Coat of Arms

[behindthefrogs]

Unfortunately there is not enough there to work on.

[Hanford]

Ahhh ok, that's a shame, but thank you for your help 

[Guy Etchells]

There is no need to be gutted.
As long as your great grandfather's arms were not struck down then they were legally used by prescription.
That is one of the oldest (and most legitimate) ways of acquiring an achievement or coat of arms.

Guy - could you just clarify "by prescription" for me: what does that in fact mean in this context?? Thanks.

But further to what you've said, I'd also add that of course the records at the College of Arms aren't themselves complete - they physically were unable to visit every single parish in England and Wales during the period of visitations.

Not only are they incomplete but they contain fraudulent pedigrees invented by heralds to pander to the whims of their clients.

"by prescription" means by use and repute, there is actually no set period of time that qualifies the use and repute but it is generally taken to mean by more than one generation.
Some people claim it has to be 100 years but there is no evidence that such a period of time must pass.
Cheers
Guy

[Guy Etchells]

By prescription means the use of a coat of arms for three generations, or at least one hundred years.
http://www.genealogymagazine.com/heuseandabof.html

Stan

That is simply Dugdale trying to stamp his authority on prescription, as he himself announces.
It carries no legal weight and does not overide the common law right of a gentleman.
Cheers
Guy