COATS OF ARMS ARE SPECIFIC TO INDIVIDUALS !

By definition, there cannot be any official coat of arms for the surname "RIGGS", nor for any other surname. This is because they are granted initially to a specific individual and, thereafter, can only be passed down to legitimate descendants of that person in the male line.

The following is part of an article from Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter (Vol.6 No.26 - June 25, 2001) and is copyright 2001 by Richard W. Eastman. It is re-published here with the permission of the author. I strongly recommend that you read his article in full, which you can do by viewing an archived copy of it. The title of the article is "Pssst! Want to Buy Your Family's Coat of Arms?" and it also warns against purchasing so-called 'authentic' copies of 'your family's coat of arms' from dubious firms.

"Most Americans seem ignorant of one very basic fact: in Western Europe and in the British Isles, there is no such thing as a "family coat of arms". A coat of arms is issued to one person, not to a family. After that person is deceased, his eldest heir may apply for the same coat of arms. Again, when he dies, his heir may apply. The rules for determining who is eligible to display a coat of arms are very similar to the rules for becoming King or Queen of England. However, even the proper heir cannot display the coat of arms until he or she has received authorization (been confirmed) by the heralds. At any one time, only one person may rightfully display a coat of arms."

Dick Eastman relates his comments to Western Europe and the British Isles, but The American College of Heraldry issue similar warnings:

"While Americans are usually fascinated by the beauty of heraldry, they are rarely familiar with its meaning and traditions and, therefore, often misunderstand and even abuse this rich cultural heritage. They seldom understand that a coat of arms is usually granted, certified, registered or otherwise recognized as belonging to one individual alone, and that only his direct descendants with proven lineage can be recognized as eligible to inherit the arms. Exceptions to this rule are rare. It is highly inappropriate for one to locate the arms of another person sharing the same surname, and to simply adopt and use these arms as one's own.

The notorious "Coat of arms for the Name of Jones, Smith, or whatever," purchasable by mail order or in one's local shopping mall, represents no more than improper and illegitimate armorial bearings...Such infraction of armorial regulation and custom constitutes a flagrant abuse of arms which no knowledgeable and honorable person would intentionally commit.

Sadly, most of the heraldic abuse in this country is done by honest, well-meaning persons. They greatly admire the heraldic tradition, but in their desire to participate in that tradition they inadvertently abuse heraldic arms due to their lack of familiarity with heraldic regulations and customs. While such armorial abuse does not apparently violate state or federal statute in this country at this time, still to usurp the use of another person's coat of arms is highly improper and is a dishonest practice. Such conduct disregards the regulations of all recognized heraldry and violates the rights of the legitimate owners of the arms."

DISPLAYING COATS OF ARMS FOR A SURNAME

The following was written by J.P.Brooke-Little, the Norrey and Ulster King of Arms, of the Royal College of Arms:[S1]

"Once arms have been granted they may be borne and used by the grantee, as his especial, personal mark of honour and likewise by his legitimate descendants in the male line. They may be used by none other than one who is entitled to them by grant or descent.

This does not mean that they may not be displayed by another. To display arms is simply to exhibit them in a way which clearly indicates that they are the arms of someone else. For example many people display the arms of towns ... they exhibit the arms of schools, colleges and institutions with which they have some connection; and frequently the arms of famous people are used as decoration. All this is permissible and indeed to be encouraged.

On the other hand ... to place on stationery arms to which no title has been proved ... is not only pretentious and vulgar but is legally indefensible."

DISPLAYING A "RIGGS" COAT OF ARMS

		The Coat of Arms that I display is based on those granted to RIGGS families in England during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which are described below. When displaying it, I honour the above principle of clearly indicating that they are the arms of someone else by inserting the surname RIGGS in the "fess" of the shield (for the definition of all the heraldic terms on this page, please see the Glossary on the accompanying Notes page).
Often families with the same surname - even though they may not be related or may not have coats of arms with one or more similarities - share the same motto which appears on a scrolled ribbon under their Coat of Arms. However, none of the RIGGS Coats of Arms have mottos accompanying them.

