If you’re like me, you almost always assume that new designs of very simple arms will be a duplication of existing arms.
I’ve been surprised that I can’t find any recording of the two simple shields shown below. I’ve asked several heraldically-minded friends for assistance and they, like me, have not found any instances of these arms being recorded. Given that, I’m asking the assistance of Society members to make sure that I’m not overlooking something.
Can you find any record of either of these arms already in use in 1) America or 2) Scotland, England, Wales, or Ireland? Thanks in advance for your help. NB: Society for Creative Anachronism blazons don’t count…;)
Per pale Argent and Gules a chevron counterchanged.
http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=72&pictureid=2104
Per pale Argent and Gules two chevronels counterchanged.
http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=72&pictureid=2102
Very simple design! I hope this pans out to be available.
I put out feelers in another group I am a part of as well.
Focusing on this design:
http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=72&pictureid=2104
I’ve checked Papworth, Balfour, Bolton, Burke, Crozier, and Joe’s Early American Roll and no duplication. Anything close has either a different color (Sable instead of Gules) or a different ordinary (fess or bend instead of chevron).
It’s hard to believe that these arms weren’t used in recorded memory in the jurisdictions that I consider relevant, but I think that must be the case.
So far, nothing but crickets here and on the International Heraldry Society’s Facebook page…
Claiming it?
Unless I find some proof of prior use, yes. Despite multiple iterations over several years, it’s what seems to resonate with me most: White and Red, simple, medieval, bold. In conjunction with my current crest and badge it just feels right…
http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=72&pictureid=2106
http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=72&pictureid=2107
Here’s what it would look like as a complete achievement:
http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=72&pictureid=2109
David, that is striking. I hope your luck holds out and that you have indeed discovered a beautiful heraldic oversight.
David, you’ve probably done more checking than plenty of heraldry enthusiasts in our social circles. I say go for it!
I think it works well and nobody has found it in previous use so sounds like it is a go.
From this document:
Quote:
A description of the arms and crest of the head of the family of Alexander of Auchininna is as follows:
"Parted per pale Argent and Gules, a Chevron counterchanged, on a Canton Azure interchanged, on a Canton Azure a galley sail furled of the first. Crest a dexter arm embowed vambraced holding a sword all proper, hilted and pomelled Or. Motto, Per mare per terras."
I think the repeat of "on a Canton…" is a typo, but I think it’s safe to say that this is the same coat with the addition of a the blue canton with silver/white galley. So the question is…is the canton an addition to an existing coat? It’s possible that the canton and the change from black to red were done at the same time as a difference from the base Alexander arms, but it’s also possible that somewhere along the line there was a change from black to red (for difference) and then the addition of the canton. No evidence yet though.
I think it’s premature to say "go for it". Just today I thought of several more sources to check which are not duplications of others I’ve checked and that I know David has, too. I think it’s encouraging, but still.
Kenneth Mansfield;101784 wrote:
From this document:
I think the repeat of "on a Canton…" is a typo, but I think it’s safe to say that this is the same coat with the addition of a the blue canton with silver/white galley. So the question is…is the canton an addition to an existing coat? It’s possible that the canton and the change from black to red were done at the same time as a difference from the base Alexander arms, but it’s also possible that somewhere along the line there was a change from black to red (for difference) and then the addition of the canton. No evidence yet though.
I think it’s premature to say "go for it". Just today I thought of several more sources to check which are not duplications of others I’ve checked and that I know David has, too. I think it’s encouraging, but still.
It also raises the issue of jurisdictions, since Lawson/Barts Hospital (England) and Alexander (Scotland) seem duplicative to me. If the single chevron version is duplicative, perhaps the two chevronel version is not…
http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=72&pictureid=2113
It’s such a simple, striking design. I would be shocked to find out that it’s never been claimed before. I hope your luck holds out and you’re able to claim it as your own.
If there is a duplication, you could add a canton of your avatar, or add your dogwood & heart badge on the red part of the field (or the chevron, I suppose, tho’ that would IMO look a bit unbalanced—referring of course to the artwork, not your mental condition ). By now, your avatar design is "you" at least to those here & other places you may be using it.
Also there is IIRC an ordinary for Rietstap, tho’ I don’t have access to it. Your friends & neighbors are nowadays as likely to be non-Brit as Brit in family origins.
Kenneth Mansfield;101784 wrote:
From this document:
I think the repeat of "on a Canton…" is a typo, but I think it’s safe to say that this is the same coat with the addition of a the blue canton with silver/white galley. So the question is…is the canton an addition to an existing coat? It’s possible that the canton and the change from black to red were done at the same time as a difference from the base Alexander arms, but it’s also possible that somewhere along the line there was a change from black to red (for difference) and then the addition of the canton. No evidence yet though.
I think it’s premature to say "go for it". Just today I thought of several more sources to check which are not duplications of others I’ve checked and that I know David has, too. I think it’s encouraging, but still.
I’ve searched the publicly available portions of Lyon Roll, and have found only the following designs which have been recorded:
http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=72&pictureid=2119
http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=72&pictureid=2118
It appears that the canton and galley were integral to the "theoretical base arms" and that a shield which duplicated my proposed design never existed.
Given the different jurisdictions, and what I believe to be sufficient differences of design, I have decided to assume the arms "Per pale Argent and Gules a chevron counterchanged." I have submitted them to the Armorial Register for registration. If future evidence shows these arms to be duplicative I will edit accordingly.
David,
Why don’t you send a note to Lyon Clerk and ask her if there’s anything in the files explaining how these arms evolved? Or you might post the query on the HSS site.
I think the difference of jurisdictions defense is fine as far as it goes for inadvertent duplication, but when you come across a possible conflict in the design phase, I’m not sure it’s quite as persuasive. Cantons are not usually part of the base design in Scottish heraldry, which suggests that there is at least a hypothetical coat that is the same as the one you propose to adopt.
Using the two chevrons instead of one would solve the problem, I think, especially if you were willing to restore the dogwood blossom, perhaps in base.