THE CREST
If uncertainty exists as to the origin of arms, it is as nothing to the
huge uncertainty that exists concerning the beginnings of the crest. Most
wonderful stories are told concerning it; that it meant this and meant the
other, that the right to bear a crest was confined to this person or the
other person. But practically the whole of the stories of this kind are
either wild imagination or conjecture founded upon insufficient facts.
The real facts--which one may as well state first as a basis to work
upon--are very few and singularly unconvincing, and are useless as original
data from which to draw conclusions.
First of all we have the definite, assured, and certain fact that the
earliest known instance of a crest is in 1198, and we find evidence of the
use of arms before that date.
The next fact is that we find infinitely more variation in the crests used
by given families than in the arms, and that whilst the variations in the
arms are as a rule trivial, and not affecting the general design of the
shield, the changes in the crest are frequently radical, the crest borne by
a family at one period having no earthly relation to that borne by the same
family at another.
Again, we find that though the occasional use of a crest can (by isolated
instances) be taken back, as already stated, to a fairly early period, the
use of crests did not become general until very much later.
Another fact is that, except perhaps in the persons of sovereigns, there is
no official instance, nor any other authentic instance of importance, in
which a crest appears ever to have been used by a woman until these recent
and unfortunate days when unofficial examples can be found of the wildest
ignorance of all armorial rules.
The foregoing may be taken as general principles which no authentic
instance known can be said to refute.
Bearing these in mind, let us now see what other results can be obtained by
deduction from specific instances.
The earliest form in which anything can be found in the nature of a crest
is the lion upon the head-dress of Geoffrey, Count of Anjou (Fig. 28). This
has been already referred to. {327}
The helmet of Philippe D'Alsace, Count of Flanders (_c._ 1181), has painted
upon the side the same figure of a lion which appears upon his shield.
What is usually accepted as the earliest authenticated instance of a
regular crest is that afforded by the Great Seal of King Richard I. of
England, which shows over the helmet a lion passant painted upon the
fan-shaped ornament which surmounts the helmet.
If one accepts--as most people nowadays are inclined to do--the Darwinian
theory of evolution, the presumption is that the development of the human
being, through various intermediate links including the ape, can be traced
back to those cell-like formations which are the most "original" types of
life which are known to us. At the same time one is hardly disposed to
assert that some antediluvian jellyfish away back in past ages was the
first human being. By a similar, but naturally more restricted argument,
one cannot accept these paintings upon helmets, nor possibly can one accept
paintings upon the fan-like ornaments which surmounted the helmet, as
examples of crests. The rudiments and origin of crests doubtless they were.
Crests they were not.
We must go back, once again, to the bed-rock of the peacock-popinjay vanity
ingrained in human nature. The same impulse which nowadays leads to the
decoration of the helmets of the Life Guards with horsehair plumes and
regimental badges, the cocked hats of field-marshals and other officers
with waving plumes, the képis of commissionaires, and the smasher hats of
Colonial irregulars with cocks' feathers, the hat of the poacher and
gamekeeper with a pheasant's feather, led unquestionably to the
"decoration" of the helmets of the armoured knights of old. The matter was
just a combination of decoration and vanity. At first (Fig. 569) they
frequently painted their helmets, and as with the gradual evolution and
crystallisation of armory a certain form of decoration (the device upon his
shield) became identified with a certain person, that particular device was
used for the decoration of the helmet and painted thereupon.
Then it was found that a fan-shaped erection upon the helmet improved its
appearance, and, without adding greatly to its weight, advantaged it as a
head protection by attracting the blow of an opponent's sword, and
lessening or nullifying its force ere the blow reached the actual
crown-plates of the helmet. Possibly in this we see the true origin (as in
the case of the scalloped edges of the mantling) of the serrated border
which appears upon these fan-shaped erections. But this last suggestion is
no more than a conjecture of my own, and may not be correct, for human
nature has always had a weakness for decoration, and ever has been
agreeable to pay the extra {328} penny in the "tuppence" for the coloured
or decorated variety. The many instances which can be found of these
fan-shaped ornaments upon helmets in a perfectly undecorated form leads me
to unhesitatingly assert that they originated _not_ as crests, nor as a
vehicle for the display of crests, but as an integral and protective part
of the _helmet_ itself. The origin of the crest is due to the decoration of
the fan. The derivation of the word "crest," from the Latin _crista_, a
cock's comb, should put the supposition beyond any doubt.
Disregarding crests of later grant or assumption, one can assert with
confidence that a large proportion of those--particularly in German armory,
where they are so frequent--which we now find blazoned or depicted as wings
or plumes, carrying a device, are nothing more than developments of or
derivatives from these fan-shaped ornaments.
[Illustration: FIG. 610.--From the seal (1301) of Richard FitzAlan, Earl of
Arundel.]
[Illustration: FIG. 611.--From the seal (1301) of Humphrey de Bohm, Earl of
Hereford.]
[Illustration: FIG. 612.--From the seal (1305) of Edward of Carnarvon,
Prince of Wales.]
These fans being (from other reasons) in existence, of course, and very
naturally, were painted and decorated, and equally of course such
decoration took the form of the particular decoration associated with the
owner, namely, the device upon the shield. It seems to me, and for long has
so seemed, essentially strange that no specialist authority, writing upon
armory, has noticed that these "fans" (as I will call them) are really a
part, though possibly only a decorative part, of the helmet itself. There
has always in these matters been far too great a tendency on the part of
writers to accept conclusions of earlier authorities ready made, and to
simply treat these fans as selected and chosen crests. Figs. 610-612 are
instances of helmets having these fans. All are {329} taken from seals, and
it is quite possible that the actual fans upon the seal helmets had some
device painted upon them which it was impossible by reason of the size to
represent upon the seal. As has been already stated, the great seal of
Richard I. does show a lion painted on the fan.
There are many examples of the heraldic development of these fans,--for
their use obtained even in this country long after the real heraldic crest
had an assured footing--and a typical example occurs in Fig. 613, but
probably the best-known instance, one which has been often illustrated, is
that from the effigy of Sir Geoffrey de Luttrell (_c._ 1340), which shows a
fan of this character upon which the entire Luttrell arms are depicted.
[Illustration: FIG. 613.--Arms of the family of Schaler (Basle): Gules, a
bend of lozenges argent. (From the Zürich Roll of Arms.)]
