New Arms

 
cmkrouse
 
Avatar
 
 
cmkrouse
Total Posts:  13
Joined  19-06-2014
 
 
 
23 July 2014 21:16
 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-I_tbySkQO4k/U81YrCFWQJI/AAAAAAAAD0Q/EFgeRhUasvg/s1600/rwp+arms.jpg

Arms:  Azure, semé of Masonic compasses erect Argent, a dexter hand couped erect of the second;

 

Crest:  On a wreath Argent and Azure, a Black Labrador head erased gorged of a collar Or clutching in its jaws a glove of the first;

 

Motto: "My Soul is Resilient."

 

Earlier this month, a friend of mine asked if I would devise arms for him, and of course I jumped at the chance.  The design came to mind rather quickly, which surprised me.  These are classic canting arms as the hand is a pun on the armiger’s surname.  The armiger is a Mason and I thought of a way to incorporate the compass from the Masonic symbol in a pattern.  I think they came out rather nicely!  The crest was also fun, as the armiger loves his Black Lab.  In the dog’s mouth is a white glove, apparently another symbol found in Masonry.  The motto was a collaborative effort and accurately portrays the armiger’s war cry.  He loves it!

 

I work in colored pencil which is a bit inferior…and hope I got the blazon right.

 
QuiQuog
 
Avatar
 
 
QuiQuog
Total Posts:  97
Joined  10-10-2013
 
 
 
24 July 2014 00:02
 

I like how the glove ties the crest to the shield, as if it were the golve off of the hand itself. I must admit though, at first I thought it was a hand in his mouth. Did you try adding the square with the compass? It seems like it would be more recognizable if they were together. Freemasons are so awash in symbology, it seems that heraldry would be fertile ground for displayinmg some of it. I looked up some of the symbols and there was any number of ways you could have went. I like what you chose.

One idea, if you’re still open to them, you could add the square and compass to the glove, as if it were embroidered on. That way, if the crest were displayed seperately, it would be more recognizeable as masonic. Of course, none of my ideas would work if he wanted it to not be so blatant.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
25 July 2014 01:58
 

Well, the soul of this forum is discussion of sometimes contrary notions, so FWIW I would drop the term "Masonic" in the blazon - or at most, say [small-m] "mason’s compasses" - and not include the square, or at least not in the standard combination used by the Blue Lodge.

Two overlapping reasons:

-the square & compass combined are the recognized emblem of th Masonic orders & IMO shouldn’t be used without their explicit permission.

-arms are generally intended to apply not just to the individual, but also to his descendants & possibly extended family, some (many?) of whom aren’t or won’t also be Masons.

 

Any of your friend’s brother Masons viewing the design as drawn (very nice artwork!) will likely see the allusion, so the square & the capital-M Masonic in the blazon aren’t necessary for them.  And in the future, they won’t be misled as to the membership of non-Mason descendants or kin.

 

My opinion, others may differ.

 

And again, nice design & nice artwork!!

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
25 July 2014 07:24
 

I agree with Mike. Also, one of our (former?) members who was a Mason said, as I recall, that the organization frowned on the display of its insignia outside the context of its own activities, including in personal heraldry.

The usual blazon is "compasses expanded" or "pairs of compasses expanded," the description "expanded" presumably to distinguish the charge from a navigational compass.

 

If the hand is supposed to be a glove, it should be blazoned as a glove, not a hand.

 

I really like the design.

 
cmkrouse
 
Avatar
 
 
cmkrouse
Total Posts:  13
Joined  19-06-2014
 
 
 
25 July 2014 11:26
 

Excellent points everyone, and I appreciate the feedback.  Thank you!

 
QuiQuog
 
Avatar
 
 
QuiQuog
Total Posts:  97
Joined  10-10-2013
 
 
 
25 July 2014 11:27
 

Michael F. McCartney;102314 wrote:

Well, the soul of this forum is discussion of sometimes contrary notions, so FWIW I would drop the term "Masonic" in the blazon - or at most, say [small-m] "mason’s compasses" - and not include the square, or at least not in the standard combination used by the Blue Lodge.

Two overlapping reasons:

-the square & compass combined are the recognized emblem of th Masonic orders & IMO shouldn’t be used without their explicit permission.

-arms are generally intended to apply not just to the individual, but also to his descendants & possibly extended family, some (many?) of whom aren’t or won’t also be Masons.

 

Any of your friend’s brother Masons viewing the design as drawn (very nice artwork!) will likely see the allusion, so the square & the capital-M Masonic in the blazon aren’t necessary for them.  And in the future, they won’t be misled as to the membership of non-Mason descendants or kin.

 

My opinion, others may differ.

 

And again, nice design & nice artwork!!

First, I’m going to disagree with your second opinion; that "arms are generally intended to apply not just to the individual, but also to his descendants & possibly extended family, some (many?) of whom aren’t or won’t also be Masons." There are more than a few instances of arms that were devised with references with individual traits that are handed down through the family. Such as shocks of wheat that represent the original armigers land usage. It may or may not be the case for the present bearer. Not to mention cants that have no bearing on the name of the current generation bearing the arms. So I don’t see that as an issue.

