how long have family name crests been in existence?

Answer 1

Crests are part of a Coat of Arms.
Coats of Arms have been around since the middle ages.
They are/were given to individuals, not families.
The people who sell you a "Family" one on a coffee mug just match the surname. You aren't related to everyone with your surname, and most of your relatives don't share your surname.

Read much more than you asked for, and, if you just spent $49.95 on one, try not to cry yourself to sleep. It is a common misconception. We all make mistakes. At least you didn't try to help a Nigeian Oil Ministry worker smuggle $15 MILLION dollars out of his country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_crest

Answer 2

Let's answer your actual question! The origin of Coats of Arms were the shirts (tabards) worn by mediaeval (and probably earlier) soldiers. That is why they are called "Coats"!
A design was "emblazoned" on the tabard that related to the person for whom the men were fighting. In a way it could be said, the person who owned them!
They were a way for men to identify those on their own side when they were engaged in the carnage of hand to hand fighting with axe and sword.
They are not shown as being worn on the Bayeux Tapestry in 1066. The designs are on the shields. All the terminology of Heraldry is Old French so it is likely the practice originated in Europe, probably with the Normans after the conquest.
It might even have been a problem recognising who was who in 1066 that created the Coat of Arms. By the 12th century Knights wore Coats of Arms, and the Crusades probably brought them into common use.
A design for recognition was put onto shields back before the Greeks and Romans. It is only the Earls and Rulers of Europe that took the shield designs and enhanced them so that each ruler had their own specific "badge". It is notable that the Shield is the basis for all Arms, even those of non-military people or modern companies.
The Crest is actually an additional item put above the Shield as an embellishment to show a particular attribute. Two people in the same family could have the same Coat of Arms, but the Crest would be different for each.
Please note - it was only the rich and powerful rulers who had Badges of Arms. That is why the above answers are correct in what they say about the modern idea that Arms go with surnames. They do not!

Answer 3

Actually, there is no such thing as a family crest.

Coats of arms do not belong to surnames.

A crest is part of a coat of arms. They originally belonged to knights. As time went by noblemen were granted one and they are passed down to their sons. I understand those granted to someone that has been knighted are not hereditary at all. These peddlers who sell them based solely on a surname are descendants of snake oil salesmen. People who have one of those tacky little plaques on their den wall just have one that was granted to someone with their surname and they might not even be related. Any genealogist or anyone who knows a lot about genealogy and heraldry probably smirk to themselves when they visit people who have them. In some countries they would risk prosecuction for displaying a coat of arms without documented proof that they are entitled to it. In the U. S. there are no laws regarding heraldry.

Now, the Anglo Saxon people of the American South, even those of humble means, frequently have more than one in their family trees. That does not mean they are entitled to one. Frequently they have more than one ancestor that was granted one but when it gets down to themselves it wiinds up coming from a female..

Some in the South have the ones their ancestor brought over from England 300-400 years ago, and they aren't those tacky little walnut plaques sold by the likes of House of Names. They don't display them.
They can't buy groceries with them. Walmart won't take them!

See the links below, one from the British college of arms and the other from the U. S. National Genealogical Society.

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

http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/comconsumerpsst.cfm

I meant to give Ted Pack a thumbs up and I gave him a thumbs down. Sorry Ted

Ted Pack will never lead you astray although he has his tongue in his cheek a lot.

Answer 4

A coat of arms (the crest is part of the coat of arms) was granted to an INDIVIDUAL, not to a family. And for it to be YOUR coat of arms, you would have to show direct paternal descendency from that person (not his brothers, or uncles who likely bore the same surname - for it was not their coat of arms).

Without that direct descendancy, what you have is a way-cool coat of arms that at sometime way back when was granted to someone who happened to have your surname (there can be many coats-of-arms for a given surname). Nothing to do with you.

That said, there are a bizzillion places that will gladly sell you a coat of arms, and even one that likely was in fact granted to someone with your surname. Any Stuckey's along US interstates has racks of coffee mugs and key chains with coats-of-arms with a surname.

But there is no family (surname) coat of arms, in fact, many coats-of-arms were granted before surname usage was common or stable. It is the coat of arms of the direct paternal descendants of the person granted the coat of arms. And surname is irrelevant. Somewhere in that paternal line, someone could have changed their surname for any number of reasons -- but as a direct descendent, you can consider it your coat of arms even though you don't have the surname of the original grantee.

Shirley T -- got ya covered - I went ahead and gave the devilishly handsome and witty Ted a thumbs up for you.

Answer 5

During the 1100's. See the following...

Answer 6

As long as the Peerage, nobles (I guess), they should be taken with a grain of salt as to how much more greatness they represent than honorarium. They seem to be a Western European fixation primarily.

Answer 7

Centuries, there heraldic coats of arms are family tree's in then selves. They link family's and point to the past.