Merrill Coat of Arms
Deane Merrill
Asheville, NC
dwmerrill@charter.net
January 2010

Nine versions of the Merrill "Coat of Arms" or "Family Crest" are given below.  One of them (#3) is offered for sale by a commercial vendor, and is not believed to be authentic.  Other vendors do not even provide a preview of images that they offer for sale.

Which is the “real” Merrill Coat of Arms?

The most complete discussion of Merrill heraldry (the "Coat of Arms" or "Family Crest") is "A Few Questions of Heraldry," in pages 107-116 of  A Merrill Memorial   by Samuel Merrill (1928).  Six versions (#4 through #9 below) of the Merrill coat of arms are discussed.  An electronic copy of  A Merrill Memorial  (PDF images, 30MB in six files) is on Steve Merrill's Web site, http://www.merrill.org/genealogy/mm/index.html.  A transcribed text version, without images, is on Jack Merrill's Web site http://www.jmerrill.net/Merrill%20Memorial.htm.  

Version #1, below, was provided 4/5/09 by Gary Merrill, who said,

"Back in the early 70's when we lived in New York, I was in the reading room at the NY Public Library one time and they had a stack of these coats of arms for a variety of families, with a note you could take one if you had a use for it. If there was a charge it wasn't much. I got two copies, framed them and gave one to my dad. This is the "peacock" arms based on a wax seal impression on a document from one of Nathaniel's descendants in Newbury. The shading on the seal suggests that the colours were gold and blue rather than silver and blue like this one.

"Unfortunately, I don't know its origin, or who to credit. There was a whole stack of them, for various families, in pretty much pristine condition, printed on glossy sheets of paper, with no indication of having been torn from a book, or anything of the sort.  And since it was actually used by a member of the Newbury family, it's probably the most authentic one in existence for that family  -- as opposed to some bogus design dreamed up by some mail order coat-of-arms outfit.  I seem to remember, however, that Samuel Merrill checked with the College of Arms, and found nothing like it in their records, let alone used by any Merrill family in England.

Version #2, below, was provided on 10/14/05 by David Merrell, who said, "There is no telling which family line this thing actually belongs to, but it is said to be a true rendition of the Merrill Coat of Arms at Herald's College."

Version #3, below, with an accompanying "history of the Merrill surname," can be purchased for $12.95 from House of Names.   The vendor states, "In general the armorial bearings that we provide are those as having been at some point in history associated with the family or persons bearing your surname." The vendor provides similar products for many other surnames.  There is no reason to believe that this version of the Merrill coat of arms is authentic.  The same is true for the accompanying surname history, which is not shown to be derived from sound genealogical research.

On the Internet, other vendors offer similar products, and do not even provide a preview of the images and histories that are for sale.

A Few Questions of Heraldry
from A Merrill Memorial, Samuel Merrill, 1928

Versions #4-9, below, are believed to be reasonably authentic, or at least plausible.  The text here, with some editing, was copied 3/21/2009 from Jack Merrill's Web site.  The images were scanned 12/15/1999 by Deane Merrill from a printed copy of   A Merrill Memorial, provided in 1999 by Kathleen Wilson.

bearhaven2ghz:\\c:\dwmerrill\chris1\Paprport\Data\Desktop\dennie-02\arms*.max
(Paperport) - 30KB each.  Converted 3/21/2009 to arms*.jpg - 8KB each.

Thomas3 of South Hampton

Thomas3 Merrill (Abel2) lived in that part of Salisbury, Mass., which in 1741 became South Hampton, N.H. In 1726 he gave to one Enoch Little of Newbury a deed of an undivided twelfth of a certain large tract of land in Saco, Maine. In this deed he is described as a cordwinder, no doubt meaning a cordwainer, or shoemaker.

The deed bears evidence that one trained in the law had drawn it up. The writer supplied in ample measure the usual redundant phraseology of the period, declaring that the said Thomas Merril hath given granted bargained sould Aliened Enfeoffed and made over, and Doth by these presants, fulley freely, clearely and absolutly, give, grant, bargain sell aliene Enfeoffe and make over and confirme unto the said Enoch Little, etc. the premises in question.

This deed was sealed with wax, in which was impressed a coat of arms, the principal charges of which may be described as three peacocks heads, erased, one and two. The crest was a peacock s head, erased, proper. [35]

The first person in modern times who took notice of this coat of arms, so far as the present writer is aware, was the late William M. Sargent of Portland. Mr. Sargent was a lawyer, a descendant from Priscilla3 Merrill, sister of Thomas3 of Salisbury and South Hampton. Under date of 13 Jan. 1880, he wrote to Gyles Merrill of Haverhill, saying that the deed was in his possession, and seeking information concerning the Thomas Merrill who executed it. Two photographs of this deed, made at different times, and an enlarged photograph of the seal, are now in the author s possession.

