The Myth of Family Coats of Arms

The holiday gift giving season will be here soon and what better personal gift to give than something with the recipient's family coat of arms? I'd suggest that isn't such a great gift. You'd be lying.

Lots of gullible people purchase various trinkets that display the "family coat of arms" without realizing there is no such thing. Coats of arms? Yes. But "family?" No. There is no such thing as a family coat of arms.

NOTE: I do have to point out two exceptions. Several hundred years ago, merchants in Belgium did adopt coats of arms that were similar to the coats of arms displayed by nobility, but with some differences. Those Belgian coats of arms, or family crests, displayed by merchants are assigned to families and are inherited. However, coats of arms displayed by nobility in Belgium are not inherited.

In addition, Samurai soldiers in Japan also have family "insignia" that are assigned to families and are passed down from generation to generation. The Japanese symbols do not look like European coats of arms with shields and helmets, adorned with lions and dragons and birds and such things, however.

If your male line descends from a few families in Belgium or from the Samurai class in Japan, you can ignore the rest of this article. However, if your family comes from the British Isles or any place in Europe, other than a few families in Belgium, this applies to you.

The truth is, except for the exceptions listed, families do not have family crests, correctly known as "coats of arms." The crest is only a small section of the entire design and was usually depicted above the helmet.

Coats of arms were designed for use in battle. If you can imagine wearing a full suit of armor, complete with a helmet with tiny eye slits for vision, the combatants had a difficult time differentiating friend from foe. It was bad form to stick a broadsword into your friend's midsection, although that did happen occasionally in the heat of battle. As a visual aid, the knights and a few other combatants started wearing brightly painted designs on their shields and elsewhere, designs that were known to their fellow combatants. The intent was to help their fellow combatants distinguish friends from foe. The brightly colored insignia was used on shields, on clothing, and on horse dressings.

Occasionally, a knight might have an attendant or two, such as a groomsman who tended the horse or even multiple horses. The attendant also might be a “squire;” a young apprentice who hoped to become a knight on his 21st birthday. The attendant might wear clothing with the same colors as his master, signifying that he was a part of "the team." However, such attendants normally did not wear armor.

If the knight had a close relative in battle as a combatant, such as his son, a brother, a nephew, or other relative, that relative never wore the same insignia as the first knight. In battle, sons never wore the same insignia as their fathers. Each had his own insignia and colors.

Off the battlefield, coats of arms were also used during tournaments to distinguish competitors. Knights, royalty, and a few wealthy individuals displayed their colorful crests and coats of arms as a symbol of themselves. In effect, the coat of arms said, "This is me." Coats of arms were never used to declare, "This is my family."

In fact, the only time that the same coat of arms can be used by more than one person is when the eldest is dead. At that point, the direct heir (typically his oldest son) can petition for the right to bear the same arms that were used by the deceased.

In the case of multiple sons, or when the father was still alive, all the sons could use SIMILAR coats of arms as their father but always added their own variations to the design. Each son created his own variations. These variations are called "cadency" and the son's insignia is referred to as "cadet coat of arms." When the father died, the oldest son removed his personal cadency, reverting the coat of arms back to his father's original design. The other sons kept their cadet coat of arms; they never used the father's original design.

Daughters can also inherit the coat of arms if no sons are living.

In olden times and today, not every coat of arms can be used by everyone with that surname. First of all, not everyone with the same surname is related. I suspect there was more than one knight named Smith, and they certainly didn't want to wear the same coats of arms in battle!

Despite what the man at the pushcart told you at the local shopping mall, the rules always required that a coat of arms was for use by a single living individual, not a family. A coat of arms is similar to an individual's signature and was used as seals on official documents.

Another requirement has been in effect since the 15th century and still applies today: the person who wishes to display a coat of arms must first register the design in a central clearinghouse and obtain permission to display it. Registration was required in the 15th century, and it is still expected today. If you are displaying a coat of arms without written permission, you are guilty of an impolite form of forgery. In the U.S., you won't get arrested for doing so because the U.S. has no laws concerning display of forged coats of arms. Such laws do exist on the books in England and in many other countries, but they are rarely enforced.

