Let's imagine that some king in the 1700's grants a COA to our dear old Mr. Smith: Gules, a squirrel rampant Or. Crest: A Squirrel Gules rampant.
For 100+ years, his legitimate descendants inherit this COA according to the rules, and follow the purest of traditions; they make very public use of it.
Then, some random but perfectly legitimate and rightful descendant of his line, John Smith, decides to change things a bit... He updates the coat of arms: Gules, a squirrel rampant Or. Crest: A Squirel Gules rampant holding a hammer Azure. He does not see this as a cadency mark, it's not the result of a specific event or marriage that could condone modification, and this is not state-sanctioned or approved by any legal body: it's just a whim, as he believes it represents the history or values of his bloodline better.
For 100+ years, HIS legitimate descendants - who don't know any better - inherit this new version of the COA according to the rules and in the purest tradition, thinking that's how it always was, and they too make very public use of it.
This leads to a few questions:
- Was John entitled to his choice of modifying the arms?
- Which is, to your eyes, the most "legitimate" version of it? The first one? The modified one? Both?
- Are there laws (in cases where bodies regulate heraldry) to manage such cases? I know of at least one, but I'm curious of other legislation.
This question arises from reading on the principle of "use makes law" (in a context unrelated to heraldry) and on the modification (conscious or accidental) of some coat of arms across history.