Mr. Sargent considered that the use of this seal by Thomas3 Merrill was conclusive evidence that the device which it bore was a Merrill coat of arms, rightfully used by the family or which Thomas3 was a member. The same view was taken by Gen. Lewis Merrill, and it has been taken by others. The present writer, furthermore, is not in a position to deny that it may have been a Merrill coat of arms received by Thomas Merrill of Salisbury by inheritance from his grandfather, and belonging by equal right to all descendants of Nathaniel1 Merrill of Newbury.

Bar or Barrulet

Vol. 3, (1886) p. 178 Mr. Sargent sent a sketch of the coat of arms to Gyles Merrill, with the comment: The seal is defaced in part, and I have never been able to tell if the parallel lines were a division of the shield or not. . . This seal does not, of course, give the tinctures or colors. Subsequently, in the Maine Historical and Genealogical Recorder, to which he was a frequent contributor, he gave an illustration of these arms, with this description: Or, a barrulet between three peacocks heads, erased, proper. The horizontal lines on the barrulet in his illustration would indicate that the tincture was azure. [36]

In America Heraldica, by Edward de V. Vermont, (New York, 1837), this coat of arms, citing Thomas Merrill s deed as authority, is represented as shown herewith. It is thus described: Argent, a bar azure, between three peacocks heads, erased, proper. The bar in heraldry is a horizontal stripe occupying about one fifth of the field. But the space between the lower peacocks heads and the upper one, in the seal, is insufficient to admit a bar. The barrulet is the heraldic diminutive of the bar, and is generally one fourth the width of the bar. In the photograph of the seal the lines across the middle of the shield certainly represent nothing broader than a barrulet.

Mr. Sargent and Mr. Vermont agree that the crest is a peacock s head, erased, proper. The same crest accompanies the fleurde-lis arms described in Burke s General Armory under the name Merrill. (See page 113.) This fact may be cited as evidence though certainly very inconclusive that the arms used by Thomas Merrill were those of a branch of the Merrill family.

Will of Thomas3

A skeptic, who is inclined to dispute the right of Nathaniel1 Merrill s descendants to bear these arms, may argue that the seal which Thomas3 Merrill employed was not used by his father or his grandfather; it is not known to have been used by Thomas Merrill s immediate descendants; it was not used by Thomas Merrill himself when he made his will, 1 Feb. 1749. The seal on Thomas Merrill s will is a drop or two of red wax on which Thomas or some one else left merely the impress of a finger.

Whatever the law may have been regarding the unauthorized use of coat-armor, in practice seals were used somewhat indiscriminately in the colonial period. The notary who drew up the deed may have dropped some melted wax on the paper, and impressed in it a seal which he kept on his desk for the purpose, just as attorneys nowadays affix a paper seal and indicate to a grantor where he shall sign his name, when a deed of land is being executed. Such unauthorized use of seals bearing coats of arms was not infrequent at the time when Thomas Merrill granted bargained sould Aliened, etc., his interest in the Saco property for fifty pounds of good and currant money of Newengland. In other words, employment of the seal is not proof that the arms were ever granted to Thomas Merrill, or to his ancestor.

Similar Arms of Other Families

Three peacocks1 heads, erased, appear as the arms of certain Ridgeway families, as described in Burke s General Armory, but in every case the arms differ in other important respects from those used on Thomas Merrill s seal. In no case is the crest the same.

Arms much more closely resembling those on the seal are ascribed to a Patters family Argent, three peacocks heads, erased, gules; to Beconthorp and Oxley families Azure, three peacocks heads, erased, or; and to a Waring family Sable, three peacocks heads, erased, argent. Mr. Sargent in 1880 was in doubt with regard to the colors indicated in Thomas Merrill s seal. He was in doubt, too, whether there was a barrulet or other horizontal division of the shield. In the photograph the parallel lines noted by Mr.  Sargent appear to connect with a broken surface of the shield on the dexter side, to which Mr. Sargent refers, and it seems quite possible that they have no heraldic significance. In other words, the description of some of these other arms may correctly describe the arms on Thomas Merrill s seal.

The crests in the case of the Patters and Oxley arms, however, are quite different from the one shown in Thomas Merrill s deed; in the case of the Beconthorp and Waring arms no crest is described in such published works on heraldry as I have been able to find.

If Thomas Merrill, or his attorney, had casually come into possession of a seal which had been made for the use of some other person or family, the identity of the original owner remains yet to be discovered.

Merrill-Morrill Arms

A gentleman of my acquaintance named Morrill, a descendant from the early Morrills of New England, wears a ring in the chaton of which is cut a coat of arms which may be described: Or, a bend gules, in base a cross crosslet of the last. This is given by Burke as a Morrell and also as a Murrill coat of arms. In both cases, according to Burke, the crest is a demi-lion rampant, but with variations.

