Alternative Heraldic Headgear

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
07 April 2015 05:09
 

Please note:  All images acquired via the internet and used for fair reporting, for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, and teaching.

The use of alternatives to helmets is nothing new in modern heraldry - It’s nothing new in heraldry, period - the best example being the galero used in ecclesiastic heraldry.  More recently we’ve see a number of helmets used in modern day (WWI and forward) combat, Emblazons with no helmet, emblazons with not helm or crest and… motorcycle helmets :D

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
07 April 2015 19:52
 

Dear Kathy,

Again, I think there is a risk of diluting the traditional modes of heraldry in respect to headgear.  Helms ‘are’ the traditional vehicle for the crest.  Yes, crests may be shown resting on its torse or crest coronet sans helm above the shield or used alone.  Likewise the mitre and the clerical hat have long been used ecclesiastics in association with both their personal arms and those of their sees, etc, but the introduction of ‘modern’ types of military or civilian helmets, along academic squares (mortar boards) and bonnets and other headgear seriously detracts from the traditional concept of heraldic usage and design.  I would guess that not too many of us have a charger fully caparisoned awaiting us to vault into the saddle with lance and shield in hand ready to ride in to battle or to defend our lady’s honour, but that does not devalue the use of such armorial adjuncts as the tilting helm, etc.  Here I may say the last time I rode a horse was some forty years as a young boy and I am not at all sure that I am built for riding any more!  As mentioned in another current posting, the vogue for modernity in heraldry espoused by some defeats the object in that heraldry is both a science and an art form that is much better viewed and employed from a traditional viewpoint rather than one that seeks to make it ‘modern’ and ‘relevant’ to the present age.  Therein lies much fudge and blurring of heraldic constants.

 

As an aside, apropos the use of a modern military helmet in heraldry.  This was attempted in 1970, by the late Sir Colin Cole, Garter King of Arms when Windsor Herald.  Sir Colin was the agent who acted on behalf of the Royal Air Force Staff College when they petitioned for armorial bearings.  The crest that was granted being: ‘Out of an astral crown or the hawk of Horus proper’.  Instead of this crest being placed on a tilting helm it was placed ‘On a Royal Air Force Pilot’s helmet proper’.  I am afraid to say that it jars somewhat!  Whereas the two grants of arms (one without supporters and one with supporters) granted to the Royal Air Force College Cranwell which can be viewed on the wall of the Rotunda in College Hall at Cranwell both employ the tilting helm upon which the college’s crest sits and it looks perfectly well.

 

With every good wish

 

John

 
J. Stolarz
 
Avatar
 
 
J. Stolarz
Total Posts:  1483
Joined  30-11-2007
 
 
 
07 April 2015 20:24
 

While I think there is some validity to the suggestion, it does fly a bit in the face of "tradition".  One problem I do have with it is although we are in fact using a more modern head piece, you would still be using a traditional shield.  I feel that if you were to use something more modern, you would in turn need to use a more modern device to display the arms itself on.  What that should be I’m not sure, since I doubt a kevlar vest would make much sense wink.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
07 April 2015 23:08
 

FWIW, there is a difference between a funny hat as a crest, and the same hat in lieu of a crest.

There are any number of historic German crests consisting of a hat on a helmet, often without a wreath, and sometimes continuing uninterrupted into the mantling.  There are even some with a mitre as a crest on a helmet, however odd that might look to those steeped in Brit or Brit-derived heraldry.  (But I seem to recall the Bishops of Durham…mitre and crest-coronet IIRC)

 

But that’s different from the commonplace use of special headgear, usually by ecclesiastical persons or institutions, in lieu of a crest.  These are usually sitting on or floating above the shield, no wreath and never a helmet.  (I suppose one could design headgear with a wreath-like bottom edge, which is how I took one of our mystery artist’s emblazonments - though whether that was her intent I don’t know.)

 

One of the emblazoning criteria I remember from Carl von Volborth’s books was that the historical artistic style of shield, helm and crest should match.  If the shield shape was a different century from the helmet, you have a not-so-creative anachronism (well, that’s not the wording CvV used…).  I don’t see current military uniform caps, camo covers, etc as meeting that criteria, unless the shield design features crossed M-16s or K-Bar knives, but to each his own.

