HERALDIC ARMS

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27987, 6 June 1956, Page 2

HERALDIC ARMS

RESTRICTIONS ON USE BY WOMEN “Women are still debarred displaying their arms on shields (which are looked upon as implements of war), and have instead to show them on diamond-shaped devices, heraldically termed ‘lozenges,’ ” says Mr C. F. J. Hankinson, in his preface, as editor, to the 1956 edition of Debrett’s. A noblewoman’s arms cannot include a crest, which was originally an adornment of a knight’s helmet; yet during the Second World War thousands of women wore steel helmets in the armed forces or in civil defence, he says. Women are also denied a motto, on the ground that these were originally war cries and cannot suitably apply to women.

“The emancipation of women seems to have left unchanged the rules governing the use of armorial bearings,” writes Mr Hankinson.

The questions should be considered, he says, “with a view to granting women a measure of heraldic equality more in keeping with their present status.”

Baroness Beaumont, whose title dates from 1309, says that a peeress in her own right ought to have both shield and crest. Furthermore, she should be treated exactly like a peer—including having a seat in the House of Lords.

Baroness Berners (1445) says: “It should be a matter of equality, but I can’t honestly say it worries me at all. I’m much too busy to bother.” Baroness Ravensdale (1911) says: “An interesting plea, and probably correct. But there are many more important things to battle for in life. Women should be rewarded for their services to their country—not because of hereditary titles.”