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

Question

Also, does every family surname have a crest and / or coat of arms?

And what is the significance of a crest and coat of arms (if different things.)

Answer 1

See the links below, one from the British College of Arms and the other from the most prestigious genealogical organization in the U.S., The National Genealogical Society.

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

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

A "family crest" is a misnomer for a coat of arms. A crest is part of a coat of arms. Coats of arms were originally the knights armour. As time went by coats of arms were granted to noblemen. The oldest coats of arms did not have a crest unless it was added due to some deed pleasing to the crown. Later they all had a crest. So if you see one without a crest it usually will be one of older lineage. An exception can be is I knew one guy that had one without the crest and thought his was one of the older ones. Then he found that his originally had a crest and the crown removed it due to theft.

Coats of arms DO NOT belong to surnames. They were granted or are granted to individuals and only the direct legitimate male line descendants can make claim to them. I understand the ones granted to men who are knighted are not hereditary.

There are no laws in the U.S. regarding heraldry and there are merchants of deceit that sell them solely based on a surname making it sound like they belong to anyone that has that surname.

A person knowledgable in genealogy and heraldry are probably amused when they see one of those little walnut plaques on someone's den wall. They are just displaying one that was granted to someone with their surname and probably not even related. That's all. In some countries a person would risk prosecution for displaying a coat of arms that they do not have documented proof that they are entitled to it.

Now, there are Americans who have attained wealth and have had one designed and have applied to the British college of arms and had one granted to them. If anyone on Boston's Back Bay has them that is how they got them.

Now, it is quite possible for a person to claim more than one in their family tree. That does not mean that they themselves are entitled to it. It just means if they find ancestors after doing research that were granted one it would be quite legitimate for them to put a picture of their coat of arms in any book that they might do on their family history.

If an American has any English lines that goes back to early colonial days in the American South, they have a very good chance of finding several in their family trees like that. Actually some in the South have the ones their ancestor brought over from England 300-400 years ago. They are not those dinky little walnut plaques either. They don't display them. They usually have them stored away in their attic. Afterall they can't buy groceries with them and even Walmart won't take them.

I remember visiting someone when I was very young and the father and kids were using theirs as a dart board.

Answer 2

a coat of arms is the legitimately awarded to an individual for services performed for or on behalf of a monarch. The crest is part of the Coat of Arms. There is no such thing as a Family" Coat of Arms. When Knighted the person was usually with lands, a title and wealth. The title could be passed to the eldest son and the Monarch could "take back" the title and crest (Henry VIII). There are commercial web sites that create crests, but they are not legitimate. The other thing is that a citizen of the US may not legally hold a title

Answer 3

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
What's the difference between a family crest & coat of arms?
Also, does every family surname have a crest and / or coat of arms?

And what is the significance of a crest and coat of arms (if different things.)