Family Historians and Genealogists, through experience, reluctantly accept that sometimes "facts" cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, especially if the events concerned occurred centuries ago. And the same is true to a certain extent in Heraldry.

Unfortunately, heraldic researchers cannot examine the original sources, since the original grants of arms are held at the Royal College of Heralds. They can only apply for a search to be made and a copy of the details to be provided (a comparatively expensive exercise).

So, in practice, most research instead secondary evidence, in the form of printed transcripts of the "herald's visitations". These are "Pedigrees of people who had a right to Arms, collected by the officers of the College of Arms between 1530 and 1687, and printed from their records or from early "improved" copies of them"[S1]. The transcripts are often referred to collectively as the Harleian Society volumes, in which they are to be found.

All other reference sources are generally tertiary, or third-hand, evidence, being based or extracted from the various records of Visitations and other sources. The accuracy of their scholarship varies from
A. "Fairbairn's Crests"[S4][S5], called "The most complete list of crests"[S7].
B. Various county genealogies published in the first half of the 1800's (such as Berry's County Genealogies whose Hampshire volume was published in 1833), which misrepresent some facts and relationships.
C. "Burke's General Armory"[S2][S3] which has been described as "Unofficial, often inaccurate and incomplete"[S7].

The different books disagree between each other in some of the details, whilst sometimes details differ between different editions of the same books, or between the original and the revised editions of a book. In most cases, the difference lies in the terminology used in the descriptions, but sometimes the details of the heraldic charges themselves differ.

Where editions of the same book differ, the editions referred to are both included in the accompanying Sources page. And, in the descriptions of the individual arms and crests that follow, differences in terminology are noted within the same description but differences in the heraldic charges are described separately (as with the Crest for "RIGGS or RYGGES, of LINCOLNSHIRE").

Burke[S2][S3] ascribes this Coat of Arms to "RIGGS, or RYGGES (Strangle Thorpe, co.Lincoln; and Middlesex).". Fairbairn's original editions[S4] ascribe the Crest to "Rigges and Rygges, Middx., and of Strangle Thorpe, Lincs", and the revised edition[S5] to "RIGGES and RYGGES (Middx. and Lincs.)".

The Harleian Society Volumes[S10] identify the Arms as associated with "RIGGS of FULBECK and STRAGGLETHORPE" (but do not mention the Crest), and give the pedigree of THOMAS RIGGS of LINCOLNSHIRE (web-page not yet published).

Burke[S2][S3] ascribes this Coat of Arms to "RIGGES (Farnham, co.Surrey; Southampton; and Stanning, co.Sussex)". Fairbairn's original editions[S4] ascribe the Crest to "Rigges of Farnham, Surrey, Stanning, Sussex, and Southampton, Hants." and the revised edition[S5] ascribes it to "RIGGES (Surrey, Sussex and Hants.)."

It is the Coat of Arms associated with THOMAS OF SOUTHAMPTON (web-page not yet published). In common with others, Burke and the original Fairbairn editions misinterpreted Fareham (in Hampshire) as Farnham (in Surrey). By referring also to Stanning in Sussex (for which no reference can be found in a gazetteer) they are presumably referring to OGLE OF EASEBOURNE, Sussex, (web-page not yet published) a descendant of Thomas but whose Coat of Arms bore a "Difference Mark" as described in the next but one section.

This Coat of Arms is attributed by Holworthy [S14] to RALPH OF FAREHAM, (web-page not yet published) grandson of THOMAS OF SOUTHAMPTON (web-page not yet published). In common with others, the source misinterpreted Fareham (in Hampshire) as Farnham.

RALPH married MARY BLAKE, only daughter of William Blake of Eastontown, "nigh Andover", Hampshire, hence the addition (or "impalement") of the additional arms on the sinister half of the shield, which his wife "inherited" from her father and which Ralph acquired through his marriage to her.

It is assumed that the reference to talbots instead of water spaniels on the Arms is a mistake, the charge on the shield having been confused with the crest.

