1
Heraldry Crests and Coats of Arms / Re: Does identical coats of arms imply a common ancestor?
« on: Monday 30 September 13 10:42 BST (UK) »
A true coat of arms is like an individual finger print. It was designed to make individuals on the battlefield identifiable. There were strict rules governing subsequent passing on of colours and ensigns to sons and daughters, involving bars/circles/stars and dividing the shield into halves and quarters. Each result was as unique to the individual as the original was to the parent, and if you were clued up, you'd know which order the children had been born in.
As far as I'm aware, all new coats and crests were registered with an official body (I cant remember whether it was the Crown or some other heraldic body).
So, anybody claiming to have a "family coat of arms" and displaying a shield, is essentially talking heraldic nonsense. But then, in an era of ignorance, it's big business and there are numerous firms happy to take your money for a copy of your "family crest" - like the dud one on the left that I'm using for "Bolton"
As far as I'm aware, all new coats and crests were registered with an official body (I cant remember whether it was the Crown or some other heraldic body).
So, anybody claiming to have a "family coat of arms" and displaying a shield, is essentially talking heraldic nonsense. But then, in an era of ignorance, it's big business and there are numerous firms happy to take your money for a copy of your "family crest" - like the dud one on the left that I'm using for "Bolton"