Mr. Morrill has for years made a study of heraldry. In 1899 he had a search made of the records of the Heralds College in London, and was informed that this coat of arms was borne by various individuals of the names Merell, Merrell and Morrell in England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. He was convinced that these names, as well as Murrell and Meverell, and the same names with i instead of e in the last syllable, are all derived from the same source.

Burke gives as a Merill coat of arms: Or, on a bend gules, a crescent argent, in base a cross crosslet of the second. Burke in this case gives no crest or motto. This latter coat of arms is identical with the Morrell and Murrill arms just mentioned, save for the crescent blazoned on the bend.

The Crescent of Cadency

The crescent is a mark of cadency, denoting a second son. Mr. Morrill explained the Merill arms by the assumption that the bearer, being a second son, had assumed the crescent as a mark of difference in his coat-armor, and that he had also seen fit to modify the spelling of the family name. But the crescent as a mark of cadency should be placed in the center chief point (in the upper part of the shield, just under the helmet.) It is not impossible that, as often happened, a branch of the family added the crescent as a charge, not as a mark of cadency, to distinguish it from other branches.

On the walls of the Newbury Historical Society s rooms in Newburyport twenty-five or thirty years ago I saw among other coats of arms of old Newbury families one ascribed to the Merrills. I made a copy, which is reproduced herewith. This, so far as the blazonings on the shield are concerned, is identical with the Merill arms described by Burke.

Moses7 of Newburyport

My inquiries elicited the information that Miss Susan-E. Merrill of Newburyport had furnished the copy which was in the Historical Society s possession. She was a descendant of Thomas3 Merrill (Abel2) whose deed in 1726 was sealed with wax in which was impressed the coat of arms given on page 107. Her line was through Thomas4, Nathan5, Orlando-Bagley6, and Moses7. The latter (her father) was born 23 May, 1798, and died 13 April, 1843.

Miss Merrill told me that the copy of the coat of arms which was in the Historical Society s rooms was made her sister from one which had belonged to her father. Of the origin of her father s copy she knew nothing. She showed me the latter: the only differences between that and the one here reproduced were that the scroll was without a motto in the earlier copy, and the shield was surmounted by the crest without the helmet. The bird figured in the crest seems to be a martin. In the Historical Society s copy its color is gray, like the helmet, and the twig held in its bill is green.

John Coles, Jr.

William-Patten7 Merrill (1827-1900) writing in 1896 said, referring to the Merrill coat of arms: [37]

We have an old copy which grandfather passed down to us. This copy is very old. Grandfather brought it to Topsham with him in 1760. In heraldry it reads thus: He beareth Or, a chevron Azure, between two leopards faces in chief Gules, and a dagger in base of the second, by the name of Merrill.

On the back is pasted a paper which says, Granted anno Do. 1641 to Sir Peter Merrill of Sumersetshire Bart. and descended to the family of Merrills.

This coat of arms accordingly is traced back to John5 Merrill (1734-1828), grandfather of William-Patten7 Merrill of Topsham and Brunswick, Maine.  But it bears strong internal evidence of spuriousness.

John Coles, and his son John, Jr., both of Boston, were industrious painters of coat-armor in New England in the last quarter of the eighteenth century and in the early nineteenth. Their work was generally ?? from ?? Display of Heraldry, a folio published in several editions in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Neither Coles, seemingly, made any effort to ascertain if there were any genealogical connection between a client and the grantee of the arms which Guillim described, and the work of both men is discredited by all students of heraldry.

The coat of arms which William Patten Merrill described was examined and photographed by the author of this Memorial in Brunswick in 1905. It bears unmistakable earmarks of the younger Coles handiwork. The shape of the shield, the helmet surmounting it, the scroll, the fanciful mantling and other decorative dotails are identical in character with known examples of Coles work. It may be dismissed as unworthy of serious consideration. [38]

The heraldic artist seems to have been in doubt with regard to the identity of the creature whose head serves as a crest for the mythical Sir Peter s coat of arms. At any rate, he neglects to define or describe it. Perhaps the crest was a lion s head, erased, contourn .

Gen. Lewis Merrill wrote, 16 Jan. 1885: The Heralds College says there never was a Sir Peter Merrill, Bart., in Somersetshire or elsewhere. Diligent search in Papworth and Morant s Ordinary of British Armorials fails to disclose a coat of arms answering the description of the one supposed to have been granted to Sir Peter.

Some Family Mottoes

In the General Armory Burke gives as a Merrill coat of arms Or, a pale engrailed gules, voided of the field, between two fleurs-de-lis azure; crest A peacock s head, erased, proper. These arms have, I think, received little attention in this country.

