Bogus commercial heraldry....

[Sketraw]

Todd,

I think you'll find that the present trend (for the last several hundred years) outside of Scotland, is against cadency marks, with the exception of the Royals, who are often given a completely differenced coat. Otherwise, things become an impenetrable thicket of cadency marks. The Scottish system, of course, is designed to make things easier by using bordures.

Well I wouldn't entirely agree with the above, Cadency marks are still widely used in England apart from the female line who can use the arms of their father undifferenced. In Scotland yes bordures are used for the second, third son etc when they matriculate arms on leaving the family home. It is quite common to use 'temporary cadency' marks such as the crescent, star for the second and third son to differentiate between family members when they are still under the family roof. Again daughters and wives can use the armigers arms undifferenced but usually in a oval or lozenge type shield (for want of a better word) to show they are feminine.

[JerseyLawyer]

The heraldic "lozenge" shield is a diamond. But yes.

As for cadency marks, we all agree they exist, but even the College of Arms is of the opinion that piling them on top of one another makes for an absurd result, and the whole coat passes to the heirs of an armiger, who may use cadency marks if they wish.

Wikipedia also mentions several letters from the Garter Principal King of Arms to the same effect, and the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. Several of my heraldry books say the same thing.

I think we're all right here. The marks exist. Sometimes, they're used. I'm just saying they're far from universal and are not required outside of Scotland.

[Sketraw]

The heraldic "lozenge" shield is a diamond. But yes.

As for cadency marks, we all agree they exist, but even the College of Arms is of the opinion that piling them on top of one another makes for an absurd result, and the whole coat passes to the heirs of an armiger, who may use cadency marks if they wish.

Wikipedia also mentions several letters from the Garter Principal King of Arms to the same effect, and the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. Several of my heraldry books say the same thing.

I think we're all right here. The marks exist. Sometimes, they're used. I'm just saying they're far from universal and are not required outside of Scotland.

I would say mostly they are used in England there may well be exceptions to the rule and it may result in another form of differencing in some cases an extra charge or the like. The main difference is that in England you wouldn't get prosecuted if you didn't use cadency where as in Scotland you may well could be.