Understanding Your Name and Your Family Coat of Arms

It’s More than just a Wall Decoration.

Until about 1100 A.D. most people in Europe had only one name. (This is still true in some primitive countries today.) As the population increased it became awkward to live in a village wherein perhaps 1/3 of the males were named John, another sizable percentage named William, and so forth.

And so, to distinguish one John from another a second name was needed. There were four primary sources for these second names. They were: a man’s occupation, his location, his father’s name or some peculiar characteristic attributed to him.

Occupation: The local house builder, food preparer, grain grinder and suit maker would be named respectively: John Carpenter, John Cook, John Miller and John Tailor.

Location: The John who lived over the hill became known as John Overhill, the one who dwelt near a stream might be dubbed John Brook or perhaps John Atbrook.

Patronymical: (father’s name): Many of these surnames can be recognized by the termination of “son”, such as Williamson, Jackson, etc. Some endings used by other countries to indicate : “son” are:

Armenian: “…ian”

Danes and Norwegians: “…sen”

Finns: “…nen”

Greeks: “…poulos”

Spaniards: “…ez”

Poles: “…wiecz”

Prefixes denoting “son”:

Welsh: “Ap”

Scots & Irish: “Mac”

Normans: “Fitz”

The Irish “O” – denotes Grandfather of…

Characteristics: An unusually small person might be labeled Small, Short, Little or Lytle. A large man might be named Longfellow, Large, Lang or Long. Many persons having characteristics of a certain animal would be given the animal’s name. Examples: a sly person might be named Fox; a good swimmer, Fish; a quiet man, Dove; etc.

The Coat of Arms: In addition to needing an extra name for identification, one occupational group found it necessary to go a step further. The fighting man…the fighting man of the Middle Ages wore a metal suit of armor for protection. Since this suit of armor included a helmet that completely covered the head, a knight in full battle dress was unrecognizable. To prevent friend from attacking friend during the heat of battle, it became necessary for each knight to somehow identify himself. Many knights accomplished this by painting colorful patterns on their battle shields. These patterns were also woven into cloth surcoats, which were worn over a suit of armor. Thus, the term “Coat of Arms” was born.

As this practice grew more popular, it became more and more likely that two knights unknown to each other might be using the same insignia. To prevent this, records were kept that granted the right to a particular pattern to a particular knight. His family also shared his right to display these arms. In some instances, these records have been preserved and/or compiled into book form. The records list the family name and a exact description of the “Coat of Arms” granted to that family.

Armory resulted from the combination of several pre-existing elements into one system. The elements pertain to insigns, banners, seals and shields. Insigns have contributed certain figures and the collective character of some arms. Banners brought colors as well as some geometric elements (ordinaries, partitions, semys) and the link of arms to fiefs. From seals come a number of family emblems already in use by some families in Germany, Flanders and Italy, canting arms, and the hereditary aspect. Shields contributed the shape of the design, furs, and some ordinaries (border, pale, chief).

This combination did not take place uniformly over time and space. It does seem that banners played a predominant role, and textiles in general, in shaping the way colors were used, as well as yielding a number of terms (more than half of the heraldic terms common in the Middle Ages come from the vocabulary of textiles).

The three main sources of emblems are thus the individual's own distinctive marks, used in battle for recognition, the family's emblems, probably in use for some time, and the fief's rallying banner, which served as a flag for vassals in combat. Elements from these three sources combined to form armory, which tries to play all three roles at the same time: identify individuals, be transmissible within a family, and represent ownership or claims to fiefs. In order to fulfill these contradictory goals, heraldry has developed mechanisms such as differencing (which allows to reconcile individual marks with hereditary emblems) and marshalling (which allows the expression of property rights as well as lineage).

The Right to Bear Arms: A common prejudice has associated heraldry exclusively with nobility or gentry. This has no foundation in fact, law or history of European armory. Although heraldry began with the feudal nobility, it quickly extended to all classes of society, beginning with knights (who did not become part of the nobility until the late 13th century, long after they started using arms) all the way to peasants by the 14th century; and self-assumption was the only existing way (along with inheritance, of course) to acquire arms until the mid-14th c. After that date, sovereigns began to grant arms (the first known grant of arms was made in 1338 by the Emperor, although the French national archives display a grant of arms of 1334 by the duke of Bourbon) but self-assumption remained a normal way to acquire arms, and it was in no way restricted by status. In fact, even in England grants of arms to individuals remained very rare until the end of the 15th century.

The only restriction on self-assumption acknowledged by jurists was against consciously assuming arms already borne by another family within a given jurisdiction, at least when harm could ensue for the family. The problem of conflict of arms between knights is what brought heraldry into the jurisdiction of the Court of Chivalry in England in the late 14th century.

Since heraldry was unregulated, arms could and were adopted by all sorts of people, and arms borne by peasants or tradesmen weren't necessarily different from noble arms, either in style or in appearance. Only in the 16th century does one see some attempts at regulating heraldry, in two ways: by limiting the acquisition of arms to grants, and by restricting the right to bear arms to certain social categories. Most attempts were half-heartedly enforced, and whole-heartedly ignored. Some countries never experienced either: Switzerland, as well as France save for two minor and short-lived episodes. England and Scotland stand out as historical exceptions in this regard. The regulation of heraldry in Scotland is based on a statute of 1672 and is enforced to this day by the Scottish judicial system. The situation in England is rather more complex, and the extent to which regulation is actually enforced, or enforceable, is a matter of debate.

In our “matter of fact” day and age, where people become mere numbers in a database, a “Coat of Arms” is one of the rare devices remaining, that can provide an incentive to preserve our heritage. It is a measure of family pride and loyalty.

Sources:

“Halberts”, Nancy L. Halbert

Pastoureau's Traité d'Héraldique (Paris, 1993).

François Velde – Heraldica - http://www.heraldica.org/