[Illustration: FIG. 614.--Modern reverse of the Common Seal of the City of
London (1539).]
A much later instance in this country will be found in the seal (dated
1539) of the City of London, which shows upon the helmet one of these
fan-shaped ornaments, charged with the cross of the City arms (Fig. 614).
The arms of the City of London are recorded in the College of Arms
(Vincent) without a crest (and by the way without supporters) and this seal
affords a curious but a very striking and authentic instance of the extreme
accuracy of the records of the College of Arms. There being no crest for
the City of London at the time of the preparation of this seal, recourse
was had to the ancient practice of depicting the whole or a part (in this
case a part) of the device of the shield upon a fan surmounting the helmet.
In course of time this fan, in the case of London, as in so many other
cases, has through ignorance been {330} converted or developed into a wing,
but the "rays" of the fan in this instance are preserved in the "rays" of
the dragon's wing (charged with a cross) which the crest is now supposed to
be.
Whilst dealing with the arms of London, one of the favourite "flaring"
examples of ancient but unrecorded arms often mentioned as an instance in
which the Records of the College of Arms are at fault, perhaps I may be
pardoned for adding that the shield _is_ recorded. The crest and supporters
are not. The seeming omission as to the crest is explained above. The real
supporters of the City of London, to which a claim by user _could_ (even
now) be established (they are two lions, not dragons), had, with the single
exception of their use upon the Mayor's seal, which use is continued to the
present day, been practically discarded. Consequently the lions as
supporters remained unclaimed, and therefore are not recorded.
The supporters now used (two dragons) are _raw new_ adornments, of which no
example can be found before the seventeenth century. Those naturally, being
"assumed" without authority at so recent a date, are not recorded, which is
yet another testimony to the impartial accuracy of the Heralds' College
Records.
The use of the fan-crest has long been obsolete in British armory, in which
it can hardly ever be said to have had a very great footing, unless such
use was prevalent in the thirteenth century; but it still survives in
Germany at the present day, where, in spite of the fact that many of these
fans have now degenerated into reduplications of the arms upon wings or
plumes of feathers, other crests to a considerable number are still
displayed upon "fans."
Many of the current practices in British armory are the culmination of
long-continued ignorance. Some, mayhap, can be allowed to pass without
comment, but others deserve at any rate their share of criticism and
remark. Amongst such may be included the objectionable practice, in the
grants of so many modern crests, of making the crest itself a _shield_
carrying a repetition of the arms or some other device, or of introducing
in the crest an escutcheon. To the resuscitation of these "fan" repetitions
of the shield device there is not, and cannot be, any objection. One would
even, in these days of the multiplication of differentiated crests,
recommend this as a relief from the abominable rows of assorted objects
nowadays placed (for the purposes of differentiation) in front of so many
modern crests. One would gladly see a reversion to the German development
(from this source) of wings charged with the arms or a part of the armorial
device; but one of the things a new grantee should pray to be delivered
from is an escutcheon of any sort, shape, or form in the crest assigned to
him. {331}
To return, however, to the "fans" upon the early helmets. Many of the
examples which have come down to us show the fan of a rather diminutive
height, but (in the form of an arc of a much enlarged circle) projected far
forward beyond the front of the helmet, and carried far back, apparently as
a safeguard from blows which would otherwise descend upon the neck. (A
survival of the fan, by the way, may perhaps be found in the dragoon
helmets of the time of the Peninsular War, in the firemen's helmets of
to-day, and in the helmets now worn by different regiments in the Italian
army.) The very shape of these fans should prove they were originally a
protective part of the helmet. The long low shape, however, did not, as a
general circumstance, lend itself to its decoration by a duplication
thereupon of the whole of the arms. Consequently these fans will nearly
always be found simply adorned with one figure from the shield. It should
not be forgotten that we are now dealing with a period in armory when the
charges upon the shield itself were very much, as far as number and
position are concerned, of an indeterminate character. If they were
indeterminate for the shield, it evidences that there cannot have been any
idea of a necessity to repeat the whole of the device upon the fan. As
there was seldom room or opportunity for the display of the whole device,
we invariably find that these fan decorations were a duplication of a
distinctive part, but not necessarily the whole of the device; and this
device was disposed in the most suitable position which the shape of the
fan would accommodate. Herein is the explanation of the fact that whilst
the arms of Percy, Talbot, and Mowbray were all, in varying tinctures, a
lion rampant, the crest in each case was a lion passant or statant. In
short, the fan did not lend itself to the representation of a lion rampant,
and consequently there is no early instance of such a crest. Perhaps the
insecurity of a large and heavy crest balanced upon one leg may be an added
reason.
The next step in the evolution of the crest, there can be little doubt, was
the cutting of the fan into the outline of the crest, and though I know of
no instance of such a crest on any effigy, there can be no reasonable doubt
on the point, if a little thought is given to the matter. Until a very much
later period, we never find in any heraldic representation that the helmet
or crest are represented in an affronté position. Why? Simply because
crests at that period were merely profile representations.
In later days, when tournament crests were made of leather, the weight even
of these was very considerable, but for tournament purposes that weight
could be endured. Half-a-dozen courses down the _barrière_ would be a
vastly different matter to a whole day under arms in actual battle. Now a
crest cut out from a thin plate of metal set {332} on edge would weigh but
little. But perhaps the strongest proof of all is to be found in the
construction of so many German crests, which are adorned down the back with
a fan.
Now it is hardly likely, if the demi-lion in relief had been the earliest
form, that the fan would have been subsequently added to it. The fan is
nothing more than the remains of the original fan-shaped ornament left when
the crest, or most likely only the front outline of it, had been cut out in
profile from the fan. We have no instance until a very much later period of
a crest which could not be depicted in profile, and in the representations
of crests upon seals we have no means of forming a certain judgment that
these representations are not of profile crests, for the very nature of the
craft of seal-engraving would lead the engraver to add a certain amount of
relief, even if this did not actually exist. It is out of the question to
suppose, by reason of their weight, that crests were made in metal. But if
made of leather, as were the tournament crests, what protection did the
crest add to the helmet? The fact that wreaths and coronets did not come
into use at the earliest advent of crests is confirmatory evidence of the
fact that modelled crests did not exist, inasmuch as the fan prolonged in
front and prolonged behind was narrowed at its point of contact with the
helmet into such a diminished length that it was comparatively easy to slip
the mantling by means of a slit over the fan, or even drape it round it.
