Quote Originally Posted by gilmore View Post
According to Moncriefe of That Ilk and other authorities, illegitimacy is no bar to inheriting the chiefship of a clan. Why should the requirements for mere membership be more strenuous?
Well stated and absolutely right on.

In modern Europe, where illegitimacy no longer exists in the legal sense, Heralds now have to re-think the descent of arms. Having taken legal advice on this matter, it would seem that the children of a lawful marriage have precedence over natural children, irrespective of birth dates. The logic behind this is the argument that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, and that the woman has certain expectations in that contract and that these expectations extend to her children of that marriage. Because natural children are not the product of a lawful union, no contract can be assumed to exist, therefor in any settlement of their father's heraldic estate they would come after his children lawfully begot. All of this assumes, of course, that the kids all have the same surname as their father and can prove to a certainty their parentage.

As arms are heritable property there would be nothing to prevent the father leaving his undifferenced arms to whichever of his children he wished. It is only if he dies heraldically "intestate" that the above interpretation of the "laws of arms" might apply.