Question Home

Position:Home>Genealogy> Coats of arms and female descendants?


Question:My mother's side of the family has been traced back to the de Clare Earls of Hertford. Am I understanding the rules of heraldry correctly, that descent through the female line disqualifies one the right to arms?

Thanks :)


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: My mother's side of the family has been traced back to the de Clare Earls of Hertford. Am I understanding the rules of heraldry correctly, that descent through the female line disqualifies one the right to arms?

Thanks :)

Only male descendants qualify.Females are allowed to quarter their arms with a male relative or husband;but aren't allowed to bear them independently.However,Queen Elizabeth II,having no male relatives ascended the throne and took the family coat of arms as hers.

http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/
This is the official site of the college of arms, FOR THE U.K.
Some of this is answered in their FAQ section. If it isn't issued to a FAMILY, but to an individual, then it does not belong to a family. It goes to an heir, which would not include even male descendants in general. Seems logical that a female COULD be a valid heir if there was no son.
I believe the comment that it only goes to male heirs is misleading.
If another country, their rules of heraldry would be applicable. The US does not have any heraldry at all.

As stated above, only male descendants of the person granted the coat-of-arms "owns" that coat-of-arms. In some places, the current owner must pass this right explicitly, but in other places, it automatically goes to ANY male descendent, in other places only to the first born male descendant.

But what about Queen Elizabeth, most certainly a female?? Well, being female, Queen Elizabeth doesn't actually have a coat-of-arms - even though she is the Queen. What she does display is the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom. In her case, it is actually known as her ARMS OF DOMINION. Not her "personal" coat-of-arms.

There are "things" that look exactly like coats-of-arms that were bestowed on organizations (very much like trademarks) and quite often to "offices" such as Earldoms, a Barony, etc. While identical to traditional coats-of-arms in appearance, they are not. Just as Queen Elizabeth's is actually an Arms of Dominion, for an organization or a office they are "Seals".

This is why sometimes it gets confusing. But even in these cases, it doesn't belong to an individual. In the case of an organization, it is the ORGANIZATION, not any individual member, even the president, earl, baron, etc. But it isn't a coat-of-arms.