Many of the old illustrations of tournaments and battles which have come
down to us show no crests on the helmets, but merely plumes of feathers or
some fan-shaped erection. Consequently it is a fairly safe conclusion that
for the actual purposes of warfare modelled crests never had any real
existence, or, if they had any such existence, that it was most limited.
Modelled crests were tournament crests. The crests that were used in battle
must have been merely cut out in profile from the fan. Then came the era,
in Plantagenet times, of the tournament. We talk glibly about tournaments,
but few indeed really know much about them. Trial by combat and the real
tournament _à l'outrance_ seldom occurred, and though trial by combat
remained upon the statute-book until the 59 Geo. III., it was seldom
invoked. Tournaments were chiefly in the nature of athletic displays,
taking the place of our games and sports, and inasmuch as they contributed
to the training of the soldier, were held in the high repute that polo, for
example, now enjoys amongst the upper and military classes. Added to this,
the tournament was the essential climax of ceremony and ceremonial, and in
all its details was ordered by such strict regulations, rules, and
supervision that its importance and its position in the public and official
estimate was far in advance of its present-day equivalents. {333}
The joust was fought with tilting-spears, the "tourney" with swords. The
rules and regulations for jousts and tournaments drawn up by the High
Constable of England in the reign of Edward IV. show clearly that in
neither was contemplated any risk of life.
In the tourney the swords were blunted and without points, but the
principal item was always the joust, which was fought with tilting-spears
and shields. Many representations of the tourney show the participants
without shields. The general ignorance as to the manner in which the tilt
was run is very widespread. A strong barrier was erected straight down the
centre of the lists, and the knights were placed one on either side, so
that by no possible chance could the two horses come into contact. Those
who will read Mallory's "Morte d'Arthur" carefully--bearing in mind that
Mallory described legendary events of an earlier period clothed in the
manners and customs of his own day (time of Edward IV.), and made no
attempt to reproduce the manners and customs and real atmosphere of the
Arthurian times, which could have had no relation to the manners and
proceedings which Sir Thomas Mallory employs in telling his legends--will
notice that, when it came to jousting, some half-dozen courses would be all
that were run between contending knights. In fact the tournament rules
above referred to say, for the tourney, that two blows at passage and ten
at the joining ought to suffice. The time which this would occupy would not
exceed the period for which any man could easily sustain the weight of a
modelled crest.
[Illustration: FIG. 615.--Crest of Roger de Quincey, Earl of Winchester (d.
1264). (From his seal.)]
[Illustration: FIG. 616.--Crest of Thomas, Earl of Lancaster. (From his
seal, 1301.)]
Another point needs to be borne in mind. The result of a joust depended
upon the points scored, the highest number being gained for the absolute
unhorsing of an opponent. This, however, happened comparatively seldom, and
points or "spears" were scored for the lances broken upon an opponent's
helmet, shield, or body, and the points so scored were subject to deduction
if the opponent's horse were touched, and under other circumstances. The
head of the tilting-spear which was used was a kind of rosette, and
heraldic representations are really incorrect in adding a point when the
weapon is described as a tilting-spear. Whilst a fine point meeting a
wooden shield or metal armour would stick in the one or glance off the
other, and neither result in the breaking of the lance nor in the unhorsing
of the opponent, a broad rosette would convey a heavy shock. But to effect
the desired object the tilting-spear would need to meet resistance, and
little would be gained by knocking off an opponent's ornamental crest.
Certainly no prize appears to have been allotted for the performance of
this feat (which always attracts the imagination of the novelist), whilst
there was for striking the "sight" of the helmet. Consequently there was
nothing to be gained from the protection to {334} the helmet which the fan
of earlier date afforded, and the tendency of ceremonial led to the use in
tournaments of helmets and elaborate crests which were not those used in
battle. The result is that we find these tournament or ceremonial crests
were of large and prominent size, and were carved in wood, or built up of
leather. But I firmly believe that these crests were used only for
ceremonial and tournament purposes, and were never actually worn in battle.
That these modelled crests in relief are the ones that we find upon
effigies is only natural, and what one would expect, inasmuch as a man's
effigy displayed his garments and accoutrements in the most ornate and
honourable form. The same idea exists at the present day. The subjects of
modern effigies and modern portraits are represented in robes, and with
insignia which are seldom if ever worn, and which sometimes even have no
existence in fact. In the same way the ancient effigies are the
representations of the ceremonial dress and not the everyday garb of those
for whom they stand. But even allowing all the foregoing, it must be
admitted that it is from these ceremonial or tournament helmets and crests
that the heraldic crest has obtained its importance, and herein lies the
reason of the exaggerated size of early heraldic crests, and also the
unsuitability of some few for actual use. Tournaments were flourishing in
the Plantagenet, Yorkist, and Lancastrian periods, and ended with the days
of the Tudor dynasty; and the Plantagenet period witnessed the rise of the
ceremonial and heraldic crest. But in the days when crests had any actual
existence they were made to fit the helmet, and the crests in Figs. 615-618
show crests very much more naturally disposed than those of later periods.
{335} Crests appear to have come into wider and more general use in Germany
at an earlier period than is the case in this country, for in the early
part of the thirteenth century seals are there to be met with having only
the device of helmet and crest thereupon, a proof that the "oberwappen"
(helmet and crest) was then considered of equal or greater value than the
shield.
[Illustration: FIG. 617.--Crest of William de Montagu, Earl of Salisbury
(d. 1344). (From his seal.)]
[Illustration: FIG. 618.--Crest of Thomas de Mowbray, Earl of Nottingham,
and Earl Marshal. (From a drawing of his seal, 1389: MS Cott., Julius, C.
vii.)]
The actual tournament crests were made of light material, pasteboard,
cloth, or a leather shell over a wood or wire framework filled with tow,
sponge, or sawdust. Fig. 271, which shows the shield, helmet, and crest of
the Black Prince undoubtedly contemporary, dating from 1376, and now
remaining in Canterbury Cathedral, is made of leather and is a good example
of an actual crest, but even this, there can be little doubt, was never
carried in battle or tournament, and is no more than a ceremonial crest
made for the funeral pageant.
