Coat Of Arms Question?

[Ethanintn]

If any of you saw a coat of arms description hat read "sa. a fess between three cinquefoils (another cinquefoil pierced) ar.".Do you think the "(another cinquefoil pierced)" would be the crest,and would that just be a cinquefoil with a hole in it?

Thank-you and stand sure,

Ethan Walling

[Domehead]

Based on the blazonry included:
The escutcheon is black with two five-petal "flowers" above the fess & one five-petal "flower" below, all white or Silver tincture. Or...
The escutcheon is black with one five-petal "flower" in chief (dexter / sinister); one in the fess point; one in base (dexter / sinister).
The discretion of the ordinaries placement would be that of the artist unless specified.

The literal use of "pierced" does mean a cinquefoil with a hole in the middle through which one observes (usually) the field. But, depending on placement of the ordinary, it may observe the fess. In this specific blazon, the placement of the ordinaries will determine how many first, then color.

One thing it is not is the crest. Crests are not "officially" included in the blazon, although they are stylistically listed below blazonry in The General Armory of England, Scotland, Ireland & Wales... In Scotland, historically crests were transferred through heiresses. This practice has morphed to the point were cadets and septs may display the crest of a Clan or family should it be transferred or "granted". Just as likely, branches may create their own crest. The point is, while one must rematriculate the arms to which they inherit with marks of cadency, it is not necessary to do so with the crest. This rematriculation may include two armorials. But the inheritor has only one head and one helmet upon which to place the crest. The precise rules of Scottish heraldry that govern the matriculation & granting of Arms are not observed with the same vigor around crests.

As well, Arthur Charles Fox-Davies (1909) & James Parker (1894) indicate alternative meanings and uses for the term "pierced", of which I am not very well versed. However, one of their alternatives I do understand as it pertains to orle. When an observer comes upon escutcheon bordure or orle, engrailed or invected, it is difficult to determine which without the blazon at hand. However, if the "border" is ermine, the "interior" is verte and the cinquefoil ordinary is ermine, then the cinquefoil is pierced of field: "Ermine. On an orle vert, an cinquefoil pierced of the field."

[Ethanintn]

Thank-you for the reply,it is quite helpful,Domehead.

Thank-you and stand sure,

Ethan Walling

[Domehead]

You are very welcome. After my initial post, I had to look up some information on the crest. They are dealt with quite differently in Germany, England and Scotland. I amended that portion of my original post. However, the two authors I mentioned - their volumes are easily obtained and are considered the sources for fundamental heraldry understanding.

Slainte,
Domehead

[JSFMACLJR]

The precise rules of Scottish heraldry that govern the matriculation & granting of Arms are not observed with the same vigor around crests.

Can you explain this further? Surely only my heraldic heir can inherit my crest, according to the law of arms in Scotland. My younger son, and followers may use my crest within a buckle and strap as a crest badge, but the crest still belongs to me. I don't think they have an automatic "right" to use it. When my younger son petitions Lord Lyon for a matriculation next year, he is free to pray that he may be granted my crest, or an entirely new one.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point about the lack of vigour regarding the granting and matriculating of crests in the Kingdom of Scotland.

[Domehead]

I didn't state my thought very well. You are correct re: the inheritance of, or transfer of, a crest as "entity" in Scottish Heraldry being as precise as matriculation. In fact, originally escutcheon, crests and estates were all inherited separately. The distinction in Scotland's historic approach to the nature of the crests I was speaking to rests in the character of the crest, itself. A peer may inherit more than one escutcheon through heiress or co-heir-general. Then move to marshal the ordinaries upon a single escutcheon with appropriate cadency. However, in Scotland, it is observed that you have one head, therefore one Helmet, therefore one spot for a single crest.

As opposed to German Heraldry, which has specific requirements for cadency of crests that involve horns. Cadency of crests is not observed in Scotland. England has instances, however rare, of two crests included in full armorial. Where Scotland becomes "less" stringent is the character with which the crest is animated. Branch families, Cadets or Septs (I recognize the dubious nature of this term) of original peerage or prominent Houses have often changed the crest while retaining the escutcheon. The Stewart / Stuart family is a fine example.

