Use of multiple crests

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
27 February 2016 09:59
 

An interesting question came up in social media and I’m wondering what thee AHS membership thinks would be appropriate in the US.

A person is the heir of both mother’s and father’s arms. (mother’s not having other heirs in her parent’s lineage).

 

Is it appropriate to use both crests with the quartered arms?

 

Are there specific cases where it is more correct or less correct - some thoughts:

 

1. Dad’s are US assumed arms. Mom’s are previously granted by another authority.

2.  Dad’s are "old" arms properly granted and/or matriculated from other countries and he’s the "proven" heir.  Mom’s are US assumption.

3.  Both are "old" arms properly verified, but the grant/matriculation was never applied for because the families immigrated and saw no reason (or didn’t want the expense) of doing such.

 

There are variations - but, in the US - what does this membership believe appropriate?

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
27 February 2016 14:27
 

Kathy McClurg;105503 wrote:

An interesting question came up in social media and I’m wondering what thee AHS membership thinks would be appropriate in the US.

A person is the heir of both mother’s and father’s arms. (mother’s not having other heirs in her parent’s lineage).

 

Is it appropriate to use both crests with the quartered arms?

 

Are there specific cases where it is more correct or less correct - some thoughts:

 

1. Dad’s are US assumed arms. Mom’s are previously granted by another authority.

2.  Dad’s are "old" arms properly granted and/or matriculated from other countries and he’s the "proven" heir.  Mom’s are US assumption.

3.  Both are "old" arms properly verified, but the grant/matriculation was never applied for because the families immigrated and saw no reason (or didn’t want the expense) of doing such.

 

There are variations - but, in the US - what does this membership believe appropriate?


What surname does the dual-heir use?

 
Iain Boyd
 
Avatar
 
 
Iain Boyd
Total Posts:  309
Joined  15-10-2005
 
 
 
27 February 2016 15:42
 

Dear David and Kathy,

I am unsure why you asked, David, as, to me, the heir’s surname has no relevance to the matter as there are many quartered coats of arms where the user only bears the name associated with the principal quarter.

 

I am not an American and am not aware at this moment what the British authorities approach is, but, I personally do not see any problems with displaying both crests, after all, they are part of the two coats of arms that have been inherited.

 

Regards,

 

Iain Boyd

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
27 February 2016 15:49
 

Iain Boyd;105505 wrote:

Dear David and Kathy,

I am unsure why you asked, David, as, to me, the heir’s surname has no relevance to the matter as there are many quartered coats of arms where the user only bears the name associated with the principal quarter.

 

I am not an American and am not aware at this moment what the British authorities approach is, but, I personally do not see any problems with displaying both crests, after all, they are part of the two coats of arms that have been inherited.

 

Regards,

 

Iain Boyd


Ian,

 

I’m not sure that there is a controlling American practice, but my instinct is to encourage the use of both crests if the dual-heir has hyphenated his surname to reflect both his parents’ surnames.  If he bears the surname of his father only, I’d probably stick with the quartered arms and his father’s crest.

 

David

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
27 February 2016 18:29
 

My personal take* - for use here in the US, I don’t think the different origins of the two coats matters, other than lessening the relevance of the rules or practices of one or the other of those countries of origin. (If both came from the same foreign country, then that country’s rules might have an emotional appeal, but no binding authority here.)

If there is a fairly uniform historical practice here (I don’t know), then that practice should be followed.  If not, David’s approach makes sense, but not mandatory.

 

* FWIW wink

 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
Total Posts:  789
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
27 February 2016 18:59
 

It is entirely reasonable for an American to depict both crests if they desire, and in all of your sample conditions.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
28 February 2016 08:19
 

David Pope;105504 wrote:

What surname does the dual-heir use?


I’m open for the options, David.

 

As stated after this post, do I read correctly that you appear to believe the crest of the female line heraldic heiress should be "lost" to the family’s arms if not using the surname.. but.. they are heirs to the entire arms…

 

In the case that came up in social media, the arms were from two different authorities.  I would tend to want to follow the customs of the location I resided - which generated the question.

 

I do not know if there is adequate precedent here..but I’d tend to go with Jeremy’s thoughts.. I would add that IF displaying only one for some reason, I’d go with the crest for the Q1 arms myself..

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
28 February 2016 12:55
 

Ditto Kathy

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
28 February 2016 13:54
 

Kathy McClurg;105512 wrote:

I’m open for the options, David.

As stated after this post, do I read correctly that you appear to believe the crest of the female line heraldic heiress should be "lost" to the family’s arms if not using the surname.. but.. they are heirs to the entire arms…

 

In the case that came up in social media, the arms were from two different authorities.  I would tend to want to follow the customs of the location I resided - which generated the question.

 

I do not know if there is adequate precedent here..but I’d tend to go with Jeremy’s thoughts.. I would add that IF displaying only one for some reason, I’d go with the crest for the Q1 arms myself..


In the same way that we avoid "paper heraldry crests" because they are not capable of actually being used as a crest on a helm, I think our practice should be to avoid more than one crest in most cases because a helm would only bear a single crest.  Quartered shields do not present the same practical problem and are historical.  My basic premise is the Arms (and particularly the crest) should follow the name.

 

There are exceptions to this, of course.  The Duke of Norfolk springs to mind.

 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
Total Posts:  789
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
28 February 2016 14:13
 

David Pope;105515 wrote:

In the same way that we avoid "paper heraldry crests" because they are not capable of actually being used as a crest on a helm, I think our practice should be to avoid more than one crest in most cases because a helm would only bear a single crest.  Quartered shields do not present the same practical problem and are historical.  My basic premise is the Arms (and particularly the crest) should follow the name.

There are exceptions to this, of course.  The Duke of Norfolk springs to mind.


I agree with this as well.

 

I try to align my approach to American heraldry with American ideals - particularly that of liberty. Live and let live.

 

That being said, David’s suggestion is very well reasoned and is how I would approach my own personal heraldry and what I would recommend for others.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
28 February 2016 14:18
 

Re: David’s "a helm would only bear a single crest" - true, but not the whole story.

We’ve all seen (older British) emblazonments with one helm, but two crests floating in mid-air above & to either side of the helm - IMO a silly practice; but others, from Britain, Germany, Netherlands etc. with two helms each bearing a single crest corresponding to one of the quartetings in the arms.  Given this international precedent, and in the absence of conflict with any overriding American social or legal norm (I know of none) I’d say it’s up to the bearer; provided that the dexter helm and crest corresponds with the first quarter or dexter impalement and therefore the surname; and that neither crest includes a nobiliary coronet.

 

There is of course the question of balancing genealogical detail with simplicity - the same question one must answer re: quartering arms vs. just the pronomial arms.

 

I would lean towards simplicity - the pronomial arms and crest allenarly - unless there was a special reason to include one or more additional quartetings; and ditto on steroids for no more than one additional helmet and crest; but that’s personal preference, not any sort of moral mandate wink

 

And I don’t see more than two crested helms as a good idea, even if the arms include three or more different quarters - way too busy, and seldom seen (at least by me) except for clearly noble German and Scandinavian achievements inappropriate for use here.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
29 February 2016 13:39
 

In the USA either one or both crests would be okay - however if only one of the crests were to be used it should be the paternal.  Absolute "best practice" who knows? This is probably a matter as Michael has indicated a matter that may be best resolved looking at the standard practice in the country of origin of the arms if not assumed in the USA.  Otherwise I don’t think this situation has come up often enough the USA to have any customary rule or guideline that should be followed here.