The heraldic wings which are so frequently met with in crests are not the
natural wings of a bird, but are a development from the fan, and in actual
crests were made of wooden or basket-work strips, and probably at an
earlier date were not intended to represent wings, but were mere pieces of
wood painted and existing for the display of a certain device. Their shape
and position led to their transition into "wings," and then they were
covered with dyed or natural-coloured feathers. It was the art of heraldic
emblazonment which ignored the practical details, that first copied the
wing from nature.
Actual crests were fastened to the helmets they surmounted by {336} means
of ribbons, straps, laces (which developed later into the fillet and
torse), or rivets, and in Germany they were ornamented with hanging and
tinkling metal leaves, tiny bells, buffalo horns, feathers, and projecting
pieces of wood, which formed vehicles for still further decorative
appendages.
Then comes the question, what did the crest signify? Many have asserted
that no one below the rank of a knight had the right to use a crest; in
fact some writers have asserted, and doubtless correctly as regards a
certain period, that only those who were of tournament rank might assume
the distinction, and herein lies another confirmation of the supposition
that crests had a closer relation to the tournament than to the
battlefield.
Doubts as to a man's social position might disqualify him from
participation in a tournament--hence the "helme-schau" previously referred
to--but they certainly never relieved him from the obligations of warfare
imposed by the tenure under which he held his lands. There is no doubt,
however, that whatever the regulation may have been--and there seems little
chance of our ever obtaining any real knowledge upon the point--the right
to display a crest was an additional privilege and honour, something extra
and beyond the right to a shield of arms. For how long any such supposition
held good it is difficult to say, for whilst we find in the latter part of
the fourteenth century that all the great nobles had assumed and were using
crests, and whilst there is but one amongst the Plantagenet Garter plates
without a crest where a helmet has been represented above the shield, we
also find that the great bulk of the lesser landed gentry bore arms, but
made no pretension to a crest. The lesser gentry were bound to fight in
war, but not necessarily in the tournament. Arms were a necessity of
warfare, crests were not. This continued to be the case till the end of the
sixteenth century, for we find that at one of the Visitations no crests
whatever are inserted with the arms and pedigrees of the families set out
in the Visitation Book, and one is probably justified in assuming that
whilst this state of feeling and this idea existed, the crest was highly
thought of, and valued possibly beyond the shield of arms, for with those
of that rank of life which aspired to the display of a crest the right to
arms would be a matter of course. In the latter part of the reign of Queen
Elizabeth and in Stuart days the granting of crests to ancient arms became
a widespread practice. Scores upon scores of such grants can be referred
to, and I have myself been led to the irresistible conclusion that the
opportunity afforded by the grant of a crest was urged by the heralds and
officers of arms, in order to give them the opportunity of confirming and
recording arms which they knew needed such confirmation to be
{337} rendered legal, without giving offence to those who had borne these
arms merely by strength of user for some prolonged but at the same time
insufficient period to confer an unquestioned right. That has always seemed
to me the obvious reason which accounts for these numberless grants of
crests to apparently existing arms, which arms are recited and emblazoned
in the patents, because there are other grants of crests which can be
referred to, though these are singularly few in number, in which the arms
are entirely ignored. But as none of these grants, which are of a crest
only, appear to have been made to families whose right to arms was not
absolutely beyond question or dispute, the conclusion above recited appears
to be irresistible. The result of these numerous grants of crests, which I
look upon as carrying greater importance in the sense that they were also
confirmations of the arms, resulted in the fact that the value and dignity
of the crest slowly but steadily declined, and the cessation of tournaments
and, shortly afterwards, the marked decline in funereal pageantry no doubt
contributed largely to the same result. Throughout the Stuart period
instances can be found, though not very frequently, of grants of arms
without the grant of a crest being included in the patent; but the practice
was soon to entirely cease, and roughly speaking one may assert that since
the beginning of the Hanoverian dynasty no person has ever been granted
arms without the corresponding grant of a crest, if a crest could be
properly borne with the arms. Now no crest has ever been granted where the
right to arms has not existed or been simultaneously conferred, and
therefore, whilst there are still many coats of arms legally in existence
without a crest, a crest cannot exist without a coat of arms, so that those
people, and they are many, who vehemently assert a right to the "_crest_ of
their family," whilst admitting they have no right to arms, stand
self-convicted heraldically both of having spoken unutterable rubbish, and
of using a crest to which they can have no possible right. One exception,
and one only, have I ever come across to the contrary, and very careful
inquiry can bring me knowledge of no other. That crest is the crest of a
family of Buckworth, now represented by Sir Charles Buckworth-Herne-Soame,
Bart. This family at the time of the Visitations exhibited a certain coat
of arms and crest. The coat of arms, which doubtless interfered with the
rights of some other family, was respited for further proof; but the crest,
which did not, appears to have been allowed, and as nothing further was
done with regard to the arms, the crest stood, whilst the arms were bad.
But even this one exception has long since been rectified, for when the
additional name and arms of Soame were assumed by Royal License, the arms
which had been exhibited and respited were (with the addition of an ermine
spot as a charge upon the chevron) granted as the arms of Buckworth to be
borne quarterly with the arms of Soame.
PLATE VI.
[Illustration]
{338}
With the cessation of tournaments, we get to the period which some writers
have stigmatised as that of "paper" heraldry. That is a reference to the
fact that arms and crests ceased to be painted upon shields or erected upon
helmets that enjoyed actual use in battle and tournament. Those who are so
ready to decry modern heraldry forget that from its very earliest existence
heraldry has always had the _same_ significance as a symbol of rank and
social position which it now enjoys and which remains undiminished in
extent, though doubtless less potent in effect. They forget also that from
the very earliest period armory had three uses--viz. its martial use, its
decorative use, and its use as a symbol of ownership. The two latter uses
still remain in their entirety, and whilst that is the case, armory cannot
be treated as a dead science.
But with the cessation of tournaments the decorative became the chief use
of arms, and the crest soon ceased to have that distinctive adaptability to
the purpose of a helmet ornament. Up to the end of the Tudor period crests
had retained their original simplicity. Animals' heads and animals passant,
human heads and demi-animals, comprised the large majority of the early
crests. Scottish heraldry in a marked degree has retained the early
simplicity of crests, though at the expense of lack of distinction between
the crests of different families. German heraldry has to a large extent
retained the same character as has Scottish armory, and though many of the
crests are decidedly elaborated, it is noticeable that this elaboration is
never such as to render the crest unsuitable for its true position upon a
helmet.
