Google shoes hat

4 comments:

Ted Pack said...

> Why are not all names have a coat?

No one bought, and one person was a gentleman. Packages, for example, the horses were too busy to steal, evade taxes, the poaching of game, the king and the servant of carnal act ever in a race to the College of Heralds. You struggle with the morality clause was to be.


'And if there is a name, why do they have?

Or someone who is a gentleman, and it was necessary to shield or someone who has been in vain, to buy. Nobles - Earls and more - I invite get.

Surnames are not the poor people. There are a couple of hundred people who were already people named Smith, for example, and never issued a package has been issued in my line.

January 11, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Syntinen Laulu said...

Which names are not on all weapons, always (except in Poland, which is a special case.)

Individuals have shields, and they die when the shield is inherited by the first male offspring. Thus, a person in the family possesses the arms at any given time.

People with the same surname are not necessarily connected. For example, have thousands of unrelated families of the "cook" because one of his ancestors was a cook. Many people call Cook was given a coat of arms at one time or another (for diapers, probably very different) does not mean that mean that everybody called the law of Cook has these weapons.

The arms were originally used only by colleagues as a means of identification while wearing full armor in battle. Its use is the spread in a semi-literate, with the aristocracy for use on the stamps, seals and shields in everything that we wanted to identify as their own. For members of the Renaissance, wealthy middle class and the poor in this way. But no one does nott have your own business, or a good size - and has more than 95% of the population have been - a had.

January 11, 2010 at 11:55 PM

Syntinen Laulu said...

Which names are not on all weapons, always (except in Poland, which is a special case.)

Individuals have shields, and they die when the shield is inherited by the first male offspring. Thus, a person in the family possesses the arms at any given time.

People with the same surname are not necessarily connected. For example, have thousands of unrelated families of the "cook" because one of his ancestors was a cook. Many people call Cook was given a coat of arms at one time or another (for diapers, probably very different) does not mean that mean that everybody called the law of Cook has these weapons.

The arms were originally used only by colleagues as a means of identification while wearing full armor in battle. Its use is the spread in a semi-literate, with the aristocracy for use on the stamps, seals and shields in everything that we wanted to identify as their own. For members of the Renaissance, wealthy middle class and the poor in this way. But no one does nott have your own business, or a good size - and has more than 95% of the population have been - a had.

January 11, 2010 at 11:56 PM

wendy c said...

No name has a coat.
Think of it as a war medal, as a guy named Jones. It belongs to his cousin .. which it belongs.
And it is not the fact that all of the same name .. will not be included. If the last name of development was the goal of describing a person by their appearance, work, home, and so on. John Baker and George Baker, the same work, but not at all attached. (for illustration). Finally, his desc. Probably the name was .. but does not mean desc are used when John and George did not.
Places that sell family crest / family name histories are scams.

January 12, 2010 at 7:47 AM