Absence of Helm and Mantling for Crests

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
04 March 2015 15:01
 

I have noticed that the US Army Institute of Heraldry has granted full heraldic achievements to US Army regiments and to their equivalent units in the Navy and Air Force. Although these grants typically include a crest atop a torse above the shield, the traditional helm and mantling are always omitted from the achievement. I’m just curious to know why that is the case.

Also, since the IOH is the official heraldic authority for the US government (aside from the US Congress), should the absence of a helm and mantling be interpreted as a uniquely-American characteristic with regards to heraldry?

 
mghofer
 
Avatar
 
 
mghofer
Total Posts:  46
Joined  14-09-2014
 
 
 
04 March 2015 16:05
 

The Institute of Heraldy is not the official heraldic authority for the Department of Defense, let alone the whole U.S.  The other services will do (usually poor) heraldry on there own and often do.

That said, the institute only does arms for government organizations. Since a helm is something worn by a person, I would advise whist in reading too much into its absence from IOH achievements.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
04 March 2015 16:24
 

Second issue first:

The position of the Institute of Heraldry has been covered many times on the forum.  In brief, TIOH has the final word on Army heraldry.  It is authorized to design arms and other insignia for the other military services if requested, on a reimbursable basis.  The Air Force Historic Research Agency does most of the work for the USAF and has the final word on Air Force heraldry, for better or worse.  The Navy has no heraldic authority as such and now uses TIOH’s design services for most surface ships, less so for aircraft carriers and submarines, and almost not at all for aviation squadrons.  The Coast Guard relies pretty heavily on TIOH and seems to leave most designs up to the pros.  But TIOH does not have the final word on Navy or Coast Guard designs; decisions are generally up to the unit commander concerned.

 

And TIOH is also legally authorized to provide heraldic advice and design services to other federal agencies and departments, if requested, on a reimbursable basis.

 

Apart from the design side, TIOH is the single manager for the manufacture and procurement of heraldic items for the entire Department of Defense—unit colors, insignia of all kinds, medals and decorations, etc.  So even when the Institute doesn’t do the design, it still is responsible for developing the technical drawings, writing the manufacturing specs, doing quality control etc.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
04 March 2015 16:24
 

First question second:

As for arms without helms: many heralds and heraldists have maintained for hundreds of years that corporate bodies should not have helms orcrests, and many of the oldest corporate arms don’t, nor do many more modern corporate arms: Oxford and Cambridge universities, most of their component colleges; episcopal sees; most American colleges and universities that have arms (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Notre Dame, BC, Texas, U of Washington, Texas Tech, Washington U of St. Louis, Holy Cross, many others; the original municipal arms of New York (1686) and Philadelphia (1701); etc.

 

Completely separately, the display of the crest on a torse directly above the edge of the shield, without any helm, dates back to at least the mid-1700s, being frequently found on English and Anglo-American bookplates, tombstones, silverware, and other applications.

 

So I would say that this is a perfectly valid way for an American, whether individual or corporate to display arms. Of course it doesn’t preclude him from using other emblazonments with the helm and mantling, or shield alone.  George Washington didn’t display his arms with helm and mantling, but he could have if he’d wanted to. None of this because TIOH does it, but because what TIOH does is within the customary practice that existed long before TIOH and its predecessors were created.

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
04 March 2015 16:47
 

mghofer,

Ok; so you say it’s not the official heraldic authority for the federal government. But it certainly is the only official heraldic authority within the federal government. So it’s all I have to go on.

 

If regiments aren’t granted helms or mantling because they are not people, then why do grants of arms to corporate bodies, counties and municipalities from the British Isles or Canada always include helms and mantling? Because of that, I can’t accept the answer that the lack of those devices in regimental arms has anything to do with regiments not being people—unless this is a uniquely-American practice. Besides, non-human subjects like regiments don’t carry shields or wear crests either. But there they are. I’m just curious to know if there is a specific reason for the lack of helms and mantling since these seem to be deliberately omitted by IOH. I’m not making a deal of it. I just wonder if anyone knows.

