Laws, or rules, can be changed. And it has been suggested that in the very distant past of the first century or two of heraldry, arms did descend with land and that the rules have since been changed. If you got some land by inheritance or endowment at marriage, then you got also any arms that came with that land. If we accept that this was a practice, and it seems to have been so, then of the following strict exclusions quarter numbers 6, 24, 38 and 53 are candidates to be taken from the list below.
Having removed two thirds of this list, then there are stronger grounds for removing Brittany too. The Middleham line that terminated in the heiress married by Robert de Neville in c.1260 started with a Ribald who was the illegitimate son of Eudo Count of Brittany who was a son of Geoffrey Duke of Brittany. Ribald was fairly richly endowed in north Yorkshire as his feudal service was providing 15 knights to guard Richmond Castle. Might that endowment by his father the Count have included the Brittany arms with some or all of the land?
The list could be reduced to a bare exclusion, Rohan, and I can invent no grounds to inherit the Rohan arms, the genealogy just did not go that route.
| Qtr | Name | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| 6 | Mandeville | Amicia was a natural dau., not an heir. |
| 24 | FitzRobert | Euphemia had brothers whose lines survived, so not an heir. |
| 32 | Rohan | Geoffrey de Zouche was a son of Porrhoet, not Rohan. |
| 33 | Brittany | Brittany came with Rohan so not inherited either. |
| 38 | Gwadyr | Ralph de Gwadyr’s granddaughter had brothers with issue. |
| 53 | Harcourt | Alice de Harcourt had brothers whose lines continued for centuries. |