# Medieval Noble Houses - crests, motto's, and music?



## Dan

Hi,

I have been pondering a concept for a book that I am working on, and in it there will be quite a lot of noble houses, gaining their nobility in a number of ways - Ancient houses of nobility (bloodline), marriages, gifted titles from Kings & Queens, and so on and so forth.

To distinguish, for example, a house of which has no ancient roots, nor history tied with it, except in lets say a gift from a King for a task well accomplished, to that of a house which has had a solid, untarnished bloodline for five hundred years, and is descendant from a royal bloodline; I had come to the conclusion that I could have a number of laws that govern what can, and cannot be done by houses at different levels.

A few things I had imagined would be limits on crest designs, especially for the houses which are new in creation - Perhaps limiting creatures, and specific colours; another is music, I had envisioned a musical instrument that has only one string, each string on every instrument is tuned to a specific note (from low - to - high), so one could not create an overly complex melody, nor a melody containing chords from a single instrument, and each Nobel house would have a small melody that goes with it's crest, and motto. 

Now a newly created house would be allowed, under law to have a melody made up of only one instrument; a family that has been going for say one-hundred years, and has many great parts in history would be allowed two, or more instruments to construct their family melody, along with further allowances in what they can do with their crests, and perhaps motto's (I may just leave this as is, or perhaps a law limiting certain words, and lengths).

Now, from what I have read so far, I believe that in medieval times it was required for a man of any importance to seek a license from the King to 'crenelate' - one could have a large protected house, but not a large house that looked like a castle. In fact I have read it was quite pompous with a lot of actions being taken purely to show off power, and to stick-one to the neighbours, so to speak.

So, I think that the above would be a good way to take that further, and to have a very strict code for controlling the upper-classes which sit under the household on the throne.

Now, if I may ask for opinions, criticism, and other such stuff - Does this sound like a realistic idea for Medieval England? (11th century - 15th century ~).

P.s. I haven't read a lot into this area, yet. So I may have gotten a few facts wrong, if I have, and you notice then please let me know as I shall go read up on those areas.

EDIT: I may have posted this in the wrong section, perhaps I should have posted it under 'research'. I had envisioned a thread upon which I could receive feedback to further build my world, but perhaps that doesn't necessitate it being under 'world building'. Sorry if that is the case.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Hello Dan, no problem at all!!

Since you are asking about a real world historical subject, I have already moved this interesting thread into the Research forum =)


----------



## Jess A

A friend of mine who is Chinese explained that in the past, only Kings could use dragons in their home. Dragon crests, dragon statues, dragon designs etc. So your thoughts on limiting creatures is very plausible (even without the historical example). I have something similar in my novel.

The music is interesting, but it would be even more clever if it had a plot significance as well. Maybe that is my music-oriented mind talking  Plus, I could see minstrels and performers dressed in their masters' colours/crests performing the music. Matching it.


----------



## Dan

Thank-you Sheilawisz for moving my thread to the correct sub-forum - I'll remember to post in the correct place in the future 

Little Storm Cloud: That sounds quite interesting, perhaps it is related to the how important the dragon is in Chinese culture, I believe _(I could be wrong)_ that the Chinese believe they are descendants of dragons - which probably would be a good reason for a King to limit who can possess symbols of dragons.

The minstrels is something I had envisioned too - I really like the idea of them being in their masters' colours, and with crests though - I can see a lively group of musicians playing, and perhaps for some very, _very_ great families, singing at the start of a great tourney, or festival. 

That has given me an idea, a musical commentary of the family, or family events could be used for the greatest of families - I think this would be a good way to quickly introduce a families history, and to give the reader a sense of why the family is great (I'd leave out the bad, no official song would feature bad deeds  ).

I haven't thought of a major plot integration as of yet, but I think it's something I'll work heavily on, as it could be an interesting, but subtle way of introducing major plot turns, or twists - perhaps a King commands the musicians to leave out several instruments during a great tourney to show in public, but without direct personal threats, the imminent deposing of a great lord, and his family name.


