top of page

The Kingshott "Coat of Arms"

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm afraid that there is no such thing as a "Kingshott Coat of Arms". We were never important, or rich, enough to have one. The arms above belong to the late Queen Elizabeth II, and I am probably committing any number of offences in displaying it without the correct authority!  


If you were to read the myriad "family crest" type websites out there you would be informed that the Kingshott family derived from an armigerous - meaning someone entitled to bear arms - Kingscote/Kingscott family of Gloucestershire. I will say, here and now, that there is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. The same websites that mention this "fact" also claim that the first evidence of any Kingshott in any official record is in 1790 yet I have many instances of the surname much earlier than that. 


These sites will also claim that there is a Kingshott "coat of arms" and often offer to sell you all sorts of junk with "your Kingshott coat of arms" on it. This, I'm sad to report, is also a load of old rubbish.


The College of Arms, the ancient body that has granted arms in England and Wales since early medieval times, has the following to say on this type of thing.


"There is no such thing as a 'coat of arms for a surname'. Many people of the same surname will often be entitled to completely different coats of arms, and many of that surname will be entitled to no coat of arms. Coats of arms belong to individuals. For any person to have a right to a coat of arms they must either have had it granted to them or be descended in the legitimate male line from a person to whom arms were granted or confirmed in the past."


I have checked with the magnificently titled Richmond Herald at the College of Arms who states that up to the time I asked him (August 2009) there had been no grant of arms to anyone with the name of Kingshott, or any of the usual derivatives.


I've finally persuaded my dad to apply for one after years and years of hinting and pestering. Well done Dad! He has made the formal application and has received his response from the College of Arms. He has been deemed worthy and granted arms and is awaiting formal handing over of his letter's patent. We will travel up to the College of Arms in late 2023, to get this. Once this has been formally granted, I will add it to this page. However, it must be remembered that those arms are only eligible to be born by him, and direct descendants providing certain rules are complied with. They will not be a family crest for the wider family. Sorry! There will, however, be a Heraldic Badge, which is capable of being used by anyone associated with him. I will post more information when we collect the formal grant. 

Having said all of this, there is one potentially armigerous branch of the family. The van Kinschot family of Holland have some members who have been granted arms. Now, as it stands at the moment, I have no evidence other than the sound and spelling of their name, to suggest that they are linked to us in any way. But the possibility exists. 

Gaspar Rudolph van Kinschot (1704-1748) was entitled to bear the following arms:-​

These arms are an evolution of the arms of those depicted below, which were granted to Franciscus van Kinschot in 1647. 

Jan Hendrixsoon, 'kint van Schooten' , chose in 1250 the coat of arms of his wife's wife: Herlaer. It consisted of a black crossbar, top and bottom with tilting, on a field of gold. Jan Van Kinschot added in 1350 three bees in the natural colour to the coat of arms. But in 1647 Franciscus Van Kinschot received permission from Philip IV to remove the three bees. The full shield of Franciscus Van Kinschot is covered by a golden crown. On both sides of the shield two shield holders are depicted: on the left the Holy Virgin with a bleeding heart, with a golden crown and a veil of golden stars, and on the right a silver unicorn with a crown, beard and hooves of gold.

bottom of page