little side note, sometimes in Germany and The Netherlands arms will be assumed for an ancestor and thus for all his decendants including other branches then that of the person that assumed them for the ancestor.

Joseph McMillan wrote:

I am ever more firmly convinced that there is no real difference in armorial inheritance in northern Europe and England, other than the now largely abandoned custom (not law) of differencing with minor cadency marks.  Coke’s Institutes say that English arms descend to all the sons; the same is true of Dutch, German, or Scandinavian arms.  They do not belong to the entire family going all the way back—if a man in the Netherlands assumed or was granted arms in 1630, they were his and those of his heirs in the male line, not those of all his brothers and uncles.  This is exactly the same case as in England.  The Fox-Davies notion of one-man-one-arms as distinguishing English from Continental arms just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

That’s a fascinating perspective. In an historical period where most folk were illiterate, I can see how the custom of differencing arose. But now that the vast majority of folk are literate should we ask if that custom serves any real purpose? Nobody’s come up with a problem-free cadencing system, after all, and if the historical evidence points to its non-use or only ‘customary’ use during certain periods…

It would be very helpful if "focusoninfinity" would let us know at least his surname, since in most armorial traditions there is a firm expectation that arms will descend to those (within the same family) who bear the same surname as the first to bear the arms.  In this case, is his surname "Younge" or "Wooten" - olr perhaps neither, if those are maternal connections?

I would avoid too much emphasis on "male line descent"—while historically that usually meant "same surname" there were exceptions, where a child would take the mother’s surname (usually tied toinheritance of property).  Nowadays in America at least, daughters are free to keep their maiden name (or even their mother’s maiden name, etc.) if they so choose, & thus inherit the arms of that family.

(Once we get our "best practices" manual polished & published, this sort of inquiry will be easier to answer)

I think you will find that Yonge (in all probability a variant of the surname of Young) is essentially an English name that hails from, in the main, England’s West Country (the counties of Somerset, Devon and Cornwall), although the name occurs elsewhere.  There are certainly a number of armigerious families or branches thereof with the name of Yonge. Some 33 entries for Yonge/Yong appear in Burke’s General Armory.  One family of Yonge, of Culleton, Devon, whose pedigree dates from one Thomas Yonge (died circa 1426)  was mayor of Bristol in the reign of King Henry IV, were created Baronets in 1661 after the restoration of the monarchy.  This particular baronetcy became extinct in 1810.

Trusting the above is of assistance.

Yours aye,

John

There are also Youngs in Scotland—whether related to any of those ion John’s posting or not, I can’t say (though I would guess not).