Crests in German Heraldry

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
31 December 2011 12:25
 

In the thread "Design Help for a New Member," Josh wrote:


Quote:

In most traditions the crest stays with the shield from one generation to the next. German heraldry is the only good example that this doesn’t happen as often.


This is as good a launching point as any for the following extract from the Wappenfibel (Heraldic Handbook) published by the oldest—and probably most conservative—of the German heraldry societies, "Der Herold" of Berlin. My German is awful, so this isn’t very fluid, but with heavy reliance on my old college German-English dictionary it should capture the sense:

 

Eventually, as with the design of the shield, the crest was imbued with immutability. It must be clarified that, because of its fragile construction, the crest frequently had to be replaced after a tournament. It has been suggested that this presented the opportunity for alterations reflecting the personal taste of the armiger. In any case, some Swiss and Alsatian families are known to possess more than 20 different crests for the same arms. Beyond the heraldry of the upper Rhine, as many as five crests may occur for a single noble family.

 

Heinrich Hussman (in Deutsche Wappenkunst [Leipzig, 1942], pp. 54-55) proposed, based on this custom from the early armorial era, that different crests should once more be used as marks of personal difference within a family bearing the same arms. Had this proposal found support within the community of heraldic experts, the crest would have lost its significance as a way to differentiate among different families and would have been reduced to merely an option to select from a number of possibilities. It [or he] also did not take into account the equally historical custom of occasionally employing the crest alone (for instance, on seals) as the cognizance of the lineage Geschlecht[/I” class=“bbcode_wiki”]I]Geschlecht[/I. In this way, some crests became just as famous as the arms themselves, such as the brachet’s [hound’s] head of the Hohenzollerns, which they originally acquired by purchase from Leutpold von Regensburg in 1317.

 

The article goes on to discuss the practice by which one family with property rights to multiple estates would use a different crest to symbolize each "right."

 

If I understand correctly, what Hussman proposed was the revival of an obsolescent if not obsolete practice, and "Der Herold" [along with the consensus of other German heraldists?] deprecates the idea. Presumably old noble families that already had multiple crests from an early period may continue to follow their own ancient practices, but for the rest of us the single crest symbolizes the lineage just as much as the shield does.

 

As I said, I may be reading more into this than is there, but at a minimum, I think we need to reexamine what seems to be a widespread belief among English-speaking heraldists that German heraldry permits the general use of various crests to differentiate between members of the same family.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
31 December 2011 14:26
 

Good to know!

 
James Dempster
 
Avatar
 
 
James Dempster
Total Posts:  602
Joined  20-05-2004
 
 
 
31 December 2011 14:47
 

My German is pretty non-existent and Hussman’s argument really needs the pictures, so here is a scan of pages 54 and 55.

http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=1611

 

The text reads (with my very poor translation in ()) :

 

Anwendung des wappens und seine wandlung

(Use of Arms and their transformation)

 

1 Toepper neues wappen

2 Ehefrau ohne wappen

(1 Toepper a new coat of arms

2 wife without crest)

 

3 Tochter von 1 und 2 fuehrt unverheiratet das familienzeichen und die familienfarbe in Jungfernkranz

(3 Daughter of 1 & 2 carries the family arms into/until marriage) ?

 

4 Sohn von 1 und 2 unmuendig fuehrt das familienzeichen den helm mit helmdecke

(4 Son of 1 & 2 (under age) bears the family arms with helm and mantling)

 

4 Sohn von 1 und 2 über 21 jahre mit Persoenlichkeitszeichen als Stellmacher

(4 Son of 1&2 (over 21) with personal crest as wheelwright) ?

 

5 Bergmann mit uberliefertem redendem Wappen heiratet

(5 Bergmann, with inherited arms, marries

 

3 Tochter von 1 und 2 geborne Toepper vertritt mit dem ganzen Wappen das Geschlecht Toepper

(3 Daughter of 1 & 2, born Toepper and representative of the name and arms of Toepper)

 

Wappen Neubildung der 3 Söhne aus Ehe 5/3

(Formation of the arms of the three sons of the marriage of 5&3)

 

6 durch Vermehrung oder Verminderung der figuren

(6 by increasing or decreasing the charges)

 

7 durch Umkehrung der farben

(7 by reversing the figures)

 

8 durch Zutat von Berufszeichen

(8 by adding an element of personal character)

 

James

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
31 December 2011 15:34
 

James Dempster;91304 wrote:

1 Toepper neues wappen

2 Ehefrau ohne wappen

(1 Toepper a new coat of arms

2 wife without crest)


