Hi Folks,

Thought I’d put this as a new thread. Is there a guidance or sense of the community on the use of crowns (royal, ducal, etc.) as charges on the field? Not as symbols of any current foreign rank, but in allusion to historic familial links to "old nobility"?

As far as I know, the use of crowns on the escutcheon is not overtly discouraged. It’s when the crown is placed on top of the helmet of the whole achievement that it looks most pretentious.

Thanks Jeremy!

I’d say that the use of a distinctive coronet of rank in assumed arms is not a very good idea. If you want crowns, I’d suggest using a more neutral stylized crown. Just my opinion.  The exception might be if you simply ensigned the cross with an imperial Russian crown to signify Russian imperial service.  I’d welcome Michael Medvedev’s opinion on that.

Joseph McMillan;85981 wrote:

I’d say that the use of a distinctive coronet of rank in assumed arms is not a very good idea. If you want crowns, I’d suggest using a more neutral stylized crown. Just my opinion. The exception might be if you simply ensigned the cross with an imperial Russian crown to signify Russian imperial service. I’d welcome Michael Medvedev’s opinion on that.

Hi Joe,

From what I’ve seen in the plates of Russian heraldry, the use of crowns on the field are sometimes used. Here’s a few examples:

[ATTACH]892[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]893[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]894[/ATTACH]

I would agree with Joe, though perhaps more strongly (or stridently if you prefer )

IMO the use of a specifically "noble" crown or coronet, whether on shield or crest, in newly assumed American arms is not appropriate.  If the family wasn’t "noble" in the old country, it is misleading; & if it was, that nobility was part of what was disavowed by the immigrant ancestor, presumably in good faith, when taking American citizenship.  If we honor our ancestors, we should honor that vow.

A generic coronet—one not resembling any specific "noble" coronet—would IMO be OK if it was intended as a canting charge (e.g. if your name was "Crown" or some such), or perhaps as a geographic allusion (e.g. a crown on a pale for "Crown Point"—if from a town of that name); but not to symbolize a status, or to suggest the retention of a status, incompatible with American values.

Other may (I’m sure will!) disagree to a greater or lesser degree ... but I can’t see that we would ever recommend a contrary view as an American "best practice."

Michael F. McCartney;86011 wrote:

IMO the use of a specifically "noble" crown or coronet,...that nobility was part of what was disavowed by the immigrant ancestor, presumably in good faith, when taking American citizenship.  If we honor our ancestors, we should honor that vow.

Aren’t you honoring only that one ancestor, though, in so choosing. If the arms are to be adopted in honor of this immigrant ancestor, I agree with you completely, but by changing it does one not somehow dishonor all the "noble" ancestors before this one who did not choose to disavow said nobility?

It is a double-edged sword, a slippery slope. It is in fact any number of cliches that I would try my very best to avoid altogether.

Doesn’t it depend on whose arms they are?

If they are those of David and his descendants, then I’d say his preferences prevail.  A crown or coronet in the shield is not necessarily a claim to be noble but might be a reasonable way of saying "my ancestors were noble."  But I agree the message is a tricky one.

As to a coronet on top of the shield, I agree completely with Mike McC.

Good points all and I knew this was a controversial subject, hence the separate thread.:D

Let’s go about the question a different way. Let’s suppose for argument that you did not know anything about the armiger and were presented a plate of their arms. On the field there is a crown / coronet, and there are no other accouterments either in the crest or the helm denoting any certain rank.

Aren’t there any other common heraldric meanings for the use of this symbol on the field?

I found this entry in Wade’s 1898 Symbolisms of Heraldry:

CROWN. Royal or seigniorial autho-

rity ; or if a celestial crown is intended,

the reference would be to a heavenly

reward. (Guillim.)

I would say that a crown is OK, but not if it is a specific crown.

So, a cross ensigned with a crown is OK, but a cross ensigned with the crown of an earl is not.

Claus K Berntsen;86019 wrote:

I would say that a crown is OK, but not if it is a specific crown.

So, a cross ensigned with a crown is OK, but a cross ensigned with the crown of an earl is not.

So you think the deciding factor would be in the blazoning, and not with the picture on the field? (i.e. - Keep the blazoning generic and leave the display of the crown open for the artist’s or viewer’s interpretation?)

David Fofanoff;86018 wrote:

Good points all and I knew this was a controversial subject, hence the separate thread.

David Fofanoff;86020 wrote:

So you think the deciding factor would be in the blazoning, and not with the picture on the field? (i.e. - Keep the blazoning generic and leave the display of the crown open for the artist’s or viewer’s interpretation?)

A crown simply blazoned "crown" should not result in the emblazon of a specific crown, but rather a generic one or perhaps an ancient crown. I don’t think a heraldic artist would read "Azure, a crown Or." and ever illustrate a ducal crown.

David Pope;86021 wrote:

Without meaning to sound snarky, if I was presented with arms that prominently featured a crown as a charge I’d likely think they were cliched and uninspired, unless there was a deliberate and witty cant on the surname.

Such as "Azure a crown Argent" for the Salem merchant shipping dynasty, the Crowninshields? Not witty, perhaps, but deliberate.

Quote:

With all the richness of heraldry to draw from, why something so obvious as a crown? I definitely wouldn’t make any connection to descent from nobility, because the crown would be in the wrong place (on the shield, instead of resting on it) and there would be an absence of supporters…;)

David’s on to something here. It’s more important for arms to be distinctive (their main function is identification) than to be meaningful. Putting a crown in one’s arms to symbolize descent from nobility (or even from royalty) is close to lucky charms heraldry (a shamrock to show I’m Irish, an Iron Cross to show I’m German, etc.)

There are plenty of families in the British Isles that use a crown or crowns as charges in their arms or in their crests.  They are generally not indicative of rank or status.  Outside of coronets of rank (ie: the peerage) there is a awful lot of heraldic crowns from which to choose.  The use of any of these crowns would not in my view be incompatiable with being an American.  They are plainly decorative.

John

Joseph McMillan;86041 wrote:

David’s on to something here. It’s more important for arms to be distinctive (their main function is identification) than to be meaningful. Putting a crown in one’s arms to symbolize descent from nobility (or even from royalty) is close to lucky charms heraldry (a shamrock to show I’m Irish, an Iron Cross to show I’m German, etc.)

An angle I wish I had thought of! It seems so obvious now that it’s written.

/bangs head against desk.

I would also avoid fleur-de-lis to distinguish the armiger as French.

Anyways, it might be irrelevant now, as the individual inquiring seems to have moved away from the use of a crown in the other thread. Perhaps we’ve sufficiently discouraged its use.