If I may, I'd like to reinforce the point made in Kiralora's excellent and informed posts. There is no reason to believe the crest on the castle ISN'T a valid coat of arms for Disney.
To illustrate, check out these different coats of arms, all for the surname Smith:
http://www.smithy.org/assets/images/...at-of-Arms.gif http://www.tradebit.com/usr/heraldic...at-of-arms.jpg http://s3.hubimg.com/u/12274_f260.jpg
You may note certain similarities (helmet on top, etc.), but plenty of variations.
The heraldry on the castle and the "other" Disney heraldry displayed by Steve at the start of this thread are, in fact, far more similar than these--indeed, more similar than they are different. This leads me to think that both might be valid instances of Disney family heraldry.
Kiralora was correct in stating that COAs belonged to individual nobility, not to families. What often happens is that descendants, themselves no longer noble, dig up the arms of their last known noble ancestor and adopt those as the "family COA". But those results can vary--for one, because research itself varies, and because different branches of the family may have exited the nobility at different times.
So, we seem to be mis-framing the question. The matter at hand is not whether the COA on the castle is the "correct" one for the Disney family, but whether it is
intended to be such. It is entirely plausible that Walt (or an assistant) might have asked someone to dig up "the Disney coat of arms" and received this as a result. If the result was erroneous (to a small or large degree), I don't think he would have noticed; something tells me it wasn't painted on the side of the barn in Marceline, MO.
Bookmarks