Reconfigured shield.

[historylover]

If the current bearer of a Coat of Arms shows the identical shield features - although reconfigured - as an earlier shield of the same surname in the same county, may I safely conclude that the current bearer shares the same genealogy at an earlier time?

Thankyou in advance.

[KGarrad]

A coat-of-arms is awarded to an individual, and to his direct descendants.

For any person to have a right to a coat of arms they must either have had it granted to them or be descended in the legitimate male line from a person to whom arms were granted or confirmed in the past.

You don't specify a country? That could be important, as laws vary from country to country.
For example, the right to arms is enshrined in law in Scotland, but not in England or Wales?

[behindthefrogs]

To answer your question we need to understand exactly what you mean by reconfiguration.  This can vary between simple artistic reconfiguration and changes that have a genealogical significance.  The latter can imply a relationship but not direct descendency.  Ideally it would be useful if you could post the two shields.

[historylover]

Thankyou for your reply. My apologies for the delay in my reply but I am reliant on being able to return to my library to access their computer.  Unfortunately, at the moment, I am unable to post these shields for that reason.

I may refer to County Durham, but most definitely England.  The original shield shows two bars and three ducal coronets presented in a parallel formation, whereas the current holder's shield shows a diagonal formation of the same features.  Each shares the same crest.

I had wondered if the original holder had run out of direct heirs and the current holder was from a collateral line who had reconfigured these details to signify this fact.

What do you think?

[KGarrad]

The fact that the "bars" are diagonal, rather than vertical or horizontal (you didn't say which) makes the shields very different!

The orientation of lines, shapes, divisions etc is a major part of the achievement.
As are the colours (which you didn't mention either ) of both "bars" and coronets.

[behindthefrogs]

It seems extremely likely that the current holder is descended from someone who was closely related but unable to prove heraldic descendency.  The college of arms in these circumstances often approves a different but very similar shield.  What worries me slightly is that the crest is unchanged.  That may well indicate that the relationship was proven but there was someone in the direct line entitled to the original shield.

[historylover]

I am unable to find how to reply separately, so I will reply to both.

Firstly, the bars - and ducal coronets - are both at first presented horizontally, but currently are shown with bars shown diagonally and coronets shown between them (horizontally).

Colours are "Or, two bars Azure, between 3 ducal crowns Gules".

Yes, the strong similarity suggests to me that there must be a familial connection and for some reason there has been a need to show a change. 

On a similar note, could you tell me what a 'cadet' is?

[veeblevort]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadet_branch

vv.

[behindthefrogs]

A cadet was the son of a living person who has been granted arms.  In England his arms would have been derived from the father's arms by adding a small charge to the father's arms.  The charge would indicate the eldest son, second son etc.  For the first son it was a three pointed label,for the second son a crecent (curve down), third son a star, etc.  The next generation would combine these (brissures) as appropriate.

In Scotland a slightly different scheme was used.  The label which was common to many European countries to be discarded on inheritance was used but the other sons had a border of varying colours around the shield.  Later generations were more complex but following fixed rules that identified the relationship.

However the "differences" used for cadency did not clash with the differences used to distinguish unrelated people.