NS Vol 7 No 1-2 (December 2001)

The European significance of the helmet in the heraldic achievement

by R Gayre of Gayre and Nigg[1]

IN the heraldry of the three heraldic provinces of the British Isles we are accustomed to the use of the helmet to signify rank within the tables of precedency in the various countries concerned. This system was well established by the 17th century. John Guillim, in A Display of Heraldrie, lays special stress on distinguishing the helmet of an Esquire from that of a Knight, and so on.[2] Sir George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh, in The Science of Herauldry, treated as part of the Civil Law, and Law of Nations[3] gives a list of the differences between the types of helmets used by the French and the English at that time. From this list it is clear that the French as well as the English had already evolved rules, although of an artificial nature, to denote the rank involved by each type of helmet. There seems to be little doubt that it is from the French that the English adopted the conception of the helmet as denoting precedency rank in the peerage and infra-peerage ranks of society.

There is some advantage in quoting from Sir George Mackenzie, as he summarises the differences between the French and English, and makes some allusion to Scottish practice at that time. He says:[4]

 

“Because the English and French differ so much in their Rules here, I resolve to give an account of both their principles, and to begin with the English.

“The English allow a Gentleman to bear, a side-standing Helmet with the baver close: which was the Roman custom, as appears by Juvenal Et statua mediatur Praelia Lusca.

“To a Knight, a Helmet standing direct forward, with a baver open without guards.

“To all Persons above the dignity of a Knight, and below that of a Duke, a side-helmet with an open-fac’d guard visure.

“To Dukes, and all above them, a Helmet which is full forward open-fac’d with guard visures.

“The French give a Gentleman, a side-standing Helmet, very little open, to show that he should not look about to view other mens actions.

“To a Knight they allow, a side-standing Helmet, with 5 Barrs in his Guard vizur: Fenestras distinctas clathris seu cancellis.

“To a Barron, they allow, to carry his Helm half side-wise, half in Front, en Tiers, as the French call it, with 7 Griles or Barrs.

“To Counts, Vidames, and Viscounts, a direct-standing Helm, with 9 Barrs.

“To Marquesses, a direct standing Helmet, with 11 Barrs.

“To Kings and Emperours, a direct-Helmet altogether open.

“Though Scotland agrees with England, in the Bearing of their Helmets, yet I must confess, that both by the consent of all other Nations, and in reason also, it were fitter to give Kings Helmets fully open, without Garde visurs (as the French do) than to Knights as we do, for Knights are in more danger, and have less need to command; and seeing all Nations agree that a direct standing, is more noble than a side-wise standing, I see not why the Helmet of a Knight should stand direct, and a Dukes only side-wise . . .

“There is likewise this difference betwixt them, that the English make no difference, betwixt the Bearers, from the Metall of which the Helmets is made; whereas the French allow only the Knights, a Helmet adorn’d with Silver; to Counts, and all above them, they allow Helmets adorn’d with Gold: and to Kings, all the Helmet damasquin’d . . .”

 

From this it is clear that the French had evolved a more complicated use of the helmet for ranking purposes than the English, and the impression which one gathers is that this system of using the helmet for this purpose arose among them and spread to other nations. In this connection the Scots tended to lag, but, as is so often the case, ended by following the English custom, although not whole-heartedly and with some demur at obvious illogicalities which might be involved.

The French system has influenced the Italians and that is why the arms of HM King Umberto[5] have the full-facing helmet, which in the British Isles is used only for Knights. Italian heraldry also makes use of different metals to denote rank. Thus the helmet of a noble family is of silver, with a collar and medallion, and the beaver open, whereas the helmet of a citizen of proved civility has a plain helmet closed. The number of bars in a helmet is also used to indicate, in the same pedantic way as in France and the British Isles, the rank, although it is clear from a study of the heraldic monuments these classifications did not exist or if they did were ignored in the past.[6]

Ancient seals do not present any complicated system of helmets. For instance, the Scottish seals of the 14th century clearly indicate, irrespective of rank, the use of the simple helm with the central bar, the helmet facing any direction considered suitable and logical for the crest.[7]

If we turn to the English Garter stall-plates we find that they also do not give any evidence of this complicated system for denoting rank within the tables of precedency. Thus Lord Bourchier (c 1421) has the type of helmet which in England is now conceded to esquires. The same thing is true of Richard Lord Grey of Codnor, William Lord Willoughby, and Sir Simon Felbrigge. In fact the helmet does not indicate rank at all. In these instances the helmet is of a later type than that found on the Scottish seals, and is the later tournament type of the period of these stall-plates.

English brasses also show the closed helmet with a central bar, irrespective of rank, which in Scotland today is employed for a gentleman as distinct from Scots barons and chiefs who have the tournament helm which in England is, and has been since the 17th century, accorded to esquires.[8] In English brasses generally one sees the tournament helmet of the English esquire, as now allocated to that rank probably because most of them come from a period when that type of helmet was so largely used for the tournament.[9] This probably accounts for this type of helmet’s regular appearance on so many of the Garter stall-plates.

