Heraldry

Welcome to the page of heraldry, when talking about heraldry or to put it more simply when I am asked about heraldry, most people mean "Coat of Arms" what are they? and can they have/use one. Well the the first question will take some time to answer and the answer to the second is probably not as it will soon become clear.

Heraldry is a style of signs and symbols which appeared in the Middle Ages as an instrument of identifying warriors on the battlefield. Since armour or coat of mail was constantly worn, there was no difficulty spotting friend from foe even at some distance, for each man bore a shield of a unique pattern. The armour or coat of mail often became hot and a long sleeveless garment called a surcoat was worn over it as protection from the sun. By the 13th century the surcoat had become short, and many knights wore their emblems (also called bearings or arms) on their surcoats as well as their shields. Therefore originated the expression "coat of arms". In the 14th century an even shorter surcoat was worn, called a jupon.

Originally, a knight was free to pick his own device, but by the 15th century, the development of arms resulted in the total regulation of the practice, and heraldry became a precise science. All armorial bearings came to be bestowed by the King, and all arms, both the recently granted and those established by right of ancient usage, were registered with the College of Arms, if English, or with like agencies in other countries.

Even the heraldic terms used became exact and a coat of arms was not described, but was blazoned. Terms for partition lines were developed such as engrailed ( Indented in a series of curves), nebuly ((Neb'-u-ly) 1. Composed of undulations, like the wavy edges of clouds. 2. A shield or bearing divided by such lines. 3. A wavy line of partition, or by which ordinaries and subordinaries may be bounded.), inverted (In a contrary direction; turned the wrong way, as a pair of wings with the points downwards.), dancety ((daN'-sa'-tay) Divided into large zigzags; resembling the zigzag molding peculiar to Norman architecture.), embattled (Indented like a battlement), etc.

Charges (figures in the field) were of three kinds: the Ordinaries (chief, pale, bend, fess, chevron, cross, saltire, bar, baton, etc.), the Subordinaries (roundels, fusils, orle, annulets, cinquefoil, etc.) and the Common (hand, fish, lions, bears, birds, mullets, etc.).

The colours used were: two metals: gold (or) and silver (argent): and five colours: red (gules), green (vert), blue (azure), black (sable) and purple (purpurs).

The need for this means of identification faded with the passing of chivalry, but the practice was secured in antiquity and had a positive fascination of its own.

There have been many people who have insisted upon having a coat of arms, whether they had a right to them or not, and there were also a number of fakes calling themselves heraldic artists, who were willing to provide anything for a price. A coat of arms does not necessarily belong to a person just because some one of the same surname bore it. They must establish descent from the owner.

Marks and designs were used to mark a warrior's armour and his surcoat, which was the garment that he wore over his coat of mail. From this use comes the expression coat of arms. These marks were not at first hereditary. They gradually became so, however, and were recognised as evidence of the wearer's noble or gentle birth. The right to bear a certain coat of arms came to be hereditary as early as 1390. In 1488 the Herald's College was incorporated by Richard III of England and it was their duty to trace ancestry, to approve coats of arms, to confirm titles of honour, and to examine claims to armorial rights. Some inherit their father's arms not equally but by law of cadency, that is to say, each son has added to his inherited arms a particular sign indicating his order of birth.

Now this may upset women but, since a woman was not a warrior she could not use the shield, helmet, crest, mantling or motto. Until her marriage, she used her father's arms in a lozenge, and oftentimes surmounted it with a true lover's knot of light blue ribbon. This later, however, has no official sanction. After marriage, she used her husband's arms on a lozenge, and continued the practice if she became a widow. Sometimes the husband impaled his arms with those of the wife's father. At first, impaling was the placing of the two shields side by side, but later it became the practice to place the husband's arms on the dexter (left as you face the shield), and the arms of the wife's father on the sinister.

If a woman was a heraldic heiress (having no brothers to inherit the coat of arms) her husband placed a small shield with the arms of his wife's father in the centre of his own so it would show he was carrying the arms for the benefit of his children, the grandchildren of his wife's father. This was called the "escutcheon of pretense". The children carried both of the arms, which were quartered.