For 2, "ohne Wappen," read "without arms" vice "without crest"

 
j.carrasco
 
Avatar
 
 
j.carrasco
Total Posts:  639
Joined  20-04-2011
 
 
 
31 December 2011 16:28
 

Thanks for posting this Joseph.  Interesting information that, for a newbie like myself, is good to know.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
01 January 2012 00:58
 

James Dempster;91304 wrote:

The text reads (with my very poor translation in ()) :

 

Anwendung des wappens und seine wandlung

(Use of Arms and their transformation)

 

1 Toepper neues wappen

2 Ehefrau ohne wappen

(1 Toepper a new coat of arms

2 wife without crest)


Correction:  "Wife without arms."


Quote:

3 Tochter von 1 und 2 fuehrt unverheiratet das familienzeichen und die familienfarbe in Jungfernkranz

(3 Daughter of 1 & 2 carries the family arms into/until marriage) ?


"3 daughter of 1 and 2 while unmarried bears the family arms and the family colors in a ‘maiden-wreath.’"

 

Like this:

 

http://www.mittelalter-marktstand.de/images/product_images/CP-15schwarzgr.jpg

 

I wonder if anyone other than Hussman has used this as a heraldic accoutrement for unmarried women.

 
Kelisli
 
Avatar
 
 
Kelisli
Total Posts:  570
Joined  13-08-2006
 
 
 
01 January 2012 17:48
 

Joe,

This is indeed very helpful, but I seem to remember that burgher arms in Germany followed the same tradition of changing the crest as a form of differencing. So, in some cases, it seems like they designed new crests for differencing and that the new crest were not pre-owned by the family.  I could be wrong and I don’t really remember where I read this, but I think it was one of von Volborth’s books.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
02 January 2012 11:49
 

Kelisli;91332 wrote:

Joe,

This is indeed very helpful, but I seem to remember that burgher arms in Germany followed the same tradition of changing the crest as a form of differencing. So, in some cases, it seems like they designed new crests for differencing and that the new crest were not pre-owned by the family. I could be wrong and I don’t really remember where I read this, but I think it was one of von Volborth’s books.


I’ve seen this asserted as well and would love to see a citation to a reliable German source.  I’d include von Volborth in that category, but all I can find in Heraldry:  Customs, Rules and Styles is on page 76, under the heading "Differencing and Cadency":  "In countries of the German language, brisures were never as popular as in France or Great Britain, and the adoption of different crests sometimes seemed sufficient to mark a difference."  The one example he gives is "After the death of Count Rudolf II of Habsburg in 1232 the younger branch of Laufenburg adopted the crest of Rapperswil (marriage of Rudolf III with Elizabeth of Rapperswil), two swans’ heads with golden rings in their beaks."

 

Two points on the same page would seem to limit the availability of this practice for emulation with arms, especially non-noble arms:

 

- "This [differencing for cadency] became a generally accepted custom in Europe, at least so far as the princes and higher noblesse were concerned."

 

- "Although brisures have generally fallen from use, they are still found in the heraldry of some royal and princely houses and in the heraldry of Scotland."

 

In addition, note that the one example he gives is basically a case of marshalling of marital arms—wife’s crest with husband’s shield—not one of simply adopting a new crest at will for the sake of differencing.

 

My copy of von Volborth’s Heraldry of the World seems to be hiding from me at the moment, so I can’t check there.  But Neubecker addresses the issue pretty much the same way as Wappenfibel—there are Alsatian noble families with many crests from the Middle Ages, but as crests came to be used without shields as devices on seals it was essential that they take on a fixed, consistent form.  From this time, additional crests were sometimes acquired, but by purchase or inheritance from another armiger.  Neubecker even discusses the existence of bills of sale to prove one’s right to a particular crest, including the same Hohenzollern-Regensburg transaction described in Wappenfibel.

 

Nothing I’ve found yet validating the free alterability of crests in the arms of German burgher families.

 
Kelisli
 
Avatar
 
 
Kelisli
Total Posts:  570
Joined  13-08-2006
 
 
 
02 January 2012 13:32
 

Joe,

Great points.  I will look at my copy of Heraldry of the World, but I don’t think that he specifically speaks of Burgher arms.  I will check a couple of references when I get back later tonight and will let you know.

 
Kelisli
 
Avatar
 
 
Kelisli
Total Posts:  570
Joined  13-08-2006
 
 
 
02 January 2012 16:05
 

Joe,

I found my copy of von Volborth’s Heraldry of the World and on page 205 he states: "Branches of the same family of high rank can difference their arms by various combination of quarternings, and among the families of commoners we find differences made by a change in crests or tinctures (Fig. 552)."

