Quote Originally Posted by gilmore
Even in the US most people who are interested in heraldry are well aware that only those entitled to a grant of arms should display them. When a person displays arms not his own, he proclaims to all the world that he has more pretentiousness than sense. These bucket shops who sell people arms that are not their own are little more than rip off artists, convincing people to buy something that is not rightfully theirs.
Quote Originally Posted by Birddog
Sorry to disagree, Gilmore, but I have never in my life heard of such a thing, and I have been interested in my heritage my whole life. I've known others who have had Coats of Arms hung in their homes who have never mentioned such. If I look at the site for Clan O'Driscoll, there is not a single mention that no other O'Driscolls, or in my case Driscoll, should not display them. Now mind you, I'm Irish, not Scottish, so perhaps what you were refering to is specific to the Scots. I would like to know more about where your information came from for further research.
Gilmore, of course, is correct. I thought this quote should be moved to the heraldry section since it has nothing to do with kilts. Anyway, a coat of arms belongs to an individual, not to a collection of persons bearing the same name. A person should not display or use a coat of arms that does not belong to them. This has been brought up before; however, it bears repeating. Avoid the bucket shops that pretend to sell you, "your coat of arms." Birddog, you may look any any good book on heraldry for more information; for example, Boutell's Heraldry, Heraldry in America by Eugene Zieber, etc.