Does cadency stack?

 
mjsmith
 
Avatar
 
 
mjsmith
Total Posts:  121
Joined  15-08-2012
 
 
 
29 January 2013 16:39
 

arriano;97416 wrote:

I’d suggest you ask your grandfather if he is OK with the arms you have designed. If so, then he assumes them and you’re good to go. Then let the different branches (and individuals) of your family decide what they want to do:


Arrian, I will show my grandfather what we come up with.  I’d honestly love him to be a part of the whole process.  Unfortunately, the Alzheimer’s has taken much of who he is.

 

He sometimes recognizes me as my father or one of my uncles.  He can still see the family resemblance, however the disease has stolen any memory he had of me personally.  Fortunately, I know a lot about his history and I am able to hold conversations with him about all that.  So, I doubt he’d remember what the arms were 2-minutes after talking about them.

 

The intent here is more to honor my grandparents and give the people carrying their name a way to tie themselves to them.  Just a way to educate their great grandchildren and beyond about the IMHO great people they are descended from.

 
mjsmith
 
Avatar
 
 
mjsmith
Total Posts:  121
Joined  15-08-2012
 
 
 
29 January 2013 16:48
 

Joseph McMillan;97419 wrote:

Or almost anywhere else, for that matter.  Even in England, where the textbooks treated it as mandatory, the present kings of arms acknowledge that it was always more a matter of courtesy than law, and the last Garter publicly deprecated the practice in the absence of any compelling reason for it.


Well, then I will leave this up to my uncles.  Thank you all for the opinions and information.

 
Derek Howard
 
Avatar
 
 
Derek Howard
Total Posts:  116
Joined  08-05-2009
 
 
 
30 January 2013 09:32
 

Joseph McMillan;97419 wrote:

Or almost anywhere else, for that matter.  Even in England, where the textbooks treated it as mandatory, the present kings of arms acknowledge that it was always more a matter of courtesy than law, and the last Garter publicly deprecated the practice in the absence of any compelling reason for it.

Well, in England the practice may have faded somewhat in the 20th century but was not uncommon through to Victorian times and marks of difference can often be found on bookplates. Even modern grants of arms in England state that they require the use of suitable differences, so it is indeed a matter for the law of arms.

The thing is that the choice of difference was not a matter for the heralds (though no doubt they could advise) but seems to have been traditionally, even in medieval times, for the family to resolve. Some families have been at pains to mark their differences, others are happy to share in the heraldic identity.

 

The most compelling reason is if the arms are used for individual identification, as in a seal or bookplate, it should be clear which individual in a family this relates to. Normally this is not a problem for we tend to use names on these items to clarify the owner but this should not be a necessity.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
30 January 2013 12:53
 

Derek Howard;97423 wrote:

... so it is indeed a matter for the law of arms.


Well, Thomas Woodcock (now Garter) and John Martin Robinson (now Maltravers Herald) say otherwise in the Oxford Guide to Heraldry.  Their position is similar to what you write in succeeding paragraphs of your post—that it was a matter for the family.

 

They also point out that the last authoritative statement of the law of the matter was in Coke’s Institutes, and that the requirement for differencing, such as it was, was tied to primogeniture inheritance of land.  Which was, of course, abolished in the United States soon after the Revolution, and in England in 1925.

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
31 January 2013 03:12
 

Well, to forget about differencing at all would be quite a loss: a coat of arms must not be seen as a frozen stuff unchangeable forewer. The application of the general "cadency concept" may be performed with due freedom and inventiveness, to illustrate the natural diversity within the "lineage" rather than the inexisting strict hierarchy.

I believe that the best option is to follow Arriano’s excellent advise - although the last of the options on his list is still rather naughty smile

 
Derek Howard
 
Avatar
 
 
Derek Howard
Total Posts:  116
Joined  08-05-2009
 
 
 
01 February 2013 09:07
 

Joseph McMillan;97424 wrote:

Well, Thomas Woodcock (now Garter) and John Martin Robinson (now Maltravers Herald) say otherwise in the Oxford Guide to Heraldry.  Their position is similar to what you write in succeeding paragraphs of your post—that it was a matter for the family.

They also point out that the last authoritative statement of the law of the matter was in Coke’s Institutes, and that the requirement for differencing, such as it was, was tied to primogeniture inheritance of land.  Which was, of course, abolished in the United States soon after the Revolution, and in England in 1925.

This is not quite what Coke says in the quote:
Quote:

"Gentry and Armes is of the nature of Gavelkind; for they descend to all of the sonnes, every sonne being a gentleman alike. Which gentry and armes do not descend to all the bretheren alone, but to all their posterity. But yet jure primogeniturae, the eldest shall beare as a badge of his birthright, his father’s armes without any differences for that as Littleton saith, sectione 5 he is more worthy of blood but all the younger brethren shall give several differences".

Sir E Coke: "Commentary upon Littleton", 1628. Note that there is nothing tied to land inheritance, merely the form of descent is of the nature of gavelkind, save the preference to the eldest inheriting the plain arms by primogeniture.

Woodcock and Robinson then go on to observe (pp 68-9): "This appears to suggest that, whatever the failings of the system, arms should be borne with an appropriate cadency mark. The only case where an argument might be made for not doing so is where a member of a family is entitled to a quartering which distinguishes his coat from that of cousins. [My emphasis].

 

Derek Howard

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
12 August 2014 12:49
 

Forgive this novice question, however, I am currently designing a graphic representation of a family tree.