----------



## Ravana

Not sure what to say about the music idea, as there's nothing I can think of offhand as real-world precedent–which doesn't mean there isn't any. As a suggestion, however: it might be easier (and perhaps make more sense) if you limited specific _instruments_ to certain levels… since most instrumental music historically wasn't played by the nobility anyway, but by hirelings or independent performers. Thus, perhaps anybody of consequence might have his tune played on a recorder; higher nobles could add stringed instruments; only the royalty could make use of brass. (And anybody the king really hated could be required to make use of the dreaded bagpipe, banjo and pennywhistle ensemble.  ) This would also bring the concept in line with…:

Sumptuary laws–which most commonly dictated who was allowed to wear what, though they were in fact designed to control copious expenditures on luxuries in general. These laws, pretty much as a matter of course, also covered who could make use of certain symbols, i.e. crowns and coronets, and would be the legal force behind any restrictions on personal heraldry.

As for the heraldry itself: yes, some charges (symbols) were restricted to certain levels of nobility (lions and fleur-de-lis both spring to mind) at various times; these usually included pretty much anything other than a plain shield bearing the person's arms. Thus, helmet, torse, crown, crest, mantling, supporter, base and motto were most commonly augmentations of arms, not integral parts of them. 

Some charges and/or arrangements were also limited, by tradition if not law, to certain persons: a child of two nobles might combine the arms of both parents ("per pale": the visual equivalent of a hyphenated name); the next generation might have quartered arms (though quartering was not always done thus: in many cases, quartered arms had the same arms in the first/fourth and second/third quarters, while the present arms of the monarch of the U.K. have the three lions of England in 1 and 4, with the arms of Scotland in 2 and Ireland in 3); and if subsequent generations continued the practice, things could get downright ugly. And I mean _really_ ugly. (For an example, see: File:Stowe Armorial.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .) Other charges, including labels (think a downward-pointing 'E' at its simplest, a "label of three," with more limbs for "of four," etc.) and borders might indicate cadency (birth order), with some other charges seeing use here as well, depending on the place; in all cases, these were overlaid on the arms of the parent.

Unfortunately, there is no set of universal heraldry rules that was widely accepted: each kingdom had its own variations. In most places, a College of Heralds or equivalent was responsible for keeping track of who could legitimately bear which arms–though the right to have arms at all was granted by the monarch. Augmentations would be granted as recognition for any number of services (or out of naked favoritism), and may or may not have adhered to any rhyme or reason over time.

The Wikipedia article on "cadency" has an excellent stock of variations from multiple nations, to give you some sense of how these things could be handled. This:

Heraldry

has a good introductory discussion on the topic (I realize some might not consider this "introductory"  ), including processes by which arms and augmentations are (currently) granted, which I suspect may go a long way toward addressing your questions and giving you more to draw upon. This:

Heraldry of the world - Heraldrywiki

is a good place to simply go browsing to see the various beauties and travesties which hath been wrought throughout heraldic history. (Don't plan on using it to find anything in terms of explanatory detail, though.) And for a _very_ official take from a single country, there's always this:

College of Arms

Yes, that last address really _is_ ".gov .uk" I _said_ it was official.…


----------



## Dan

What an informative post Ravana, thank-you very much! 

I think it may take me a few days to go through all of the information you've posted, and I already know it's going to give me some very good ideas to work into my world.

About the musical instruments, it would work better to have various instruments - I suppose just having a few instruments would severely limit what one can do.

The reason that I limited the idea to single stringed instruments, is that I had planned, as sad as it may be, to record a number of melodies, and rhyming verses for notable families that would go along with the histories that I am writing of the world, along with first-person chronicles, and annals of events, third-person tales, and short stories. (I only play guitar, and bass - limiting myself to string instruments)

A method of getting myself into the feel, and mood of the world so to speak - even if a little over-the-top, and perhaps unnecessary, but hey, I'm embracing story telling, and I want to go all out. 

