There are several things wrong with calling this "the George family crest". First of all, it's not a crest. It's a coat of arms. The crest is the thing on top of the helmet, in this case, a demi talbot between two laurel leaves (a talbot is a dog, so a demi talbot is the front half of a dog). The shield, the helmet, the crest, along with the mantling (the cloak around the helmet and shield) and other minor bits make up an "armourial achievement", commonly referred to as a "coat of arms" or as "arms". Calling the entire thing "a crest" is like calling your bicycle "a set of handlebars", or asking for a monitor when you want an entire computer.

Secondly, it does not belong to the George family. Despite what the mail order "Your Name And Coat-Of-Arms" dealers may try to tell you, a coat of arms does not belong to a family, and they definitely DO NOT belong to "Anyone Who Happens To Have The Same Last Name". A coat of arms (in most countries, anyway) belongs to ONE PERSON (I believe that these arms belong to William Edwards George, Esq., of Bristol). They may be passed down from one armiger to ONE heir, but any other children will have differenced arms (which usually includes changing the crest as well- Fairbank's Book of Crests shows eleven different crests for armigers named George, six of which have the canine motif). A similar coat of arms (with blue eagle, and a red invected fess instead of a blue straight one) was granted in the early 1500's to John George. If John George, who could -prove- he was a relative of the original grantee of the coat shown above, couldn't use the original arms, then it's fairly clear that Jack George who doesn't know his ancestry has no right to it either!

While it is possible that, if your last name is George, you may be descended from the original grantee of this coat of arms (in which case you could display it, or you could apply for a differenced grant), however, there are many unrelated families with the name George. The name is derived form the Greek word for "farmer"- a family could have taken the name because they were farmers, because their father's first name was George (a name which is very common in several forms throughout Europe), or because they were found abandoned at the gates of St. George's Cathedral! I'm quite sure, for example, that I am in no way related to Chief Dan George, O. C., or to Dudley George (from near Lake Ipperwash). Having the same last name as the person to whom the arms were granted does not entitle you to claim the arms, any more than changing your last name to Windsor would allow you to invite yourself over to Buckingham Palace!

While in some countries (notably the USA), heraldry is completely unregulated (thus allowing people to claim any coat of arms they wish), countries like Canada, England, Scotland, and South Africa control heraldry. Coats of arms cannot be assumed in these countries; they can be granted by the appropriate authorities. Coats of arms thus granted are protected by law, and cannot be stolen by people who think that having the same last name as a person entitles them to use their arms.

While nobody is going to stop anyone from hanging up a plaque with a purloined coat of arms (except for the true owner of the arms), putting someone else's arms on your wall (or on your homepage) simply displays to the world that you know nothing about heraldry. It is rather like buying a piece of paper with a diploma on it- it may look good on the wall, but the purchase doesn't make you any smarter, and nobody who knows you will believe it is authentic. It is a sad fact that many honest and intelligent people who appreciate a nicely-designed coat of arms are taken in by fraudulent merchants who pretend that they can sell you "your" coat of arms, a scam which has operated for centuries. Of course, nobody wants to believe that they (or worse, their grandparents) were taken in by snake-oil salesmen, so the misconception that arms belong to a surname has been spread far and wide, and is deeply ingrained.

Don't forget to visit my homepage