When we picture the origins of heraldry, our minds often conjure a romanticized medieval world: knights in shining armor charging across tournament grounds, their shields emblazoned with the proud lion or soaring eagle of their lineage. We imagine these "family crests" being won in glorious battle, a reward for valor from a grateful king. The truth, however, is both more practical and infinitely more interesting. The real story of heraldry is less about the heat of battle and more about the mundane, yet critical, needs of medieval society; from authenticating a legal document with a wax seal to proving, in a court of law, that you were your father's legitimate heir. This article will debunk five common myths and reveal the surprising, evidence-based story of where coats of arms truly came from.
1. It Didn't Start with a Bang, but with a Seal.
In a largely illiterate society, a person's signature was worthless. The most important tool for proving identity and authenticating a document was the seal: a unique device pressed into wax. Long before heraldic designs were systematically displayed on shields in battle, they were being used on these small, personal seals to validate charters, wills, and letters. These impressions provide us with some of our most valuable and, crucially, datable evidence for the emergence of heraldry.
Seals are the primary sources that ground the study of early heraldry in verifiable fact. Catalogues of French and Belgian seals, for instance, show armorial devices in use as early as the 13th century. Similarly, Scottish records note that the burgh of Aberdeen affixed its "Common Seal" to a deed of homage in 1296. These wax impressions provide a concrete, dated record of specific heraldic designs being used by identifiable individuals and institutions.
This physical evidence stands in stark contrast to the dramatic but often unprovable legends of arms being granted on a battlefield. While a compelling story, such an event leaves little trace in the historical record. The humble legal seal, used for the everyday business of life, is where the story of systematic heraldry is first clearly and consistently recorded. It was a tool of administration before it was a uniform of war.
This simple fact forces us to reconsider our most basic assumptions, starting with the very term we use to describe these symbols.
2. The 'Coat of Arms' Isn't What You Think It Is (and It's Definitely Not a Crest).
Modern marketing, fantasy novels, and the online "family crest" industry have thoroughly confused the essential terminology of heraldry. To cut through this fog, it's vital to understand that the components of an armorial achievement are distinct, each with its own origin and purpose.
First and foremost, the term coat of arms originally referred to the textile garment (a surcoat or tabard) worn over a suit of armor, which was embroidered with the same device that appeared on the shield. Over time, as noted in G.W. Eve's Heraldry As Art (1907), the term came to be applied to the design on the shield itself, which is the true heart of any armorial identity.
The crest, by contrast, is the three-dimensional object that sits atop the helmet. In A Guide to the Study of Heraldry (1840), J.A. Montagu clarifies that the crest was a separate mark of "great dignity and estate." It was not a synonym for the family arms but a distinct, additional honor. Finally, the badge was another separate emblem, often used more broadly by retainers and on property to show allegiance. The distinction between the arms (on the shield) and the crest (on the helmet) is the most critical and most frequently misunderstood concept in heraldry. A single, authoritative statement from A.C. Fox-Davies's The Right to Bear Arms (1900) makes the hierarchy crystal clear:
"There are many coats of arms legally in existence to which no crests have ever been assigned, but there is not a solitary crest lawfully existing without its complementary coat of arms."
Understanding this terminology helps us move beyond simple identification and appreciate the deeper legal and social functions these symbols perform.
Elements of a Heraldic Achievement
3. Heraldry Was More About Law and Lineage than War.
While identifying friend from foe in the chaos of battle was certainly one use for heraldry, its most significant and lasting role was in the civil, legal, and social spheres. More than a battlefield uniform, a coat of arms was a unique, heritable piece of property that served as a public declaration of identity, lineage, and legal standing.
As Hugh Clark explained in his 1866 An Introduction to Heraldry (p. 2), a primary use of arms was to "distinguish persons and property, and record descent and alliance." This point is reinforced in An Armorial of Jersey (1865, p. 6)), which quotes the eminent historian Sir Francis Palgrave's observation that heraldry "frequently affords the best and sometimes the only mode of identifying individuals." In a world with few records and inconsistent spelling of surnames, a coat of arms was an invaluable and unambiguous identifier.
Heraldic rules visually documented the merging of families and the inheritance of property. For instance, as described in J.H. Stevenson's Heraldry in Scotland Vol. I (1914, p. 157), the son of a heraldic heiress (a woman with no brothers), would display his mother's arms in the second and third quarters of his shield, with his father's in the first and fourth. This "quartering" was not a decorative choice; it was a visual legal statement, advertising to the world that two estates and bloodlines had been combined. The shield was, in effect, a map of family mergers, a graphic representation of its alliances and its claims to property and status.
