Although not related to my academic research or professional practices, I feel that this material deserves a place on the internet – especially for anyone who has an interest in these same topics. I hope that by posting this here, I might save someone the trouble of repeating my search.
Beginning in November of 2024, and for several weeks after, I spent dozens of hours learning about the heraldic design or “coat of arms” associated with my surname. Its image was present on a banner in my childhood home, but I wished to learn more about its origin, appearance, and meaning. The following is a summary of what I learned. Click on the following buttons to jump to a specific section.
References to the Rix Coat of Arms
Multiple sources cite a coat of arms, complete with crest, associated with the surname, Rix. It first appeared in the supplement to Berry’s Encyclopaedia Heraldica in either 1828 or 1840.
It is also found under the same surname in Burke’s General Armory, in Fairbairn’s Book of Crests of the Families of Great Britain and Ireland, and in Papworth’s Ordinary, all of which were published in the 1800s. Its blazon (i.e., description) in each source is the same (see section below). Unfortunately, there is no information in these texts about its age or origin, and these texts do not cite their sources.
Drawing of the Ricks Coat of Arms in History and Genealogy of the Ricks Family of America
Enigmatic Lineage
Tracing the origin of the Coat of Arms has proven difficult. The Rix name came from England with the arrival of Isaac Rix in the New World sometime in the 1600s, but various spellings exist as well (such as Ricks, Rickesies, Ryckaseys, et al.). Rix is not an uncommon name in Norfolk county, England, especially.
Whereas heraldic achievements in England are believed to have started in roughly 1127, some coats of arms were assumed informally until it became a matter of governmental authorization in the 1300s and then became even more formal in the 1500s. Thus, it is certainly possible that this Coat of Arms predates this time.
Unfortunately, records of my direct ancestors are difficult to find before the 1600s. Indeed, there are several contradictions about the family line around the 1500s, creating a frustrating mystery. For example, according to History and Genealogy of The Ricks Family of America (1957; hereafter “History and Genealogy”), at that time my forebears were in one “Brancaster Castle.” However, there is no castle by that name, nor was there ever. Before Isaac Rix, it is not clear if my forefathers came from Garvestone, Ormsby (or Ormesby), or somewhere else (although both are in Norfolk county, England).
The History and Genealogy text also includes a drawing of the questioned Coat of Arms (see image). However, it has some contradictions with the blazon given in the above-mentioned sources (specifically in regards to the shape of the crosses and the color of the crest; see here). The text states that the source for this image was a painting at the Herald’s College (a.k.a., the College of Arms). However, this particular text has been criticized for fabricating some evidence about the Ricks history, including the claim about Brancaster Castle. Thus, the age and origin of the Rix Coat of Arms does not appear to be found in this text, and its reliability as a source is suspect.
Mosaic Mystery
A hopeful clue is found in History and Genealogy. It states that a mosaic of the Rix Coat of Arms is in the pavement of a church near “Brancaster Castle.” However, as there was no such castle this claim may be, at best, a misunderstanding or, at worst, a fabrication. Perhaps an oral history intended a “castle at Brancaster,” as there is a Brancaster village in the northernmost area of Norfolk (about 30 miles north of Garvestone), and Castle Rising is the closest castle to Brancaster (about 17 miles away). After several inquiries, I’ve found no sign of this alleged mosaic in either St. Mary’s church in Brancaster or in St. Lawrence Church near Castle Rising. There are some very old churches in Garvestone also, but some were ruined for a time before renovations (read more here), and so I do not foresee any success there. Furthermore, a search of all three volumes of Farrer’s The Church Heraldry of Norfolk finds no mosaic associated with the Rix name (although it does cite the Coat of Arms on the Rix family vault; see below).
There are perhaps three possibilities regarding the mosaic. First, it is possible that the mosaic was merely a fabrication of a storyteller. Second, such a mosaic may have existed at one time but was lost to decay, the destruction of both World Wars (and other conflicts), natural disasters, and the like. A third possibility is that the mosaic indeed exists, but so closely resembles another coat of arms that it was not identified correclty. Indeed, The Church Heraldry makes reference to a few other coats of arms that sound similar to that of the one associated with the Rix name, but it does not always cite an associated surname. Of course, by the same token, one of these similar coats of arms may have been mistaken as the Rix Coat of Arms by someone who passed down the story.