Excluding the Royal house, the family Stewart / Stuart has multitude crests blazoned in the General Armory of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, Bernard Burke, 1884. Each may be transferred to clansmen respectful of the branch they claim fealty. Each may be inherited from an heiress in the most traditional form. But the premise escutcheon for 95% of the name, beginning with the C12th High Stewards of Scotland Stewart, Steuart or Stuart, is "Or, a fess chequy argent and azure..." then cadenced accordingly, or marshaled & rematriculated and approved by the Lord Lyon. Scotland believes Arms belong to the individual, not the "family". Hence the strict specificity required for inheritance, transmittal, cadency, matriculation and rematriculation of the escutcheon. This same exacting standard is not applied to Scotland's crests.

"In Scotland crests have always had a very much less important position than in England. There has been little if any continuity with regard to them, and instances of changes for which caprice would appear to be the only reason are met with in the cases of a large proportion of the chief families in that kingdom. To such a widespread extent has the permissive character been allowed to the crest, that many cases will be found in which each successive matriculation for the head of the house, or for a cadet, has produced a change in the crest, and instances are to be found where the different crests are the only existing differences in the achievements of a number of cadets of the same family. At the present time, little if any objection is ever made to an entire and radical change in the crest--if this is wished at the time of a rematriculation--and as far as I can gather such changes appear to have always been permitted." Ch.21, A Complete Guide to Heraldry, Arthur Charles Fox-Davies, 1909

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

"In Scotland crests have always had a very much less important position than in England. There has been little if any continuity with regard to them, and instances of changes for which caprice would appear to be the only reason are met with in the cases of a large proportion of the chief families in that kingdom. To such a widespread extent has the permissive character been allowed to the crest, that many cases will be found in which each successive matriculation for the head of the house, or for a cadet, has produced a change in the crest, and instances are to be found where the different crests are the only existing differences in the achievements of a number of cadets of the same family. At the present time, little if any objection is ever made to an entire and radical change in the crest--if this is wished at the time of a rematriculation--and as far as I can gather such changes appear to have always been permitted." Ch.21, A Complete Guide to Heraldry, Arthur Charles Fox-Davies, 1909

When quoting Fox-Davies it should be remembered that, despite all of his writings on the subject, he was never a herald.

In Scotland crests assume the status of transmissible badges (hence their use within a strap and buckle by retainers and followers) which explains why various branches of the same family will have dissimilar crests.

[Domehead]

Yes, Sir. That is why I used the word "transferred". Perhaps I meant transmitted.

JSFMACLJR's follow up query re'd: how crests do not follow the exacting standards of Scottish Heraldry required for matriculation / rematriculation, marshaling & cadency.
I was showing objective sources on the subject, of considerable age (inc: Burke 1884 & Parker 1894) which explain and display the answer you describe.

Slainte,
Domehead

[Mike_Oettle]

To clarify a bit with regard to crests: while the head of a new branch of a family or clan will usually adopt a new crest, and a matriculant may request a new crest when Lord Lyon acknowledges his differenced arms, many armigers do not take up a new crest, and continue to bear the same crest as their father or grandfather.
Consequently several armigers in the same family will often have the same crest.
This is not to be confused with the concept of a clan badge, where a member wears a metal representation of his chief’s crest on his bonnet. The wearer of such a badge may or may not be an armiger. But an armiger will usually have a badge made of his own crest.
In a badge of this kind, the crest appears on a circular device that is clearly not a strap and buckle. The strap and buckle invariably appear where the crest of a chief or chieftain is worn by a follower.
It has often happened that the College of Arms has required that a crest bear a cadency mark or some other mark of difference, but this is not usual in Scotland.
Regards,
Mike

[SlackerDrummer]

When quoting Fox-Davies it should be remembered that,...

...he was English.