I was just reading today (online) a description of how the Berkeley arms developed over time. According to the writer, the original arms were Flemish: Gules a chevron or. One cadet changed to Gules a chevron argent, which is the cadet who moved to England. Subsequent cadets started the whole seme thing with crosses patee, fleur d’lys, cinquefoils and roses. A branch moved to Scotland, changed the spelling of their name to Barclay and the field of the arms became azure.

Everett, your arms would be great for those kinds of changes. Cadets, should they appear, need only to change the color of the field (or the color of the rondel that holds the boar’s head). Yes, there can be the whole ‘strangers in blood’ thing, but it also preserves the basic design over numerous cadets.

Hi folks,

arriano wrote:

The British royal family has an interesting way of showing differences by putting the cadency marks on labels, and thus leaving the shield the same for all family members. That way, everyone’s arms are unique, yet the same.

This is not limited to just British Royalty, it is the whole basis of granting of arms and heraldry in England and Scotland. The process of marshalling of arms is also key in this respect.

I am sure I do not need to say this, but will anyway, please do not forget that in England and Scotland that a coat of arms is granted to an individual, not a family.

No, what Patrick described is not generally applied to all armigers in the UK.  What he was describing was the practice, peculiar to the royal family, of assigning each member his or her own label—always white—with the number of points indicating the number of generations from the ancestor monarch and the charges on the points of the label identifying the specific member of the family.

Scotland does indeed apply a one person-one arms rule, so that each individual has a unique coat of arms, although not normally through the use of the small cadency marks beloved of heraldic writers.  In England, even the officers of arms these days concede that differencing for cadency is not a matter of law but of courtesy, and that it has never been done universally.

I have to be a little pedantic about the arms of the British Royal Family, specifically becausetheir arms are unique to the person granted them as are all arms unless you are the singlular, proven direct decendant, entitled to bear them. Surely the additon of the labels and charges thereon makes them so.

But its not that simple of course. Its true that the Duke of York, the Earl of Wessex, the Princess Royal (albeit a lozenge) all bear the royal arms of the monarch with the additon of three labels and their own charges thereon.

However, The Prince of Wales also bears an escutchion of the principality of Wales together with three labels and no charge thereon. But Prince William of Wales, also bears a label of three points differenced by an escallop gu. Whilst his brother Harry, bears a label of five points and three escallops gu.

Incidentally the generational comments is borne out by the Queens cousins, who were all granchildren of George V when their arms were granted and they do bear labels of five points - some of their labels are dovetailed though.

As I said, interesting but not boring.