But perhaps I shall keep the music simple for the common folk, and travelling musicians, and have in the story, or stories more elaborate and multi-instrumental tracks for the noble families (Which I won't compose and record  ).

Now, I am off to read through all of this information, again Ravana, thank-you for the informative post and links


----------



## Ravana

Quite welcome. 

I can think of some possible variations on "restricted music" that might be practicable only with guitar: 
(1) Certain chords might be restricted–I'd allow "common" music to use majors and minors, or else it won't have a lot to work with; but suspended, diminished, sevenths, etc. might be restricted. (I absolutely adore the sound of Sus4 chords.)
(2) Noble music might use different scales: perhaps it uses the readily-identifiable pentatonic–which would also work well if only noble music can have brass instrumentation, if valves haven't been invented yet; or, alternately, "common" music might be restricted to pentatonic, hexatonic, or whatever, with only the nobility allowed the full chromatic. (Are you familiar with the Hungarian minor scale? _Very_ distinct sound.)
(3) Same goes for modes, to the extent they differ from scales… and it might prove easier to assign modes than to restrict scales. Try reproducing Gregorian chant on your guitar. 
(4) Noble music might not use scales at all–though you'll only be able to reproduce this if you have a fretless instrument.
(5) Noble music might use different tunings… though this by itself won't necessarily produce distinctive music, but it might lead to it, with certain chords and harmonies becoming easier or harder.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

I have a perhaps somewhat warped understanding of heraldry, in that often houses / people designed their own crests and coats of arms etc.

As a point in fact my surname is Curtis, which is from the French Curtisse. The family coat of arms for Curtisse (or at least one of several that I've seen) has three ducks in gumboots wandering across a shield, and of course the family motto - 'We shall not inherit'!

My only explanation for this is that absolutely no laws / guidelines were used in developing this coat of arms, just a lot of alcohol imbibed by a second son who'd just discovered that he was cut out of the will!

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Ravana

Depends on time and place. Early on, many people chose their own symbols; in later periods, they were more likely to be assigned, often based on a person's name (some heraldry includes truly dreadful puns—for instance, another example that uses ducks is the arms of Malford) or accomplishments. Plus, of course, the more people who had arms, the more likely for duplication to occur if everyone left was allowed to pick and choose freely.

Gumboots not being a traditional ancient heraldic charge, I suspect that those at least got added fairly recently, and quite possibly involved inebriation, yes. Interestingly, ducks more often appear in threes than in all other numbers combined, at least among English heraldry. Couldn't tell you why.

Note that the motto might be derived from a couple of Biblical quotes: "…neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, / Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-10); "Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:21) (both _KJV_). (Num. 32:19 seems somewhat less likely.) So perhaps your ancestors simply liked to party. Which hardly negates the alcohol theory.…


----------



## Jess A

They are still assigned as far as I know. The Court of the Lord Lyon in Scotland designs the coat of arms though petitioners can offer design ideas. 

I understand a Coat of Arms can only be granted to and used by an individual. So a Duke (for example) may have his Coat of Arms and his son might have a slightly modified version (for example)? Is this correct? 

The children of the house might have slightly different music - I guess it depends on your world whether the music can be used by immediate family or whether children (or the heir) have a small modification to that music. This could be getting too specific. 

If you play an instrument yourself, you could go all the way and include basic sheet music in the back of the book (I would be tempted). I would find it difficult to describe scales and modes in a novel - it makes perfect sense to me, as I play guitar, but it won't to everybody. I suspect you would have to keep it very simple and use "a mournful harmony" or "it was a jaunty, fast-paced melody played by minstrels with flutes and lutes" or something ... forgive the poor examples.


----------



## Ravana

Little Storm Cloud said:


> They are still assigned as far as I know. The Court of the Lord Lyon in Scotland designs the coat of arms though petitioners can offer design ideas.



