an ancestor had arms but died without heir. he left his possesions to his nieces children, one of whom could only inherit if he changed his surname by Royal Licence or Act of Parliment. would that mean that he would also be able to use the arms?

new to all of this and trying to understand how it all works.

Firstly, I am somewhat puzzled as to how you can have an ancestor who died without an heir. I presume you mean that he had no descendants. Clearly he had an heir because you say that he left a will. An heir is defined as a person who inherits or is entitled by law or by the terms of a will to inherit the estate of another.An ancestor is a person from whom one is descended. However, taking your question to mean that you have someone in your family tree who had no descendants but who had an heir in the form of the children of his niece, then in order for those children to be entitled to his arms he would have had to have made specific provision in his will by way of a name and arms clause.

It may be possible to obtain a copy of the will to clarify if the arms were mentioned.

Regards,
Martin
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog

Sorry, probably wasn't very clear in what i was saying.

My family line is Banks. In the early 1800's Richard Banks married Esther Davies, daughter of William Davies and niece of James Davies of Moor Court. Although William and James both married only William had any children and the only son died young. When James died, having outlived William, he left the majority of his estate to the children of Richard and Esther. One of the children, James Banks, could only inherit if he changed his surname, by Royal Licence or Act of Parliment, to Davies. From then on that branch of the Banks line had the surname Davies, although most also had Banks as a middle name. I wondered if the arms that James Davies of Moor Court was entitled to would then descend through the line of James Banks (Davies post 1858) or if they would end with the death of James Davies

If James Davies of Moor Court had included a "name and arms" clause in his will leaving his arms to his great nephew James Banks then the descendants of James (Banks) Davies would undoubtedly be entitled to those arms according to the law of arms. If he only left a name clause the arms would not have been inherited by James (Banks) Davies.

Without a specific destination mentioned in a will then the arms would be subject to the basic laws of arms and could only he inherited by a son of James Davies of Moor Court. With a specific destination, through a name and arms clause, the arms could be gifted, through the will, to practically anyone the testator wished subject to the success of the Royal Licence (or act of parliament).

I do not think that a simple "name clause" would be sufficient however if you feel that (or another) might benefit (armorially) from the will then it would be worth contacting the College of Arms to put the case before a herald. One never knows - after all, they have the "Ways & Means Act" at their disposal.

Regards,
Martin

Thanks for that Martin. As I suspected the arms probably didn't continue, still I may contact the College of Arms and see what they say.

Thanks once again

Lynton