What's the difference between a family crest and a family coat of arms?

Question

OR, is there NO difference? I'm only amateur genealogist and I'm seeking the advice of a professional one, if there are any out there in the audience.

THANKS!

Answer 1

I am not a professional at it...But I have done family research back to the 1100's. I have found that the coat of arms is pretty much the same as the family crest.

In European tradition, is a design belonging to a particular person (or group of people) and used by them in a wide variety of ways. They were once used by knights to identify them apart from enemy soldiers. Unlike seals and emblems, coats of arms have a formal description that is expressed as a blazon. In the 21st century, coats of arms still continue to be in use, in a variety of institutions, e.g. several universities have guidelines on how their coats of arms may be used and protect their use.

A crest is a component of an heraldic display, so called because it stands on top of a helmet, as the crest of a jay stands on the bird's head.

The earliest heraldic crests were apparently painted on metal fans, and usually repeated the coat of arms painted on the shield, a practice which was later discontinued. Later they were sculpted of leather and other materials.

Originally, the crest was often "continued into the mantling," but today the crest normally stands within a wreath of cloth, called a torse, in the principal colors of the shield (the liveries). Various kinds of coronet may take the place of the torse, though in some unusual circumstances the coronet sits atop a torse, and is either defined as all or part of a crest.[1] The most frequent crest-coronet is a simplified form of a ducal coronet, with four leaves rather than eight. Towns often have a mural crown, i.e. a coronet in the form of embattled stone walls.

Objects frequently borne as crests include animals, especially lions, normally showing only the fore half; human figures, likewise often from the waist up; hands or arms holding weapons; bird's wings. In Germany and nearby countries, the crest often repeats the liveries in the form of a tall hat, a fan of plumes in alternating colors, or a pair of curving horns. The horns may have a hole in the tip to hold a cluster of plumes or flowers, and because of this have been imported to English heraldry at least once as elephant's trunks.

Crests are not normally borne by women, or clergy, at least not in the UK, because they did not participate in war or tournaments and thus would not have a helm on which to wear it. An exception is the reigning queens of England or Britain, whose armorial display is indistinguishable from that of kings.

.........a lot of info...hope that helps!!!

Answer 2

According to www.fleurdelis.com:

The official, written description of the coat of arms is called the "BLAZON of arms"--simply a system of code words to denote colors, placement, and styling by using an economy of words.

A "coat of arms" consists of several parts: the shield, the mantling, the helm, the wreath, charges, and the crest (note that not all arms have crests).

     The mantling and the banners for names and mottoes, for example, are not an official element of the blazon of arms. The helm, likewise, is not a part of the official blazon. Some historians attach a significance to the design of the helm or helmet as representative of a certain century or social status, but there are differences of opinion on this matter.

Elements of a Coat of Arms:

1. SHIELD: The colors and charges (lions, designs, etc. that appear on the shield) are a part of the official blazon, but the shape of the shield is not. Shield shapes vary according to the geographical origin as well as the time period.

2. CREST: Also a part of the official blazon, the crest is whatever appears above the helm OR helmet. (Note that there is NOT always a crest for every coat of arms.)

3. HELM/HELMET: Not a part of the official blazon, the helmet varies with the bearer's rank, the century represented, or the herald's or artist's preference.

4. WREATH: Not a part of the official blazon, the wreath usually consists of the primary color and metal.

5. MANTLE/MANTLING: Not a part of the official blazon (except that sometimes the colors are specified), the design varies with the herald's or artist's preference. This is said to represent the cloth that hung from the wreath and protected the back of the head and neck, even though it may often be depicted more like the leaves of a plant.

TINCTURES (colors/metals/furs) & COMPOSITION:

     REMEMBER--"LESS IS MORE"

The mantling and torse (wreath) are composed of the first metal and the first color specified in the coat of arms.

Good composition: Balance is desirable.

Repeating an element or charge can provide good balance,

as can a quartered shield with opposing colors and charges. The same metal should remain with the same color, i.e., red and silver/white, or gold and blue, throughout the design.

Use a metal against a color or a color against a metal.--Gold on gold is not advisable because the charge will melt into the background.

http://www.fleurdelis.com/shieldsdividin... proper way to divide the shield and preferred color arrangements.

There's No Such Thing As A "Family Crest"--Confusion over the term "family crest" probably arose from an understandable abbreviation of the terminology in heraldry for an important part of a coat of arms.

Gaelic tradition allows family members to use of the "crest" part of an entire coat of arms (that which appears above the shield) in a badge setting (a circular belt), thus all members of a given clan are entitled to use the CLAN BADGE

    Indeed, the CREST

part of a coat of arms has been used on engravings, rings, bookplates, and other means of displaying one's heritage for many years. Perhaps this is due to their relative simplicity in relation to the full coat of arms. However, authorities claim that they were NEVER intended to be used alone, without the remainder of the official coat of arms.

.

Coats of Arms and Crests Belong to INDIVIDUAL PERSONS , NOT Surnames

    Coats of arms are NOT awarded to a family or a name, but to an individual. For example, this is why there is no coat of arms or family crest for the FAMILY  name "Hardin" -- only a coat of arms and crest granted to someone with that name many years ago. This is why there is often more than one coat of arms associated with a given surname.   In England, DIRECT descent is required for ANY heir to have the legal right to bear his ancestor's coat of arms.

   That is why, unless you can trace your family history to ONE individual, and unless the sources LIST that individual, then the best that you can hope for is to find a coat of arms that is the oldest for a given name from a given region or the one most frequently used.

    The bearing of coats of arms is not regulated in most countries, including the United States, and while there is no reason we cannot enjoy the decoration of a coat of arms associated with someone centuries ago who shared our surname, we should be aware that this is ALL that it is -- a decoration.

Between 1135 and 1155 A.D., seals show the general adoption of heraldic devices in Europe. Historians once theorized that a coat of arms enabled a knight to be recognized by his followers during battle (hence the reason they were awarded to one person, instead of his entire family). The coat of arms became hereditary just as a knight inherited the right to lead or the duty to follow another leader in battle.

See  http://www.fleurdelis.com/coatofarms.htm  for more history behind them and the way they were used in tournaments (like a sporting event nowadays).

This describes the colors, furs, metals, etc. used: http://www.fleurdelis.com/meanings.htm

Hope this explained it a little.

Answer 3

I always thought they were the same thing but, I could be wrong.

Answer 4

A crest is merely a part of a coat of arms.  

See the link below from the British College of Arms. They grant coats of arms and are the ultimate authority.  

http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/Faq.ht...

This link is a very good one and if you probe on all the headings and the various sub topics, you will learn a great deal.

Another good source is a book that Tebs on this board frequently quotes.  You can find it on Amazon.Com.  It isn't cheap but it is worth it

The Oxford Guide to Heraldy by Thomas Woodcock and John Martin Robinson.