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
04 March 2015 16:57
 

Joseph McMillan;103620 wrote:

First question second:

As for arms without helms: many heralds and heraldists have maintained for hundreds of years that corporate bodies should not have helms orcrests, and many of the oldest corporate arms don’t, nor do many more modern corporate arms: Oxford and Cambridge universities, most of their component colleges; episcopal sees; most American colleges and universities that have arms (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Notre Dame, BC, Texas, U of Washington, Texas Tech, Washington U of St. Louis, Holy Cross, many others; the original municipal arms of New York (1686) and Philadelphia (1701); etc.

 

Completely separately, the display of the crest on a torse directly above the edge of the shield, without any helm, dates back to at least the mid-1700s, being frequently found on English and Anglo-American bookplates, tombstones, silverware, and other applications.

 

So I would say that this is a perfectly valid way for an American, whether individual or corporate to display arms. Of course it doesn’t preclude him from using other emblazonments with the helm and mantling, or shield alone.  George Washington didn’t display his arms with helm and mantling, but he could have if he’d wanted to. None of this because TIOH does it, but because what TIOH does is within the customary practice that existed long before TIOH and its predecessors were created.


Thank you for explaining that. I wrote my previous reply before I read your two last posts. Also, I had no idea that the Air Force had a quasi-heraldic office of its own.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
04 March 2015 17:26
 

Ditto Joe re: legal or customary reasons or precedent.

On a purely practical basis, Army heraldry is about unit identification using fairly small badges.  The shield & crest convey useful information; adding a helmet adds nothing useful (i.e. not distinctive to any one unit) and just takes up space, either sqeezing the useful info into smaller space or requiring the badge to be larger, both undesirable.

 

In some countries the type of helmet does indicate rank or status, though not here.  However when worn as the distinctive init insignia on soldier’s collar, the "status" of the badge as DUI is obvious and doesn’t need to be added to the badge.

 

(Similar logic - legal, customary and practical - was expressed by several here in a recent thread re: optional use of helmets in American heraldry generally; either approach being OK at personal discretion in any given emblazonment.  IMO the logic for systematically omitting helmets in Army unit insignia is particularly compelling.)

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
04 March 2015 17:53
 

Michael F. McCartney;103625 wrote:

Ditto Joe re: legal or customary reasons or precedent.

On a purely practical basis, Army heraldry is about unit identification using fairly small badges.


I hadn’t thought about this aspect of it, but the associated point is that the main use of coats of arms in the Army, other than for unit insignia on the uniform, is on the regimental or battalion color, where the shield is displayed on the breast of the eagle taken from the national arms, and the crest above the eagle’s head taking the place of the national crest of stars surrounded by clouds.

 

This is why only regiments and battalions have actual coats of arms.  Clearly there’s no logical place to use a helm and mantling in this context.  There’s no reason a battalion couldn’t have an artist do up the whole shebang with helm and mantling for display in the orderly room or on signs in front of barracks, or in the officers/NCO club or mess hall, or any other unofficial setting.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
05 March 2015 14:12
 

Good catch - I hadn’t thought of that but should have.

Though there are some units besides regiments with coats of arms, e.g. the Defense Language Institute.  I don’t recall if DLI had/has a color (flag) like a regiment - never came up while studying Vietnamese in El Paso smile

 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
Total Posts:  789
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
11 July 2015 17:45
 

Joseph McMillan;103626 wrote:

...the main use of coats of arms in the Army, other than for unit insignia on the uniform, is on the regimental or battalion color, where the shield is displayed on the breast of the eagle taken from the national arms, and the crest above the eagle’s head ...  Clearly there’s no logical place to use a helm and mantling in this context.


How about a helmet on the EAGLE’S HEAD?!

 

I couldn’t help myself. Sorry.