The official office regulating coats of arms and the granting of new arms for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland is the College of Arms (http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/). It was founded by King Richard III in 1484. If you would like to display your own personally designed coat of arms, and if your male ancestry is from England, you start at the College of Arms. That would be true even if you now live in the United States. You cannot apply online but you can do so by mail.

To learn more about coat of arms granted in Scotland, visit the Court of the Lord Lyon (http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/CCC_FirstPage.jsp). Scottish descendants would apply to the Court of the Lord Lyon.

Canada has its own heraldic office, the Canadian Heraldic Authority (http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=81). The rules for applying for a coat of arms are slightly different in Canada. Contact the Canadian Heraldic Authority for details.

Comments

[Roger Moffat]

Section 5 d of this page

http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/lordlyon2.htm

has some notes explaining the rights of a Clansman to wear the Badge of a Clansman. It is similar to the information on this page of the Lord Lyon's site

http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/controller?p_service=Content.show&p_applic=CCC&pContentID=242

Roger

[Ernie Thode]

Dick,

I think there is another exception in Switzerland, where, for instance, the official Canton Basel-Land archive displays a collection of hundreds of Familienwappen, which translates as "family coats of arms."

Other portions of Switzerland have these family coats of arms too.

See http://www.sgffweb.ch/heraldik/familienwappen

[Wayne Laurence]

Excellent article. In Scotland you can be prosecuted by the Office of Lord Lyon which has criminal jurisdiction over the correct use of arms. The Court has its own Procurator Fiscal, an independent official prosecutor. The position of Lord Lyon also incorporates the ancient Celtic office of High Sennachie.

[Jordan]

On the one hand, I think if someone's not living in the UK and wants to create a coat of arms for their own family, no one can/should tell them they can't do so.

On the other hand, I'm weary (and wary) of all these people/sites claiming to show a family's coat of arms from way back, when really it's either A)something they just made up, or B)some other family's coat of arms. Such people are pretty sloppy with their history, as in the case of a website I won't link to here that claims the ancestor of families with the name MacBeth was (yes, you guessed it) MacBeth himself. Of course, the site has a MacBeth coat of arms.

My problem isn't necessarily that they've got a coat of arms that they (or someone in recent times) made up. My problem is that they pretend that's not the case. If someone says, 'This is my family's coat of arms, well not officially or traditionally, but we've decided it's our coat of arms,' then that's fine. But how many people will say that?

[Pat]

Good points, Dick, although I suspect you are a voice crying in the wilderness. Instead of enjoying their ancestors for themselves and their actual lives, many so-called family historians will continue to portray their forbears as somehow deserving of coats of arms, thanks from the grateful Williams the Conqueror, grants of vast tracts of lands in the old country just waiting to be reclaimed, etc. As long of coats of arms look pretty as endpapers in books, they will continue to be claimed.

[Mitch Mackrory]

Thanks, Dick. That is a great article.

I have often been given my family coat of arms and always find it embarrassing to let them know the truth.

When I lived in South Africa I became aware that a coat of arms could be applied for and granted. I never did it because it entailed a lot of art work and there is some cost involved. For anyone interested, further details can be seen at the Wikipedia entry at…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Heraldry_(South_Africa)

[Stacie]

Fascinating! I often have family members asking me for copies of our coat of arms because they know that I'm the 'historian' in the family.

I knew that the COA's were not really 'official' but didn't know that there was no such thing!

I have e-mailed all the family a link to this article.

Thank you!

[Jade]

Thanks for this! I think the point that should be emphasized is that beginning with supremacy of Richard III's line there was (in England) a single authority who *granted* to *individuals* the right to bear a coat of arms as a sign of allegiance and alliance.

This is a totally different matter from the adoption of crests and insignia for business purposes (early models of today's corporate logos) or the clan insignia you commented on (the Scottish model is more like the English in intent).

[Rodolfo Schmauk]

I ever was convinced of what it is said in this article is what it was. But some time ago, I found the history and the transcription of a document concerning a far "relative" (first cousin, but 8 times removed). He was Mr. Christoph Piderit (Germany 1668 - 1756) that was named Knight and "Von" (so becomming "Christoph Von Piderit" in 1713 by Karl VI (*1685 +1740, Emperor from 1711 to 1740, father of Maria Theresa of Austria and grandfather of Marie Antoinette, Queen of France).

