But they don’t have to think that – for others it will just be an interesting curiosity. I’m interested in anything that says ‘Mackenzie’, because I have ancestors of that name. I’ve bought bookmarks with the name on it. Doesn’t mean that I expect to inherit a castle!

I doubt that the majority of the companies selling these items stress this fact to potential clients. I understand “Let the buyer beware,” and all, but as Cool Hand Luke said, “Saying that it’s your job don’t make it right, boss.”

However I think it’s OK to be interested in a coat of arms that happens to bear your family name. After all there’s nothing wrong with buying a print of an art masterpiece because I like it or it happens to interest me. I’m not trying to claim that I have the original.

By the way, the medieval knights might have worn a crest (a symbol) on top of the helmet, but what identified them was the identifying arms painted onto a sleeveless coat worn over the armour. So really we should all refer to family ‘arms’ or ‘coat of arms’ rather than ‘family crest’. It would be good if the “family crest suppliers” (your words) informed potential buyers that to be entitled to use a coat of arms you must have either been granted it yourself or be descended in the male line from the original grantee.