Rix Family Vault
Although the mosaic remains elusive, Farrer’s The Church Heraldry of Norfolk, Volume 3 (p. 138), describes the Coat of Arms on a family monument in a cemetery in Heigham. This monument marks where one Henry Rix was interred in 1858. With great difficulty, I was able to locate this monument precisely in Earlham Cemetery in present day Norwich, Norfolk County (see photo; a record is located here). A private researcher in Norwich took several photos of the monument at my request, but she was unable to locate any coat of arms upon it. Because the monument is from the 1800s, perhaps the Coat of Arms has been subject to decay, overgrowth of plants, or may also have been removed by someone. Because its presence was noted by a third party, Farrer, I have no reason to believe that it did not appear on the monument at some time. However, of course, its presence on the monument does not help to discover the origin, and does not prove that the Coat of Arms is any older than was already proven by Berry’s publication.
Possible Origins and a Dead End
The final resource to which I turned is the College of Arms, which has some records not available to the public. The College of Arms is the official authority on heraldic designs in England. I hired the College to investigate the Rix Coat of Arms in January of 2025. Here is a brief summary of their report:
The College of Arms has no official record of a Coat of Arms belonging to the Rix surname (except for one that is completely different in design and granted to a Rix more recently). Thus, the claim of the History and Genealogy text that the College was the source of the drawing does not appear to be true. Interestingly, the shield associated with the Rix Coat of Arms cited in the texts officially belongs to the Whitfield, and Tirel surnames, meaning that the College of Arms has official records linking that blazon to persons with those surnames. (Additionally, both the Gower shield and the Craven shield are similar, but not identical, in blazon to the one associated with Rix and Whitfield names.) There are a few possibilities for how the shield design came to be used by the Rixes.
Although it may be that the Rixes assumed the shield design before heraldry was regulated more strictly in the 1500s, such a claim would be pure conjecture. A more likely possibility is that the Rixes assumed the Coat of Arms through marriage with either the Whitfield or Tirel surname. Because Tirel is French, it is unlikely that a Rix married a Tirel at some point (my family’s genetic ancestry suggests only British and Scandinavian heritage). It therefore seems most probable that it came to be associated with the Rix name when a male Rix married a female Whitfield and the children continued to use the Coat of Arms even though they carried the Rix name. The shield has been officially linked to the Whitfield name since at least 1620 in the Visitation of Devon. Given its age, and a lack of records from those times, it is unlikely that we will ever truly know when and under what precise circumstances it came to be linked to the Rixes.
One interesting note is that the crest (the object on top of the helmet) is noted only when associated with the Rix name. No crest appears to be linked to the Whitfield Coat of Arms, and so it appears plausible that the crest was added by a Rix, thus making this a unique design when including the crest.
A digitized image of the Coat of Arms as described in the texts and following tradition. Some of this template was created using coamaker. Following any edits I make, the image above will be updated.
The Appearance of the Coat of Arms
Its nebulous origins notwithstanding, all sources which cite it agree upon the blazon of the Coat of Arms associated with the name Rix. Its blazon is as follows:
Gu. a fess betw. six crosses crosslet fitchée ar. Crest – A demi griffin ppr.
I will next explain what each part of this blazon means. Heraldic terminology borrows heavily from Norman French:
- The escutcheon (shield) is the most important and unique part of any heraldic design. The escutcheon for the Rix Coat of Arms is gules (“Gu.”; which means red) with a fess (or “fesse”; a horizontal bar) argent (“ar.”; white or silver) between six crosses [which are also] argent.
- The tinctures (colors) used in heraldry generally do not have any specific meaning or symbolism.
- There are many different crosses used in heraldry. Those in the Rix Coat of Arms are specifically crosslets fitchée, whose base is pointed and whose cross ends make crosses of their own.
- The cross is, of course, a Christian symbol.
- The crest is the object on top of the helmet, and is perhaps the next-most essential element of a coat of arms. The Rix crest is a “demi griffin proper” (“ppr.”). “Demi” means that only the upper portion of the griffin is shown. “Proper” refers to the tincture of the griffin and means that it should appear as the color usually associated with the subject. Gold is the “proper” color of the griffin.
- The Griffin has the body of a lion and the head and wings of an eagle. It therefore embodies both the king of the beasts and the king of the air. Because of its combination of the earthly and heavenly, during the Middle Ages, the griffin was sometimes meant as a symbol for Christ.
- I cannot account for the griffin appearing as gules in the drawing in the History and Genealogy text.
