• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Armigerous Families

The terms "armigerous" and "aristocratic" are often confused, but they represent fundamentally different concepts that only partially overlap. Armigerous refers to having the right to bear heraldic arms—a coat of arms—and comes from the Latin words for "arms" and "to bear." This is primarily a heraldic and symbolic designation about the right to display specific family emblems. Aristocracy, by contrast, refers to a privileged ruling or noble class with inherited status and, crucially, legal privileges and political power. The term comes from Greek words meaning "rule by the best." While these concepts were historically associated, they are not equivalent, and understanding their distinction is essential to grasping both European social history and American constitutional principles.

The critical difference lies in what each status actually conferred. Being armigerous meant the right to use a particular heraldic design—to display it on property, seal documents with it, and pass it to descendants. It was a mark of social respectability and "gentle" birth, indicating ar family had achieved a certain standing. However, it carried no inherent legal privileges, no political power, no automatic wealth, and no governmental authority. Aristocracy, on the other hand, came with tangible legal benefits: seats in legislative bodies like the House of Lords, exemptions from certain taxes, special judicial treatment, rights over land and subjects, and formal precedence in social hierarchy. An aristocrat held a title—Duke, Earl, Baron—that carried legal weight. An armigerous person might simply be a prosperous merchant or professional whose family had been granted the right to a coat of arms.

Heraldry emerged in the twelfth century from practical military necessity. When knights wore full armor with face-covering helmets, they needed some way to identify friend from foe on the battlefield. Unique symbols painted on shields served this purpose, and these heraldic devices quickly became associated with specific individuals and their families. The practice rapidly expanded beyond its military origins to become a broader symbol of identity and status. By the late medieval period, heraldic arms were being granted not just to knights and nobles but to wealthy merchants who could afford to petition for them, to successful professionals like lawyers and physicians, to corporate bodies like guilds and universities, and even to towns and cities. This expansion meant that being armigerous became increasingly common among the prosperous classes, not just the nobility.

Aristocracy, however, had much older roots and always remained far more exclusive. The concept of a hereditary ruling class predates medieval heraldry by centuries—Roman patricians, ancient Greek aristocrats, and early medieval feudal lords all exemplified aristocratic systems. The medieval European aristocracy was built on landholding and military service in a feudal pyramid, with kings at the top, great nobles below them, lesser nobles further down, and knights at the bottom of the noble hierarchy. This system came with real power: aristocrats controlled vast estates, commanded military forces, administered justice over their subjects, and participated in royal councils. They enjoyed legal privileges that set them fundamentally apart from commoners, including tax exemptions, the right to trial by their peers rather than in common courts, and freedom from arrest for debt. These were not merely social distinctions but legal realities enforced by the state.

In the medieval period, bearing arms primarily signified military service, knightly status, and participation in the feudal system. A coat of arms identified a warrior and his family, marked their property and possessions, and represented their place in the social hierarchy. It was a practical tool of identification that evolved into a symbol of family continuity and honor. The right to bear arms indicated that you or your ancestors had performed military service, held land, and been recognized as part of the "gentle" class—those who did not perform manual labor. However, even in this period, arms were granted to some who were not aristocrats in the strict sense: wealthy merchant families in Italian city-states, for example, often bore arms without holding feudal noble titles.

By the early modern period, the significance of arms had shifted considerably. They became markers of social achievement and aspiration rather than purely military identification. Successful merchants, professionals, and craftsmen sought grants of arms as a way to cement their families' rise in social standing. The proliferation of arms in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries reflected the growth of a prosperous middle class that could afford the fees for heraldic grants and wanted the social recognition they conveyed. Arms appeared on houses, businesses, carriages, silverware, bookplates, and monuments. They represented respectability, continuity, and connection to tradition. Corporate bodies—guilds, livery companies, universities, municipalities—also received arms, which clearly had nothing to do with personal nobility but rather represented institutional identity and legitimacy.

Does the use of coat armor indicate gentility? Yeomen were entitled to use arms in England, while in Germany, city officials of a certain class had a perfect right to assume an hereditary coat of arms. The custom in other European countries was nearly the same; the only restriction being, apparently, that one should not encroach on another and that the bearer be of sufficient social or official consequence to display a coat of arms without exciting too much ridicule. Arms are nothing but personal emblems, originally hereditary because the son valued the prestige of the father, and actually in the same classification as business trade marks or Indian totems.

