INDIVIDUALS, not assigned to surnames. Just because someone of your last name MAY have been granted one at some point does not make it yours.  Also, it may be that several men of the same surname were granted a coat of arms....each one different.....and maybe none of the men were related to each other.  Likewise, it may be that NO ONE of your surname was ever granted one.  In order for you to be able to claim any Coat of Arms you must be able to do the following:

1. research your family tree to see if you have any ancestors that were granted a Coat of Arms.

2. If you do have an ancestor who was granted one, then you can only claim it IF the following is true: The person who rightfully can claim a Coat of Arms that was granted to their ancestor is a male descendant who is the first born son, of the first born son, of the first born son, of the first born son, etc., all the way back to the person who was originally granted the Coat of Arms. If you do not fall in that line, then you cannot claim it.  If you do fall in that line, then chances are you are already aware you have one.

To use a Coat of Arms based on your last name is meaningless.  It is about as accurate as buying a picture frame at the store that has a piece of paper in it showing an image of a child holding a flower and claiming that is actually a picture of your child.

Answer 2

Yes, go geneology type web sites and or heraldy based sites- look under regards to your sir name. Fathers and Mothers last names

Answer 3

probably tweed.

Answer 4

First you have to prove with documentary evidence that you are descended from a man who was granted arms, and then apply for permission to legally use them, the rules are very strict and can be upheld in the civil court of any country. Just because you share a surname with someone who was granted the right to arms does not mean that the right is also yours. The Heraldic tradition varies slightly between countries, but in essence they are all the same.

In the first instance the grant of arms was/is made to one individual and inherited by his descendants who alone may bear or use his arms, they were passed equally to each of his sons, each one added their own mark of cadency to those arms. The eldest son added a label – a horizontal strip with three pendant drops (during the lifetime of his father). The second son added a crescent, the third son added a five pointed star, the fourth son added a martlet, the fifth son added a annulet, the sixth a fleur de lys, the seventh a rose, the eighth a cross Moline and the ninth a double quatrefoil, which were then displayed on their shields to distinguish themselves from each other and their father, the sons passed their arms, complete with their own cadences, on to their own sons, who then added a second set of cadences to distinguish themselves from each other, their father, uncles and cousins.

When a man died, his eldest son then had the right to bear his father’s arms without the differentiation marks, the eldest son’s children would then add only one set of cadency marks, instead of two, and so on down the generations, the brothers of the eldest son continued to use the arms with their own cadency marks, which were later passed to their sons in the same manner, It all got very complicated.

Daughters also inherited the right to display their father’s arms if there was no male heir, a daughter could pass her father’s arms on to her sons. Wives, widows and daughters had a courtesy right to display their husband or father’s arms, normally on a diamond lozenge.

The original achievement remained the same through the generations, enhanced by the addition of the various cadences, however, the arms of more than one family could also be included on one shield. If both the man and his wife had the right to bear arms, they could be displayed side by side, called impalement, or if mixed together to form new arms, it was called compounding. One method was quartering, where the shield was divided into quarters, then, for example, if a man had no sons, his daughter or daughters inherited his right to the coat of arms, if one such daughter married a man who also had a coat of arms, her arms could be impaled with his, or be displayed on a

small shield in the centre of her husbands arms, their sons would then seek permission of the Heralds to bear arms, with their father’s arms in two quarters and their mother’s

in the other two quarters. With time the coat of arms could include the arms of many families and became very complex.

Dating originally from before the advent of surnames, the arms were in effect a means of identification, much the same as a surname. With the establishment of surnames during the 12th. And 13th. centuries, those families who already had the right to bear arms acquired a surname to go with their arms, once surnames were established and became hereditary, new arms were granted to men with an established surname, so it can, I think, be argued as to whether or not arms are attached to a family, or the family surname.

Neither were they (or surnames) introduced by the Normans for taxation purposes. The Normans arrived in England some 100 or more years before the first heraldic arms or devices began to appear.