 

Mike~~

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
07 April 2015 23:26
 

I’m not sure there’s any reason to be coy about this. The artist is Ce Jamieson, Andrew Stewart Jamieson’s wife, and she justifies this silliness on the grounds that helmets connote rank in a way that’s inconsistent with American ideals.

As I said in the other thread, if someone’s going to propose major reforms of how we do heraldry, he or she ought first to learn something about heraldry. The basic closed helm connotes nothing about rank beyond whatever it is that the bearing of arms itself connotes. As John points out, we’ve long had the option of displaying the crest above the shield without a helm or mantling, without needing to invent another platform.

 

But if it comes to that, there was long a major stream of opinion among heralds that the display of a crest was itself an assertion of status above and beyond what was signified by the bearing of a shield alone. To be specific, it was held that the crest signified someone of tournament rank, i.e., at least a knight or someone descended from a knight. This is the basis for the French and Spanish tradition that non-nobles do not bear crests. There are many records of English heralds in the 16th-17th centuries debating whether or not an applicant for a crest to be granted with his arms was worthy of that distinction or not.

 

So if the helmet is inappropriate in American heraldry because it connotes rank, then should we not drop the crest as well? For that matter, in some countries, the bearing of the shield itself is a statement of social rank. Applying the logic she is working from to that little fact would seem to require abolishing heraldry in the United States altogether.

 

And yet, as we know, George Washington himself tells us that there is nothing inconsistent between republican principles and the use of coat armor. I think we can take him as an authority on that subject.

 

All this in addition to the jarringly anachronistic nature of Mrs. Jamieson’s combinations.

 

Thumbs down.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
08 April 2015 01:00
 

Hey, don’t hold back, tell us what you really think! smile

Seriously, I don’t disagree, I just don’t take the funny hat approach as seriously as the   "innovative" chiefs.  In the long run, it’s the arms (the shield) that matter; crests, helmets or other exterior items are changeable or expendable, like Napoleon’s imperial toques or for that matter foreign nobiliary additaments in America.

 

If our heraldry was tabula rasa, then this sort of "innovative pioneering" might really matter in the long run; but with a couple of centuries of heraldry here and several times that elsewhere, funny hat experiments - no matter how flawed their premises - are just blips on the screen.  Later generations of the client families can change the exotic crests or crest-like stuff to something with lasting value, so long as the arms themselves are reasonably sound.  The lasting problem here is that arms with the offending chiefs unfortunately are not sound, and can’t be fixed without major surgery.

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
08 April 2015 04:53
 

Dear Michael,

Apart from the use of chapeaux and crest coronets as vehicles for crests to rest upon or issue therefrom in the heraldry of the British Isles quite a few families use a mitre.  There are other examples such as a knight’s helmet affronty, a helm in profile with visor closed, a winged morion in front of a terrestrial globe and a hat with three plumes.  All of the foregoing crests rest upon a torse.  Undoubtedly there are many other examples to be found.  The ones cited I have trawled from my memory.

 

As ever

 

John

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
08 April 2015 06:08
 

Well, flying in the face of the better educated.  I do like the idea of using academic regalia for academics.  (without crest as offered)  The crest could float or be put to side in a display if said academic has people inheriting his arms… which would not be entitled to the academic regalia.

The tri-cornered hat is not in any way uniquely American.  It’s pretty much a "period" thing - so perhaps someone should learn not only heraldry but history?

 

As to others.. and Michael’s statement re: CvV’s desire for "consistency" of time period.  I’m unsure I fully agree.  The shield itself is timeless IMHO.. and which type one uses remains irrelevant.  Having said that, with no support other than my personal opinion - for what it’s worth - IF one has a modern bit of headgear in a heraldic display, I think it should be without the crest attached… whether one floats above or is set to the side of the display.. I think a discussion with an Heraldic Artist who has some knowledge of heraldry (historic and modern) should take place.

 
Claus K Berntsen
 
Avatar
 
 
Claus K Berntsen
Total Posts:  308
Joined  25-05-2005
 
 
 
08 April 2015 09:32
 

As to the use of the doctoral bonnet, I assume that you are familiar with this emblazonment of D’Arcy Boulton‘s arms:


<div class=“bbcode_center” >
http://heraldry.ca/arms/b/boulton.jpg
</div>

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
08 April 2015 10:13
 

That’s a little busy for me, but conceptually works.  I think the bonnet and robes could be done very tastefully as well—maybe with or without helm?

