Coat of Arms | kingshott

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.

To rectify this, I finally persuaded my dad, Brian Kingshott, to apply for a grant of arms from the College of Arms. He made the formal application, and submitted various documents, as well as a genealogy that I supplied. He provided his biography, and after a couple of years was formally granted the following arms, and heraldic badge.

Arms:-

"Barry wavy azure and argent on a pile azure a balance or"

Crest:-

"From a crown palisade azure a demi lion or, holding in the dexter paw a truncheon bendwise sinister sable"

Badge:-

"Within an annulet wavy azure, a balance or."

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.