Heraldry in Europe developed and evolved during the 12th.and 13th. centuries (1100-1200) Heraldic arms were a personal device, possibly for military purposes, or simply a display of status or vanity, it can only be guessed at because, today, no one knows the real reason. At first, arms were displayed without authority from anyone, but gradually became controlled by the Crown, through Heralds, whereby, men who could prove their ancient use of arms by their family, were granted permission to continue displaying them. Total control finally came about in the 15th.century, when Richard III

in 1484, established what is now known as the College of Arms, it still holds the

authority to grant or withhold the use and display of arms.

A crest was normally an ornament on a helmet and it was included within the family’s achievement (coat of arms) but later became used separately, as decoration on plate and cutlery, stationery etc.

If it is possible to access a copy of Burke’s “General Armory of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales” first published in 1842, you can find out if any particular family was ever granted the right to bear arms. It is unfortunately a fact that very, very few people, other than extremely well documented lines of royalty, nobility, gentry or maybe wealthy landowners, traders or other persons of note, can prove a satisfactory link back to that period. Generally, if a family is entitled to display arms, they are most probably still aware of the fact, it is not something usually “forgotten”. Today there are two types of arms, “granted arms”, which are formally conveyed by a sovereign, state, or other body with the authority to do so, these grants have legal status under the law wherever they are recognised. And there are “assumed arms”, which can be designed and used by anyone but carry no legitimacy.

Other countries have a broadly similar history of Heraldic rules and regulatory authorities.

Sources :-

Among others.

The College of Arms

http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/About/...

And the book by T.Woodcock & J.M.Robinson

“The Oxford Guide to Heraldry”.

Answer 5

Not necessarily.  Not all English are entitled to a coat of arms.

Now be very careful about these websites selling coats of arms.  They sell them based on a surname and that is not valid.

Coats of arms do not belong to surnames.  

They were and are granted to individuals and are passed down to the direct legitimate male line descendants.  

There might have been, for instance, 15 different men with your surname, not all necessarily related, each granted their own coat of arms, all different.  No one peddler will have all 15, no way. They don't need to in order to sell to gullible people. The only time they will have more than one is if persons with the same surname from different national origins were granted a coat of arms.  In that case they will have one of each when in fact there might have been several of each.

See the links below.  One is from the British College of Arms who grants coats of and are the ultimate authority.  You can read the screen that comes up and probe on the tabs at the top and look at the various screens and click on the various links to find out more about coats of arms.

Also, is a link from the most prestigious genealogical organization in the U. S., The National Genealogical Society.

http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/Faq.ht...

http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/comconsumerp...

Now you might have several in your family tree.  That doesn't mean you are necessarily entitlted to any one of them.  It just means that after doing research and finding various ancestors that were granted one and if you have a book printed or even published on your family history, it would be quite valid for you to put in your book a picture of your ancestors' coats of arms.  It would not be valid, however, if you put in your book those that just happened to be granted to persons with the same surnames as your ancestors.

If you are an American and you have any English lines that goes back to early colonial days in the American South, you have an excellent chance of finding more than one in your family tree.  Some in the South have the ones their ancestor brought over from England 300-400 years ago and they aren't those dinky little walnut plaques silly people have on their den wall or over their fireplace.   As a rule, the don't display them.  They aren't any good for buying groceries and I might add gasoline.  Walmart won't take them either.

Answer 6

Yes, you would have a family tree (everyone does) but unless your family was nobility, you would not have a coat of arms. However, you can design one for yourself if you really want one.

Answer 7

no

Answer 8

First, check out those sites that deal with such things.

But there is a problem: the "coat of arms", whatever you want to call them, are similar to the Purple Hearts, etc., awarded to American servicemen/women.  It belongs to that particular person; NOT their descendants.

True, sometimes those things look nice displayed upon the wall of ones den, but that is about it.

The overwhelming majority of families living at the time did NOT have a "coat of arms".  Further, one son could have one, his brother a different one, his father a different one yet.  When a man married, his wife's father's would be added to his.  (Showing a union.)