Women's rights to coat armour are strictly limited, unless she is a sovereign. She is granted the right to use a coat of arms bearing the arms of her father or husband, but not on a shield. She uses a lozenge, a diamond shaped frame.

The situation in America was and is considerably different. While America was subordinate to English rule, before the Revolutionary War. There existed some broad regulation of the right to bear arms, or at least the rules and the customs have prevailed. On the face of it, however, no effort was made by the colonial government to pressure citizens to abide by these laws, and as a result, the later colonists did pretty much as they pleased about sporting anything that struck their fancy.

At the close of the 17th century, this wrongful use of arms was helped along by an agreeable carriage painter of Boston named Gore, who produced arms and eventually made a roll of arms which is completely without authority. About a century later, another gentleman, a Mr. Cole, performed similar labours throughout New England.

Actually, the patriots of America who won the Revolution were "traitors" to England, and this fact, in reality, cancels their rights and their descendant's rights to the coat of arms granted to their ancestors. So if you live in the United States of America or England if you cannot prove your right to bear arms you really have no right to any coat of arms.

Having said all that I am going to post on this site some images of the Arms that I have collected during my research, this means that I do not in any way condone the wrongful use of these coats of arms by anyone.


	The Glen Family of Paisley \| home Heraldry Welcome to the page of heraldry, when talking about heraldry or to put it more simply when I am asked about heraldry, most people mean "Coat of Arms" what are they? and can they have/use one. Well the the first question will take some time to answer and the answer to the second is probably not as it will soon become clear. First what is Heraldry and a coat of arms? Heraldry is a style of signs and symbols which appeared in the Middle Ages as an instrument of identifying warriors on the battlefield. Since armour or coat of mail was constantly worn, there was no difficulty spotting friend from foe even at some distance, for each man bore a shield of a unique pattern. The armour or coat of mail often became hot and a long sleeveless garment called a surcoat was worn over it as protection from the sun. By the 13th century the surcoat had become short, and many knights wore their emblems (also called bearings or arms) on their surcoats as well as their shields. Therefore originated the expression "coat of arms". In the 14th century an even shorter surcoat was worn, called a jupon. Originally, a knight was free to pick his own device, but by the 15th century, the development of arms resulted in the total regulation of the practice, and heraldry became a precise science. All armorial bearings came to be bestowed by the King, and all arms, both the recently granted and those established by right of ancient usage, were registered with the College of Arms, if English, or with like agencies in other countries. Even the heraldic terms used became exact and a coat of arms was not described, but was blazoned. Terms for partition lines were developed such as engrailed ( Indented in a series of curves), nebuly ((Neb'-u-ly) 1. Composed of undulations, like the wavy edges of clouds. 2. A shield or bearing divided by such lines. 3. A wavy line of partition, or by which ordinaries and subordinaries may be bounded.), inverted (In a contrary direction; turned the wrong way, as a pair of wings with the points downwards.), dancety ((daN'-sa'-tay) Divided into large zigzags; resembling the zigzag molding peculiar to Norman architecture.), embattled (Indented like a battlement), etc. Charges (figures in the field) were of three kinds: the Ordinaries (chief, pale, bend, fess, chevron, cross, saltire, bar, baton, etc.), the Subordinaries (roundels, fusils, orle, annulets, cinquefoil, etc.) and the Common (hand, fish, lions, bears, birds, mullets, etc.). The colours used were: two metals: gold (or) and silver (argent): and five colours: red (gules), green (vert), blue (azure), black (sable) and purple (purpurs). The need for this means of identification faded with the passing of chivalry, but the practice was secured in antiquity and had a positive fascination of its own. There have been many people who have insisted upon having a coat of arms, whether they had a right to them or not, and there were also a number of fakes calling themselves heraldic artists, who were willing to provide anything for a price. A coat of arms does not necessarily belong to a person just because some one of the same surname bore it. They must establish descent from the owner. Marks and designs were used to mark a warrior's armour and his surcoat, which was the garment that he wore over his coat of mail. From this use comes the expression coat of arms. These marks