Does identical coats of arms imply a common ancestor?

[jc33a]

I have found six Benyons with arms granted or pedigrees lodged in the 17th and 18th century, all of whom have identical arms. I have found a common ancestor for two of them, and suspect the other four are also related. Do identical coats of arms imply a common ancestor?

John

[smudwhisk]

To avoid any duplication it's worth linking to an existing thread on the subject - http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=662949.msg5084054#msg5084054.

[lynxafrica]

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"

[behindthefrogs]

A coat of arms is inherited.  There should not be two people living at the same time using the same coat of arms except a husband and wife.  Close relatives will often be granted similar coat of arms but there will always bean official difference.  Often this is in colour which will not be obvious in any 17th and 18th century black and white illustration if the official description (blazon) is not available, although there is an approved way shading to represent the various colours.

These rules apply to the shield although the crest which sits on the helmet in a coat of arms may not be differenced for close family members.  Please note that the shield is often wrongly referred to as a crest.

There are standard changes (brissures) that sons add to the shield of their father, different for each son.

[davidbappleton]

While the other responding commenters are entirely correct that under English heraldic law there "should not be two people living at the same time using the same coat of arms" and that there were, and are, "strict rules governing subsequent" inheritance of coats of arms, the actual practice has always been much messier.  Even the College of Arms today has been far less strict about requiring the adoption of cadency marks to differentiate the arms of different generations and branches of a family.

If, as you indicate, the arms granted by and pedigrees lodged with the College of Arms all have identical coats of arms, then I would have to say that it would certainly appear that the heralds certainly believed that they were all pretty closely related.

David