What is the difference between a coat of arms and a crest?

Answer 1

There has never been a crest or a coat of arms allocated to a family - this is a common modern myth supported by misleading, fraudulent and unscrupulous "family heraldry" salespeople.

Coats of arms and crests were (and are) only ever awarded to an individual, usually a male, but sometimes to a woman. A man being awarded knighthood automatically had a coat of arms that he chose himself or had allocated to him. He could also (from about the late 14th century) choose to wear a crest on his helmet, often made of lightweight material such as boiled leather, wood or papier mache, with a "mantling" of coloured cloth flowing from this crest. The crest did not have to be in any way connected with the heraldic coat of arms, but it formed part of the overall heraldry.

The coat of arms and the crest (and supporters, motto and various other heraldic elements) were passed on the the knight's eldest son, then to his eldest son, and so on.

For example, knights with the name Washington at Sulgrave Manor, Lincolnshire, carried the arms "Argent twobars gules, in chief threemullets in fess of the second." The crest was a coronet with a blackbird, its wings raised and the mantling was of red and white cloth. The blackbird crest is not featured on the shield, so it is not part of the coat of arms, but it could be used as a badge by the knight's servants and it might also appear on his standard.

In a complete display of a knight's heraldry the shield would be shown with two supporters, one each side; the helmet would be shown above, complete with its mantling and crest; a motto might be shown beneath the shield on a scroll.

Answer 2

There has never been a crest or a coat of arms allocated to a family - this is a common modern myth supported by misleading, fraudulent and unscrupulous "family heraldry" salespeople.

Coats of arms and crests were (and are) only ever awarded to an individual, usually a male, but sometimes to a woman. A man being awarded knighthood automatically had a coat of arms that he chose himself or had allocated to him. He could also (from about the late 14th century) choose to wear a crest on his helmet, often made of lightweight material such as boiled leather, wood or papier mache, with a "mantling" of coloured cloth flowing from this crest. The crest did not have to be in any way connected with the heraldic coat of arms, but it formed part of the overall heraldry.

The coat of arms and the crest (and supporters, motto and various other heraldic elements) were passed on the the knight's eldest son, then to his eldest son, and so on.

For example, knights with the name Washington at Sulgrave Manor, Lincolnshire, carried the arms "Argent twobars gules, in chief threemullets in fess of the second." The crest was a coronet with a blackbird, its wings raised and the mantling was of red and white cloth. The blackbird crest is not featured on the shield, so it is not part of the coat of arms, but it could be used as a badge by the knight's servants and it might also appear on his standard.

In a complete display of a knight's heraldry the shield would be shown with two supporters, one each side; the helmet would be shown above, complete with its mantling and crest; a motto might be shown beneath the shield on a scroll.

Answer 3

A shield is a physical item used for a physical defense of a person. A coat of arms is a symbol representative of a person, family, or a country. However, in many languages, the word for shield and coat of arms are the same (such as Spanish - escudo) and most nobles would emblazon their coat of arms on the surface of their shields as a form of personalization of their military gear.

Answer 4

See the link below to get a more detailed and far better answer than I could give you.