When displaying only a crest, what are the "rules" or customs for featuring a torse as well? Personally, I prefer no torse in that situation, but the custom seems to be to use one, at least in books featuring crests, though that may be just to illustrate the fact that they are crests. Are there laws governing this in countries with heraldic authorities, and if so, how do they address the practice?
My experience is rather limited, but I can’t remember a time when I’ve ever seen a crest without a torse and a helm. Can you give me an example?
Dear Chuck,
A crest is always shown with its wreath/torse when divorced from its helm, otherwise depicting the crest without its associated wreath/torse would then appear to make the crest, a badge. The only exception to this would be when the crest is issuant from a crest coronet of some kind where generally no wreath/torse is employed.
John
I’d have to agree. A crest needs to be shown with its torse (or from whatever else it issues).
I do recall reading somewhere that the torse is considered an integral part of the crest. On a Scottish crest badge, for example, the torse (or its replacement) is always included.
How about German and eastern arms without torses? Were the crests ever displayed separately from the full achievement?
The German heraldic societies generally deprecate the display of the crest without the helm (i.e., the torse and crest displayed directly above the shield), let alone the crest by itself.
There are early Scottish documents suggesting that crests doubled as badges (possibly the ultimate origin of the use of the clan "crest badge"), and some on the HSS forum have contended that the display of the crest by itself, without a torse, is consistent with this old usage.
liongam;83650 wrote:
Dear Chuck,
The only exception to this would be when the crest is issuant from a crest coronet of some kind where generally no wreath/torse is employed.
John
Even then, one needs to be absolutely sure that the grant does not state that a wreath is to be used. For example, I had always made the assumption that in the case of Leigh of Lyme where the Visitations record the crest as Out of a ducal coronet Or a ram’s head Argent, armed of the first, holding in the mouth a sprig of laurel that there was no wreath however I later found that this was not the case and I should have included a wreath.
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/visitations1613/CV1613_13.html
With regard to Martin’s comment. Generally most grants of arms that come from the three heraldic authorities found within the British Isles (London, Edinburgh or Dublin) would ordinarily cite ‘upon a wreath of the colours’ or ‘upon a wreath (say) or and (say) azure’ or some such formula within the text of the grant concerned. I would even venture to say that if such a formula were omitted (either by design or accident) the crest would by default have need to sit on a wreath. If, on the other hand, the grant text cited that the crest is issuant from or upon a crest coronet/circlet of some kind it has been the practice for such a crest coronet/circlet to sit directly upon the helm holding the mantling in its place. This being said, I do recall that the Kings of Arms in London in the fairly recent past only allowing the grant of a crest coronet/circlet if it sat upon a wreath. I believe that this ruling/decision has now been put aside as there have been a number of grants where the crest coronet/circlet has been granted sitting directly upon its helm in the manner as described above.
As mentioned in my previous posting, once you divorce a crest from its wreath it becomes a badge. Now many ancient families may well have undertaken this action in order to have a badge for their retainers and men at arms in their households to wear in order to show allegiance. In this case, as such a crest was undoubtedly a well known device of a particular family in the locality where they lived it would have been entirely logical for them to use this as their badge sans wreath. Conversely, an existing household badge may well have been adopted as a crest by the placing of such a badge upon a wreath or issuant or upon a crest coronet/circlet. Again, such a badge would have been known locally and would easily have transferred to its as new role in being the crest of the local lord or magnate.
John
I would add that insofar as there is an American custom on this matter (for crests on silver, for example, or signets or stationery), it is for the crest to be shown with its wreath or crest coronet.
Joseph McMillan;83671 wrote:
I would add that insofar as there is an American custom on this matter (for crests on silver, for example, or signets or stationery), it is for the crest to be shown with its wreath or crest coronet.
This being an objective statement, I would refer to an important, even glorious, exception, that is, the crest of the US which is always (as far as I know) shewn without any torse, cap or coronet. I wonder if this example may be patriotically followed on other levels (although I understand that in this case nothing indicates that the image is a crest).
I suppose it could be, and there are other American arms where the crest floats above the shield with nothing below it (the arms of Colorado, for example). I intended my remark to be a description of the general historical practice with personal arms.
I understood that, and of course I did not suspect you to be forgetful as to the US crest. But you would probably agree that the de facto wall separating personal heraldry and "public" heraldry must not be an obstacle for an armorist.