# Signet Rings



## Bowdoin (Dec 9, 2004)

Tradliness aside, it terribly gauche for an American to wear a signet ring featuring his family crest? I like the idea of getting one, but I have no particular affinity for, or connection to, the landed aristocracy, and don't want to come across as preening or pretentious.

Assume a moderately rare British name (something like Isherwood, Rackham or Forsyth) with a well-established coat of arms.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

You probably already know this, but for the benefit of readers who might not, a coat of arms is granted to an individual, not to a surname. The descendants in the direct male line of that individual are entitled to use his coat of arms. Thus two families with the same last name might have a completely different coat of arms, or one family might have a coat of arms and another family with the same name might not have one.

A crest is the part of the coat of arms above the shield.

In the coat of arms at the top of this page: https://www.fleurdelis.com/royal.htm

the entire design is the coat of arms. The crest is the mini lion way up at the top.

I have a signet ring which belonged to a great-grandfather on my mother's side. He was born in England and it features a crest granted to someone with the same surname. One question I've always had is whether he was actually descended from the person to whom it was granted. There is a baronet (created 1928) with the same last name who uses this crest. His ancestor left London and moved to Ireland during Shakespeare's lifetime, so the crest is at least that old. I know the history of my great-grandfather's direct male line back to only the 1720s. Is there a connection? I might never know. In the meantime I sometimes wear the ring because it's attractive and a nice heirloom regardless.


----------



## Bowdoin (Dec 9, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> You probably already know this, but for the benefit of readers who might not, a coat of arms is granted to an individual, not to a surname. The descendants in the direct male line of that individual are entitled to use his coat of arms. Thus two families with the same last name might have a completely different coat of arms, or one family might have a coat of arms and another family with the same name might not have one.


In my case, the coat of arms was given to the founder of the family in the 11th century when he was knighted. It isn't a common name; I'm fairly certain that everybody who's born with the name is a direct descendant on the male line of this single founder. So I seem to be fine on that front.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Might I ask a couple of related questions?

1. When you wear a signet ring, should the crest be facing towards you when you look at the hand or should it be facing the other way (so someone else sees it right-side up, not upside down)?

2. The British customarily seem to wear such rings on their little finger. Most commonly it appears to be on the left hand, but sometimes on the right. Is there an etiquette to this, or is it a matter of preference?


----------



## Bowdoin (Dec 9, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Beresford_
> 
> Might I ask a couple of related questions?
> 
> ...


These are good questions. Any thoughts?


----------



## Vettriano Man (Jun 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Beresford_
> 
> Might I ask a couple of related questions?
> 
> ...


Being the modest chap that I am I do not wear mine very often through fear of appearing pompous, and I was 'issued' with it on my eighteenth birthday although the tradition has always been twenty-one throughout history (I'm fifty-two now), so on the occasions I wear it I put it on my left little finger with the crest facing upright at me, just as my father and grandfather did. Prince Charles also wears his this way.


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Bowdoin_
> . . . . [t]he coat of arms was given to the founder of the family in the 11th century . . . .


Are you certain? Few arms in the heraldic sense -- consistent, hereditary designs -- existed before the twelfth century; and most arms were adopted, not granted, before the fourteenth or fifteenth.


----------



## Markus (Sep 14, 2004)

Well, with respect to your question about whether it is _gauche _or not, I'm afraid all you'll basically hear on this thread are opinions. BTW, several of those above seem quite well informed. At least, new information to me.

But I think perhaps you correctly recognize that if you wear the ring it will inevitably engender questions from the curious, the answers to which could, not matter how hard you worked at it, cause you to appear as someone who might have an exaggerated opinion of himself. Am I understanding you? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to make sure I'm addressing the key point.

In my limited experience, the best antidote for such a perception is to possess genuine manners (cordiality, self-restraint, kindness, hospitality, graciousness) and humility, expressed through sincere, heart-felt service to others. Under these circumstances, those I've met who might have justly deserved some recognition for their family heritage got "a lot of slack" from me, and were never thought to be pompous, etc.