The Harleian Society Volumes[S12] identify this as the Coat of Arms associated with "RIGGS of EASTBOURNE(sic)", and give the pedigree of OGLE OF EASEBOURNE, Sussex (web-page not yet published), grandson of RALPH OF FAREHAM (web-page not yet published). The Coat of Arms are identical to those of his ancestor THOMAS OF SOUTHAMPTON (web-page not yet published) except for the "mullet", a "Difference Mark" used to identify a third son.

Burke[S3] ascribes these to "RIGGES (London. Visit.London, 1568)." In other words, it was a grant of arms recorded on behalf of a person named RIGGES of London during the Herald's Visitation to London in that year.

This is confirmed by the Harleian Society Volumes[S13], which state that the details were taken by Robert Cooke but do not identify the person to whom the Coat of Arms were granted.

Burke[S3] ascribes these Arms to  "RIGGS (Steward of the Household to Charles, Lord Mountjoy, Lord Deputy of Ireland; Fun.Ent.Ulster's Office, A.D.1600)." The "mullet for difference" is a mark of cadency denoting that the person was the fifth-born son of his father.

It is the Coat of Arms recorded as a Funeral Entry on behalf of the person who may have been the father of the first EDWARD RIGGS of RIGGSDALE, county CORK.

Burke[S2][S3] ascribes these Arms to "RIGG or RIGGES", without giving further details or what his source was.

However, they are the same as those ascribed by Burke to Riggs of Ireland but without the mullet as a mark of cadency (although one has a 'cross flory' and the other a 'cross patonce', these are very similar and Burke may have wrongly distinguished one of them). This suggests that Burke may have argued that these would have been the arms of the senior branch of the same family.

Burke [S17] ascribes these Arms to "MILLER, of Ballycasey, Co.Clare".

John MILLER adopted these arms when he was created Sir John MILLER, baronet, of Ballycasey, co.Clare in 1778. He changed his name to RIGGS-MILLER in 1788. The "griffin's head erased" is used by a number of MILLER families (though with different colours).

Sir John RIGGS MILLER had a married daughter and an only son Sir John Edward RIGGS MILLER who died childless. Because the original Riggs-Millers' line of male descent thus came to an end on Sir John Edward's death, Sir John Edward's Will directed that a condition of the person inheriting his freehold estates was that the person "shall take the surnames of Riggs Miller and bear my arms".[S4] Whilst those concerned did change their surname, no evidence has been found of them bearing these arms (see also the following paragraphs on 'RIGGS-MILLER, of Nenagh, co.Tipperary).

Fairbairn's original editions [S4] ascribe this Crest and Motto to "Thomas John Riggs-Miller, Esquire, J.P.,of Tyone House, Nenagh, co.Tipperary, Ireland".

The crest of a "wolf's head erased ... gorged with a collar" is used as a crest by a number of MILLER families (though with different colours for the head and for the collar). The motto, however, which translates as "I would rather die than be dishonoured" is that of the Clan RYAN.[S16].

That is explained by the entry in Walford's County Families [S68] referring to "Thomas John Riggs-Miller, Esquire, of Tyone, a J.P. for co.Tipperary, who assumed by royal licence in 1889 the names of Riggs-Miller in lieu of Ryan, in compliance with the Will of Sir John Edward RIGGS MILLER, Bart."

Sir John Edward RIGGS MILLER's Will directed that a condition of the person inheriting his freehold estates was that the person "shall take the surnames of Riggs Miller and bear my arms".[S4] Whilst those concerned did change their surname, no evidence has been found of them bearing his arms (see also the preceding paragraphs on 'RIGGS MILLER, of Ballycasey, co.Clare).

The various Coats of Arms and Crests granted to specific members of RIGG families bear no similarity to those above relating to RIGGS. But 12 out of the 13 have elements in common with each other, either their crest and/or motto, or the charges employed on the shields. The exception - RIGGE of Lancashire (now GRAYRIGGE) - is an achievement which was not originally granted to a RIGG or RIGGE family but was "inherited" through marriage.

VIEWING AND NAVIGATING THE RIGG COATS OF ARMS

If you are interested in these, they are illustrated and described on the separate RIGG Coats of Arms page. When you finish viewing them, please click on either of the special MAIN PAGE buttons provided on that page to return to this page.