 

Here is Fig. 552 the author is referring to:

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t11/Kelisli/scan0001.jpg

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
06 January 2012 21:24
 

Trying to digest all this German smile

So—or so it appears—the custom in Germanic heraldry appears to vary widely over space & time—which is hardly surprising given the number & variety of local more or less independent feudal states, imperial cities, etc. spread over much of central & northern Europe and gradually coalescing over time into mostly larger modern nation-states.  A high degree of uniformity would be surprising in that environment.

 

Also noting the (apparent) relative ease of changing crests in the matriculation process in Scotland is desired [i.e. not just a Germanic custom], suggests to me that those of us in America would not be out of line in adopting or adapting any of these foreign practices, none of which strikes me as incompatible with our own history & norms.  (Of course we can debate the wisdom or practical consequences, pro & con; but needn’t go further.)

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
07 January 2012 06:22
 

AH - so I wasn’t horribly far off…  With my Father’s family Scottish and German, the crest changing we did isn’t as bad as I thought.  I really believe I’d gotten the idea from somewhere else (most of my ideas come from somewhere else)...  But I don’t remember where.

Either way, it’s an effective way to involve family members when doing this kind of design project.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
07 January 2012 11:52
 

I’m not convinced.  Yes, we have different views from different German heraldists, but it could well be that one is right and the other is wrong.  What if Volborth is channeling Hussman and Hussman was just proposing something that never caught on rather than describing something that previously existed?  That’s certainly the implication of the discussion in the Wappenfibel.

As for the Scottish situation:  I don’t know where American heraldry goes if we take the position that differences imposed upon matriculation with an official arms control and disarmament agency (an apt description of Lyon Office, don’t you think?) are a sound basis for our own uncontrolled practices.  Particularly since, as I understand it, the entire business of imposing differences on crests is very nouveau in Scotland.  For example, there are three MacMillan arms of distantly related families with identical crests matriculated in Lyon Register—the chiefly arms of Knap (matriculated 1742), Shorthope (1876), and Aberfeldy (granted 1932).  George Seton’s classic 1863 Law and Practice of Heraldry in Scotland has this to say about differencing by means of the crest:


Quote:

Of other modes of distinguishing cadets, we may mention the adoption of different Crests, without any alteration being made on the charges in the escutcheon.  Speaking of the Germans, among whom this practice largely prevails, Christyn says,—"interdum arma solo cimerio discrepant;" and he illustrates his statement by a notice of the various families descended from the House of Burgundy.  As a single example, we may refer to the Electoral Dukes of Saxony, whose shield was timbred by no fewer than eight helmets, surmounted by as many crests.  This mode of differencing has been rarely followed in Scotland.  Doubtless the heraldic practice of that country [Scotland?  Germany?] has always allowed a considerable amount of freedom in the changing of crests, which, however, Nisbet considers to be "but an ornament of coats of arms, and so more of the nature of a device than a fixed piece of hereditary armorial bearings."


Even insisting that each crest be unique from one family to another has little historical basis in Scotland, reflecting Nisbet’s view of the relative unimportance of the crest.

 

Note that the claim of the frequency of German use of the crest as a means of differencing refers to exactly the situations addressed in the Wappenfibel.  The multiple crests of the Electors of Saxony, for example, are not there for differencing but to represent the electors’ various feudal rights.

 
Kelisli
 
Avatar
 
 
Kelisli
Total Posts:  570
Joined  13-08-2006
 
 
 
08 January 2012 20:09
 

Quote:

Joseph McMillan;91538]I’m not convinced.  Yes, we have different views from different German heraldists, but it could well be that one is right and the other is wrong.  What if Volborth is channeling Hussman and Hussman was just proposing something that never caught on rather than describing something that previously existed?  That’s certainly the implication of the discussion in the Wappenfibel.


Joe, I looked at another source, European Nobility and Heraldry by J. H. Pinches, and btw, he does not just discuss nobiliary heraldic rules, but it dominates the discussion in that book.  In it he addresses differencing in the following statement:
Quote:

"By the 14th century, brisures, and modifications of the arms were dropped, and changes of the crest were adopted instead…"

He further states, in regards to crests:
Quote:

"A commoner, burgher, was permitted to use one as well as a noble."

and
Quote:

"A change of crest, whilst retaining the arms, was often the only mark of distinction between different branches of the same family. There were instances of each of several persons of the same family having a different crest at the same time."