Just my .02.

Markus


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vettriano man_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's very similar to mine, except mine is a demiwolf, not a demilion, and he's holding a halberd, not a... what is that demi lion holding?


----------



## Russell Street (Nov 28, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vettriano man_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Very* nice!
It's hard to judge the scale though...
How tight is your ring?

D.


----------



## Bowdoin (Dec 9, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rws_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Having done a little more research on this, I think my original source was wrong. The name can clearly be traced to an English nobleman of Norman extraction (hence the confusing regarding the 11th century), but he did not adopt it until the 13th or 14th century. Not sure about the arms. I'll get this nailed down before I lay out for a ring.


----------



## CPVS (Jul 17, 2005)

Just wanted to point out that in an old (1940s) edition of Emily Post, she remarks that men wearing their rings on the finger next to the pinkie (dare I say, the "ring finger") was becoming popular among the European aristocratic elite. How tradly that makes it, I don't know.

Just my $.02.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

I've seen *HUGE* coats of arms/family crest signets worn on the pinky. Showy, I guess. But there are elements of TRADitional style that, well, just are.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by DartmouthMan88_
> 
> How about a signet ring with ones initials? I have one that my Dad gave me that he inherited from his Dad, the ring originated with my great-great Grandfather. FWIW, we all have the same initials. The ring is very heavy 14K gold with an oval top and deep stamped initials.


I have one my dad left to me, it doesn't have the age your ring does. I wear it on occasion, but I'm not really a jewelry kind of guy. I personally feel that a ring with family connections is more important than 'ethnic' or 'lounge lizard' considerations any day. If people think I'm a riverboat gambler for wearing my dad's ring - they can think wrong. Just a thought.
Cheers


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by DartmouthMan88_
> 
> How about a signet ring with ones initials? I have one that my Dad gave me that he inherited from his Dad, the ring originated with my great-great Grandfather. FWIW, we all have the same initials. The ring is very heavy 14K gold with an oval top and deep stamped initials.


The Anglo-Fogey leaning trads will surely have a hissy-fit over this one, but the big, heavy signet featuring monogrammed initials is right on target. _American_ Trad is, in part, about taking something that's British and transforming it into our (American) own thing, and many a proud American digs his/her initials the most. One sees the monogram-initialed gold signet all the time in Richmond's West End.

Even better: a secret society or club crest on the ring. Even better than that: there are fewer than a dozen members of said society or club, some of whom are now dead. I belonged to one such club during college. Very, very, very "underground." Went beyond just a clique or group of friends, and certainly transcended even the loftiest notion of a "fraternity."

We continue to think seriously about developing our own crest/coat of arms.

Cheers,
Harris


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

I've seen the big gold signet worn on the _same_ finger as small, plain gold wedding band--in some cases covering part of the wedding band. At close look at George F. Will's fourth (ring) finger may reveal he prefers this approach. A good alternative for the person who doesn't want a pink ring and doesn't want jewelry on both hands. -Harris


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harris_
> . . . . [T]here are fewer than a dozen members of said society or club, some of whom are now dead. I belonged to one such club during college. Very, very, very "underground." Went beyond just a clique or group of friends, and certainly transcended even the loftiest notion of a "fraternity." . . . .


'Sounds like F.H.C. or P.D.A. at W&M, or one of their progeny at UVa or Hampden-Sydney.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Even more underground than the Please Don't Ask crowd and the Flat Hatters, rws. If a club, order, or society is known about, it's become more public than necessary.

Not that anyone who isn't a member would bother giving a damn. As it should be.

-Harris


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harris_
> . . . . Not that anyone who isn't a member would bother giving a damn. As it should be. . . .


Amen to that.