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
08 April 2015 14:39
 

Dear All,

Sadly I do not think there is any place in an heraldic achievement for academicals (gowns, hoods, mortar boards or bonnets).  Likewise military accoutrements as adjuncts to an heraldic achievements other than the display of medals pendant at the bottom of said achievement are best avoided.  Otherwise it becomes like a fully decked Christmas tree.  Less is more.

 

The other thing to consider is that American academic gowns are not in main conducive for display as they are of the closed variety, whereas the British and Commonwealth gown is worn open (there are no closures of any kind whatsoever) and therefore lend themselves for display.  That’s not to say American gowns could not be open.  But I as say I believe this to be a step too far.  Heraldry is by its very nature and development over the centuries is both conservative and traditional in its make-up and usage, although it does allow on occasion for the odd new innovation.

 

We can all be proud of our successes in life but I seriously question whether one’s heraldry should be a vehicle for its display.

 

As ever

 

John

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
08 April 2015 15:17
 

Kathy, thanks for starting this thread.

I really dislike these innovations.  They seem downright corny to me.

The tricorn hat is particularly silly.  As Kathy has noted, this is indicative of a time period, not a particular nation.

 

The academic bonnet and the military headgear are unnecessary, in my view.  I expect an armiger to possess a university degree, and probably a graduate or professional degree.  There’s no reason to advertise something that should be common to most members of the club.  Likewise with the military headgear.  Besides being anachronistic and visually jarring, many armigers have held a commission.  Again, why advertise something that should be the basis for getting you into the club in the first place?

 

I think the galero is a nice, traditional alternative to identify ordained clergy from denominations that are episcopal in polity, since the tassels indicate which level of authority the armiger is.  For Congregationalist and Presbyterian clergy I prefer a helm and crest, which does not seem inconsistent with their sometimes martial past (Covenanters, Cameronians, etc.) My one exception is that I do like the Geneva bonnet for the Moderator of the Kirk.  I think it helps to recognize that particular office, but would not prefer the Geneva bonnet for ordinary Teaching Elders.

 

If someone prefers a simple emblazonment, simply leave off the helm and mantling and place the torse and crest on the top of the shield.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
08 April 2015 16:18
 

I think we may have to agree to disagree on the academic regalia.  I’d really like to see one done well and without helm, mantle, crest before I’d completely "bag" the idea.

I completely disagree that having a degree at all is part of "getting into the club" - in the US, heraldry is a form of personal identification, nothing more…  Having arms merely says "I have arms" - not one thing more.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
08 April 2015 16:52
 

Kathy McClurg;103813 wrote:

I completely disagree that having a degree at all is part of "getting into the club" - in the US, heraldry is a form of personal identification, nothing more…  Having arms merely says "I have arms" - not one thing more.


Kathy, of course you’re literally correct.  Having arms in the US is the same, legally, as painting your house blue ("Oh, the Pope’s live in the blue house on the street")- a form of ID.

 

I’m suggesting that heraldry in the US should be more than simply a form of ID on par with vanity license plates, monograms, and houses painted blue.

 

I really think that early American users of heraldry (like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson) didn’t view arms as simple identification, but believed there to be an inherent social class assertion in their use.

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
08 April 2015 17:14
 

David Pope;103814 wrote:

Kathy, of course you’re literally correct.  Having arms in the US is the same, legally, as painting your house blue ("Oh, the Pope’s live in the blue house on the street")- a form of ID.

I’m suggesting that heraldry in the US should be more than simply a form of ID on par with vanity license plates, monograms, and houses painted blue.

 

I really think that early American users of heraldry (like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson) didn’t view arms as simple identification, but believed there to be an inherent social class assertion in their use.


While I’m not sure about a social class assertion, I largely agree otherwise. In the complete absence of either a sanction of legitimacy or protection of law, arms just become a silly and archaic affectation, and the armiger becomes not very different from a man strolling down the street wearing a monocle and a bowler (unfortunately).

 
Iain Boyd
 
Avatar
 
 
Iain Boyd
Total Posts:  309
Joined  15-10-2005
 
 
 
08 April 2015 17:44
 

Re the embellishments to D’Arcy Boulton’s arms -

I am sure that the Royal Heraldry Society of Canada published a series of articles about his suggested embellishments.

 

I am not sure when, but, think I might be able to put my ‘hands on them’ if others are interested.

 

Regards,

 

Iain Boyd