In England this aspect of the crest has been almost entirely lost sight of,
and a large proportion of the crests in modern English grants are utterly
unsuitable for use in relief upon an actual helmet. Our present rules of
position for a helmet, and our unfortunate stereotyped form of wreath, are
largely to blame, but the chief reason is the definite English rule that
the crests of separate English families must be differentiated as are the
arms. No such rule holds good in Scotland, hence their simple crests.
Whether the rule is good or bad it is difficult to say. When all the pros
and cons have been taken into consideration, the whole discussion remains a
matter of opinion, and whilst one dislikes the Scottish idea under which
the same identical crest can be and regularly is granted to half-a-dozen
people of as many different surnames, one objects very considerably to the
typical present-day crest of an English grant of arms. Whilst a collar can
be put round an animal's neck, and whilst it can hold objects in its mouth
or paws, it does seem {339} ridiculous to put a string of varied and
selected objects "in front" of it, when these plainly would only be visible
from one side, or to put a crest "between" objects if these are to be
represented "fore and aft," one toppling over the brow of the wearer of the
helmet and the other hanging down behind.
The crests granted by the late Sir Albert Woods, Garter, are the crying
grievance of modern English heraldry, and though a large proportion are far
greater abortions than they need be, and though careful thought and
research even yet will under the present régime result in the grant of at
any rate a quite unobjectionable crest, nevertheless we shall not obtain a
real reform, or attain to any appreciable improvement, until the "position"
rule as to helmets is abolished. Some of the crests mentioned hereunder are
typical and awful examples of modern crests.
Crest of Bellasis of Marton, Westmoreland: A mount vert, thereon a lion
couchant guardant azure, in front of a tent proper, lined gules.
Crest of Hermon of Preston, Lancashire, and Wyfold Court, Checkendon,
Oxon.: In front of two palm-trees proper, a lion couchant guardant
erminois, resting the dexter claw upon a bale of cotton proper. Motto:
"Fido non timeo."
Crest of James Harrison, Esq., M.A., Barrister-at-Law: In front of a
demi-lion rampant erased or, gorged with a collar gemelle azure, and
holding between the paws a wreath of oak proper, three mascles
interlaced also azure. Motto: "Pro rege et patria."
Crest of Colonel John Davis, F.S.A., of Bifrons, Hants: A lion's head
erased sable, charged with a caltrap or, upon two swords in saltire
proper, hilted and pommelled also or. Motto: "Ne tentes, aut perfice."
Crest of the late Sir Saul Samuel, Bart., K.C.M.G.: Upon a rock in
front of three spears, one in pale and two in saltire, a wolf current
sable, pierced in the breast by an arrow argent, flighted or. Motto: "A
pledge of better times."
Crest of Jonson of Kennal Manor, Chislehurst, Kent: In front of a
dexter arm embowed in armour proper, the hand also proper, grasping a
javelin in bend sinister, pheoned or, and enfiled with a chaplet of
roses gules, two branches of oak in saltire vert.
Crest of C. E. Lamplugh, Esq.: In front of a cubit arm erect proper,
encircled about the wrist with a wreath of oak and holding in the hand
a sword also proper, pommel and hilt or, an escutcheon argent, charged
with a goat's head couped sable. Mottoes: "Through," and "Providentia
Dei stabiliuntur familiæ."
Crest of Glasford, Scotland: "Issuing from clouds two hands conjoined
grasping a caduceus ensigned with a cap of liberty, all between two
cornucopiæ all proper. Motto: "Prisca fides."
We now come to the subject of the inheritance of crests, concerning which
there has been much difference of opinion.
It is very usually asserted that until a comparatively recent date crests
were not hereditary, but were assumed, discarded, and changed at pleasure.
Like many other incorrect statements, there is a certain modicum of truth
in the statement, for no doubt whilst arms themselves {340} had a more or
less shifting character, crests were certainly not "fixed" to any greater
extent.
But I think no one has as yet discovered, or at any rate brought into
notice, the true facts of the case, or the real position of the matter, and
I think I am the first to put into print what actually were the rules which
governed the matter. The rules, I believe, were undoubtedly these:--
Crests were, save in the remote beginning of things heraldic, definitely
hereditary. They were hereditary even to the extent (and herein lies the
point which has not hitherto been observed) that they were transmitted by
an heiress. Perhaps this heritability was limited to those cases in which
the heiress transmitted the _de facto_ headship of her house. We, judging
by present laws, look upon the crest as a part of the _one_ heraldic
achievement inseparable from the shield. What proof have we that in early
times any necessary connection between arms and crest existed? We have
none. The shield of arms was one inheritance, descending by known rules.
The crest was another, but a separate inheritance, descending equally
through an heir or coheir-general. The crest was, as an inheritance, as
separate from the shield as were the estates then. The social conditions of
life prevented the possibility of the existence or inheritance of a crest
where arms did not exist. But a man inheriting several coats of arms from
different heiress ancestresses could marshal them all upon one shield, and
though we find the heir often made selection at his pleasure, and
marshalled the arms in various methods, the determination of which was a
mere matter of arbitrary choice, he could, if he wished, use them all upon
one shield. But he had but one helmet, and could use and display but one
crest. So that, if he had inherited two, he was forced to choose which he
would use, though he sometimes tried to combine two into one device. It is
questionable if an instance can be found in England of the regular display
of two helmets and crests together, surmounting one shield, before the
eighteenth century, but there are countless instances of the contemporary
but separate display of two different crests, and the Visitation Records
afford us some number of instances of this tacit acknowledgment of the
inheritance of more than one crest.
The patent altering or granting the Mowbray crest seems to me clear
recognition of the right of inheritance of a crest passing through an heir
female. This, however, it must be admitted, may be really no more than a
grant, and is not in itself actual evidence that any crest had been
previously borne. My own opinion, however, is that it is fair presumptive
evidence upon the point, and conveys an alteration and not a grant.
