Clansman's Badge

[davidlpope]

Arnot,

Here's a bit of a primer:

As have been previously stated, the clansman's badge is simply the torse and crest from the clan chief's coat of arms, encircled by a strap and buckle. The strap and buckle indicate that this crest does not belong to the wearer, rather, the wearer "belongs to" (owes loyalty to) the armiger who bears that particular crest.

Here's an example showing my chief's arms, and our clansman's badge:





When one considers heraldry, one has to disassociate oneself from certain modern notions: namely, that each element of an achievement of arms "means" something. Heraldry started as a means to identify an individual in battle. Simple heraldic charges were selected, with simple tinctures (colors) because that was easy to pick out. Imagine: "See that knight over there with the gold moon on his helm, that's Arnott.." "See that knight over there with the gold boar's head on his helm, that's the Duke of Argyll..."

Crescents in English heraldry are often used to denote second sons of a family. That being said, I suspect that meaning is much younger than the original arms of Arnot.

Sometimes associated families bear arms that are similar. Other times, the arms are a play on the name of the bearer, referred to as canting.

The best intro to heraldry is a wonderful little book titled, "Simple Heraldry, Cheerfully illustrated." From there, you can move on to other more academic guides.

[Arnot]

When one considers heraldry, one has to disassociate oneself from certain modern notions: namely, that each element of an achievement of arms "means" something. Heraldry started as a means to identify an individual in battle. Simple heraldic charges were selected, with simple tinctures (colors) because that was easy to pick out. Imagine: "See that night over there with the gold moon on his helm, that's Arnott.." "See that knight over there with the gold boar's head on his helm, that's the Duke of Argyll..."

Very good point. This might well be the case with the crescent. It sounds like something people in my family would do. Something simple, not over the top, but still does the job. Maybe the old Arnots did the same. Many thanks.

[ThistleDown]

Arnot, you might search out 'The House of Arnot and Some of its Branches' by Lieut-Col James Arnot, MD published 1918 or Burke's 'Extinct Baronetcies' as aids to finding the crescent origin as used by the family of Arnot. The crescent is often a mark of cadency -- the second son -- but I think in this case it was adopted by someone who actually made it all the way to the Holy Land and back -- and lived to be proud of the fact.

[Arnot]

Arnot, you might search out 'The House of Arnot and Some of its Branches' by Lieut-Col James Arnot, MD published 1918 or Burke's 'Extinct Baronetcies' as aids to finding the crescent origin as used by the family of Arnot. The crescent is often a mark of cadency -- the second son -- but I think in this case it was adopted by someone who actually made it all the way to the Holy Land and back -- and lived to be proud of the fact.

I actually have the House of Arnot. I haven't as yet found a reference to the crescent, but I shall keep looking and look more closely as well. I'm glad you mentioned the Holy Land. That theory crossed my mind, but I thought I might be just coming up with a good story in my own mind. Maybe it's not as crazy an idea as I thought. Many thanks.

[Arnot]

Arnot, you might search out 'The House of Arnot and Some of its Branches' by Lieut-Col James Arnot, MD published 1918 or Burke's 'Extinct Baronetcies' as aids to finding the crescent origin as used by the family of Arnot. The crescent is often a mark of cadency -- the second son -- but I think in this case it was adopted by someone who actually made it all the way to the Holy Land and back -- and lived to be proud of the fact.

Did a Google search and found a reference to Sir John Arnot of Fernie who fell in the last Crusade. With at least one Arnot having gone to the Holy Land, this theory is a possibility.

[ThistleDown]

One of the pitfalls for North American researchers is the temptation to attribute things that are factual in their own families to people of the past and then off they go wandering in that direction. I suppose this tendency is due to a cultural familiarity with only the recent past. Colour of eyes or hair, does pass on from generation to generation, of course, but mannerisms don't carry much beyond the immediate family member from whom they are learned.

[Arnot]

One of the pitfalls for North American researchers is the temptation to attribute thanks that are factual in your own family to people of the past and then off they go wandering in that direction. I suppose this tendency is due to a cultural familiarity with only the recent past. Colour of eyes or hair, does pass on from generation to generation, of course, but mannerisms don't carry much beyond the immediate family member from whom they are learned.

Is this regarding post #8 and the "old Arnots"?

[ThistleDown]

I had to go back and re-read #8. Yes, I suppose it is, but it's just something I've noticed in my years on XMarks: a tendency for North Americans to explain a non-genetic habit or preference as genetic. I think it comes from a short cultural memory and an intense desire to make a connection with an older culture. Not important to your question, though. Good luck in your on-going research.