were not at first hereditary. They gradually became so, however, and were recognised as evidence of the wearer's noble or gentle birth. The right to bear a certain coat of arms came to be hereditary as early as 1390. In 1488 the Herald's College was incorporated by Richard III of England and it was their duty to trace ancestry, to approve coats of arms, to confirm titles of honour, and to examine claims to armorial rights. Some inherit their father's arms not equally but by law of cadency, that is to say, each son has added to his inherited arms a particular sign indicating his order of birth. Now this may upset women but, since a woman was not a warrior she could not use the shield, helmet, crest, mantling or motto. Until her marriage, she used her father's arms in a lozenge, and oftentimes surmounted it with a true lover's knot of light blue ribbon. This later, however, has no official sanction. After marriage, she used her husband's arms on a lozenge, and continued the practice if she became a widow. Sometimes the husband impaled his arms with those of the wife's father. At first, impaling was the placing of the two shields side by side, but later it became the practice to place the husband's arms on the dexter (left as you face the shield), and the arms of the wife's father on the sinister. If a woman was a heraldic heiress (having no brothers to inherit the coat of arms) her husband placed a small shield with the arms of his wife's father in the centre of his own so it would show he was carrying the arms for the benefit of his children, the grandchildren of his wife's father. This was called the "escutcheon of pretense". The children carried both of the arms, which were quartered. Women's rights to coat armour are strictly limited, unless she is a sovereign. She is granted the right to use a coat of arms bearing the arms of her father or husband, but not on a shield. She uses a lozenge, a diamond shaped frame. The situation in America was and is considerably different. While America was subordinate to English rule, before the Revolutionary War. There existed some broad regulation of the right to bear arms, or at least the rules and the customs have prevailed. On the face of it, however, no effort was made by the colonial government to pressure citizens to abide by these laws, and as a result, the later colonists did pretty much as they pleased about sporting anything that struck their fancy. At the close of the 17th century, this wrongful use of arms was helped along by an agreeable carriage painter of Boston named Gore, who produced arms and eventually made a roll of arms which is completely without authority. About a century later, another gentleman, a Mr. Cole, performed similar labours throughout New England. Actually, the patriots of America who won the Revolution were "traitors" to England, and this fact, in reality, cancels their rights and their descendant's rights to the coat of arms granted to their ancestors. So if you live in the United States of America or England if you cannot prove your right to bear arms you really have no right to any coat of arms. Having said all that I am going to post on this site some images of the Arms that I have collected during my research, this means that I do not in any way condone the wrongful use of these coats of arms by anyone. JHG. Good reading: Basic Heraldry Stephen Friar, John Ferguson The British Library Companion to Calligraphy, Illumination and Heraldry Patricia Lovett Calligraphy and illumination, together with heraldry, comprise the three traditional skills of mediaeval book arts. In this wide-ranging guide they have been brought up-to-date by scribe and illuminator Patricia Lovett. Each section looks back at the historical roots of the subject before considering modern approaches. Manuscripts from The British Library and other sources support the text, which is designed to enable the reader to use this book both as a working guide and a fundamental source of reference. Sections include the range and selection of tools and materials for calligraphy, illumination and heraldry and how to letter. There are practical projects ranging from the simplest through to the more technically advanced, and a detailed reference section explains about the tools and materials including types and selection of papers; selection and care of brushes; colour theory and mixing; and choosing, preparing and stretching vellum. The study includes chapters by specialists in their fields: Hermann Zapf writes about type design; Dr Michelle P. Brown considers manuscript illumination; Dr Rosemary Sassoon discusses calligraphy and handwriting; and Hubert Chesshyre writes on being a modern herald today. Heraldic Links: For Heraldry In Scotland go To: Heraldry in Scotland by James Dempster FSA Scot For Heraldry In Ireland Go To: The Arms of Ireland Pimbleys Dictionary of Heraldry Download it now All contents copyright © 2001 John Hugh Glen. All rights reserved. Created by John Hugh Glen. Url http://www.btinternet.com/~johnhglen/