The time period for this project precludes representing individual persons by portraits and, as many of them were armigers, I would like to represent them by arms instead.

 

My questions, therefore ...

 

(1) The arms in question were English-issued in 1561; in applying cadency to each individual am I correct to say it would be appropriate to "reset" each generation? For instance:

 

Original Person: Original Arms

Second Son: Crescent

Third Son of Second Son: Mullet

First Son of Third Son of Second Son: Label (or original arms?)

 

- or would it actually be -

 

Original Person: Original Arms

Second Son: Crescent

Third Son of Second Son: Mullet on Crescent

First Son of Third Son of Second Son: Label on Mullet on Crescent (or just Mullet on Crescent?)

 

(2) Does the right to display arms extinguish with lack of use? For instance, I have no proof some of the people I’m seeking to represent with arms actually ever used them in life. Would it be inaccurate to represent a deceased individual with arms at all if, though entitled to them, they never used them?

 

Many thanks in advance -

 
QuiQuog
 
Avatar
 
 
QuiQuog
Total Posts:  97
Joined  10-10-2013
 
 
 
12 August 2014 14:16
 

In the English system, when an armiger has sons, they difference their arms with marks of cadency as you have said, but they’re not permanent. They’re only used to differentiate say, you from your father and brother, but only while your father is alive. Upon the death of the head of household the differencing is removed and each son becomes the head of his own house, using the original arms un-differenced. The arms passed down through the generations will typically remain the same, unless changed for some reason or another.

It’s not required though, and you could have the same arms without any differencing at all.

 

I think that the proper way to represent the arms would be to just have the original arms without cadencey marks. Otherwise you would eventually have an endless, messy stack of labels, mullets, crescents and martlets all over the arms.

 

As to the second question, the right to use the arms in inherited, and it’s passed on from them whether they choose to use them or not. They may have had some reason not to display them though. Maybe there was a falling out or some moral conundrum that they faced. You may want to honor their wish to not be affiliated with them.

 

(disclaimer: I’m a noob and I could be wrong on all points)

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
12 August 2014 14:36
 

QuiQuog;102394 wrote:

In the English system, when an armiger has sons, they difference their arms with marks of cadency as you have said, but they’re not permanent. They’re only used to differentiate say, you from your father and brother, but only while your father is alive. Upon the death of the head of household the differencing is removed and each son becomes the head of his own house, using the original arms un-differenced. The arms passed down through the generations will typically remain the same, unless changed for some reason or another.

It’s not required though, and you could have the same arms without any differencing at all.

 

I think that the proper way to represent the arms would be to just have the original arms without cadencey marks. Otherwise you would eventually have an endless, messy stack of labels, mullets, crescents and martlets all over the arms.

 

As to the second question, the right to use the arms in inherited, and it’s passed on from them whether they choose to use them or not. They may have had some reason not to display them though. Maybe there was a falling out or some moral conundrum that they faced. You may want to honor their wish to not be affiliated with them.

 

(disclaimer: I’m a noob and I could be wrong on all points)


Extremely helpful! Thanks very, very much!

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
12 August 2014 18:47
 

Rep e at i ng the same arms for each individualwill make for a repetitive and visually messy chart, with minute crescents and other brisures that will be visually indistinguishable unless the chart is really big.  IMO shzowing the origin as l arms just once, big enough to be easily seen, is far preferable.

If the arms were Scottish, t he bordures would serve some purpose but purely optional English cadency marks are an unneeded eyestrain.

 

My opinionn, others may differ And often do smile

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
12 August 2014 19:40
 

Michael F. McCartney;102407 wrote:

Rep e at i ng the same arms for each individualwill make for a repetitive and visually messy chart, with minute crescents and other brisures that will be visually indistinguishable unless the chart is really big.  IMO shzowing the origin as l arms just once, big enough to be easily seen, is far preferable.

If the arms were Scottish, t he bordures would serve some purpose but purely optional English cadency marks are an unneeded eyestrain.

 

My opinionn, others may differ And often do smile


This is brilliant; thanks so much. I don’t frequently (or ever) have heralds of arms come around on social calls, but - given the questionable use of arms propagated by arms mills - I feel like some level of accuracy in depiction is worth striving for ... at the same time, trying to account for all these brisures

sounds like a headache. So, your and QuiQuog’s posts are like a Heraldic Tylenol.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
13 August 2014 16:50
 

Ah—take two and call back in the morning?

If one or a few individuals on the chart had something unique added - e.g. a quartering or some sort of medal dangling below the shield e.g. a military decoration, it might be useful & informative (but entirely optional, depending on what it adds/detracts from the overall chart) to include a separate emblazonment for those individuals, but IMO not otherwise.

 

Again, my opinions, others amy differ…

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
13 August 2014 22:31
 

This is a bit off-topic to the subject of cadency, but I’m afraid of starting a new thread for what I suspect is a very novice question. Anyway, what does it mean when there are "2 shields" listed in a blazon? To wit:

http://s24.postimg.org/kst3gbpj9/image.png

 

Are two separate styles of arms in simultaneous use?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
13 August 2014 23:07
 

zebulon;102422 wrote:

This is a bit off-topic to the subject of cadency, but I’m afraid of starting a new thread for what I suspect is a very novice question. Anyway, what does it mean when there are "2 shields" listed in a blazon? To wit:

http://s24.postimg.org/kst3gbpj9/image.png

 

Are two separate styles of arms in simultaneous use?


It means that the heralds confirmed two separate shields, one quarterly (of four) and the other quarterly of six, as described.  Presumably the first quarter of each was Golding.