From the Internet automatic "translation" I understand that the title, the "Von" and the coat were granted "for him and his Conjugal Leibs derenselben Erben's heirs, theirs husband-and wife-Persohnen in all subsequent time...". This is somehow repeated at the end of the documento where it is said:"Designed By: Thünen treat this and allow obberührten Christoph Conjugal Leibs-Piderit his heirs and derenselben inheritance heirs "

…
"Before the healing:

Karl VI
Roman Empire Knights; cumpraedicato "Von" et armorum melioration for Mr. Christian von Piderit, the Holy. Rom. Empire Knights, etc., on 26 Martii 1713 to the Imperial Reichshofkanzleiamt
_____________________________________________________

Could somebody explain me this? (I could send the entire german text).

[Jeremy Wilkes]

A small point. In England and, I think, in Scotland, the heir does not need to petition to use the deceased's arms: they are his by right. In Scotland cadets have to matriculate, but in England even they can bear by right their father's arms with the appropriate difference mark, whether he is alive or dead. Difference marks in England are a controversial subject in themselves, though.

[Stephen J. Danko]

In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (now divided into Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Belarus) the situation was much different from the situation described in this article.

There, a coat of arms belonged to every member of an entire clan, a clan being a brotherhood of many different families with many different surnames. One consequence of this arrangement was that many noblemen used two surnames, one being the family surname and the other the name of the coat of arms itself.

[Jon von Briesen]

I think it preferable to clarify the notion of "family" arms, rather than rule such a thing out absolutely. One of your commenters mentions the Swiss case. I believe it is generally true for German-speaking Europe. Coats of arms were understood to be family symbols. We should hear from the French side, as well. On the continent, in general, most areas do not practice differencing, or cadency marking. [Or, at least, the practice did not persist.] Rather, all members of a family display the same arms. It seems to me that the great armorial collections, such as Siebmachers (from 1605, or slightly earlier) and Rietstap's in the 19th C., can be understood to treat continental arms as family arms.

I am looking at several funereal monuments, mostly from the 16th C., in Silesian churches. In most cases of this type of heraldic "Grabplatte," full coats of arms (shield / crest / helm / mantle) are displayed in conventional positions; so, that a knowledgeable viewer understood the families represented by the deceased's grand~, great-grand~, or, in some cases with 32 arms displayed, the great-great-grand-parents of the deceased. These will be displayed just the same in other generations. So, the viewer knows the family; but, not the particular individual ancestor.

Women in German-speaking Europe seem not to have been restricted in displaying warlike accoutrements, such as helm and crest, with their arms, as in England and some other regions. Nor does one see a woman's arms displayed in a lozenge, as in Britain, Sweden, and Belgium (to my knowledge --- may very well be others). Perhaps this is because the arms are understood as 'family' arms. The only way, in German heraldry, that one could identify a woman's arms would be in an arrangement with multiple arms, such as an marriage ("Allianzwappen"), or on Grabplatten, where arms representing males are turned 'de courtoise' to the traditional female (sinister) side.

Non-noble families in German-speaking lands adopted arms very early. Some writers say that these "Bürgerlich" arms were not treated as heritable; but, certainly many families have treated them as such.

It is important to say that rules for differencing arms among individuals in the same family may be applicable only in England and derivative systems, now days.

In a book of Irish arms, former Chief Herald McLysaght, I believe, opines that all of the name may display the arms of the chief of the clan/family. I have some doubts about the historical correctness of that position; as, heraldry was introduced to Ireland by the Norman English. But, if the Chief Herald makes them effectively "family arms", who are we to object?

As you are aware, the term "crest" is very often misused to mean the entire achievement of arms. There may be an explanation for this coming from British usage. For, with differencing, the shield is not the same for all armigerous members of the family; but, the crest is. Thus, a signet bearing a crest would be appropriate for all members of the family. (Again, women may, by custom, be denied the use.) In German-speaking lands, there are examples where different branches of a large family differentiate their arms by using different crests, while, there, the shield remains unchanged for all branches of the family.

There are many families in England that assumed their arms (the arms passed to the heraldic heir in the family line) well before the establishment of the College of Arms in the reign of Richard III. I do not know whether they submit to the practices/rules devised by that body. Again, in German-speaking lands, no such generalization about the establishment of heraldic authority can be made. There were certainly attempts in the Holy Roman Empire, at some point, to give authority in heraldic matters to the Counts Palatine (Pfalzgrafen); but, there may have been as many sets of rules, enforced well, or not, as there were courts that employed heralds.

