[ANSTHRLD] New Question

[Paul Haines]

*snip*

> Padraig Ruad O'Maolagain scripsit:
>
> > I have a client that wants to use her family name, Henderson,
> > which is registerable even without the legal name clause.
> > However, she also wants to use her family coat of arms as
> > her device:  Gules, three piles issuing from the sinister Or,
> > a chief engrailled ermine. (Henderson, Randalls Park,
> > Surrey, England 1865).  She has a letter from her son, who
> > she states is the legal bearer of the arms, stating that she
> > has his permission to use it.
> >
> > While I can't find this situation addressed specifically in the
> > RFS, it would seem to violate the rules of presumption.
> >  Are there precedents that address this issue?
>
>
>      I'd look at RfS I.A.3.a:
>
*snip*

SCA rules aside (gasp), I'm more curious about how her son became the legal
bearer of these arms.  From what I've read of the College of Arms of
England, not all arms that are granted are hereditary, but there are ways to
prove claim to arms and submit an application for the granting of those arms
to hereditary descendents.  Here we have a son with a legal right to the
arms, which implies that his father must be deceased, else they would belong
to the father.  However, if they are hereditary arms, alive or dead, the
father would have the right to be identified by those arms.  The wife of a
man bearing arms may use them on a lozenge with the frills that would
identify her, in this case, as a widow.  I do believe she can still bear
them even if her son now has right to the arms.

I hope that's right....I'm just home from War and a bit drained still. :)

Alden