They are, at least where heraldry is still a going concern–and some places still have criminal offenses on the books for the misuse of arms, though I strongly suspect cases are rarely brought to trial. (This would be far more likely to happen when someone misuses arms that are held by another, in much the same way as trademark infringement, than if they were to simply make up their own and go about showing them.) There are a lot of places that market to people wanting "their own" coats of arms, however; it then becomes a question of whether or not you care that your arms are "legitimate" or not. 

Here's what the dreaded Wikipedia has to say on such matters–as usual, it makes a reasonable starting point:

Law of heraldic arms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would add that in the SCA, where enormous numbers of people want their own arms–and are all entitled to them, as all members are assumed to be of "gentle birth"–there is a very rigorous procedure for verifying that each coat is not only unique within the SCA but also does not duplicate any real-world heraldry either. So even hobbyists can take this issue seriously. 



> I understand a Coat of Arms can only be granted to and used by an individual. So a Duke (for example) may have his Coat of Arms and his son might have a slightly modified version (for example)? Is this correct?



Under most formal procedures (and throughout most of history), largely correct–with one very important and broad exception: _places_ very often have arms as well, not just people. A duke would actually be unlikely to display his own arms publicly; he'd display the arms of the duchy instead. Assorted bells and whistles (well, "augmentations") might surround these, making clear that this is the ruler… or they might not, since in most traditional European theories of rulership, ruler and state were held to be one and the same. 

Note too that the duke's heir will in turn become entitled to bear the unmodified ducal arms when he succeeds to the position, and the modified versions would then be passed down to his offspring (and simultaneously be removed from his siblings, replaced by differently modified versions). See the previously mentioned article on "cadency" for details. Any scion of a noble household might _also_ have a personal coat of arms as well, in addition to one derived from birth order, either combining those of both parents or a unique one granted in his own right.

Also, since most titles will have arms associated with them, a single individual might be entitled to bear multiple different coats of arms, and would display whichever one was most appropriate to the circumstances. I wasn't aware until a few days ago that the arms for the Queen of the United Kingdom differ depending on whether the Queen is or isn't in Scotland, for example: both are quartered, with the arms of England (three gold lions on red) in quarters 1 and 4, and those of Scotland (a single red lion and border on gold) in 2 for the UK generally; in Scotland, however, these are reversed. Both have the Irish gold harp on blue in 3. (Yes, Wales got left off. Believe it or not, only the Prince of Wales gets to carry these: they're added to the arms of the UK, as are those of the Duke of Cornwall, another of his titles. And to which are _not_ added the arms of Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Earl of Chester, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland… which he _also_ holds. Most of which go along with being the eldest son of the monarch, the exceptions being Earl of Chester and–surprise!–Prince of Wales: these are traditionally given to the heir to the throne, but must be bestowed anew by each sovereign.)


----------



## Jess A

Ah. I forgot that important fact. It didn't cross my mind at all. But I had no idea that people could have multiple arms, nor that they could be different for different occasions! Confusing indeed, particularly with your last example. I suppose it would serve to look at some of the arms for those with multiple titles, since some characters in my novel also have multiple titles. 

I thank you once again for your knowledgeable response. Do you know much about earldoms and duchies and how those are run? I don't want to hijack this thread with direct questions.


----------



## Ravana

Yep: each landed title would have its own arms associated with it (honorary titles might not); most of the time you'd simply display the arms of your highest title—or the combined arms if any of the others were considered important enough—but there would be times where you'd either use the arms of the function you were fulfilling at the moment, possibly with your other arms displayed alongside. (It would be insulting for someone to insist that you display _only_ the arms of a lower title, in most cases.)