On the matter of the origins of heraldry being in a means of battlefield recognition, there are some recent differing opinions. There is a bit of discussion of this in the Oxford Book of Heraldry, by Thomas Woodcock.

The machine translation presented in a query by another commenter is likely saying something about the right to title and arms being for all legitimate heirs of the body of the original grantee.

So, while many cautions obtain, it seems to me not out of the question for someone to learn of, and acquire, his/her 'family' arms in the hallways of our great shopping malls.

[Jon von Briesen]

Just an observation on Steven Danko's information: I have seen examples of different families within a Polish "clan" displaying the clan arms with slight differences. The tincture of the field might be changed.

If I am not mistaken, some families use the clan arms Szreniawa (a silver 'couped' "S" on red field) with a cross at the top of the "S" figure, while other families omit the cross.

[Bob Blevens]

Personally, I'd like to see everybody with their own Coat of Arms. Back in 1983 I designed my own arms and had them issued by Spain. Unfortunately, Spain hasn't legally issued arms to individuals since 2005.

Here are a couple of good sites to learn more about the subject:

http://americancollegeofheraldry.org

http://http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/

[Jon von Briesen]

It is amusing to find three ads for firms selling "family coat of arms" products accompanying this post + comments page.

[John Cleeve]

I know of one exception in England (there may be more). See the entry for Hichens on this page http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/Newsletter/004.htm

[Jon von Briesen]

Dick, a couple of questions:

1. " However, coats of arms displayed by nobility in Belgium are not inherited."
Have you got a source for this assertion? I've never read anything like that.

2. "The other sons keep their cadet coat of arms; they never use the father's original design. "
If the other sons keep the mark of cadency they bore while their father yet lived, what then do sons of the new bearer of the undifferenced arms do for marks of cadency??

Thanks

[Scott Norton]

I have been pursuing a Norton Coat of Arms study where we are tracking down the pedigrees of those who were granted Norton arms. to this we are adding a DNA signature for each family line.

I don't think this has ever been done, certainly with DNA. The results are interesting and we are continuing to look at the inter action of the noble Norton families.

Some Nortons are using their pedigrees and DNA to apply for their own Coat of Arms and are successful. A case in point is here.
http://www.nortonfamily.net/images/arms-chevron-abba3.jpg
Reverend William Henry Hugo Newman-Norton

The Norton Coat of Arms study is here.
http://www.nortonfamily.net/arms.htm

One thing that has turned up is that most of the non-Irish Nortons who came to America and survived are from noble Norton lines.

Scott Norton

[E.W.Wallace]

Thanks for the explanation about the use and mis-use of coats of arms or heraldry. On the net is a partial, but highly undocumented family *mis* history of one of my paternal families. Heading the website is a coat of arms!!! A lot of information is conjecture; there is little or no documentation. I hate it, but I did print it out, hoping to live long enough to refute parts of it, at least!

I was fortunate several decades ago [has it been that long?] to attend an Elderhostel at University of Kent, Canterbury pertaining to genealogy. As we were Americans, we had a couple of lectures on such items as heraldry, indentures, and other items of interest but of less importance to Americans.

One of our lecturers was C. Humphrey Smith [google for that name]. He had recently been admitted to the College of Arms. He explained that the coat of arms belongs to an individual, mainly because of his deeds. It does NOT belong to the family. A commoner who gains prestige in UK is entitled to arms. He gave as an example the recently elected [at that time] Mayor of the City of London [the financial district of Greater London]. The mayor was a commoner, but because of his office, he was entitled to arms, so arms were to be designed. Humphrey-Smith it seems had interviewed the mayor, determined some important events in his life, and wove symbols of those events into the arms which he subsequently designed. Later, Humphrey-Smith took the class to the Cathedral in Canterbury, showed us the tomb of Thomas a' Becket, et al, and then took us outside to show up the heraldric symbols on the ceiling. These events, as I said took place some years ago, and my terminology may be incorrect.

I cannot speak for heraldry other European countries. When my husband and I lived in post-war Germany, we noted that each city had its own heraldry.

E.W.Wallace