Chris Bowen <cbowen@flanet.com> asked for some clarification regarding the differences between British and German heraldry. I'm not an expert, but I'll offer what I have, and others are invited to add/correct it: >The coat of arms as I understand it began in England in 1500's during time >of war, the shield was decorated in a particular fashion to let the other >warring faction recognize who they were and what side they were fighting >on. [snip] >But the coat of arms for the Shuman's would indicate to me that these >people were a warring people (I find that real hard to believe for some >reason) and it would also indicate to me that they had in some fashion a >position of royalty - as I have read it most commoners did not have a coat >of arms. [snip] >My question is this: if the Shuman's were a warring people and of some >wealth in European society in the l700's why in the dickens is it so hard >to find them? >Also, as I have read or understood the coat of arms it should have more >than just Puss an Boots type of boot on it. There should be at least 4 >identify insignas (I forget exactly how it goes but if the House of >Lancaster married into the House of Dorchester or something, then as each >family member took over the crest they would then add their own insigna to >it). I was quite interested in heraldry when I was in college, and did quite a bit of research on it then, but that was a LONG time ago! Here's what I remember: The description you are giving is fairly accurate for the British Isles. Some of the oldest "crests" or "signs" date back into medieval antiquity. "Standards", "Flags", and "colors" were carried by armies since ancient times, to help identify those who were fighting on the same side. The Coats of Arms are thought to have evolved from them, and were originally used to identify the soldiers of a lord, and some of the soldiers were knights (not royalty exactly, but "nobility."). They carried large shields "emblazoned" with the design which signified a particular castle, its lord, and all who gave allegiance to him. The oldest son inherited the title, and the Coat of Arms. Only the King could award new titles, and new Coats of Arms, but frequently, younger sons of the prominent families would take the same Coat of Arms and vary it in some way to indicate that they were a close relative, but not the heir to a certain "house." Also, when a female heir of one line married the male heir of another, or even other children of important houses, a new Coat of Arms was often created in which the "field" was "quartered" to show some significant part of the old design from each house. By the 17th century, all of this was strictly codified and regulated in England, but things were somewhat less settled in Europe. In Germany, new "Family Crests" were awarded rather regularly throughout the 17th century. These were often awarded -- as did the King in England -- for some favor done to the ruler. The other big difference is that the designs tended to be more realistic than those in England and France. Thus, a rather realistic-looking knee-boot standing on a green hill with a blue field (i.e., "sky"). I mentioned that according to the report my grandfather received, it may have been awarded to an individual who held a position similar to chamberlain. Was our earliest ancestor the one who helped the King put on his shoes? VBG! As to the question of whether the SHUMANs were warring people, I don't think the possession -- or lack -- of a Coat of Arms can be used as a guide. In the 12th to 15th centuries, perhaps this would have been true, but it appears that the SHUMAN Coat of Arms was of much later derivation. We know there was frequent warfare in Europe throughout this entire time period, so it would be hard to say which of our ancestors might have been militant and which peace-loving. My guess is that only those who managed to save their necks in one way or another survived to pass on their genes to us! And don't forget the composer, Robert Schumann! Now, why is it so hard to find our ancestors of the 1700s? A big part of the problem is that we don't know where to look. Most of us are "stalled" somewhere around 1800, give or take a generation or two, at a time and a place that was extremely primitive as measured by almost any cultural yardstick. Those who had left the semblance of civilization to be found in cities such as Philadelphia and headed to the frontier areas of western PA, VA, and NC, for example, could not expect much education or record-keeping for their families. Even those who *could* write often had nothing on which to write. Frequently, word-of-mouth was about the only way information was transmitted, and in many families and communities, etc, for two or three generations there were few who could even sign their own names (we're all familiar with "his X mark" on the Wills of the time). Another factor from 1750 to 1820 was a strong distrust of government and all its institutions. Many of our ancestors *didn't want* anyone to know their business, and made sure no one found out! Add to this the frequent "wanderlust" habit of migrating ever farther into the frontier, and it's little wonder that we can't "find" the people we *know* had to be there -- somewhere! Regards! JS ____________________________ James Shuman, art instructor Modesto High School jshuman@telis.org ____________________________