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.   There could dozens of coats of arms for different Smiths of specific full names and birth dates.
           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 and its documentation must be capable of being verified 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 have at any time claimed a "Woodworth Coat of Arms".    Elijah B. Woodworth in 1901 was the first to display Richard Woodward's "grasshopper" coat of arms created in the 1500s. He identified the coat of arms as such but made no claim in any way that Walter Woodworth was related to Richard Woodworth.    Later, the Richard Woodworth "grasshopper coat of arms" was included in an unpublished joint authorship Woodworth genealogy book by Maurice Woodworth, James Pearce, and Jeanette Behan. However, it appears that the coat of arms was added as an afterthought. That manuscript makes no suggestion that the Richard Woodward coat of arms was connected with Walter Woodworth.   Jeanette Behan initially placed the "grasshopper coat of arms" in her first newsletters, but permanently removed it upon notification by Carl W. Fischer, prominent genealogist and Woodworth descendant, that the coat of arms was specifically and only for a Richard Woodward of the 15th century. She pulled the "grasshopper coat of arms" and replaced it with the symbol of a tree.   It is apparent that she sought to distance herself from the erroneous concept of Walter Woodworth being associated with the Richard Woodward coat of arms, or any coat of arms, as she never again mentioned a coat of arms in her subsequent writings. 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 the display by by Elijah B. Woodworth in his book, 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 Carl W. Fischer that the "grasshopper" coat of arms (COA) was solely for Richard Woodward of the 15th century. The Richard Woodward COA became an unsupportable albatross 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 as to when and to whom it would have been assigned, as demanded by heraldry rules. Its authenticity was therefore in doubt. Upon this discovery, she put the mail order "coat of arms" away and never again mentioned a coat of arms. 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 learned 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 "coat of arms" being used for dozens of spelling variations of a surname. The latter conclusion is borne out by the Holmes-Corey "attestation" of an alleged "Mc Iver" coat of arms, wherein the McIver attestation merely claims that "somebody with that surname or similar surname" had a certain coat of arms in the same internet practice exercised by modern day fake coat of arms paper mills.
            It is now suspected that the Holmes-Corey selection of the Richard Woodward "grasshopper coat of arms" was not based on scholarly coat of arms research, but rather by the appearance of that coat of arms depicted in a misleading manner in Elijah Burghart Woodworth's genealogy book, or from a "tip-off" during correspondence wherein Jeanette may have told a Holmes-Corey representative about the "grasshopper coat of arms".   The artist at Holmes-Corey inadvertently omitted the "demi-woodman" crest that was to be placed on the helmet.
            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 early 20th century depiction by Elijah B. Woodworth of the Richard Woodward coat of arms. 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 grasshopper coat of arms, is unlikely as there is a multitude of genetically unrelated Woodwards, and about four lines of genetically unrelated Woodworths.   None of the many unrelated Woodward and Woodworth lines have been able to establish a documented line to Richard Woodward.   Further, Walter Woodworth has thus far not been geneticaly connected to any Woodwards and Woodworths in the UK
            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 he placed the Richard Woodward 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 Halbert Scam: Gary Halbert is said to have sent out 700,000,000 letters over 30 years to people with less common surnames selling fake genealogy, including fake coats of arms that he designed for surnames. He made millions in that manner. What people received in their surname genealogy kit was basically some simple general information, a fake coat of arms for their surname, and addresses and phone numbers for people of that surname. Basically, the material was the mailing list for his scam in book form. Jeanette Behan warned people in her Sep-Oct 1984 newsletter, page 2, of this scam. Click here for one of Halbert's Woodworth scam products. EBAY WARNING: Scam artists have rediscovered the now archaic Halbert scam product in the foregoing link, and are now reproducing the 8.5x11 sheet containing a fake Woodworth coat of arms and general commentary and selling it on eBay for $4.88 and up --- whatever people will pay.

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 of images below. No reason is given as to why, or to which individual, 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.

Recommended reading:
Myth of the family coat of arms by the renowned genealogist Dick Eastman:
http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2009/11/the-myth-of-family-coats-of-arms.html

The ultimate authority on coats of arms -- the official England office that authorizes coats of arms:

http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/
http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/Faq.htm
(Note: The England College of Arms officially states as follows: "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.")

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. Further, ALL of the online heraldry businesses are selling fake "surname coats 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.

"Richard Woodward of Woodmarsh and his son William Woodward of Ashford, Kent Co., used the old arms and crest of the family in England.
ARMS: ar. a chew. Sa. betw. three grasshoppers Vert.
CREST: A demi Woodman couped at the knees. Vested gu, hair dishevelled or in his dexter hand a honeysuckle of the ppr., stalked and leaved Vert."

This version of the Richard Woodward coat of arms is from the early 1980s unpublished manuscript by Maurice Woodworth, James Pierce, and Jeanette Behan. It includes a helmet with the crest (the object that sits on the helmet) consisting of a woodman with unkempt hair.

This is a fake Woodworth coat of arms designed by Gary Halbert for his infamous surname scam operation.

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 usually located: http://www.fleurdelis.com/coatofarms.htm

And finally, the England College of Arms states as follows: "It is a popular misconception that the word 'crest' describes a whole coat of arms or any heraldic device. It does not. A crest is a specific part of a full achievement of arms: the three-dimensional object placed on top of the helm."