----------



## jmorgan32 (Apr 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by DartmouthMan88_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Done in GREAT taste. (a hell of a lot better than on the pinky.) If you go pinky, might as well put a 4 karat diamond on the other pinky![8D]


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

A lot of hostility toward the pinky ring. I don't fully understand it. Anybody got a clue?


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

I feel the prejudice towards pinky rings is probably more prevelant in the U.S. as opposed to the old world due to a lack of ancestral heritage and therefore a percieved pretentiousnes(sp).
In Europe the pinky ring is more understood due to longevity. the wearing of pinky rings dating back to ancient times ie. Greeks and Romans.
I of course refer to seal engraved rings as opposed to some over the top article of bling.


----------



## Bowdoin (Dec 9, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Tom Bell-Drier_
> 
> I feel the prejudice towards pinky rings is probably more prevelant in the U.S. as opposed to the old world due to a lack of ancestral heritage and therefore a percieved pretentiousnes(sp).


Perhaps. Or it could be because people associate pinky rings with Joe Pesci characters. For example:


----------



## jmorgan32 (Apr 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by DartmouthMan88_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agree 110% Dartmouth.. 
All the best, 
Joe


----------



## jmorgan32 (Apr 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harris_
> 
> A lot of hostility toward the pinky ring. I don't fully understand it. Anybody got a clue?


I wouldn't call it "hostility" Harris. Just strong preference. Very similar to your preference for NON-darted coats.

All the best, 
Joe


----------



## tintin (Nov 19, 2004)

It's so affected for Yanks with zero claim toa coat of arms. People who wear signet rings (in the States) will probably lead the trend for a return to walking sticks.


----------



## Bowdoin (Dec 9, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by tintin_
> 
> It's so affected for Yanks with zero claim to a coat of arms.


Reasonable enough.

A question: As an American of almost exclusively Anglo-Saxon extraction, wouldn't I theoretically have as much claim to the coat of arms as my distant relatives who stayed in England? (I don't know the answer to this; I'm genuinely curious.)


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

tintin I think you have almost certainly got a fair point,however I personally think one of the most endearing things about almost every American citizen I have met is not only your nations patriotism but your willingness to hold onto your cultural heritage and roots be this Italian,Scottish, Irish,English, Dutch, German,etc.

For good or bad the U.S. was settled by European blood stock and the wilingness of your population to hold onto aspects of its heritage can be manifested in many diffrent ways. A family crested signet ring just being one of them.


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Bowdoin_
> . . . . As an American of almost exclusively Anglo-Saxon extraction, wouldn't I theoretically have as much claim to the coat of arms as my distant relatives who stayed in England? . . . .


Yes, if you are in direct, unbrokenly male descent from the man who was granted the arms (or who assumed them). Strict English heraldic practice would generally require that you "difference" the arms, but I don't mine -- and neither, I think, do other Americans of English descent difference theirs. (Of course, aside from crest on signet ring and silver, and coat of arms on bookplates, there's little enough use of heraldry today.)


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rws_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's my understanding, too. It's also possible for an American citizen to petition for and be granted his own honorary arms by the College of Arms in London, but there appears to be a stiff fee (about $5000) and "American citizens... must meet the same criteria for eligibility as subjects of the Crown, and in addition must record in the official registers of the College of Arms a pedigree showing their descent from a subject of the British Crown. This may be someone living in the north American colonies before the recognition of American independence in 1783, or a more recent migrant."


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by tintin_
> 
> It's so affected for Yanks with zero claim toa coat of arms. People who wear signet rings (in the States) will probably lead the trend for a return to walking sticks.


I do hope so! Then, perhaps, there will be fewer snickers when I walk about with mine (walking stick, that is).

Train your eye! Then train your brain to trust your eye.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rws_...(Of course, aside from crest on signet ring and silver, and coat of arms on bookplates, there's little enough use of heraldry today.)


I have an aquaintance who is a heraldic artist for, of all things, the U.S. Army!

Train your eye! Then train your brain to trust your eye.


----------

