Cricket Bats and Vampire Dolphins

Watermen’s Hall at 16 St - Mary - at - Hill, London EC3. Picture: Steve Cadman.

Tim Koch writes:

Bernard Hempseed’s recent piece for HTBS on the variations in the deceptions of the arms of the Company of Watermen and Lightermen of the River Thames prompted me to look at the images that I have in my archive. My findings confirmed that, even with a limited search, there are indeed some weird and wonderful versions of the Watermen’s heraldic device.

The present Watermen’s Hall dates from 1780. Its exterior sports a fairly simplified version of the arms. Unlike with some depictions, the oars do look like what they are trying to represent and the boat is a reasonable delineation of a waterman’s wherry. The sculptor has not attempted a ‘heraldic’ depiction of water but has gone for a ‘realistic’ image. Also, while most of us think of dolphins as rather gentle creatures, these marine mammals look ready to attack anyone who comes too close.

John Redmond (right) Master of the Watermen’s Company, 2012 – 2013, and one of his Wardens. They stand below another version of the Company’s Arms, this one displayed above the fireplace in the Court Room of Watermen’s Hall. There is a small picture of the arms and the fire surrounded here. This is a very pleasing example – with the possible exception of the blank space above the boat (which Bernard describes as a ‘bit of a no-no in heraldry’).

John Redmond is wearing the Livery Collar of the Master of the Watermen’s Company. The overall effect is of a splendid gold and enamel badge of office but when looked at in detail it reveals what appears to be a pair of crossed cricket bats, a couple of angry dolphins baring fangs and an arm holding something that could be anything but an oar.

The version of the arms printed on this invitation to the Doggett’s Coat and Badge is used in most of the current publications produced by the Watermen’s Company. Both the single and the crossed oars do not look as though they would be much help in propelling a boat along, the dolphins have clearly come from a castle in Transylvania and the knight’s helmet seems to have morphed into a large angry bird.

Ultimately of course, none of this is important. Heraldic devices emerged long before the precise corporate logo and company trademark. They are a reminder of a time before widespread literacy, when pictures were the best way to convey information and to show the authority under which a body acted. Exact consistency was not important. The reasons for vampire dolphins, however, may remain a mystery.

A Rowing Coat of Arms

Photograph from the website of The Company of Watermen & Lightermen of the River Thames.

Rowing historian Bernard Hempseed writes from New Zealand,

I was reading a heraldry book published in 1842 and came across the following item. From the watermen developed the professional rowing of the 19th century.

“The Watermen’s Company of London, whose business it is to row their boats on the river Thames, may be supposed very ancient; but it was not incorporated until the reign of Queen Mary in 1556. The lightermen, who are employed amongst the shipping, were afterwards united to the company.

Their arms, barry wavy argent and azure, a boat or; on a chief of the second, a pair of oars saltierways of the third, between two cushions of the first, are supported by two dolphins proper; the crest is a hand holding an oar and their motto is Jussu superiorum, being ever at the command of their superiors”

Then follows a black and white drawing of the arms (above). The heraldic description of the arms is called a blazon and the language is fairly obscure so here is a translation.

Firstly the shield is described. Barry means horizontal bars (six if not otherwise stated) across the shield but wavy means they are like sine waves. The bars are alternatively coloured silver or white (argent) and blue (azure.) to represent water. Then the item on the shield is noted, in this case a boat and also its colour which is gold or yellow (or.)

A chief is a horizontal band across the top of the shield and its colour is the second mentioned, in this case blue. On the chief are a pair of oars crossed (saltierways) and their colour is the third mentioned, vis gold. These oars are between two cushions coloured the first colour mentioned, vis white. The cushions are supposed to represent what a passenger would sit on while being transported in a boat. The supporters are a dolphin on either side of the shield and their colour is supposed to be as they are in nature (proper.)

The crest is the part above the shield and consists of a hand holding an oar. Normally the colours of these objects would be also noted in the blazon. Crests rest on a twisted two-coloured piece of material usually being of the primary shield colours.

Hunting around on the net, I found a coloured version which has a few differences from the illustration in the book but is more or less the same. Different heraldic artists will draw a coat of arms in a slightly different style while retaining the salient points.

However, I don’t think the coloured drawing is all that good as there is a large blank space above the boat which is a bit of a no-no in heraldry. Also the artist has clothed the arm which is not in the blazon and it is pretty poor looking oar. The colour of the boat is wrong too. The crossed oars look like rolls of paper.

The motto has also been put into English. Mottos do not normally form part of the blazon and may be changed at will. The dolphins are described in the blazon as natural coloured (greyish?) but the artist has rendered them in the heraldic colours of white and gold which is maybe better. They also have a grander look than the 1842 version. When the blazon was written perhaps little was known about dolphins and heraldically they may always have been drawn in similar colours. They are also standing, if that is the right word, on waves. Supporters have to stand on something even if it is only the motto scroll.

The helmet and the mantling do not constitute part of the blazon of the arms and the 1842 drawing omits them entirely. Their depiction is at the whim of the artist.