The Woodworth Coat of Arms

          Occasionally an interest is expressed about a Woodworth Coat of Arms or Woodworth Family Coat of Arms.
         There is simply no Woodworth Coat of Arms, and no Woodworth Family Coat of Arms. Further, there is no "family" coat of arms for any surname.
           There is obviously no "surname" coat of arms. For example, say, if one "Smith" individual had a coat of arms in the 15th century, that would not extend to millions of "Smiths". Only the specific applicable line of the specific individual Smith could make the claim.
           The coat of arms practice was begun in the 12th century as a means of distinguishing armored individuals on the battlefields.   They became regulated in appearance in the 15th century or earlier. Thus, fathers and sons within the same family had different coats of arms, although they were similar enough to be recognized as members of a family.
          Sometime later, coats of arms could be inherited with limits and rules, and often with mandatory alterations in the case of multiple sons. Today, no coat of arms can be claimed as inherited except by documented lineage, generation by generation, back to the specific individual that had the specifically identified coat of arms. Even then, such claim must be, in the case of England, approved by the College of Arms , the sole approving authority for England's coats of arms.
           However, in the case of American Patriots, or those of the colonies in the New World who fought against the Crown in the 1776 War of Independence, all claims by heirs to coats of arms were terminated due to their traitorous acts.   Loyalists' coats of arms were not canceled.
           In accordance with the above and in the case of Walter Woodworth of England (origin assumed), Richard Woodworth of Ireland, William of Quebec, and other Woodworths of England:
                       1.   We can't tie any Woodworth back to a coat of arms.
                       2. There is no known Woodworth coat of arms.
                       3.   Don't believe the guy in the booth at the mall.

         One may say, "but what about authors' claims to a Woodworth grasshopper coat of arms?

           None of the published Woodworth authors claimed a "Woodworth Coat of Arms".   Jeanette did, in her first Common practice by wishful genealogists was to assume that, surely, Woodworth must be a spelling variant of Woodward, and since there was a Richard Woodward that had a coat of arms, then all Woodwards and all Woodworths could lay claim to his coat of arms.   Jeanette Behan never mentioned a Woodworth coat of arms in her book. She did order by mail a "coat of arms" from a heraldry business in Boston, MA, that was alleged to be a Woodworth Coat of Arms.   I was shown the copy by Jim Behan, and when I asked, somewhat excitedly, of Jim Behan "Is this the real Woodworth coat of arms!?", he quickly clarified that he and Jeanette did not know. It was merely ordered to peruse it and look into its claim. It is quite clear now that the business was the type that is now found in many so-called "heraldry" or "arms" mills all over the internet, all of whom are ready to sell a "genuine" copy of your very own coat of arms -- with the same symbol being used for dozens of spelling variants of a surname.
            And then there is the Woodworth reunion group's grasshopper "insignia" (not a coat of arms). The insignia (see below) is based on the coat of arms (COA) of 15th century Richard Woodward of Kent County with a label of "Woodworth" on it, which Jeanette Behan had ordered from the Boston heraldry business mentioned above. Adoption by the reunion group of the design was based on the possibility that it might be Walter Woodworth's COA. Since then, however, DNA has so far proven there could not be any Woodworth genetic relation to Richard Woodward, original owner of the COA.   While DNA results show no connection, that doesn't matter as long as the design is called an insignia. It's a very nice looking, quality design, and I have had plastic glasses and paper napkins with that design which I have proudly displayed and used.
            Something humorous about the Boston heraldry version of their alleged "Woodworth grasshopper coat of arms" is that it was the only one that depicted the grasshopper rear legs reversed.   Any leap by those grasshoppers would have propelled it backwards.

There was a "Ruby Haskins Ellis" who, in the 1930s, was a syndicated genealogy columnist. She prepared numerous brief articles on many surnames, including "Woodworth", I found the following article in the Smithsonian archives. The outrageously false claim that "The arms here displayed were borne by Walter Woodworth and are used by his descendants" seems to have been instrumental in starting a myth that has been hard to dispel. See the article below and my further comments describing errors.

As long as everyone knows that one's coat of arms is fake and tongue in cheek, and is not misrepresented as the real thing, then there's nothing improper. If one wants an alleged Woodworth coat of arms just for the fun of it, there are dozens of heraldry businesses on the internet willing to go along with the game. Just Google on "Woodworth coat of arms". Businesses seem to have standardized on the left coat of arms (see below) for the surnames Woodard, Wodard, Woodyard, Woodwards, and Woodworths.

HOWEVER, the identical above coat of arms is also used by businesses for Woodward, Woodyard, Woodwards, Wodard, and more similar surnames.	From licensed dealers and mall booths and medieval fairs everywhere, licensed by http://www.hallofnames.com/ This, too, is used by businesses for many surnnames bearing some similarity to "Woodworth".	This is a recent creation of a Woodworth insignia (NOT a coat of arms) by the Woodworth reunion group. Any resemblance to the 15th century Richard Woodward coat of arms is "purely coincidental". (NOTE: DNA so far shows that no Woodworths are genetically related to any Woodwards.)
		This alleged Woodworth coat of arms found on the internet has been vigorously rejected, but it's funny.

And lastly, a CREST is NOT a coat of arms. The crest is only a small section of the entire design and was usually depicted above the helmet.