Historically, heraldry began as a mark of identification in
social intercourse and found its full flowering as a useful
art in the Middle Ages, when it came to be used to
distinguish the warriors on the battlefield.
Originally, a knight was free to choose his own device, but
by the 15th century, the multiplication of arms resulted in
the complete systemization of the practice, and heraldry
became an exact science. All armorial bearings came to be
granted by the King, and all arms, both the recently granted
and those established by right of ancient usage, were
registered with the College of Arms, if English, or with
similar agencies in continental countries.
Even the terms used in heraldry became exact and a coat of
arms was not described, but was blazoned. Terms for partition
lines were developed such as engrailed, nebuly, inverted,
dancety, embattled, etc. Charges (figures in the field) were
of three kinds: the Ordinaries (chief, pale, bend, fess,
chevron, cross, saltire, bar, baton, etc.), the
Subordinaries (roundels, fusils, orle, annulets, cinquefoil,
etc.) and the Common (hand, fish, lions, bears, birds,
mullets, etc.). The colors used were: two metals: gold (or)
and silver (argent): and five colors: red (gules),
green (vert), blue (azure), black (sable) and purple
(purpurs).
The need for this means of identification declined with the
passing of chivalry, but the custom was anchored in
antiquity and had a definite appeal of its own.
There have been a great many people who insisted upon
having a coat of arms, whether they had a right to them
or not, and there were also a number of pretenders calling
themselves heraldic artists, who were willing to supply
anything for a price. A coat of arms does not necessarily
belong to a person just because some one of the same
surname bore it. He must prove descent from the owner.
Marks and designs were used to mark a warrior’s armor
and his surcoat, which was the garment that he wore over
his coat of mail. From this use comes the expression coat
of arms. These marks were not at first hereditary. They
gradually became so, however, and were recognized as
evidence of the wearer’s noble or gentle birth. The right
to bear a certain coat of arms came to be hereditary as
early as 1390. In 1488 the Herald’s College was incorporated
by Richard III of England and it was their duty to trace
ancestry, to approve coats of arms, to confirm titles of
honor, and to examine claims to armorial rights. Some
inherit their father’s arms not equally but by law of
cadency: that is, each son has added to his inherited arms
a particular sign indicating his order of birth.
Women’s rights to coat armor are strictly limited, unless
she is a sovereign. She is granted the right to use a coat
of arms bearing the arms of her father or husband, but
not on a shield. She uses a lozenge, a diamond shaped frame.
Since a woman was not a warrior she could not use the shield,
helmet, crest, mantling or war-cry motto. Until her marriage,
she used her father’s arms in a lozenge, and oftentimes
surmounted it with a true lover’s knot of light blue ribbon.
This later, however, has no official sanction.
After marriage, she used her husband’s arms on a lozenge,
and continued the practice if she became a widow. Sometimes
the husband impaled his arms with those of the wife’s father.
At first, impaling was the placing of the two shields side by
side, but later it became the practice to place the husband’s
arms on the dexter (left as you face the shield), and the
arms of the wife’s father on the sinister.
If a woman was a heraldic heiress (having no brothers to
inherit the coat of arms) her husband placed a small shield
with the arms of his wife’s father in the center of his own
so it would show he was carrying the arms for the benefit
of his children, the grandchildren of his wife’s father. This
was called the "escutcheon of pretense". The children carried
both of the arms, which were quartered.
The situation in America was and is somewhat different.
While this country was under English domination, before
the Revolutionary War. There was some general regulation
of the right to bear arms - or at least the rules and the
customs have prevailed. Apparently, however, no effort was
made by the colonial government to compel citizens to abide
by there laws, and as a result, the later colonists did
pretty much as they pleased about displaying anything that
struck their fancy.
At the close of the 17th century, this illegal use of arms
was helped along by an obliging carriage painter of Boston
named Gore, who created arms and eventually made a roll
of arms which is completely without authority. About a
century later, another gentleman, a Mr. Cole, performed
similar labors throughout New England.
Actually, the patriots of America who won the Revolution were
"traitors" to England, and this fact, in reality, cancels
their rights and their descendant’s rights to the coat of
arms granted to their ancestors.
During the 18th and 19th centuries, the unwarranted
assumption of arms reached huge proportions. Most
persons took them without a shadow of a claim.
Because of American interest in Heraldry, the New
England and Historic and Genealogical Society, of
Boston, has organized a committee on heraldry. It is
the function of this committee to investigate and
establish the right of certain American families to
bear arms, and it has published a roll of authentic
coats of arms. However, such registration has no
legal effect, nor any meaning other than that, in
the opinion of the committee, such arms are rightfully
used by certain families. The committee accepts all coats
where descent is proved from a grant of arms where it can
be proved that the first comer to this country used them; but
if it be shown that such user was without rights, the arms
are removed from the list.
The use of coat armor in the United States is a matter of
personal taste. There is no American law by which you
can obtain a coat of arms, as our government has not ever
recognized coat armor. In using coats of arms, we should
abide by the laws governing its use in the country in which
the arms were granted. The right to bear arms in this country
is limited to those comparatively few families who can show a
direct descent from an arms bearing ancestor.