I will agree though that one may want to tone down explicit reference to Masonry, and maybe not include the square with the compass, if only because the order frowns upon it. However, I think that the armiger should ultimately be able to use it if he chooses.

 

I may be off base, but those are my feelings in the spirit of sometimes contrary notions. wink

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
25 July 2014 13:33
 

QuiQuog;102319 wrote:

First, I’m going to disagree with your second opinion; that "arms are generally intended to apply not just to the individual, but also to his descendants & possibly extended family, some (many?) of whom aren’t or won’t also be Masons." There are more than a few instances of arms that were devised with references with individual traits that are handed down through the family.


This is true enough.  To me, the point is that we should avoid designs that are so specific to the person adopting the arms that they will seem irrelevant if not offensive to the descendants.  Overt reference to membership in a non-hereditary organization seems to me a little too personal to include on the shield.  Many of my ancestors on both sides of the family were Freemasons, a couple were members of the Odd Fellows, but if any of them had adopted arms incorporating the badges of those organizations into the design, and I had inherited them, I think I’d feel obliged to make a change, since I’m not a member.

 
QuiQuog
 
Avatar
 
 
QuiQuog
Total Posts:  97
Joined  10-10-2013
 
 
 
25 July 2014 14:41
 

With respect, there’s no telling what will be offensive to anyone’s descendants, and it’s probably a fools errand to try and guess what might be. I would imagine that a fair number of individuals have actually had swastikas removed from their arms, but up until the 1940’s they were a valid design element. The atrocities in recent history that are associated with it are still fresh enough that nobody wants to tie their name to it. But go back farther, when people were putting moore heads on their arms. It may be offensive to some people, but now it’s part of history, and tells a story of that time. You can even put a time period on when the arms were likely created based on their inclusion.

I’ll just mention Huck Finn without saying anything about it to allude to shameful whitewashing of history, but if we were to sanitize everything before putting it out for future generations, we lose historical context. Someday, the armigers GGGG grandson might look at a symbol, wonder what it means and wind his way down a path of discovery about his ancestors. So while I understand what you’re saying about being relevant or not wanting to offend, I lean more towards the idea that arms tell a story, and the story should be told as the armiger sees it. Future generations can associate or disassociate with it as they please.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
25 July 2014 19:45
 

Always risky to speak for others, but I don’t think that Joe’s key point was that Masonic emblems might be offensive - but it is a possibiity given the (geneally mindless) passion of many for all sorts of alleged historical conspiracy theories, some of which do focus on Freemasonry.  Generally nonsense, but hope isn’t the only thing that seems to spring eternal.

More to the point, IMO at least, is that charges which suggest ancestral affiliations with some group or cause - in this case, the compass without the square, or the two elements used but not assmbled into the Masonic emblem - are preferable to precisely copying the chosen insignia of a particuar group - in this case, the compass & square assembled in the Masonic style.  The symbolism is there for those who recognise it, without the misleading impression that relatives and descendants using the arms are themselves members of the same organization.

 

This concern isn’t limited to, or primarilly concerning, Freemasonry; IMO it would (or should) apply to the insignia of any organization.  Individual membership can be, & often are, demonstrated by a particular individual in other ways - e.g. in the corners or around the border of a bookplate.  Or in some cases, an indiviual can hang the membrship insignia below the shield, or behind the shield, e.g. the various Hospitaler orders, or certain military & civilian awards.  These all clearly pertain to the individual in question, but are typically not included in the actual arms which do or will apply to other family members who don’t belong to he same organization or who have not personally received the same awards. (It’s not that the relative or descendant necessariy finds the insignia offensive - rather that, for whatever reasons, either he or the organization have not chosen to seek or confer membership or specia recognition.)

 

Speaking only for myself - not sure if others here will agree - I wouldn’t question a new design in which a relevant wounded or killed ancestor’s military service was symbolized by inclusion of a small purple heart - but not by including the whole design of the Purple Heart medal with GW’s head and shield, which is not an inherited honor.  One makes a symbolic reference or gesture honoring the ancestor; the other IMO goes too far.

 

On an entirely different tack, we generally prefer simpler designs over more cuttered ones, however meaningful the clutter.  IMO the repetition of the simple compasses makes a visually cleaner design than adding the square to each compass.

 

As always, others may differ etc.  And the exchange of views is useful, whether or not anyone’s mind is changed!

 
QuiQuog
 
Avatar
 
 
QuiQuog
Total Posts:  97
Joined  10-10-2013
 
 
 
26 July 2014 03:08
 

I still lean more towards the idea that arms tell a story, and the story should be told as the armiger sees it, but I see your point and agree with you. I think I can do both without contradicting myself. I’m not as versed in heraldry as many of you are and I’m not aware of many nuances within it. I’ve seen arms with medals hanging below, or items behind or around the shield and such, but I don’t know the rules behind such things. I may have to look into it as I continue to create my own arms.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
28 July 2014 14:03
 

On our home page there is a list of internal links on the left side,  One of these, under "Education"  is our recommended "Guidelines for Heraldic Practice."  We developed these Guidelines over several months, several years ago, with much discussion back & forth at the time before settling on the final language. There is IIRC a section on external additaments, gongs & such which you may find useful.