Aside from the above-mentioned elements which I am certain are present in the Coat of Arms (as they are explicitly noted in the four texts given above), the History and Genealogy image includes a helmet, the mantling connected to the helmet, and a “motto” that are not described in any of the other sources I have found. Very early coats of arms did not include helmets (but could have been added later), and mottos were also a later development (read more in Burke).
- Atop the shield is a “helmet of esquires,” which is the profile of a steel helmet with a closed visor. This helmet suggests some social esteem, but not royalty or aristocracy.
- Open visors were reserved for higher ranks, and crowns were reserved for royalty.
- The lambrequin (mantling) is the decorative cloth that flows from the helmet. It is generally depicted as shredded, as it mimics the cloth that knights would wear over their necks in tournaments. Its precise design is generally left to the artist, although it typically is made up of the same colors as the shield. I added some vert (green) merely to follow the tradition of the image on my childhood banner and the drawing in the History and Genealogy book.
- The banner below the shield includes the motto, “Cruce Salus.” This Latin phrase means “salvation by the Cross,” or “salvation comes from the Cross.”
- This phrase is commonly associated with the Catholic church. Of course, all of England was Catholic before The Church of England became the official state religion in 1534.
- This same motto appears on some other coats of arms (which is not unusual; see Burke), but how it came to be associated with the Rix Coat of Arms is not apparent.
In sum, the Coat of Arms associated with the Rix name is replete with Christian symbols in the crosses, the motto, and likely the griffin. The additions of the crest and motto may have been for the purpose of further communicating this faith, although when and by whom they were added will likely never be known.
Appropriate Use of This Coat of Arms
Because the Ricks line descends from England, it is important to note English practices. England is one of a few nations that closely regulate heraldry (perhaps second only to Scotland; more information here). English tradition holds that a direct male heir of the original recipient of the heraldic achievement inherits the right to display a coat of arms (see Burke for more information). As I have noted on this page, whether any given Rix or Ricks (or any other variant spelling) is a direct descendant of a person who was granted a coat of arms under official circumstances does not appear to be supported by the College of Arms’s records. Therefore, for any of my many distant relatives who remain in the United Kingdom to display this Coat of Arms in any official capacity would be seen as inappropriate by the College.
However, those of us who are citizens of the United States are outside any jurisdiction of English traditions. In the United States, it is not uncommon for families, organizations, and businesses to adopt or display coats of arms relatively informally (more here). For exhaustive information about the display and use of heraldic symbols in the United States, see here. If I read those guidelines correctly, it is perfectly acceptable in the United States to display this Coat of Arms as associated with the Ricks name. The site also appears to state explicitly that there is no need to differentiate the design from any design in the United Kingdom.
For my part, I began this research as a way to connect with my ancestors. When I see the Coat of Arms I knew in my formative years, I am filled with awe and gratitude for my forebears. It draws to my mind a totally foreign age where life was far more difficult and trying than mine has ever been. I imagine most of the Rixes living in humble circumstances, working with their hands, eking out a living day to day. I am inspired by their bravery, sacrifice, hopes, and achievements that all led to my being here and, therefore, my children’s being here. For those who made the journey to the American colonies, their courage to leave the comfort of their familiar surroundings and venture to the New World and build a life from nothing is almost unimaginable. Their choices hundreds of years ago now benefit me and my children, and so they inspire me to make wise choices now so that my descendants may also benefit. I hope that by keeping the Coat of Arms a part of my life, I can keep the memory of my ancestors alive.
References
Berry, W. (1828?-40?). Supplement to Encyclopaedia Heraldica, Complete Dictionary of Heraldry. London: Sherwood, Gilbert, and Piper.
Burke, B. (1884). The General Armory of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales; Comprising a Registry of Armorial Bearings From the Earliest to the Present Time. London: Harrison and Sons.
Family Representatives. (1957). History and Genealogy of the Ricks Family of America: Containing Biographical Sketches of Both Males and Females (Revised Ed.). Salt Lake City: Ricks Family Association.
Fairbairn, J. (1905). Fairbairn’s Book of Crests of the Families of Great Britain and Ireland (Volume II, 4th ed.). London: T. C. & E. C. Jack.
Farrer, E. (1893). The Church Heraldry of Norfolk: A Description of All Coats of Arms on Brasses, Monuments, Slabs, Hatchments, &c., Now to be Found in the County (Vol. 3). Norwich, England: Agas H. Goose.
Papworth, J. W. (1874). An Alphabetical Dictionary of Coats of Arms Belonging to Families in Great Britain and Ireland. London: T. Richards.