All this was in regards to arms of nobility and commoners.  However, the nobility seems to have used multiple quarters and multiple crests to indicate their status as nobles of multiple estates.  As for burgher differencing, the picture below is worth a thousand words:

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t11/Kelisli/PinchesGermandifferencinginBurgerarms.jpg

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
16 January 2012 17:24
 

Kelisli;91577 wrote:

Joe, I looked at another source, European Nobility and Heraldry by J. H. Pinches,


Well, we’ve seen before that Pinches isn’t terribly reliable when it comes to the use of supporters in various Continental countries, so I think perhaps it’s necessary to pick at his statements just a little.


Quote:

He further states, in regards to crests:


Quote:

"A change of crest, whilst retaining the arms, was often the only mark of distinction between different branches of the same family. There were instances of each of several persons of the same family having a different crest at the same time."


As for burgher differencing, the picture below is worth a thousand words:


Perhaps there were such cases, but the picture does not illustrate them. In none of the three pairs of arms shown (Vossberg, Dehning, and Kipper) do we find the same shield with two different crests. One could almost play one of those games, "how many differences do you see between these two pictures?" The Dehnings are the closest, with the Dehnings from Beckedorf placing acorns in the upper and lower openings of whatever that main charge is, and those from Bockel placing leaves in the dexter and sinister openings. (Of course, as the tinctures are not indicated on this pair, there may be other differences as well.)

 

We actually do know what this picture was meant to illustrate, however, because it is an exact photoreproduction of the top two rows of Table XL in my favorite German reference, Der Herold’s Handbuch der Heraldik—Wappenfibel, which I’ve been quoting earlier. That’s the same source that disparaged the idea of everyone in a family adopting a different crest with the same shield. Here’s what Wappenfibel has to say about this table:


Quote:

In accordance with the principles of the law of arms, the desire of several families of the same name to bear a common coat of arms can only be satisfied if these families can be shown to be related in the male line. If such a relationship is at least probable, then a substantial similarity between the arms of the different genealogical branches may be appropriate or acceptable. (Arms of the five Vietheer families, whose earliest ancestors were located within an extremely small vicinity, and whose arms are essentially differenced only through the use of different crests.) Absent these conditions, i.e. where there is a shared name without any provable or probable genealogical relationship, such as with numerous families with group names, or where arms are based on occupational and patronymic emblems, the bearing of substantially the same arms in the sense of family heraldry would run directly contrary to the recognition of a specific genealogical line by its arms. In such cases, the arms of the different lineages should bear at most a general similarity to each other. (Arms of the nine families of the name Kipper, originating in different places in Westphalia, as well as the four Pomeranian Vossberg families.)

 


So basically, what the chart copied by Pinches is about is to illustrate the range of acceptable differencing of shields and crests by families that are not known to be related to each other. This is more or less the same as what we find with the design of arms of indeterminate cadetship in Scotland.

 

The example of the Vietheers differencing only with different crests refers to distinct houses descending from a presumed common ancestor in the distant past, not to brothers and first cousins. A few paragraphs after this discussion Wappenfibel reiterates "Der Herold’s" objections to the Hussmann proposal for each member of an armigerous family to distinguish his arms from the other members with a different crest.

 

By the way, the images are all taken from the Deutsche Wappenrolle (German Roll of Arms) published by "Der Herold," which means that the registrations are no older than 1949, not much of a basis for establishing traditional practice, although perfectly acceptable for illustrating it.

 

 

I’m still on "not proven."

 

 
Kelisli
 
Avatar
 
 
Kelisli
Total Posts:  570
Joined  13-08-2006
 
 
 
16 January 2012 19:07
 

Joe,

You proposed that von Volborth was a trusted source, I presented you with evidence from one of his books.  You suggested that he may have gone astray being influenced by some other author.  I presented you with another example, which seems to still not convince you.

 

I am at a loss as what it will take to convince you that it is a practice for differencing commonly encountered in Germanic heraldry. Now, the word "common" is rather used liberally here as the practice of differencing was not a common practice past the fourteenth century and there was no one heraldic authority to maintain one tradition.  I think what is adding to the complexity of this topic is that there was no sole Germanic tradition, even within the boundaries of the German Empire. I am fairly convinced that burgher arms often followed in the footsteps of arms of nobility on many fronts. Traditions often started with the nobility, in many cases. There maybe some other members who would be interested in providing you with further proof, but my resources have run dry as far as Germanic heraldic traditions.

 

Good luck finding the answer and when you have found enough evidence, I would be interested in hearing about it.