The translation of this Patent (Patent Roll 339, 17 Ric. II. pt. 1, {341}
memb. 2) is as follows: "The King to all to whom, &c., Greeting, Know that
whereas our well-beloved and faithful kinsman, Thomas, Earl-Marshal and
Earl of Nottingham, has a just hereditary title to bear for his crest a
leopard or with a white label, which should be of right the crest of our
eldest son if we had begotten a son. We, for this consideration, have
granted for us and our heirs to the said Thomas and his heirs that for a
difference in this crest they shall and may bear a leopard, and in place of
a label a crown argent, without hindrance from us or our heirs
aforesaid.--In witness, &c. Witness the King at Westminster, the 12th day
of January [17 Ric. II.]. By writ of Privy Seal."
Cases will constantly be found in which the crests have been changed. I
necessarily totally exclude from consideration crests which have been
changed owing to specific grants, and also changes due to the discarding of
crests which can be shown to have been borne without right. Changes in
crests must also be disregarded where the differences in emblazonment are
merely differences in varying designs of the same crest. Necessarily from
none of these instances can a law of inheritance be deduced. But if other
changes in the crests of important families be considered, I think it will
be very evident that practically the whole of these are due to the
inheritance through heiresses or ancestresses of an alternative crest. It
can be readily shown that selection played an important part in the
marshalling of quarterings upon an escutcheon, and where important
quarterings were inherited they are as often as not found depicted in the
first quarter. Thus the Howards have borne at different periods the wings
of Howard; the horse of Fitzalan; and the Royal crest granted to the
Mowbrays with remainder to the heir general; and these crests have been
borne, as will be seen from the Garter plates, quite irrespective of what
the surname in use may have been. Consequently it is very evident the
crests were considered to be inherited with the representation of the
different families. The Stourton crest was originally a stag's head, and is
to be seen recorded in one of the Visitations, and upon the earliest seal
in existence of any member of the family. But after the inheritance through
the heiress of Le Moyne, the Le Moyne crest of the demi-monk was adopted.
The Stanleys, Earls of Derby, whatever their original crest may have been,
inherited the well-known bird and bantling of the family of Lathom. The
Talbot crest was originally a talbot, and this is still so borne by Lord
Talbot of Malahide: it was recorded at the Visitation of Dublin; but the
crest at present borne by the Earls of Shrewsbury is derived from the arms
inherited by descent from Gwendolin, daughter of Rhys ap Griffith. The
Nevill crest was a bull's head as it is now borne by the Marquess {342} of
Abergavenny, and as it will be seen on the Garter plate of William Nevill,
Lord Fauconberg. An elder brother of Lord Fauconberg had married the
heiress of the Earl of Salisbury, and was summoned to Parliament in her
earldom. He quartered her arms, which appear upon his Garter plate and
seal, in the first and fourth quarters of his shield, and adopted her
crest. A younger son of Sir Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury, bore the
same crest differenced by two annulets conjoined, which was the difference
mark added to the shield. The crest of Bourchier was a soldan's head
crowned, and with a pointed cap issuing from the crown, but when the barony
of Bourchier passed to the family of Robsart, as will be seen from the
Garter plate of Sir Lewis Robsart, Lord Bourchier, the crest of Bourchier
was adopted with the inheritance of the arms and Barony of Bourchier.
I am aware of no important case in English heraldry where the change has
been due to mere caprice, and it would seem therefore an almost
incontrovertible assertion that changes were due to inheritance, and if
that can be established it follows even more strongly that until the days
when armory was brought under rigid and official control, and even until a
much later date, say up to the beginning of the Stuart period, crests were
heritable through heiresses equally with quarterings. The fact that we find
comparatively few changes considering the number of crests in existence is
by no means a refutation of this theory, because a man had but one helmet,
and was forced therefore to make a selection. Unless, therefore, he had a
very strong inclination it would be more likely that he would select the
crest he was used to than a fresh one. I am by no means certain that to a
limited extent the German idea did not hold in England. This was, and is,
that the crest had not the same personal character that was the case with
the arms, but was rather attached to or an appanage of the territorial fief
or lordship. By the time of the Restoration any idea of the transmission of
crests through heiresses had been abandoned. We then find a Royal License
necessary for the assumption of arms and crests. Since that date it has
been and at the present time it is stringently held, and is the official
rule, that no woman can bear or inherit a crest, and that no woman can
transmit a right to one. Whilst that is the official and accepted
interpretation of heraldic law upon the point, and whilst it cannot now be
gainsaid, it cannot, however, be stated that the one assertion is the
logical deduction of the other, for whilst a woman cannot inherit a
lordship of Parliament, she undoubtedly can transmit one, together with the
titular honours, the enjoyment of which is not denied to her.
In Scotland crests have always had a very much less important position than
in England. There has been little if any continuity {343} with regard to
them, and instances of changes for which caprice would appear to be the
only reason are met with in the cases of a large proportion of the chief
families in that kingdom. To such a widespread extent has the permissive
character been allowed to the crest, that many cases will be found in which
each successive matriculation for the head of the house, or for a cadet,
has produced a change in the crest, and instances are to be found where the
different crests are the only existing differences in the achievements of a
number of cadets of the same family. At the present time, little if any
objection is ever made to an entire and radical change in the crest--if
this is wished at the time of a rematriculation--and as far as I can gather
such changes appear to have always been permitted. Perhaps it may be well
here to point out that this is not equivalent to permission to change the
crest at pleasure, because the patent of matriculation until it is
superseded by another is the authority, and the compulsory authority, for
the crest which is to be borne. In Germany the crest has an infinitely
greater importance than is the case with ourselves, but it is there
considered in a large degree a territorial appanage, and it is by no means
unusual in a German achievement to see several crests surmounting a single
coat of arms. In England the Royal coat of arms has really three crests,
although the crests of Scotland and Ireland are seldom used, which, it may
be noted, are all in a manner territorial; but the difference of idea with
which crests are regarded in Germany may be gathered from the fact that the
King of Saxony has five, the Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin five, the
Grand Duke of Saxe-Meiningen six, the Grand Duke of Saxe-Altenburg seven,
the Duke of Anhalt seven, the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha six, the Prince
of Schwartzburg-Sondershausen six, the Prince of Schwartzburg-Rudolstadt
six, the Prince of Waldeck-Pyrmont five, the Prince of Lippe five, the Duke
of Brunswick five, and instances can be quoted of sixteen and seventeen.
