TARTANS & HERALDRY
©2006
Matthew A. C. Newsome, FSA Scot, GTS
published in the Scottish Banner, January 2007
In
addition to researching tartan related questions at the Scottish
Tartans Museum, I invariably spend time answering inquiries
dealing with heraldic issues. Usually these are people who want
to see “their” coat of arms. When I tell them that they probably
don’t have one, sometimes they get upset! What, then, do they
have hanging above their mantle at home? Sadly, most of us have
very little knowledge of heraldry. In America in particular, we
have practically no history of heraldic useage.
I
thought, therefore, that it might be useful to dedicate this
month’s column to dealing with issues of heraldry. But what does
heraldry have to do with Highland dress? Well, one element of
most Highland outfits these days is the clansman’s crest badge,
which is indeed heraldic. Also, most people operate under the
assumption that tartan is heraldic (it is not, and we’ll see why
in a moment).
To begin
with, what is heraldry? Heraldry is a system that developed in
the European Middle Ages of identifying people graphically through
colors, geometric shapes and designs, and pictures. The basic
idea is simple. When you are watching competing knights in a
tourney, covered head to toe in heavy armor, how do you know which
competitor to root for? Sir John has a red chevron on his white
shield and Sir Richard has a black stag’s head on his yellow
shield. Just like our modern sports teams’ uniforms, you can
easily tell at a glance one side from the other.
You can
see how this idea could prove very useful on the battlefield,
especially when these heraldic devices were displayed on banners
and used as standards around which soldiers could rally. The idea
of a noble individual representing himself graphically took on
other uses, as well, with heraldic devices eventually being used
to mark property and possessions.
But the
basic principle behind most heraldic devices is simple – a
particular design would serve to represent an individual person.
It was like a medieval Social Security number. There was a
one-to-one correlation between someone’s heraldic device and their
own identity. This is contrary to the popular American idea that
there exists a “family coat of arms,” a heraldic device that
anyone with a given surname can display. In reality, very few
countries in Europe (and certainly not Scotland) allow heraldic
arms to be used by an entire family. Someone who has heraldic
arms is called an armiger, and in Scotland even that armiger’s
direct family cannot display his arms without differencing them in
some way. While many countries have rather lax heraldic laws (and
America has none at all), Scotland is another story. It is the
only country with an active heraldic court of law operating on a
daily basis (the Court of the Lord Lyon), and if you decide to use
someone else’s heraldry, there can be serious legal
ramifications.
With all
that in mind, let’s define a few terms. Most people are familiar
with the classic “coat of arms” layout – a shield, perhaps with a
couple of beasties on either side holding it up, upon which is a
helmet crested with a device, usually displayed with flowing
colored mantling. Often there is a scroll with a motto displayed
above or below this arrangement. Many times people refer to this
mistakenly as a “family crest,” which can lead to some confusion
as a crest is quite a different thing. Sometimes this is called a
“coat of arms,” which technically is not true either.
What
this kind of arrangement is actually called is a “full
achievement.” It actually incorporates several different kinds of
heraldic devices. The actual arms are what appears on the shield
itself (sometimes these are called a coat of arms, because in
addition to being displayed on a shield, they were often displayed
on a surcoat worn over the armor). These arms represent an
individual person, not a family. In Scottish terms, the arms
would be used by the chief, not the clan. So if a man named
Campbell from New Jersey decided to use the “Campbell arms” on his
letterhead, it would be implying that he is the chief of the
clan. The Duke of Argyle might object!
The
figures standing to either side of the shield are called
supporters, and they are another type of heraldic device (not
everyone has them). The helmet above the shield is usually
displayed with mantling in the livery colors of the armiger (the
main colors used in the arms). Atop the helmet will be a torse,
or twisted wreath, also in the livery colors. Atop the torse will
be the actual crest.
The
torse and crest also have their origin in medieval tournaments.
Knights would often wear a three-dimensional figure mounted to
their helmets as another means of being identified from a
distance. The modern heraldic crest is the equivalent. Like the
arms, the crest is a personal heraldic device, though simpler in
design. No one besides the clan chief should be displaying the
clan crest by itself. However, it is quite common to
display the crest of the chief surrounded by a belt and buckle
(usually with the clan motto upon it).
Convention has developed in Scotland that by displaying the crest
within this strap and buckle, you are transforming the crest (a
personal heraldic device) into a badge. Unlike most heraldry, a
badge is a communal device. It is not displayed to show identity
– “I am So-and-so” – but rather affiliation. It says, “I am loyal
to So-and-so.” So when a Campbell wears the boar’s head crest
displayed in the belt and buckle, he is not claiming to be the
chief of the clan, but a loyal follower of the chief.
More so
even than wearing the tartan, the wearing of the crest badge is
the primary means of showing one’s loyalty to a clan. And that is
because tartan, strictly speaking, is not heraldic. Many people
operate under the assumption that it is, because in their minds,
heraldry involves symbols that people of the same family share in
common. Thus tartan seems to be heraldic. But as we have seen,
this is not the case with true heraldry. Tartan is something
different.
Unlike
heraldry, which is strictly governed in Scotland by the Lyon
Court, tartan has no official governing body. Tartan is an
industry. It is today with all the major tartan mills, and it was
hundreds of years ago with hand weavers producing cloth to be worn
in their own village. There are no rules at all governing who can
wear what tartan, or what a given tartan should be named or used
for. The “rules” that we do have are really convention and
tradition, developed over the centuries.
Tartans
do not belong to individuals, and tartans are not worn to show
allegiance to an individual. Tartans are worn because of their
symbolic association with a family, a clan, a place, or an
occupation. Or tartans can be worn simply because one likes the
design or color. One would never do that with a heraldic device!
Tartan is a lot of things, but it is not heraldry. It never has
been and – despite some people’s best efforts to make it so – it
never will be.
