It was mentioned in another thread (found here), that certain elements of the coat of arms are not necessarily passed on from father to child.

Linusboarder said:
Quote:

The crest doesn’t necessarily pass from father to son, but would be prevelent in your grandfathers arms.

I’ve also found, in my research, that the motto tends to be a personal thing and may be changed as often as one pleases.

My question, then, is this:  Does the shield itself usually pass undifferenced, or is it possible for slight changes to be incorporated?  For instance, my grandfather served in WWII, and he may wish to have that incorporated into his design, but my father and I never served in the military.  Would it be considered odd if my father were to change that element in his own arms to something more personal for him?

I’m just trying to figure out how far people traditionally went to personalize their arms or did they simply bear them undifferenced unless required to change them (such as marks of cadency, illegitimacy).  The crest and motto could be changed, but how common is this?  Also, how might this affect badges?

Thanks again for your help,

JRB

Please see the "Guidelines for Heraldic Practice" linked from the home page. Having just spent months and months preparing this, I’ve just been waiting for a chance to tell someone to read it.

Short answer: crests are normally inherited unchanged in this country, as in most countries, as are the arms themselves.

Except where they are officially granted, i.e., Scotland, mottoes are a matter of personal preference and can be changed not only by heirs but by the armiger himself whenever he pleases. The English College of Arms, for example, does not grant mottoes as part of arms, although it normally depicts a motto of the grantee’s choice with the emblazonment on the letters patent. In many countries, mottoes are not part of the tradition at all.

Changing core elements in the arms tends to detract from their nature as a hereditary mark of identity. Minor differences for cadency are permissible (although not generally customary in the US), but the whole point of armorial inheritance is for the arms to be immediately decipherable as those of the person who first acquired them.

The bearing of inherited arms is a way of showing pride in one’s family, not of expressing one’s own personality. Generations of Churchills have displayed arms with an augmentation of honor based on the 1st Duke of Marlborough’s military exploits. The fact that his descendants didn’t win the Battle of Blenheim doesn’t lead them to change the arms, any more than it leads the current owner of Blenheim Palace to change the place’s name.

Depending on the custom you wanted to follow, you could put a border around your fathers shield to represent difference or use the crest to represent your grandfathers military service.  I personally like the idea of changing the crest, as it’s a way to have both individuality without altering the field itself.  Even though you and your father haven’t served in the military, there’s no reason why you both couldnt bear the shield that you design for your grandfather.  An example I can think of would be of an individual that was granted an augmentation to their arms by the King/Queen in recognition of service.  That individuals descendant would then bear the same arms, even though they didn’t receive the original reward.  To me, you have just as much right to be proud of your grandfathers achievements in WWII as your grandfather, just in a different way.  That’s part of the beauty of heraldry, your ancestors can be recognized and honored for so long as your line lasts.  Bear your grandfathers shield with pride!

My own understanding of mottoes is in England, mottoes aren’t part of the actual Letters Patent, but in Scotland they are so they become part of the legal document and are inheritable.

It should be noted that just like the grants of arms from the Court of the Lord Lyon in Scotland, mottoes included in registrations of arms from the South African Bureau of Heraldry are part of the overall registration. In the Spanish certifications of arms from the late Cornistas de Armas, mottoes and cris-de-guerre were actually set into the blazon with the colours of the scroll and the letters defined. In Ireland, the motto is included within the granting document but I am unsure if this means that it cannot be changed at will since the Irish have traditionally been heavily influenced by the practices of the College of Arms (London).

Jonathan R. Baker;42934 wrote:

I’m just trying to figure out how far people traditionally went to personalize their arms or did they simply bear them undifferenced unless required to change them (such as marks of cadency, illegitimacy).

For the vast majority of armigers who have lived over the past 900 years, very very few of them have changed (or would have considered altering) their inherited arms or crest in order to personalise them. They were proud to have had inherited arms from an ancestor and were proud of the ancestor’s accomplishments (like serving in World War II) so they would not have considered changing there arms except for cadency or difference or because of an officially sanctioned augmentation.

Jonathan R. Baker;42934 wrote:

Also, how might this affect badges?

Badges have been of two types historically, family badges and personal badges.

Examples of family badges would be the Hungerford knot, the Tudor Rose and the Savoy knot.

Examples of personal badges would be the salamander of Francis I of France, the pomegranate of Catherine of Aragon, the Arrows of Isabella of Spain, the porcupine of Francis I of France and so forth. I have copied an old post of mine and reposted it below, as it lists many personal badges of English monarchs:

Some examples of historical badges used by English monarchs:

Edward I

A rose Or, stalked Proper.