I have an impression in wax of a beautifully cut seal showing these arms, the seal having been made thirty-five or forty years ago for Dr. Frederick Augustus Merrill of Boston.  Under the shield is shown a ribbon with the motto, Vincit qui patitur. This phrase (meaning He conquers who endures ) appears to be the motto of fourteen English families, (among which Merrill is not included,) according to Elvin s Handbook of Mottoes (London, 1860).

The same arms were described in the Historical Bulletin of Washington, 1 Sept. 1904, as belonging to Merrills of America, but with the motto, Vivons la v rit ( Live for the truth. ) And a correspondent sent me a tracing of the same arms, but with the motto Forti et fideli nihil dificile ( To the brave and faithful nothing is difficult. ) He said that the arms were sent him from Canada, and were copied from a book brought from England. It should be borne in mind that a motto and a coat of arms are in a measure independent of each other. One is quite free to discard the motto of his family, and adopt a motto of his own choice, without discarding the arms themselves.

A poet of the family, inspired by the motto Vincit qui patitur, and the heraldic representation accompanying it, has given us some clever verses, of which this is the first stanza:

He conquers who endures:
Stern words on my proud crest
Crest set with fleurs-de-lis,
With peacock s head and breast;
Crest borne long years ago
By fearless kin of mine,
Where oleanders flame
On hills of Palestine. [39]

With the freedom which is granted to those who write in verse, the poet was of course privileged to fancy her ancestors as crusaders, fighting against the infidel with shield and crest as here depicted. Those of us, however, to whom no form of expression has been vouchsafed save practical commonplaoe prose, must seek tangible evidence that the claim to the arms is warranted by the rules of heraldry, and that the family line back to the time of the crusades can be properly traced. Such evidence is lacking.

In a newspaper article some years ago the use of peacock s head in the Merrill arms was explained. The writer of the article credited the arms having the two fleurs-de-lis, with the peacock s-head crest, to the de Merles of Auvergne. He related how, a few centuries ago, a number of lawless men planned to pillage the de Merle estate one night, and murder the members of the family. A number of peacocks were kept on the premises, however, and these birds, frightened by the unwonted presence of nocturnal visitors, and emulating the immortal flock of poultry which saved the city on the Tiber, set up a strident clamor. As a result the family and servants were aroused, and the wicked design of the outlaws was frustrated.  The service performed by the faithful peacocks was ill-requited by wringing their necks and using their heads, thus erased, as heraldic emblems.

The writer of the article did not cite any authority for this story, and it may without impropriety be given a place in the family mythology. A careful search in French works on heraldry fails to show that either the peacock or his head has been used in coat-armor by any French family bearing the name of Merle.

The Merles of France

Efforts have been made to find in heraldry evidence of relationship between the Merrills of England and the Merles of France, but the search has ylelded negative results. French books of heraldry give the armorial bearings of the Merle family of Auvergne as Sable, three merles (blackbirds)  [40]argent, and other families of the same name on the Continent bear merles and merlettes in various numbers and colors, as the chief charges on their shields.

A correspondent expressed to me the belief that the three blackbirds used in coat-armor on one side of the English Channel, and three peacocks heads used on the other, indicated a possible community of blood but the idea seems too fanciful to be taken seriously.

In Conclusion

In some genealogical papers which were submitted to me for examination, the statement was made that the coat of arms with the cross crosslet was used by Merrill families in England as early as 1588. The arms with the fleurs-de-lis were said to have been used by the Merrill families of Essex and Sussex. The arms with three peacocks heads are the same as used by the family of Ridgeway of England. Only the first and third of these forms, it was said, were used by persons of the Merrill name at an early date in America. Gen. Lewis Merrill was cited as authority for these statements, but in the somewhat voluminous correspondence between General Merrill and Gyles Merrill, and between General Merrill and the present writer, such statements are not to be found. The writer has instituted no search of the authorities in England on this subject, either at the Heralds College or elsewhere.

Perhaps the reader has looked here for a coat of arms which all American Merrills are entitled by the rules of heraldry to emblazon on their stationery; and perhaps he is disappointed and confused because, to relieve the monotony of these typewritten pages, the author has pictured here so many heraldic achievements. But the reader, if so inclined, may make his choice, all are free for use if one in inclined to assume them.

The right to coat-armor based upon assumption, and not upon grant, is ably defended by Henry Stoddard Ruggles in an article in the New York Genealogical and Biographical Record for October, 1903. According to the authorities which he cites, and they are from English sources, members of the Merrill family may justly use any coat of arms here displayed, and whether the first use of the arms by a Merrill was based upon grant or upon assumption is immaterial. It would be equally immaterial, he insists, if the user were a British subject.

back to Merrill Genealogy
back to Genealogy of Deane Merrill b.1938

\\wd250gb\FrontPage Webs\Content\family2\merrillcoatofarms.docx, htm 1/16/2010
http://merrill.olm.net/family/merrillcoatofarms.htm