Probably Woodward is correct when he says that each crest formerly denoted
a noble fief, for which the proprietor had a right to vote in the "circles"
of the Empire, and he instances the Margraves of Brandenburg-Anspach, who
were entitled to no less than thirteen crests. In France the use of crests
is not nearly so general as in England or Germany. In Spain and Portugal it
is less frequent still, and in Italy the use of a crest is the exception.
The German practice of using horns on either side of the crest, which the
ignorance of English heralds has transformed into the proboscides of
elephants, is dealt with at some length on page 214. The horns, which are
termed buffalo's or bull's horns until the middle of the thirteenth
century, were short and thick-set. It is difficult to {344} say at what
date these figures came to be considered as heraldic _crests_, for as mere
helmet ornaments they probably can be traced back very far beyond any proof
of the existence of armory. In the fourteenth century we find the horns
curved inwards like a sickle, but later the horns are found more erect, the
points turning outwards, slimmer in shape, and finally they exhibit a
decidedly marked double curve. Then the ends of the horns are met with
open, like a trumpet, the fact which gave rise to the erroneous idea that
they represented elephants' trunks. The horns became ornamented with
feathers, banners, branches of leaves, balls, &c., and the orifices
garnished with similar adornments.
In England, crests are theoretically subject to marks of cadency and
difference. This is not the case, however, in any other country. In
Germany, in cases where the crests reproduce the arms, any mark of cadency
with which the arms are distinguished will of course be repeated; but in
German heraldry, doubtless owing to the territorial nature of the crest, a
change in the crest itself is often the only mark of distinction between
different branches of the same family, and in Siebmacher's _Wappenbuch_
thirty-one different branches of the Zorn family have different crests,
which are the sole marks of difference in the achievements.
But though British crests are presumed to be subject to the recognised
marks of cadency, as a matter of fact it is very seldom indeed that they
are ever so marked, with the exception that the mark used (usually a cross
crosslet) to signify the lack of blood relationship when arms are assumed
under a Royal License, is compulsory. Marks of distinction added to signify
illegitimacy are also compulsory and perpetual. What these marks are will
be dealt with in a subsequent chapter upon the subject. How very seldom a
mark of difference is added to a crest may be gathered from the fact that
with the exception of labels, chiefly upon the Royal crest, one crest only
amongst the Plantagenet Garter plates is differenced, that one being the
crest of John Neville, Lord Montague. Several crests, however, which are
not Royal, are differenced by similar labels to those which appear upon the
shields; but when we find that the difference marks have very much of a
permissive character, even upon the shield, it is not likely that they are
perpetuated upon the crest, where they are even less desirable. The arms of
Cokayne, as given in the funeral certificate of Sir William Cokayne, Lord
Mayor of London, show upon the shield three crescents, sable, or, and
gules, charged one upon the other, the Lord Mayor being the second son of a
second son of Cokayne of Sturston, descending from William, second son of
Sir John Cokayne of Ashborne. But, in spite of the fact that three
difference marks are charged upon the shield (one of the quarterings of
which, by the way, {345} has an additional mark), the crest itself is only
differenced by one crescent. These difference marks, as applied to arms,
are in England (the rules in Scotland are utterly distinct) practically
permissive, and are never enforced against the wish of the bearer except in
one circumstance. If, owing to the grant of a crest or supporters, or a
Royal License, or any similar opportunity, a formal exemplification of the
arms is entered on the books of the College of Arms, the opportunity is
generally taken to add such mark of cadency as may be necessary; and no
certificate would be officially issued to any one claiming arms through
that exemplification except subject to the mark of cadency therein
depicted. In such cases as these the crest is usually differenced, because
the necessity for an exemplification does not often occur, except owing to
the establishment of an important branch of the family, which is likely to
continue as a separate house in the future, and possibly to rival the
importance of the chief of the name. Two examples will show my meaning. The
crest of the Duke of Bedford is a goat statant argent, armed or. When Earl
Russell, the third son of the sixth Duke of Bedford, was so created, the
arms, crest, and supporters were charged with a mullet argent. When the
first Lord Ampthill, who was the third son of the father of the ninth Duke
of Bedford, was so created, the arms of Russell, with the crest and
supporters, were also charged with mullets, these being of different
tinctures from those granted to Earl Russell. The crest of the Duke of
Westminster is a talbot statant or. The first Lord Stalbridge was the
second son of the Marquess of Westminster. His arms, crest, and supporters
were charged with a crescent. Lord Ebury was the third son of the first
Marquess of Westminster. His arms, crest, and supporters were charged with
a mullet. In cases of this kind the mark of difference upon the crest would
be considered permanent; but for ordinary purposes, and in ordinary
circumstances, the rule may be taken to be that it is not necessary to add
the mark of cadency to a crest, even when it is added to the shield, but
that, at the same time, it is not incorrect to do so.
Crests must nowadays always be depicted upon either a wreath, coronet, or
chapeau; but these, and the rules concerning them, will be considered in a
more definite and detailed manner in the separate chapters in which those
objects are discussed.
Crests are nowadays very frequently used upon livery buttons. Such a usage
is discussed at some length in the chapter on badges.
When two or more crests are depicted together, and when, as is often the
case in England, the wreaths are depicted in space, and without the
intervening helmets, the crests always all face to the dexter side, and the
stereotyped character of English crests perhaps more than any other reason,
has led of late to the depicting of English {346} helmets all placed to
face in the same direction to the dexter side. But if, as will often be
found, the two helmets are turned to face each other, the crests also must
be turned.
Where there are two crests, the one on the dexter side is the first and the
one on the sinister side is the second. When there are three, the centre
one comes first, then the one on the dexter side, then the one on the
sinister. When there are four crests, the first one is the dexter of the
two inner ones; the second is the sinister inner one; the third is the
dexter outer, and the fourth the sinister outer. When there are five (and I
know of no greater number in this country), they run as follows: (1)
centre, (2) dexter inner, (3) sinister inner, (4) dexter outer, (5)
sinister outer.
A very usual practice in official emblazonments in cases of three crests is
to paint the centre one of a larger size, and at a slightly lower level,
than the others. In the case of four, Nos. 1 and 2 would be of the same
size, Nos. 3 and 4 slightly smaller, and slightly raised.
It is a very usual circumstance to see two or more crests displayed in
England, but this practice is of comparatively recent date. How recent may
be gathered from the fact that in Scotland no single instance can be found
before the year 1809 in which two crests are placed above the same shield.
