Coats of arms? - WOOD

[Woody32]

Someone posted a request about a "coat of arms" and got me thinking about mine..

So i googled my name and found some heraldry sites that you could pay for an image of your particular name, in my case "Wood".. Do these firms just design them and stick anything on them?

A lot of the surnames have the same background but with the square in the middle altered with in my case a tree in the middle?

these three off different websites !! Is there a site that shows actual "Old" Coats of arms?

[stanmapstone]

The College of Arms site at http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/ gives an
explanation

There is no such thing as a 'coat of arms for a surname'. Many people of the same surname will often be entitled to completely different coats of arms, and many of that surname will be entitled to no coat of arms. Coats of arms belong to individuals. 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.


Stan

[stanmapstone]

Just to add that it is a popular misconception that the word 'crest' describes a whole coat of arms or any heraldic device. It does not. A crest is a specific part of a full achievement of arms: the three-dimensional object placed on top of the helm.

Stan

[Woody32]

Thanks Stan....So basically these firms are just trying to make a few quid

[Maggie.]

Stan - - - Am I correct in thinking that if a bearer of arms married the daughter of a bearer of arms, then their mutual coat of arms would be split, with the left hand half being the husband's and the right hand half her father's?  Also after the death of one of them, the deceased's half would have a black background?

Maggie

[behindthefrogs]

Maggie,

To keep it simple.  Yes the arms would be split (marshalled) in the way you described.  However the black background is found on a hatchment, which was originally funeral heraldry found in churches.  The shapes and placement of the black backgrounds show the order in which the people died.

Referring to the original pictures posted by woody.  The last one is just a shield and motto, not a coat of arms.  A quick check of the crests, on the helmets of the other two shows that the fruited oak tree was used by five of the thirty four coats of arms which I quickly accessed.  The helmet on the second coat of arms showed that it belonged to a baronet or knight while the top one was that of a gentleman.

The crescent on the final one probably shows that it originally belonged to a crusader.  Although it it may be the corruption of the cadency showing the arms belonged to a second son.

David

[Woody32]

Thanks...Theres a lot more to it than i thought, I may visit the library and get a few books on the subject, it seems very interesting.

[behindthefrogs]

Incidently I can't find any evidence that the motto on the last shield was used by any Wood family.  A tree known by the fruit.

The shortened version "fructu noscitur", simply "known by the fruit" was used by other families in particular the Newbiggin family but not by the Woods family.

What is interesting about this subject is that if you can find a genuine coat of arms in your family then a huge amount of family history can be derived from understanding from where the various constituent parts came.  Mottos and crests can come from other relations while the shield should be constructed following very strict rules.

David

[Siamese Girl]

Incidently I can't find any evidence that the motto on the last shield was used by any Wood family.  A tree known by the fruit.

The shortened version "fructu noscitur", simply "known by the fruit" was used by other families in particular the Newbiggin family but not by the Woods family.

What is interesting about this subject is that if you can find a genuine coat of arms in your family then a huge amount of family history can be derived from understanding from where the various constituent parts came.  Mottos and crests can come from other relations while the shield should be constructed following very strict rules.

David
 

But beware of coat of arms even if they have been in the family for 200 years because the Georgians weren't too fussed about borrowing other peoples arms and passing them off as their own - as I well know! 

Carole