Tabards, such as these, are worn by a household officer. In effect, a man wearing one is not wearing his own arms, but those of his employer.
How do tabards differ from surcoats, by which a man would wear his own arms.
In other words, looking at a man wearing an actual "coat of arms", how would I know if they were his arms, or those of his employer?
Surcoats are usually belted and are not always the coat of arms of the wearer, for example, it can be livery with a badge of the liege instead of arms (and yet appear to be a coat of arms). Knights of military orders of course had surcoats with the emblems of their orders rather than personal arms as well. I should add, a surcoat need not have any emblems at all.
Tabards are so unique, and usually accompanied by non-military style hats (rather than helms), that one would be easily able to discern that it was a herald displaying arms of his master. Tabards would not ever be blank, because it’s essentially the medieval equivalent of those guys wearing signs in front of pizza shops advertising (tabard serves no other pupose than to draw attention to it’s display)... speaking of which, I’m hungry… mmm pizza.
I forgot to mention jupons pretty much function in the same way as surcoats.
Thanks! That helps.
steven harris;100291 wrote:
Thanks! That helps.
I probably should have specified, all of the above is based on my "belief" from what I have seen so far. Someone who could cite some sources in either direction would be more reliable of course.
D’Arcy Boulton gave a talk at the RHSC annual meeting a couple of years ago on this very subject, but unfortunately I haven’t run across it in print. Maybe somewhere on the RHSC website.
I guess I can source one of my Osprey titles "Medieval Heraldry."
(Edit: here is an interesting blog article on livery, surcoats and jupons too! http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2013/03/coat-armor-badges-devices-liveries-and.html)
One of the major confusing points too is the use of (often unrecorded) livery coats which at some battles were donned by knights who also wore jupons with personal armory beneath. Livery coats could be army wide "uniforms" or for varied for private retinues. Also, not sure if I mentioned this before, but badges would not be worn by the actual owner of the badge (at least not in the form of a badge). Owners wear their arms, retainers wear their badges.
Back to tabards, I don’t know that the earliest heralds used them, and in fact, many were wanderers in no permanent service to any lord. Apparently they were more like minstrels in dress?
René d’Anjou wrote in his treatise on tournaments ("Traicitié de la forme et devis comme on fait les tournoys", c 1460-62): "La cotte d’armes doibt estre faicte ne plus ne moins comme celle d’ung hérault, réservé qu’elle doibt estre sans ploicts par le corps, affin que on congnoisse mieulx de quoy sont les armes" that is to say "the coat of arms should be made no more nor less than that of a herald, saving that it should be without pleats on the body, so that one may better know the arms".
Hibiscus Herald of the State of Hawaii:
http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1286&stc=1&d=1380547269
Very nice!
Have you located an official description of the arms on the seal? Even on the Hawaii.gov website, there is inconsistency, with some of the seals having red tabu balls instead of white and having a blue escutcheon with a white star rather than the green with a gold star.
Kenneth Mansfield;100776 wrote:
Very nice!
Have you located an official description of the arms on the seal? Even on the Hawaii.gov website, there is inconsistency, with some of the seals having red tabu balls instead of white and having a blue escutcheon with a white star rather than the green with a gold star.
Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 5-5: "An heraldic shield which is quarterly; first and fourth, stripes of the Hawaiian flag; second and third, on a yellow field, a white ball pierced on a black staff; overall, a green escutcheon with a five-pointed yellow star in the center."
It just occurred to me reading the blazon that the piercing on the balls should be the color of the field and not sable, which would make them look less like disembodied eyeballs.
Hmm. I’m not even sure the balls are supposed to be pierced in the traditional heraldic sense.
Here are the arms of "the Mighty Ninth":
http://www.themightyninth.org/General Items/Unit Histories/9FARegtCOA.jpg
And here is an actual puloulou:
Kenneth Mansfield;100781 wrote:
Hmm. I’m not even sure the balls are supposed to be pierced in the traditional heraldic sense.
You may be right. The arms in their royal version as cast in iron on the gates of Iolani Palace are shown in hi-def here: http://ducky.riceville.k12.ia.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/20130120_153719.jpg
and don’t seem to show a hole in the side of the ball facing the observer. Could "pierced" mean that there’s a hole into which the pole is inserted? If so, the language has been confusing heraldic artists since the arms of the republic replaced those of the kingdom.
Joseph McMillan;100782 wrote:
Could "pierced" mean that there’s a hole into which the pole is inserted? If so, the language has been confusing heraldic artists since the arms of the republic replaced those of the kingdom.
"pierced on a black staff"
That’s what it sounds like to me: the ball is pierced, allowing it to be affixed to the staff.
—Guy