Scottish heraldry, however, has always been purer than English, and the
practice in England is much more ancient, though I question if in England
any authentic official exemplification can be found before 1700. There are,
however, many cases in the Visitation Books in which two crests are allowed
to the same family, but this fact does not prove the point, because a
Visitation record is merely an official record of inheritance and
possession, and not necessarily evidence of a regulation permitting the
simultaneous display of more than one. It is of course impossible to use
two sets of supporters with a single shield, but there are many peers who
are entitled to two sets; Lord Ancaster, I believe, is entitled to three
sets. But an official record in such a case would probably emblazon both
sets as evidence of right, by painting the shield twice over.
During the eighteenth century we find many instances of the grant of
additional crests of augmentation, and many exemplifications under Royal
License for the use of two and three crests. Since that day the correctness
of duplicate crests has never been questioned, where the right of
inheritance to them has been established. The right of inheritance to two
or more crests at the present time is only officially allowed in the
following cases.
If a family at the time of the Visitations had two crests recorded to them,
these would be now allowed. If descent can be proved from a family to whom
a certain crest was allowed, and also from ancestors {347} at an earlier
date who are recorded as entitled to bear a different crest, the two would
be allowed unless it was evident that the later crest had been granted,
assigned, or exemplified _in lieu_ of the earlier one. Two crests are
allowed in the few cases which exist where a family has obtained a grant of
arms in ignorance of the fact that they were then entitled to bear arms and
crest of an earlier date to which the right has been subsequently proved,
but on this point it should be remarked that if a right to arms is known to
exist a second grant in England is point-blank refused unless the petition
asks for it to be borne instead of, and in lieu of, the earlier one: it is
then granted in those terms.
To those who think that the Heralds' College is a mere fee-grabbing
institution, the following experience of an intimate friend of mine may be
of interest. In placing his pedigree upon record it became evident that his
descent was not legitimate, and he therefore petitioned for and obtained a
Royal License to bear the name and arms of the family from which he had
sprung. But the illegitimacy was not modern, and no one would have
questioned his right to the name which all the other members of the family
bear, if he had not himself raised the point in order to obtain the ancient
arms in the necessarily differenced form. The arms had always been borne
with some four or five quarterings and with two crests, and he was rather
annoyed that he had to go back to a simple coat of arms and single crest.
He obtained a grant for his wife, who was an heiress, and then, with the
idea of obtaining an additional quartering and a second crest, he conceived
the brilliant idea--for money was of no object to him--of putting his
brother forward as a petitioner for arms to be granted to him and his
descendants and to the other descendants of his father, a grant which would
of course have brought in my friend. He moved heaven and earth to bring
this about, but he was met with the direct statement that two grants of
arms could not be made to the same man to be borne simultaneously, and that
if he persisted in the grant of arms to his brother, his own name, as being
then entitled to bear arms, would be specifically exempted from the later
grant, and the result was that this second grant was never made.
In Scotland, where re-matriculation is constantly going on, two separate
matriculations _to the same line_ would not confer the right to two crests,
inasmuch as the last matriculation supersedes everything which has preceded
it. But if a cadet matriculates a different crest, _and subsequently_
succeeds to the representation under an earlier matriculation, he legally
succeeds to both crests, and incidentally to both coats of arms. As a
matter of ordinary practice, the cadet matriculation is discarded. A
curious case, however, occurs when after {348} matriculation by a cadet
there is a _later_ matriculation behind it, by some one nearer the head of
the house to which the first-mentioned cadet succeeds; in which event
selection must be brought into play, when succession to both occurs. But
the selection lies only between the two patents, and not from varied
constituent parts.
Where as an augmentation an additional crest is granted, as has been the
case in many instances, of course a right to the double crest is thereby
conferred, and a crest of augmentation is not granted in lieu, but in
addition.
A large number of these additional crests have been granted under specific
warrants from the Crown, and in the case of Lord Gough, two additional
crests were granted as separate augmentations and under separate patents.
Lord Kitchener recently received a grant of an additional crest of
augmentation. There are also a number of grants on record, not officially
ranking as augmentations, in which a second crest has been granted as a
memorial of descent or office, &c.
The other cases in which double and treble crests occur are the results of
exemplifications following upon Royal Licenses to assume name and arms. As
a rule, when an additional surname is adopted by Royal License, the rule is
that the arms adopted are to be borne in addition to those previously in
existence; and where one name is adopted instead of another the warrant
very frequently permits this, and at the same time permits or requires the
new arms to be borne quarterly with those previously possessed, and gives
the right to two crests. But in cases where names and arms are assumed by
Royal License the arms and crest or crests are in accordance with the
patent of exemplification, which, no matter what its terms (for some do not
expressly exclude any prior rights), is always presumed to supersede
everything which has gone before, and to be the authority by which the
subsequent bearing of arms is regularised and controlled. Roughly speaking,
under a Royal License one generally gets the right to one crest for every
surname, and if the original surname be discarded, in addition a crest for
every previous surname. Thus Mainwaring-Ellerker-Onslow has three crests,
Wyndham-Campbell-Pleydell-Bouverie has four, and the last Duke of
Buckingham and Chandos, who held the record, had one for each of his
surnames, namely, Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville. In addition to
the foregoing, there are one or two exceptions which it is difficult to
explain. The Marquess of Bute for some reason or other obtained a grant, in
the year 1822, of the crest of Herbert. The original Lord Liverpool
obtained a grant of an additional crest, possibly an augmentation, and his
representative, Lord Hawkesbury, afterwards created Earl of Liverpool, for
some reason or other which I am quite at a loss to understand, obtained a
grant of a crest {349} very similar to that of Lord Liverpool to
commemorate the representation which had devolved upon him. He subsequently
obtained a grant of a third crest, this last being of augmentation. Sir
Charles Young, Garter King of Arms, obtained the grant of a second crest,
and a former Marquess of Camden did the same thing; Lord Swansea is another
recent case, and though the right of any person to obtain the grant of a
second crest is not officially admitted, and is in fact strenuously denied,
I cannot for the life of me see how in the face of the foregoing precedents
any such privilege can be denied. Sir William Woods also obtained the grant
of a second crest when he was Garter, oblivious of the fact that he had not
really established a right to arms. Those he used were certainly granted in
Lyon Office to a relative, but no matriculation of them in his own name was
ever registered. {350}