The College of Arms of London was incorporated in 1483-84, in the reign of Richard III. At that time the entire arms of the British Kingdom were placed under its supervision and control, accurate accounts were taken of all and adjusted so as to avoid duplication, and none were allowed without authority. Heralds were also sent throughout the kingdom every twenty or thirty years, and a complete genealogical record was in this way established and maintained. The term arms is derived from the shield and the devices displayed upon it, which, in the middle ages, served to identify the noble on the field of battle. He bore them just as a soldier nowadays bears his medals of distinction.

The ability to obtain arms in England was surprisingly accessible for those with means. The College of Arms had the authority to grant coats of arms to anyone who could demonstrate "gentility"—essentially meaning wealth, education, respectability, and a profession above manual labor. A successful merchant, lawyer, or physician could petition for arms, pay the required fees, and receive Letters Patent creating a coat of arms for his family. This made him armigerous and technically a "gentleman," but it did not make him an aristocrat. He had no title, no seat in Parliament, no legal privileges beyond those of any other prosperous commoner, and no formal precedence. His coat of arms was a mark of social achievement and family pride, nothing more. Over generations, such a family might marry into the gentry, accumulate more land and wealth, and perhaps eventually be elevated to the peerage, but that was a separate and far more difficult achievement.

Originally helmets on a coat of arms were of the same shape and materials for all ranks ; but in later times (when they had ceased to be generally worn) distinctions were made in depicting them, and the rank of the owner was denoted by their matter, shape, and position. Mene Trier, in 1680, says the helm should be of gold for sovereigns ; of silver for princes and great nobles ; and of polished steel for simple nobles or gentlemen. The open helm was considered the property of one in a position to command. The old French heralds differ as to the number of the grilles, or bars, which should denote the various ranks of nobility, but Planche was of the opinion that, "the various positions of the helmet, and the rules for its being open, closed, or barred, are all of comparatively modern date, and as useless as embarrassing."

For a long time after their introduction surnames were used only by the gentry ; and when they began to be assumed by the lower orders, the clansmen almost invariably took the name of his chief, considering himself a member of his family, at least by adoption, if not by a closer tie the remembrance of which tradition had preserved. In England it was far otherwise. New men emerged, and founded new families ; under the Tudor sovereigns, hundreds of novi homines received grants of arms. It was easier to adopt new arms than (even for those who might possibly have succeeded in doing so had they tried) to trace a connection with families whose importance had passed away.

Hence it comes to pass that, while in England the multitude of entirely distinct coats of arms is enormous, in Scotland the number of original coats is small; but the distinct and well-defined insignia of the chief of the family are differenced by its other members in such a manner as to show forth, more or less clearly, their relation to the head of the house, and to other cadets

In England and Scotland, the distinction between armigerous status and aristocracy remained relatively clear, which is why understanding it matters for grasping American constitutional principles. The English peerage consisted of five ranks—Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, and Baron—and these peers sat in the House of Lords and enjoyed specific legal privileges. Below them were baronets, who held hereditary knighthoods (the title "Sir") but were not peers and had no seat in Parliament. Knights held non-hereditary titles and could be armigerous but were not aristocrats in the technical sense. Then came the gentry: esquires and gentlemen who had the right to bear arms but no titles whatsoever. This was a large class of landed families with significant social standing but no formal nobility. All of these groups were armigerous—they all had coats of arms—but only the peers were truly aristocratic in the sense of holding legal noble status.

In the modern era, arms have become almost purely ceremonial and genealogical. They represent historical connection and family heritage, they serve as interesting symbols for those interested in their ancestry, and they occasionally appear in formal ceremonial contexts. Some countries still maintain heraldic authorities that grant new arms, and these grants are sought by people interested in establishing a formal heraldic identity for their families or organizations. But arms confer no social privilege, no legal standing, no political power. They are, in essence, elaborate family logos with historical cachet. This evolution from practical military identification to marker of gentle status to purely symbolic family emblem illustrates how heraldic meaning has changed while the aristocratic implications have fallen away entirely.