Does this count as my coat of arms?

[HenningWalker]

I am very confused about coats of arms and crests. I know that people commonly think they have a claim to a coat of arms or crest through a surname, but actually don't as they need to be issued to them and generally only continue along the male line.

Last year I discovered that one of my ancestors was awarded this coat of arms in the 17th Century for defending the beach of Gwithian from a French ship. He was later awarded it by Queen Anne and I remembered reading that this was exempt from the primogeniture classification of other coats of arms and for this reason and can be used by descendants through female lines as well.

My first question is - does this count as a crest or a coat of arms? I am very unclear on the differences. Also - would I have a legitimate claim to this coat of arms as it is a direct ancestor and awarded by the crown?

Any clarity on this matter would be much appreciated!

Henning

[KGarrad]

To start with, the Crest is the bit on top of the helm/helmet - i.e. the seagull and rock.

Can you provide a link to the exemption?
It's not something I have heard of before?

[HenningWalker]

I'm sure I saw it in a book somewhere, but I am struggling to find the original source.

There is a web page with some more information here, although I will continue looking for the original reference: http://www.telecall.co.uk/arms.htm

Thanks,

Henning

[KGarrad]

The problem, as I see it is this:

The arms were awarded to Hockin of Lydford, Devon in 1764. (As mentioned in Burke's Peerage)
Queen Anne reigned from 1702 until her death in 1714.

The monarch in 1764 would have been George III.

[HenningWalker]

Found it - this is from "A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland, Enjoying Territorial Possessions Or High Official Rank" by John Burke. Published by H. Colburn, 1835.

Henning

[MaecW]

An interesting story but, like so many family stories, a bit muddled.
As KGarrad observed the Arms were granted to Rev. John Hockin, Vicar of Okehampton, in 1764.
The Arms are quite "busy" for the period and I suspect were designed on the basis of the story of the actions of the Reverend's ancestor at Gwithian, thus the inclusion of the musket.
This would have been a standard grant from the College of Arms and therefore subject to the usual rules of usage. No special conditions, I'm afraid !

If you are a direct descendant of the Rev'd John in the male line, but not the senior line, you could use the arms with some form of differencing : perhaps change the main background colour from red (gules) to another colour, or change the fleur-de-lys in the base to some other pattern. If you intend to do this it would be best to at least consult with the College of Arms to ensure that you do not duplicate someone else's Arms by accident.

As an aside : you need to be very wary of the back stories provided for many of the Arms in the older reference books particularly with the lesser gentry. Burke's Landed Gentry is notoriously unreliable and even some of the Heralds Visitations contain flights of fancy.
If you really want to be sure of your ground with the Hockin arms the best thing would to be to apply to the College of Arms for a copy of the Grant.  (But it will cost !)

Maec

[HenningWalker]

That's very interesting! I am not descended from the Reverend John Hockin - he is a cousin many times removed, although I am the seven or eight times great-grandson of the original man who defended Gwithian from the French.

I suspected that this link would be quite tenuous and I suppose that if the rule I thought had applied to this coat of arms it would most likely be usable by several thousand other descendants alive today!

I can't quite think what I would do with a coat of arms anyway, so I think I shall leave this one where it is for the moment. Quite an interesting story if nothing else!

Thanks,

Henning