Heraldic Beasts?

[tripleblessed]

While I don't know much about this (I can hear all those nods of agreement),
another particular may be relevant. In the time of David I a "great worm" was
reported as doing great depredation in the area around Linton. A descendant of a Norman knight who fought at Hastings went to see, and devised a lance
with a small wheel near the tip to allow the tip to go down the beast's throat,
it worked, and the Somervilles were given an entire shire. So the story goes.
Their arms and crest show a knight's helmet surmounted by a dragon perched
on a wheel. Some apparent fact, some possible fancy; voila! A mythical real
heraldic beast.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

That's what I was wondering, I don't seem to be finding any information on what the beasts are supposed to mean.

You might want to have your library scare up a copy of Cecil Wade's book, The Symbolisms of Heraldry, published in 1898.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

My input on this one...My family's crest has a boar with an arrow thru it, a shield with St. Andrew's cross, and in the spaces around the cross bars, hunting horns.

Perhaps you could put a name to these arms and tell us how you came by them?

I only ask because the crest you've mentioned as belonging to your family-- and as seen in your avatar-- is most commonly associated (in Ireland) with the Kelley family, while the name "Patrick" is most commonly associated (in Scotland) with the clan Lamont.

[Mike_Oettle]

Like Rathdown, I suspect that what Mark E is describing is a coat of arms, rather than a crest.
Although the word crest is commonly used to describe anything remotely heraldic, it is actually the topmost part of a heraldic achievement.
It sits on the helmet, which is why it has a crest-wreath (or torse) below it, or alternatively a crown or coronet of some sort.
This was because the crest was actually modelled and bolted to the helmet, and something was needed to conceal the bolts.
Crests are on occasion quite detailed (although that is usually the outcome of bad heraldic design), but generally they comprise a single charge, which can be animal, vegetable or mineral, and is quite often human (a head, a hand, sometimes a whole body, but more usually part of a body – the head and shoulders, or from the waist up).
The crest is commonly put on signets because it is a small emblem (by comparison with the shield and other elements in an achievement) and can more effectively be rendered at that size.
The more familiar use of the crest in Scottish dress is as a badge – when worn within a strap and buckle it is the sign of a clansman, and wearing it signifies submission to the authority of the chief whose crest it is.
Regards,
Mike

[Bugbear]

You might want to have your library scare up a copy of Cecil Wade's book, The Symbolisms of Heraldry, published in 1898.

Thanks, I will look for that book at the accessible libraries.

This book does have a dictionary, but it does not seem to give the symbolic meanings of the animals, just short descriptions.
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Manual of Heraldry; Fifth Edition, by Anonymous (eBook #16273)

There's one or two others over there.

[Mike_Oettle]

While there are symbolisms attached to various animals that appear in heraldry (the mythical as well as the real kind), heraldry itself does not necessarily concern itself with that symbolism.
A man might choose to bear a certain beast (or a herald may assign him one) for its symbolic meaning, or simply because it makes a pleasing and original design, or because it is an element from another coat of arms that has some bearing on that man or his family.
You will find designs where the symbolism was deeply thought through (and which has been explained in some written description), and you will also find designs where little attention has been paid to the symbolism.
I am vaguely aware that the unicorn is a symbol of purity, and that it may only be captured by a virgin. But I chose to include it in my coat of arms because it was part of a design my family had used for centuries.
I had to alter the design somewhat to make it clear that I was not infringing on the rights of another German family, but it retains the same elements.

Rathdown and Jersey Lawyer mentioned the tyger (sometimes also called the tiger), by contrast with the Bengal tiger.
An oddity in South African heraldry is the leopard that appears in the arms of the town of Goodwood (now incorporated into Cape Town).
The enthusiast who designed the arms made the leopard on the shield white with black spots (instead of yellow or tawny), and blazoned it as an African tiger.
His reasoning was that the Tygerberg (a hill close to Goodwood) was so named because the Dutchmen who found leopards there were familiar with the tigers they had seen in India, Java and Sumatra, and referred to them as tijger.
He gave no motivation for the white colouring.
The blazon was accepted without question by the Bureau of Heraldry, so although the arms show a leopard, the official blazon calls it an African tiger!
Regards,
Mike

[Bugbear]

All right, as suggested by MacMillan of Rathdown, this site has reprinted extracts from W. Cecil Wade's The Symbolisms of Heraldry or A Treatise on the Meanings and Derivations of Armorial Bearings.
Symbolisms of Heraldry - Deeper Meanings of Heraldic Tinctures, Lines and Charges
And here is the full text over at Internet Archive:
Full text of "The symbolisms of heraldry : or, A treatise on the meanings and derivations of armorial bearings," by W. Cecil Wade. (IA)
That is to the page that comes up on a google search.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Rathdown and Jersey Lawyer mentioned the tyger (sometimes also called the tiger), by contrast with the Bengal tiger.

In modern heraldic practice tyger and tiger are now considered separate charges. Tygers, to heralds, are those fanciful critters that have been prowling and growling around shields and helmets since the 15th/16th century. Tigers, on the other hand, refer to the sort of animal that tried to eat Sigfried (or was it Roy) in Las Vegas a few years ago. Because there are several species of tiger, the default is always a Bengal, unless otherwise specified. Because it is necessary to blazon the colours and tinctures of all charges, a "tiger, proper" would be a Bengal tiger. It would only be necessary to specify the type of tiger (for example a Siberian tiger) if something other than a Bengal was to be depicted in the arms or crest.

An oddity in South African heraldry is the leopard that appears in the arms of the town of Goodwood (now incorporated into Cape Town).
The enthusiast who designed the arms made the leopard on the shield white with black spots (instead of yellow or tawny), and blazoned it as an African tiger.
His reasoning was that the Tygerberg (a hill close to Goodwood) was so named because the Dutchmen who found leopards there were familiar with the tigers they had seen in India, Java and Sumatra, and referred to them as tijger.
He gave no motivation for the white colouring.
The blazon was accepted without question by the Bureau of Heraldry, so although the arms show a leopard, the official blazon calls it an African tiger!
Regards,
Mike

Quaint, eccentric, and typical of the whims of heralds! I love it...

[Bugbear]

Hmmm, I wonder if anyone has used a blue maltese tiger...

* Sorry, now that I think about it, that might be a little like asking if anyone has used a sasquach on their arms.

I've been looking up some of the beasts in the Cecil Wade book,; it's very interesting. Thanks for the suggestion.

[Mike_Oettle]

Well, Bugbear, since you mention a blue tiger (Maltese, at that!), I thought I would mention that my crest is a blue kudu.
The kudu (also called the greater kudu, or Tragelaphus strepsiceros) is a popular charge in South African arms, and to avoid the possibility that I was duplicating someone else’s crest, I used armorial rather than natural colours. My kudu’s horns are gold. The pair of kudu horns I have lying on my roof is almost black.
Regards,
Mike