If you look down the right side of this article:

Cadency labels of the British royal family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you'll see, among other things, the arms Prince Alfred bore as the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (which he inherited from his father) and as Duke of Edinburgh (as the second son of Victoria). (You'll also see the arms of all the current members of the House of Windsor, which shows one method of using cadency marks: you'll note that all of them use either labels of three or of five, with the only additional differences being small symbols on the labels. Except for the Prince of Wales, which also has the Welsh arms in the center.) The arms Alfred's father, Albert, bore as prince consort are right above them; if you follow the link to his page, about two-thirds of the way down you'll see the complete pimped-out version, which has six helmets hovering over it with crests—some truly goofy-looking—indicating six other titles he held. Follow the link to George I, and at the bottom you'll see George's arms as first Elector-Designate and later Elector of Hanover (the only difference appears on the central red section of what is otherwise a fairly busy shield) and as King of England (which includes the interesting variant of cramming the English and Scottish arms into the first quarter so that the second could be occupied by the arms of France—which England still claimed at the time—and the fourth by a simplified version of the Hanover arms). _Und so weiter_.

•

As far as day-to-day running of a land, no, I don't have much specific background, other than to say that for the most part, they would have been run pretty much like (mainly agrarian) businesses, which, since these often required little direct supervision, tended to leave higher nobles with far too much time on their hands for less constructive purposes such as currying favor, arranging dynastic marriages, and/or warring upon neighbors for the purposes of acquiring more titles to add to their shields.  Or maybe hunting, on their mellower days, or when planting or harvest were too close at hand for them to be ranging too far away making trouble. 

A lot depends on the time period, too, and the size of their holdings. When population and population densities were low, it was more likely the noble would have to turn a hand in at least managing the affairs of his subjects. Poorer nobles with small holdings might even have to get their hands dirty, at least from time to time. As populations increased, they started to have people to conduct such affairs for them. Also as states became more centralized, it became progressively more important for the noble to spend time politicking at royal courts—as well as more possible, since there would be at least somewhat reduced dangers of neighbors imposing themselves upon your fief. Not much… but somewhat. After all, noble feuds could drain off income that the king would much prefer to be draining off himself, so these were intermittently discouraged.


----------



## Jess A

Hmm. I recognise a lot of the 'charges' on the Wiki page you provided. I must agree that the 'pimped-out' version of Albert's coat of arms is a little goofy in part. Any idea why these are designed? the fourth crest (helmets) along, for example - the bearded man with the goofy hat. I wonder what it symbolises. I am sure a little searching would give me an answer.

I think I understand the labels. What happens when two royal houses join? I note the example of the Tudor rose ... but what if a prince marries a princess or lady from another royal house in another country? The prince has his own coat of arms as the heir apparent, differentiated from his father's as described on the Wiki article. The woman is destined to become Queen (as her husband will be come King) - in the Crown Prince's land. The marriage is a political one, of course. 

---

Thanks for the extra info! I think you mentioned this information to me before, and I have certainly taken it into account (and I think you linked me to the Duchy of Cornwall etc). I have quite a few dukes who are essentially related to and ruled over by the monarch. I also have earls - did earldoms rest in duchies or outside duchies? I am trying to decide how the land is split up. I don't really like the idea of the earls answering to the dukes or paying the dukes taxes (as dukes answer to the King), even though the dukes are of higher status. Some earls are younger siblings or the children of dukes, and some dukes also have earldoms, so they might give the earldom to a child (or I suppose the heir gains the duke's second highest title...for example, earl. But does the heir get the lands too). I would prefer to keep duchies in one place with a border around each (rather than perhaps the duchy split into two with various estates, and separated by other holdings). Yet Robin Hobb (I am reading her books at the moment, so she serves as a good example) has her Kingdom split into 'the Six Duchies', all ruled by a King. There are obvious borders, like states. Where do the earls fit into this? The barons? In such an example. Most dukes' and earls' titles are connected to land.


----------



## Graylorne

In England barons were originally not really titles, it meant they had only the King as liege lord (barones regis). All great earls were barons of the kingdom to begin with. Later on there became a differentiation according to wealth and importance.

Dukes and earls had separate fiefs, so you had both duchies and countships next to each other. 

A duke had several titels, of which the the second was loaned to his son and heir as an honourary title. It didn't have rights (no seat in the House of Lords) or lands, generally the heir got some property to live on, with farms and rights, but not too much, for his father needed the money...