4. There's No Single "First" Coat of Arms, Just a Pattern of Emergence.
Humans have a natural desire for simple origin stories, a "first" of everything. But for a complex social system like heraldry, seeking a single inventor or a definitive "first coat of arms" is a misleading quest. The historical evidence points not to a single moment of creation but to a gradual, organic evolution of hereditary symbols across Western Europe during the 12th and 13th centuries.
We can trace this emergence through scattered but consistent chronological clues. For instance, Gale Pedrick's Manual of Heraldry (1911, pp. 27,40) references rolls of arms (manuscripts listing knights and their bearings) from the reign of King Henry III of England (1216-1272). Similarly, G.C. Rothery's ABC of Heraldry (1900, p. 140) notes that the practice of "dimidiation," an early form of combining two coats of arms, was fashionable "from about 1270 to 1300." These data points, along with evidence from seals and architecture, help establish the 13th century as the period when heraldry became a structured, hereditary system.
Any claim of a "first coat of arms," especially one from before the 12th century and not tied to a specific, verifiable artifact, should be treated with extreme skepticism. The development of heraldry was a widespread European phenomenon, developing at different paces and with different customs in England, France, Scotland, and the German states. There was no single big bang, but a slow, steady dawn of a new visual language.
5. Puns Were Considered High Art (The Truth about Surnames and Arms).
One of the most persistent modern myths is that every surname has a corresponding "family crest." This idea, fueled by commercial websites (heraldic bucket shops), is fundamentally incorrect. While there is a historical connection between names and arms, it is far more creative, witty, and less direct than a simple lookup table would suggest.
A popular and highly respected tradition in medieval heraldry was the creation of "Les Armes parlantes," or "canting arms." As defined in a 1792 collection of arms from Gloucester, these were "Canting or punning Arms" that referred to the bearer's name through a visual pun. This was not a simplistic exercise but a form of intellectual wordplay.
Excellent examples can be found across Europe. The ABC of Heraldry (1900) notes that the town of Great Yarmouth, a fishing port, bore three herrings on its shield, a clear visual pun on its industry and location. At the same time, as Hugh Clark's work confirms, it was common for families to adopt arms that directly referenced their surname; a family named Salmon might bear three salmon, or a Herring family might bear herrings. The key is that these were not automatic assignments but bespoke, witty designs adopted by specific individuals and their descendants. This tradition highlights the true nature of heraldry: it was a creative system of identification, not a generic symbol assigned to everyone who happened to share a last name.
Conclusion: A More Interesting Truth
Stripped of its romantic myths, heraldry emerges not as a simple system of battlefield logos, but as a complex and fascinating visual language. It evolved organically to meet the pressing legal, social, and familial needs of medieval Europe, serving as a signature, a title deed, and a family tree all rolled into one. Its true story is found not in tales of chivalric fancy, but etched into the wax of ancient seals, carved into stone on churches, and recorded in the careful genealogies of the first heralds. It is a story of law, lineage, and identity that is far more compelling than any legend. Now that we see heraldry as a system for proving identity and inheritance, what modern systems do we use to accomplish the same goals?
A Quick Checklist for Evaluating Heraldic Claims
Use this simple checklist to apply a critical eye to claims about coats of arms:
• Is every claim of an early date tied to a specific, verifiable object or record (like a seal, a manuscript, or a carving)? Vague assertions of ancient origins without evidence are a major red flag.
• Does the explanation acknowledge regional differences (e.g., English vs. Scottish vs. French practice), or does it incorrectly present one kingdom's rules as universal? Heraldry has always had local customs.
• Are the terms used correctly? Is there a clear distinction between the arms (on the shield) and the crest (on the helmet)? Conflating these terms is the most common error.
• Does the claim leap directly from a surname to a coat of arms without any genealogical proof connecting the person to the original bearer? Arms belong to specific lineages, not to everyone with the same last name.
Sources
• An Heraldic Alphabet - J.P. Brooke-Little - 1973
• Heraldry in Scotland Vol. I - J.H. Stevenson - 1914
• The Right to Bear Arms - A.C. Fox-Davies - 1900
• A Guide to the Study of Heraldry - J.A. Montagu - 1840
• A Display of Heraldry - John Guillim - 1679
