Help with a few simple questions pls.

[Lady Di]

Hi Folks,

I read somewhere (and now can't find the article again  ) that in the early 19th century it was a simple matter of paying abt £100 to design/buy an "official" coat of arms. I understand that these could be registered as "authentic" by the College of Arms at that time.

Is this true and anyone know of a weblink with further information?

Second question:
Coat of arms - one I'm looking at has two quarterings. One qtr has husband's surname, second qtr is in dispute. If this is one of the "new/purchased" Cof A's mentioned above, the second qtr would most likely be those showing his wife's name - correct or not?

Lastly - what were the rules relating to the female surname being included on a coat of arms?
I believe that the wife's father's arms can only be added (qtr'ed) to her husbands if she is the sole descendant of her father. What other rules are there relating to female names being added to a C of A?

Hope that makes sense 

Thanks

Di

[Little Nell]

The College of Arms certainly register all grants of arms.  A herald - or his assistant - will design a coat of arms based on the person's requirements.  Catherine Middleton's father commissioned a design of arms last year:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13127145

I think inflation has put the price up a bit 

With regard to your other question, I understand what you mean. 

If a man (A) married a woman (B) and both had the right to bear arms (i.e. she was an heiress in her own right), then while they are alive, the wife's arms are placed on an escutcheon ( small shield) on top of her husbands arms.  When the husband dies, their son will bear quartered arms: 1&4 will be the father's arms (A), while 2&3 will be the mother's arms (B).

If this son does not marry an heiress who inherits her family's coat of arms, then his son will continue to bear only the quartered arms he inherited from his parents.

If the son marries another heiress who inherits her family's arms as the sole surviving representative (C), then that coat would be added in the same way and any son of the union would bear quartered arms, 1&4 being the original arms (A), quarter 2 would be B and quarter 3 would be C.

That's a very simplified version and if I've got that wrong, I'm sure someone will put me right.

Nell

[Lady Di]

Thanks Nell

That makes all sense 

The interesting thing I note is that the herald "will design a coat of arms based on the person's requirements". That being the case, I would assume that the guy who has this coat designed would include his wife's surname on the RHS (as you look at the pic).

In this case - neither family were entitled to family arms from previous generations.

The reason I ask is that an "official" has described "her" side and assigned a surname that is not the guy's wife's surname. It's a surname that, as far as I can see, has no family connection. My theory is that the official description is incorrect in one word and once you correct that word you end up with an adaptation of the arms of her surname.

Just trying to prove official info is incorrect is the challenge 

Thanks for your help and knowledgeable insight.

Cheers

Di

[Little Nell]

According to one of the books on my shelf, it has been impossible for about six centuries to acquire legal title to armorial bearings by any other means than inheritance according to the law of arms, or by a grant or confirmation from the proper authorities.  Grants of arms are usually made to people who acquire a title.  Fees for personal grants of arms in 1825 were  £76 10s.  It went up by a whole £5 just over a century later.  These fees are set by the College of Arms.  Perhaps this is the 'purchase' that is referred to?

While the wishes of the applicant are taken into account, the heralds are in overall charge of the design, to make sure it follows the rules.

All that said, I know that some of my lot - and your remote connections via that marriage! - used a coat of arms that I'm not certain they were entitled to.  If they were, then there's an interesting story waiting to be dug up!

Nell

[Lady Di]

Fees for personal grants of arms in 1825 were  £76 10s.  It went up by a whole £5 just over a century later.  These fees are set by the College of Arms.  Perhaps this is the 'purchase' that is referred to?

Yes - that sounds exactly what it was - a personal grant of arms. Knew it was abt £100. Thanks for the description.

It doesn't surprise me that "our/your" lot used some suspect arms - nothing ever was simple with that family 

Thanks for your help

Di

[behindthefrogs]

Impalement where two shields are combined side by side (in two halves rather than four or more quarters) was a temporary measure where the wife's father was armigerous but there were other people for example a brother who would inherit his father's arms.  This coat of arms would not usually be passed on to any heir, who would revert to the father's original shield.

However we are here talking about British Coats of Arms and the rules were different in som eparts of the continent.

[Lady Di]

Impalement where two shields are combined side by side (in two halves rather than four or more quarters) was a temporary measure where the wife's father was armigerous but there were other people for example a brother who would inherit his father's arms. This coat of arms would not usually be passed on to any heir, who would revert to the father's original shield.

However we are here talking about British Coats of Arms and the rules were different in som eparts of the continent.

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, this coat of arms is impaled - but the wife's father was deceased at the time the arms were "acquired". She wasn't the eldest or the sole surviving child of her father. He was not, as far as I can tell, armigerous.

If, as the "experts" say, the surname associated with her arms is correct then wouldn't that surname be her maiden name?

For example, the experts say that the arms belong to the Smith family but her maiden name is Brown
(example names only). I would have thought that it was illegal to have the Smith family's arms displayed on your own coat of arms if you have no association with that family. 

If this is a purchased (paid for) coat of arms then I would assume that her side would reflect her surname and not that of a (unlikely) far distant ancestor.

Well, that's my theory - I'm hoping that the College of Arms may shed further light on the subject.

Thanks for your help.

Di
Sorry - meant to say - this is a British Coat of Arms.

[Stephen J F Plowman]

It does rather sound as if it was a bit of "D.I.Y." heraldry.  That said, I can think of one possible reason for a name difference.  If the daughter was heiress to her mother's Arms but not her father's.  i.e. A man marries and has a son and heir.  He marries for a second time a heraldic heiress and has a daughter.   What I do not know is how the daughter would display the fact she is the heiress to her mother's Arms.

[Lady Di]

Thanks for your suggestions and thoughts about this Coat of Arms Stephen.

I heard from the College of Arms and they were more than willing to answer my questions - as long as I sent them £600 first     

Needless to say I saved my money!

I don't believe that we'll ever have a definite answer but I am convinced that the "authorities" who, many years later, described her side made some fundamental errors - not that I'm any expert but the family history shows that the couple were actually half cousins (same grandfather)

Cheers

Di