Page 5 of 5

Re: Helmet

Posted: 02 Sep 2014, 13:29
by Charles Melebeck
I must confess I like the aesthetic side of the helmet very much. Though, as a commoner comming like some of us from a country where nobility as/does exist/ed, I ask myself if there's sense in registering coat of arms showing an element which has no link with my/our(?) family history? How many families never involved knights or noblemen?

Just an open question ;)


Re: Helmet

Posted: 02 Sep 2014, 15:17
by Chris Green
Having a coat of arms has not required any link to medieval warfare or jousting for more than 500 years. So whether or not someone's family has a link to such persons is completely irrelevant.

It is certainly possible to have a coat of arms without a helm, torse and mantling - though you can't have the latter two without the helm. In my view however such achievements look incomplete.

It is perhaps worth pointing out that Trade Guilds and Livery Companies were first granted coats of arms when shields and helmets were still in use in warfare (in London the Drapers received a grant of arms in 1439), but it was not considered necessary to distinguish these (relatively) peaceable groups by making their shields look like pavises (the heavy shields used to protect citizen crossbowmen) or replace their helms with the sort of hats worn by their members.

Re: Helmet

Posted: 02 Sep 2014, 15:56
by Charles Melebeck
I agree Mister Green and find it very beautiful, obviously ;) I just wondered when I saw the coat of arms of some new Belgian nobles with, of course, no link to ancient nobility or chivalery, bearing a helmet. But I perfectly understand you to see this as a normal achievement for coat of arms. A noble branch of my family, from Early Modern times nobility and no link to fighting social classes, also bears a helmet which makes their coat of arms actually good looking!