The whole subject of heraldry is widely misunderstood, even by many professionals, and it may be permissible, in this paper on genealogical facts and foibles, to take a few minutes to discuss the matter.
Historically, heraldry sprang from necessity, that mother of most inventions. It began as a mark of identification in social intercourse, and it found its full flowering as a useful art in the Middle Ages when it came to be used to distinguish warriors on the battlefield.

Originally a knight was free to choose his own device, but by the fifteenth century the multiplication of arms resulted in the complete systemization of the practice, and heraldry became an exact science. Armorial bearings carme to be granted by the king, and all arms, both the recently granted and those established by right of ancient usage, were registered with the College of Arms, if English, or with similar agencies in continental countrues.

The need for such identification declined with the passing of chivalry, but the custom was anchored in antiquity, and had a definite appeal of its own. It held on and, of course, flourishes to this day with the usual number of meaningless but completely accepted additions.

The important point in all this, is that persons claiming the right to bear arms, still must prove their descent from the men to whom those arms were granted or confirmed by the College of Arms, or, if they wish a new coat, still must apply to the College of Arms, in London.

But let us consider in greater detail the situation as it affects Americans.

While this country was under English domination, before the Revolutionary War, there was some general regulation of the right to bear arms, or at least there were customs and rules of the mother country which the colonists should have followed. Apparently, however, no effort was made by the colonial governors to compel the citizens to abide by the laws, and as a result the later colonists did pretty much as they pleased about displaying anything which struck their fancy.

Some of the residents were, of course, descended from gentle and noble families, and were entitled to bear arms. Others were not, but as they grew in wealth and social prestige, they, too, desired to obtain arms such as their neighbors had. Some of these persons really tried to trace descent from an armigerous ancestor, but others simply appropriated any design that was pleasing or that seemed significant in their situation.

At the close of the seventeenth century this illegal use of arms was helped along by an obliging carriage painter of Boston named Gore. Mr. Gore created arms for the Boston socialites of that day, and eventually he made a roll of arms which is completely without authority, but which is useful today as showing what families were then claiming the right to use arms.

About a century later another gentleman performed similar labors throughout New England. The work of this man, a Mr. Cole, has even less authority than Gore's, but his influence, perhaps, has been more widespread and therefore more disastrous in its results. In my early years at Newberry Library I well remember being puzzled by the large number of persons who came to me carrying tattered old paintings of the family arms. The painting, I was usually assured, was the original design submitted to their ancestor by the College of Arms, and this valuable document had been brought to America by the immigrating member of the family. I was further puzzled by the fact that all these paintings had certain characteristics in common such as an elaborately embroidered shield, two leek - or onion - leaves crossed beneath the shield, a much too high placing of the crest above the helmet, and a motto which usually ran "By the name of Smith," or "By the name of Jones," or whatever the family name happened to be. Eventually I learned that these all were the productions of the Mr. Cole in question, and that all were fraudulent. I have, I am afraid, wounded many of our library's readers by pointing out this forgery.