From this it is clear that in the vital days of heraldry there was no conception of artificial differences of the types of helmets to indicate precedency ranks.

In Germany a more logical use of the helmet has occurred, and while this system could not have existed in earlier times, since it is clear that in war men of whatever degree of nobility or rank would tend to use the most effective helmet for their own safety, the system which is now accepted and generally used has a specific allusion to rank. But it is rank indicated in a much more fundamental manner than one which reflects rank in peerage and infra- peerage tables of precedency. It is the type of division, which at root prevailed in every country of Europe, irrespective of title, and was still vitally important even after these artificial gradings came into existence in France, England and ultimately Ireland and Scotland. The fundamental consideration still, and more so in ancient times, was antiquity of nobility. With the collapse of the crowns in so many countries, and the resulting inability to renew peerage and similar titles, it is likely that, as time passes, this classification will reassert itself with increasing force.

Although it is to France that we may look for the proliferation of these pedantic differences in the helmets, yet even in that country a gentleman (that is a man of ancient nobility without title) had the right to walk beside a duke in a procession of the Order of the Holy Ghost, as the King made clear when the dukes protested in 1689. In the reign of Louis XVI an ordinance appeared which stipulated that no individual should be presented at court unless he could prove 400 years of gentility. As Sir James Lawrence points out:[10]

 

“A multiplicity of comtes and marquises were rejected: though many an untitled gentleman . . . posted to Paris to show their pre-eminence. Every gentleman, his pedigree being certified, was, on the first hunting-day, invited to mount with the king into his carriage, and accompany his majesty to the spot where the hounds were turned out. This privilege was termed le droit de monter dans le carosse du roi. The plain squire, to whom this right was allowed, was considered as superior to the count or marquis, whose claims were rejected.

 

This was the strongest criterion of difference among the noblesse of Europe, and still is in many parts of Europe today, not least Germany: and is, as we have observed, likely to be increased in strength rather than diminished by the great political changes of our times, when the proliferation of title-creating is falling into desuetude in most countries.

Therefore, the system employed in Germany which reflects something so fundamental in the social structure, and the basis of heraldic and genealogical conceptions, is highly significant: for what has evolved and been maintained in the Germanic countries is that the helmet should reflect not the rank in the noblesse but the degree of nobility of a family. Thus a knight of the German Order of St John will not use a knight’s helmet to display that quality, but that type of helmet which indicates the quality of his nobility, and that of his family.

The accompanying illustration of the arms of members of the Johanniter Orden[11] indicates the four types of helmet employed.

In the first instance, that of von Oelsen, Baron and Freiherr, and of von Rosen, Freiherr, show the ancient Topfhelm which in German practice is restricted to Uradel – that is, very ancient nobility. This is considered the finest coat of arms to possess, and the helmet indicates its quality. The way the helmet faces has no significance, while the use of the coronet is of very secondary importance.

It will be observed that this is the same helmet, which in Scotland is used for Gentlemen. Since that term should only be used for ancient gentility, it can be said that the Scottish practice is conforming to some extent to this fundamental conception, which is so implicit in Germanic heraldry.

In the case of the arms of the Freiherr von Rotberg the type of helmet is used which in France, England, Ireland and Scotland we associate with peers. In Germanic heraldry it is used to denote Briefadel. That is, whereas Uradel are those noble families which were noble at the beginning of the historic heraldic period, and whose nobility precedes their use of arms, the Briefadel are the later nobles who were created by letters patent. This type of helmet is called by the Germans the Bügelhelm.

Originally it would seem[12] that it was associated with the tournament. Obviously only the wealthier nobility could afford to take part in such expensive affairs. Consequently, at one time this form of the helmet was often used by Uradel as well as the more important of the Briefadel. However, as time passed it has become associated more and more with the Briefadel, and so the Uradel have tended to restrict themselves to the simple Topfhelm, although in all such matters, as the greater includes the lesser, there is no doubt that their use of the grilled Bügelhelm could not be considered an impropriety.

The Freiherren von Rotberg provide an instance of a family which is actually Uradel in origin. Thus, in the armorial record of the German Order of St John, from which the accompanying drawing is taken, there is also shown, as a smaller coat at the side, the same coat of arms with a simpler and older crest borne on the Topfhelm to indicate that the family is in fact Uradel and not Briefadel.

The arms of Janson are of interest. This family is said to have been of Scottish origin, probably of patrician status, and came into Prussia from Holland. (Presumably the name was originally Johnson). It was ennobled in 1813. The arms as shown here (also taken from the Order of St John records)[13] are the ancient arms before ennoblement. The “Diplomwappen” of 1838 is considerably changed from this and has the Bügelhelm associated with Briefadel. The open front-facing helmet – used in the British Isles for knights, and elsewhere for monarchs – is apparently employed in this case to indicate patrician origin. However, there is no merit in perpetuating this for this grade of society.