There are also any number of threads in this forum on related topics, which may be interesting,but not indexed other than by word search so sorting thru them can be frustrating! - which is why we suggest the Guidelines as a good starting point.  You may agree or disagree with various points there but it will provide a useful starting point for further discussion.

 
Guy Power
 
Avatar
 
 
Guy Power
Total Posts:  1576
Joined  05-01-2006
 
 
 
28 July 2014 14:54
 

I must strongly agree with Joe and Mike.

My father chose elements of his military career to be incorporated into his Arms.  The Arms look nice—but have such a STRONG allusion to the Special Forces that I am reluctant to boldly display them—most people will assume that I was in the Special Forces.  I spent 20 years in the military and was never SF ... and at gatherings where there are active/retired SF members I am always asked about my membership.  I just wish I didn’t have to explain away my non-membership and justify "bearing" SF emblems!

 

All of which is why I still toy with adopting different Arms and designating my younger brother (and his children) as the heraldic heir to our father.

 

What a headache!

 

—Guy

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
29 July 2014 00:57
 

Stopping at a roadside rest area adjacent to the I-15 border crossing from Montana into Alberta, there was a granite memorial to the WW II founding of the joint US-Canadian Special Forces unit.  The stone said that the emblem adopted for that unit was the crossed arrows apparently used by Indian scouts in (US? Canadian? both?) which was IIRC included in the later insignia of each nation’s SF units.

I don’t remember if the dagger was also included in the engraving of the crossed arrows—quick pit-stop on a loooong drive to wife’s family reunion & I was a bit fuzzy at that point.  (Yea, I heard that "so nu?" from the peanut gallery…)

 

I would hate to see Guy change his arms, but I can appreciate his reasons for considering it.  Would it be sufficient to just drop the dagger & keep the arrows, or vice-versa?

 
mjsmith
 
Avatar
 
 
mjsmith
Total Posts:  121
Joined  15-08-2012
 
 
 
29 July 2014 08:55
 

Chad, when you have a moment, here is another thread with a similar discussion.

http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7038

 

It might add something to this discussion.  In the end an armiger is going to do what they want to do,  all we can do is help guide them along the way.

 

As an aside to Guy, I had reservations when Jeremy Hammond was wanting to change his arms.  I understand why he did what he did and the symbolism wound up being outstanding.  In your case you are a second generation armiger and though your service didn’t include Special Forces, I wouldn’t shy away from the arms your father devised.  They are still a great family heritage.

 
QuiQuog
 
Avatar
 
 
QuiQuog
Total Posts:  97
Joined  10-10-2013
 
 
 
29 July 2014 11:51
 

Guy Power;102340 wrote:

I must strongly agree with Joe and Mike.

My father chose elements of his military career to be incorporated into his Arms.  The Arms look nice—but have such a STRONG allusion to the Special Forces that I am reluctant to boldly display them—most people will assume that I was in the Special Forces.  I spent 20 years in the military and was never SF ... and at gatherings where there are active/retired SF members I am always asked about my membership.  I just wish I didn’t have to explain away my non-membership and justify "bearing" SF emblems!

 

All of which is why I still toy with adopting different Arms and designating my younger brother (and his children) as the heraldic heir to our father.

 

What a headache!

 

—Guy

I see your point about having arms with symbols of active groups, or even inactive groups that are still in living memory for that matter. It would be tiring to have to explain that all the time. But people always the option of changing inherited arms to suite their own tastes. It’s hard to reconcile the desire for arms that represent you and the traits that define you with the knowledge that those inheriting your arms are not you. They don’t even have the same heritage as you, half comes from the other parent. It seems to me that if someone feels that an item on inherited arms is meant to only represent the armiger who bears it, they can leave it off or modify it as needed to please them. If they don’t want to change it, then there’s no issue.

As I said before, I’m not as knowledgeable as many here. I only know enough to embarrass myself amongst the experts. My own personal preference would be to not have any symbols recognizable as belonging to a members group or organization. But at the risk of sounding like a broken record, and embarrassing myself in conversations with the experts, I still lean towards the idea that arms tell the story of the armiger. It doesn’t have to be the same story as their father, unless that’s the story they want told.

 
Guy Power
 
Avatar
 
 
Guy Power
Total Posts:  1576
Joined  05-01-2006
 
 
 
31 July 2014 13:49
 

Mike and Matthew,

I still use the Arms with the label ... but jury’s still out.

 

Mike, even if I used the crossed arrows .... those still are the SF officer (and enlisted) lapel insignia ... like our "crossed idiot-sticks."

 

Officer:

http://d2jxk7u2ol2fk7.cloudfront.net/image/thumb/large/SPECFRC33FNL.jpg

 

EM:

http://www.uniforms-4u.com/productimages/5420/u-us-army-enlisted-us-and-special-forces-collar-device.-6133.jpg

 

US Indian Scouts (USS):

http://www.curtrich.com/scoutshat64.jpg

—Guy