Talk:Heraldic fraud

Heraldic fraud is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pronunciation[edit]

Should the first words of the article be "A heraldic bucket shop" rather than "An heraldic bucket shop"? Best as I can tell, the 'h' in herald, heraldy, heraldic, etc. is not silent. --134.129.9.146 (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the well-known old "an historic" dilemma. "An" is allowable in such cases in some styles of usage (though perhaps a little old-fashioned). Try this google search to turn up discussions of the matter: [1] -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slim to none[edit]

If someone named Smith has no patrilineal descent from the original Smith, then how did they get that name? (Smith's a bad example, probably having been bestowed on several people at once; but more unique names might be clear indicators of patrilineal descent in any culture where children typically take the surname of their father.)
198.207.0.5 (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surname founders and people who were granted or confirmed in a right to a coat of arms were almost never the same people. If John Q. Hassenpfeffer was granted a coat of arms in 1762, then generally only his direct descendants would have a legitimate right to use this particular coat of arms -- all the other Hassenpfeffers in the world would be out of luck. AnonMoos (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modus operandi[edit]

The great majority of bucket shops seem to care about exactly and only one thing -- having a pretty-looking and/or impressive-seeming coat of arms image to sell to any and every reasonably-common European-sounding surname. The bucket shops promote an idea of a simple and direct association between surnames and heraldic shields which is simply false for the great majority of European heraldic traditions (with only a few semi-obscure partial exceptions, such as Polish nobility)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Lyon[edit]

Should probably mention Lord Lyon King of Arms, since that's the pretty much only authority in the world which is actively cracking down on heraldic fraud (other than in the context of trademark infringement)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]