Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
In this case, I would believe both of the two sisters would pass on their father's arms to their sons.
In theory, at least, the niece's father was also armigerous; and if she had sons would pass on a differenced arms. The tricky part is: if her father was the eldest son, the he, while his father lived, would difference his arms as heir presumptive. This may not be a difficulty, as the niece's sons would simply quarter the undifferenced arms of their great-grandfather with those of her husband. Since the Scots must matriculate their own arms with each generation, it would be a matter for Lyon King at Arms; but their would be more flexibility here than in England. I can see a case where all three, the two sisters and the niece, transmit the undifferenced arms as quarterings. The undifferenced arms, as a whole, however, could only be assumed by a son of the eldest daughter assuming the surname of his grandfather. An example I am aware of is the Dukes of Atholl who inherited the lands, titles and arms (or a fess chequy argent and azure) of the Stewarts of Atholl (1500's?), and took the surname, Stewart-Murray. The Stewart part was only dropped relatively (within the last century) recently. It was a tricky situation as the Duke of Atholl is the first (i.e., Chief) of the name, Murray (although not all Murray's are related to him), so had to retain that surname, but was supposed to assume the name, Stewart.
Thomas
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:No followups yet |
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/coatofarms/messages/3398.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|