In this case Joan is not the heir of her father, inasmuch as he has sons Thomas and Henry, but she is the heir of her mother and the only issue capable of inheriting and transmitting the Conyers arms and quarterings. Joan is heir of her mother but not of her father.
The husband of Joan can either impale the arms of Darcy as having married a daughter of John Darcy, or he can place upon an escutcheon of pretence arms to indicate that he has married the heiress of Conyers. But it would be quite incorrect for him to simply place Conyers in pretence, because he has not married a Miss Conyers. What he must do is to charge the arms of Conyers with a dexter canton of the arms of Darcy and place this upon his escutcheon of pretence.[[30]] The children will quarter the arms of Conyers with the canton of Darcy and inherit likewise all the quarterings to which Mary Conyers succeeded, but the Conyers arms must be always thereafter charged with the arms of Darcy on a canton, and no right accrues to the Darcy quarterings.
The following curious, but quite genuine case, which was pointed out to me by the late Ulster King of Arms, presents a set of circumstances absolutely unique, and it still remains to be decided what is the correct method to adopt:—
| 1st wife. Lady Mary, dau. and coheir of Thomas Bermingham, Earl of Louth. Married 1777, died 1793. | = | William St. Lawrence, 2nd Earl of Howth. | = | 2nd wife. Margaret, dau. of William Burke. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Three other daughters and coheirs of their mother. | Thomas St. Lawrence, 3rd Earl of Howth. | Other issue. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Lady Isabella St. Lawrence, 2nd dau. and coheir of her mother, but not heir of her father, therefore entitled to transmit the arms of Bermingham with those of St. Lawrence on a canton. First wife of Earl Annesley. Married 1803, died 1827. | = | William Richard Annesley, 3rd Earl of Annesley. | = | Priscilla, 2nd dau. of Hugh Moore. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| William, 4th Earl of Annesley. | Hugh, 5th Earl of Annesley. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Lady Mary Annesley, only child and sole heir of her mother and coheir of her grandmother, but not heir of her father or of her grandfather. She is therefore entitled to transmit the arms of Bermingham with St. Lawrence on a canton plus Annesley on a canton. Married 1828. | = | William John M‘Guire of Rostrevor. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
How the arms of Bermingham are to be charged with both St. Lawrence and Annesley remains to be seen. I believe Ulster favoured
two separate cantons, dexter and sinister respectively, but the point did not come before him officially, and I know of no official decision which affords a precedent.
The reverse of the foregoing affords another curious point when a woman is the heir of her father but not the heir of her mother:—
| John Smith | = | Mary Jones. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1st husband. John Williams | = | = | 2nd husband. Henry Roberts. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ethel Smith, only child and heir. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Alice Williams, only child and heir of John Williams. | = | Arthur Ellis. | Edward Roberts, heir of his mother. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Issue. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Theodore Ellis, who claims to quarter: 1 and 4, Ellis; 2. Williams; 3. Smith. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It is officially admitted (see the introduction to Burke's "General Armory") that the claim is accurately made. The process of reasoning is probably thus. John Williams places upon an escutcheon of pretence the arms of Smith, and Alice Williams succeeds in her own right to the arms of her mother because the latter was an heiress, and for herself is entitled to bear, as would a son, the arms of the two parents quarterly; and having so inherited, Alice Williams being herself an heiress, is entitled to transmit. At any rate Arthur Ellis is entitled to impale or place upon his escutcheon of pretence Williams and Smith quarterly. To admit the right for the descendants to quarter the arms Arthur Ellis so bore is no more than a logical progression, but the eventual result appears faulty, because we find Theodore Ellis quartering the arms of Smith, whilst the representation of Smith is in the line of Edward Roberts. This curious set of circumstances, however, is rare in the extreme.