As property was collected by marriage and inheritance, they were all over the country. A duke could have property anywhere; his major fief, plus a barony here, half a village there, one eighth of a church, fishery rights, many many things. 

But this is no fixed rule, of course. If you've a Kingdom consisting of six semi-autonomic states, you could either call one of them an earl instead of a duke, or you make the earls subordinate to the dukes (or leave the earls away altogether and name them burgraves, barons, or whatever you like).

Look at the origins of the titles (Charlemagne's days): a count was a ruler of a province, an office-holder of the King. A duke was a military leader. High nobles used both titles, depending on their present situation (see the duchy of Bretagne). 
A margrave was a count in a march, a province bordering a barbarian territory (the title marquess is of later date and had different responsibilities). A burgrave (viscount) ruled a castle or a town for his liege lord. He was an office-holder, too, and mostly not of the nobility. 

In the case of your Six Duchies, I'd say they were each originally allodial lands, separate states that became united under one King. Or else the original King divided his lands among his sons or his dearest friends (or largest creditors). Then there wouldn't be any division.


----------



## Jess A

With regards to Hobb's Six Duchies (Farseer Trilogy) - I think it was the latter (granted new lands to favourites after conquering them). Which suits my purposes better. The King continues to conquer land. And he grants the new land to his family, generally, or to his favourites. 

For my book: I prefer the earls' lands (counties/shires?) not to be part of the duchies, rather separate (unlike, I think, Hobb's example). Dukes are usually related to the royal family - many are also princes or the sons of princes, but some were given the lands as they were the King's favourites or because they married into the family somehow. Dukes have a lot of power and more lands and responsibilities than the earls do, though both can sit on the King's council. Most dukes have a claim to the throne - some earls are the younger siblings or sons of dukes and have a distant claim - unless they are a duke's eldest child and 'earl' is a courtesy title (and the duke is close to the throne). That son would eventually become duke. I doubt real life was ever that simple, but it serves for a book.

The dukes, as you say, are likely to own a lot of land in my series. I like the bordered duchies of Hobb's books, as they manage sections of the kingdom for their King (as if they are states). I will consider the parcels of land. I have been considering structure for a while (especially since I drew my map) and decided it was a little complicated for a series which doesn't focus exclusively on the dukes, but I might draw in some factors. But the dukes can't own all of the land with everybody answering to them. I suppose the rest of the land is held by the earls, the other titles mentioned and the landed gentry. 

I like the burgrave/viscount description. That would suit nicely in some cases. What about those appointed by the King to rule over a garrison/town (protecting trade routes, for example)? 'Lord Town Name'. But what is his official title if burgrave or viscount doesn't work? 

I seem to have learned pieces of info that need to be stitched together. I should really have moved this to a separate thread. Let me know if I should. Apologies for the incredibly scattered thoughts.


----------



## Graylorne

Apart from the viscount/burgrave you can have a castellan or a bailiff. 

As a rule, because they start in a subordinate position, they won't give their name to the town/castle but rather the other way round. Like John, castellan of Hightower, with the people calling him Lord Hightower (honorary lord, because it's an appointment, not a fief). Many of these _ministerials _were originally of low birth and climbed up by their abilities. It wasn't uncommon for them to become noblemen in the end (also depending on how their liege lord did, politically).

What you could do, is make a castle or garrison a knight's command. That would make it a military post, I'd say. Very suitable for a baron's second son, or the cousin of an earl. Or you could make it a plain Captaincy, if it's only for the protection of a crossroads, a bridge or mountain pass.

If the King wanted to emphasize his lordship over a town or castle he could call it King's Hightower. That would make clear to the world it wasn't answerable to any lower nobility and give it special rights.


----------



## Jess A

The above makes perfect sense to me. I was never quite sure how the specifics worked - I know I can play with it and specify it to my world and the politics of the kingdom, but I want to be realistic, too. I suppose in a duchy, the Duke could call it Duke's Hightower (going with your example). 

Thank you for the information - it is always appreciated!


----------

