The Woodworth Coat of Arms

         I have received numerous e-mails asking 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Woodworth authors claimed a "Woodworth Coat of Arms", although the "grasshopper coat of arms" was included in an unpublished joint authorship Woodworth genealogy book by Maurice Woodworth, James Pearce, and Jeanette Behan.   Elijah B. Woodworth in 1901 was the first to display Richard Woodward's "grasshopper" coat of arms created in the 1500s. Jeanette Behan initially placed the "grasshopper coat of arms" in her first newsletters, but permanently removed it upon notification by a reader that the coat of arms was specifically and only for a Richard Woodward of the 15th century. She replaced the "grasshopper coat of arms" with the symbol of a tree.    She never again mentioned any coat of arms in her subsequent book. What had influenced her earlier use was that other Woodworth genealogists had assumed by wishful thinking 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 potentially lay claim to his coat of arms.   Early on, based on prior use by Maurice and James, she did order by mail a "grasshopper Woodworth coat of arms" from a heraldry business in Boston, MA. This was bought prior to the clarification and discovery provided by one of her newsletter readers that the "grasshopper" coat of arms was solely for Richard Woodward of the 15th century. The Richard Woodward COA became an unsupportable albatross type burden for any suggestion of descendancy, as protocol demanded proof of Walter's line from Richard Woodward of the 1500s. Additionally, the mail order coat of arms did not identify any specific Woodworth to when and to whom it would have been assigned, as demanded by heraldry rules. Its authenticity was therefore highly suspect. She therefore put the mail order "coat of arms" away and never mentioned it or any COA in any of her later writings. I was unaware of this background when I was shown the copy by Jim Behan in 1999 and 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 ordered about the same time that she started her newsletter. She subsequently found that, in any case, the ordered grasshopper COA did not apply to Walter Woodworth, and that there was no "generic surname" coat of arms. It is quite clear now that the mail order 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 surname coat of arms -- with the same symbol being used for dozens of spelling variations of a surname.
            The Woodworth reunion group has created an "insignia" or logo (clearly and correctly not claimed to be a coat of arms). The insignia or logo (see insignia on right in the row of images at bottom) is based on the coat of arms (COA) of 15th century Richard Woodward of Kent County with a label of "Woodworth" on it. The insignia or logo is 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.   I've also purchased sweatshirts with the design, and they look very nice.
             DNA has so far proven that a genetic relation of Walter Woodworth to Richard Woodward, original owner of the COA, is unlikely as there is a multitude of genetically unrelated Woodwards.   None of the many unrelated Woodward lines have been able to establish a documented line to Richard Woodward.
            Something humorous about the early 1980s Boston heraldry version of their alleged "Woodworth grasshopper coat of arms" is that it was the only one that depicted the grasshopper's rear legs reversed.   Any leap by those grasshoppers would have propelled it backwards.   The reversed legs can be viewed here:

First, as previously stated, there was an Elijah Burghart Woodworth who wrote a book in 1901 about Woodworth genealogy, and put the COA in the front of his book. As his book is the first to display the Richard Woodward coat of arms, he is probably the one who researched and found it. However, in his book he claimed no connection of it to Walter in any way. Readers who were not alert could easily and erroneously assume that the author was claiming Walter descended from Richard of the 16th century.

Second, 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 while I was in Washington, DC.. The erroneous 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 error filled article below and the "NOTE" describing those errors.

The commercial internet heraldry business seems to have standardized on one single (fake) coat of arms for the "Woodward/Woodyard/Woodwards/Wodard/Woodworth" surnames. See the blue coat of arms in the row images below. No reason is given as to why, or to what family, this coat of arms was originally designed. This design or COA is sold both in the US and in England. Sherrye Woodworth's daughter bought a Woodworth coat of arms in England, and this same blue design shown below was provided.

A safe approach for displaying a Woodworth "coat of arms" is to use the commercial generic version. No one will ask for generic proof.

In conclusion, there is no "Woodworth coat of arms", nor is there any documentation that Walter Woodworth or any Woodworth had a coat of arms.

Elijah Burghart Woodworth, in his 1901 book on Woodworth genealogy, placed this coat of arms for Richard Woodward, born in the 1500s, in the front of his book. No claim was made for any relation of Walter Woodworth to Richard Woodward. It bears no surname label.

The above is the standard or generic coat of arms used by internet and licensed businesses for the surnnames Woodward, Woodyard, Woodwards, Wodard, and similar surnames. It is sold in the US, Canada, and England.

Commercial variation of one on left.

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 similarity to "Woodworth". Note similarity to the design on the left.

This is a recent creation of a Woodworth insignia or logo (NOT a coat of arms) by the Woodworth reunion group. The design resembles but is not the same as 16th century Richard Woodward's coat of arms as depicted by Elijah Burghart Woodworth's in his 1901 book.

Frequently the term "CREST" is improperly used in lieu of "Coat of Arms". A crest is just part of a coat of arms. The heraldry definition of "crest" is as follows:

Crest. Named by the French Cimier, from Cime, the top or apex; by the Italians Cimiero; by the Latins, Crista, the comb of a cock. A figure set upon a wreath, coronet, or chapeau, placed above the Helmet. The manner of placing the Crest differs according to the rank of the bearer. By all below the Peerage, it is placed above the Helmet, the latter rests on the shield. Peers carry the coronet on the shield, and the Helmet and Crest above; but in both cases the Helmet very frequently is altogether omitted. Ladies are not entitled to wear Crests. But as an appendage to sepulchral monuments Crests are placed beneath the head of the armed effigy; are attached to the helmet, or are carved at the feet of the recumbent figures.

But the above definition of a "crest" is still fuzzy. Here is a web page that provides a diagram of a coat of arms that shows what a crest is and where it is located: http://www.fleurdelis.com/coatofarms.htm