This history contains no Carlton heraldic coats of arms by intention. Because I have strong feelings on this issue, I wish to quote Cecil Humphrey-Smith, with whom I emphatically agree, in his article from British Heritage (June/July 1985), "English Genealogy: How and Where to Look for English Ancestors:"

"A particular coat of arms and crest are properly borne by the direct, legitimate descendants in the male line of the individual to whom they were first granted or allowed by the heraldic authority under the Sovereign. A coat of arms is an inalienable property to be regarded as being as personal as a signature and the right to bear a coat of arms must depend on being able to prove a direct male lineal descent by means of an authentic genealogical tracing from the individual whose coats of arms have been officially recorded.

There is no reason why any number of coats of arms may not be displayed in homes or offices or clubs for decorative purposes. The artistic value cannot be denied but nevertheless no one should pretend that a coat of arms is his own without being able to show the genealogical entitlement. As the late W.H. Whitmore remarked about American heraldry . . . "the sole value of interest of our American coats of arms consists in remembrance of honorable ancestry. We cannot afford to insult our real progenitors with a false claim to others.""

J.P. Brooke-Little, editor of the 1970 edition of Boutell's Heraldry, in discussing the misuse of coats-of- arms by commercial concerns, adds:

"Some of these firms (the arms-mongers) operate in England, but the fullness of the harvest is to be reaped in the United States of America, where the interest in heraldry is in inverse ratio to the knowledge and understanding of it . . . if it were not sad to see the ignorant deceived in this way, it would be funny, for the ways in which the arms are displayed are so appallingly vulgar, artistically meretricious and hopelessly inaccurate as to be a complete parody of true heraldry and heraldic usage."

As of the publication of this book, we have found no indication that our family fulfills the necessary direct and legitimate descent requirements for any of the numerous Carlton and Carleton coats-of-arms. Therefore, we have no right to claim any coat-of-arms as ours.

This page was updated on 2-21-98. If you have queries or comments, email rcarlton@arkansas.net