Edward II

A hexagonal castle with a tower thereon Or.

Edward III

A falcon close belled and jessed Proper.

An ostrich feather Proper.

Edward IV

A genet passant Proper.

A bull Sable.

A falcon displayed Argent, within a closed fetterlock Or.

Elizabeth I

A Tudor rose Proper, with the motto "rosa sine spina."

Henry IV

An eagle displayed Or.

Henry V

A beacon Or, inflamed Proper.

An heraldic antelope Argent, armed, crined, unguled, ducally gorged, and chained Or.

Henry VI

An eagle displayed Or.

Henry VII

A hawthorn tree Proper, crowned Or, between the letters "HR" Or.

A portcullis Or, crowned Proper.

A dragon passant Gules.

A rose Gules, dimidiating a rose Argent, both barbed and seeded Proper.

Henry VIII

A greyhound courant Argent.

A (Tudor) rose gules charged with another argent, barbed and seeded proper.

Mary I

A Tudor rose dimidiating a pomegranate, Proper.

Richard I

A star issuing from between the horns of a crescent Or.

A dexter arm embowed and armored holding a shivered lance Proper.

Richard III

A boar passant Argent.

A rose Argent, within the sun Proper.

Another way to "personalize" grandpa’s arms to show his military service, without changing the basic arms themselves, would be to hang whatever military medals (or better, the highest-ranking one or two) beneath the shield.  His sons of course would not follow suite unless they happened to earn the same medal(s).  THis is addressed in the Best Practices code linked to Joe’s initial response.

You will note IIRC that the guidelines discourage display of "mere" service medals for this-or-that campaign.  Speaking only for myself, this seems unnecessarily restrictive.  I prefer to display my Bronze Star along with my Vietnam campaign medal, which shows both what I did and when & where I did it—IMO much more useful, as identification, than the Star alone, since its at least possible that an ancestor or descendant might also have received the same medal in a different war.  If it were a higher-ranking medal, and thus less frequently awarded, then the medal alone, without the campaign medal, would likely be sufficient.

But as noted this is my own personal opinion (or rant) and does not represent the views of the majority of the society or of heraldists generally.  In your case, where grandpa was the only one in the line to have served, any award received would likely be sufficient to set him apart from the rest of the family.

I agree with Michael about the guideline’s restriction on campaign medals, at least for those who served in World War Two and in the Korean War. In my own father’s circumstance he received two campaign medals and the victory medal from the US Navy and as far as I have been able to research it, he is eligible for three foreign medals. I know that by using the awarding standards of today, he would have probably received a Naval Commendation Medal and a Bronze Star but these were not so easily given long ago, especially to enlisted personnel.

Thanks a lot for the quick responses.

This has been very helpful.  At this stage, I’m still brainstorming, and it’s nice to have informed opinions to guide me in the right direction.

Thanks,

JRB

My take on the matter of changing the arms for subsequent generations is that I would leave the crest alone.  I agree with other’s opinions that it usually should not change from generation to generation.

The usual way to tell arms of one generation from another is to look at marshalling, or quarterings, or at additaments such as pendant orders.

In this way the arms do not actually change, but the depiction or display does. Since arms are depicted as visual art, the image can serve to distinguish the various armigers, in this example, the grandfather from the father and son.  The grandfather’s arms could be impaled with those of his wife, or marshalled as two shields side-by-side. The military medals could be shown, if appropriate.

It is also possible to create a graphic display of the arms with symbols placed along side the shield or crest which are unique to the individual.  Military symbols or occupational symbols which do not rise to the level appropriate to hang from the shield can be placed near the shield.  This is rather like what is done with a bookplate (as discussed here before), but it works fine for other situations such as family albums, library paintings, etc.  John Duncan has shown us the lovely images of a painting of his arms incorporating features not strictly part of the blazon.

On another forum Martin Goldstraw has pointed out an achievement on which a symbol of office was depicted hanging from the helmet. Although this pushes the envelope slightly, it is a clever way to work a symbol into a depiction of arms without violating a technical rule.  In this case, it was an important appointment, so the desire to work the symbol into the display is understandable.  Technically the symbol was apparently not worn as a neck decoration, and it is not an order, so it cannot hang from the shield.

Other ways to display symbols unique to an armiger, and yet not part of the "official arms," are to decorate the mantling with them or add them to the motto scroll. I have seen several examples of arms with maltese crosses on the motto scroll to hint at membership in one of the orders of St. John.

The grandfather’s insignia of rank, unit symbols, war decorations, etc., could thus be depicted and yet the blazon remains unchanged.

Kind regards,

/Charles