In the coat of arms of Klaiber it will be observed that the helmet used is that which in England is used for Esquires, and in Scotland is employed for Scots feudal Barons and Chiefs. This is unfortunate in both cases but particularly in that of the latter, where most of the users will be Uradel in origin, since it makes for confusion because in Germany this type of helmet is restricted to the Bürgerlich – that is to those armigerous families who are not noble at all, although many of them approximate to that form of infra-nobility which in Italy is called Proved Civility. This type of helmet is called in Germany the Stechhelm, and was in common use in the fifteenth century for tournament purposes. As a consequence it is one of the commonest to be found in illustrations of that period, such as in the English Garter stall-plates.

Since heraldry was a universal science in Europe in earlier times it is desirable that as far as possible these additaments of arms should be used in the same way in all countries, for otherwise nothing but confusion prevails, and it becomes increasingly difficult to evaluate the type of arms which are involved from one country to another.

There is great merit in the simpler usages of the German heraldic system, since it identifies the three fundamental social groups, or castes, which are involved: that is, the very ancient nobility which comes down from time out of mind: the later families which arose when heraldry was a flourishing system in European history: and finally those families which have risen to standing and substance as burghers or citizens, but who have not yet attained any form of nobility.

In this system the open helm used by knights in the British Isles has no place. However, as Sir George Mackenzie points out, this logically belongs to the Sovereign, and was so used by the French, and still is by the Italians and others.

In Italian heraldry the arms of civility, which is the rank below noble, has a completely closed helm with a visor. In other words it is the knight’s helm, but closed, and without any form of ornament. This is the type, which has frequently been used in England for the ranks of Gentlemen and Esquires, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Since the Scottish use of the Topfhelm without any gold ornament exists for Gentlemen, it would seem that it would be proper for Scottish feudal Barons and Chiefs to use the same helm with the bar or grill in gold with gold ornamentation to the helmet. This would go a long way to approximating the German and Scottish uses. But where the English and Irish uses are concerned, there is no possibility of a compromise of this kind, for the Bürgerlich type of helmet is that which is used in both these countries for the rank of Esquire.

As coronets are freely used with the coat of arms to indicate rank in the three provinces in the British Isles, it would suggest that any attempt to do so by means of the helmet is quite superfluous, only adding an unnecessary complication within the display of heraldry, and producing confusion when the helmets used in British arms are compared with those in use in the Germanic countries.[14]

It would seem, therefore, that there is a place for using the single barred steel helmet for families of ancient gentility, perhaps with the gold embellishments for chiefs of such houses and the ancient feudal baronage, and with grilled helmets for the rest. The gold helmet always distinguishes the Sovereign in all countries. For newly granted armigers the tournament helmet now used by esquires could still be employed, until they had reached the third generation, which in all countries was the stage at which they converted their anobli status into that of nobility. At this stage a silver grilled helmet could be used to indicate that noble status had been reached, deriving itself from the patent of arms or noblesse as the case may be. Peerage ranks would remain as now, with golden grilled helmets. It would be for the peer of ancient name to decide whether he valued his peerage higher than his ancient nobility (anglice, gentility), and whether, as a result, he used the Topfhelm or Bügelhelm. The all-gold character of the sovereign's helmet clearly distinguishes it, whatever form it takes. My proposals for a use of helmets in the British Isles, which would bring them into closer approximation to German usage, without doing violence to our principles, and so aid a general rationalisation, are set out in the accompanying illustrations.

 

Grantee (anobli): steel tournament helmet (German Stechhelm).

Armiger (noblesse by patent): steel silver grilled helmet (German Bügelhelm).

Ancient nobility (Uradel; gentry in the strict use of the term): steel pot helmet with silver embellishments (German Topfhelm).

Uradel Chief (in Scotland, clan chief, old feudal baron or peer): steel helmet with gold embellishments (German Topfhelm).

 

At least some change in this direction, even if not following these suggestions slavishly, would bring about a reform, which is necessary in order to achieve greater simplicity in practice. It would also enhance the artistic aspects of heraldic display and reduce the confusion when comparing the arms from one heraldic province with those of another. It would also reflect the actual realities of the structure of society which is not one as between a gentleman, a knight and a lord, since some of the last two in all ages may well be of much lower social status than the untitled noble. Today in Britain this is obviously so in a majority of cases. If such persons wish to assert their dignities by special helms (which so far as peers are concerned are those which in many lands are those of Briefadel) well and good, but this is no reason why those of more ancient nobility should not also use helmets which elsewhere reflect their own inherent dignities.

Rules as to the way a helmet should face should be entirely ignored, as they are in Scotland, for it is plain stupidity to have an animal gaily tripping over the side of the helmet when in an actual tournament it would have been facing forward, if it were not to have brought the bearer of it into complete derision.