Shisler Cadency

 
Linusboarder
 
Avatar
 
 
Linusboarder
Total Posts:  732
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
02 December 2006 13:13
 

Ok after much thought I have come up with a cadency system specific to the Shisler name.

It is kinda complex, but i think it solves the problems of cadency marks cluttering up the arms in subsequent generations. So everyone will have the elephant and the tenne/argent checkers. The cadency is in the ordinaries/subordinaries/Diminutives. For males the first son gets a bend, the second a pale and the third an orle the fourth gets 2 bendlets, the fifth 2 pallets and the 6th 2 Tressure’s, and so on. Daughter’s get a fillet for the 1st daughter, a bar for the second and a chevron for the third, and then the pattern follows the suns for more daughter’s. Like so:

http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/69d39e989d.png

In order to keep it so the oldest child’s arms are like his fathers, a cadency mark from the British (or Canadien) will go on the arms until the order of the children has been fixed. i.e. think of the cadency sets as a row. What i mean is that My uncle’s arms are going to be with a pale azure. Instead of his son having a bend azure, he will have a bend azure with a label. His second son (if he had one) would have a bend azure with a cresent. His third son (again hypothetical) would have the orle, but no british cadency mark because the third son now has the correct ordinary. This cadency mark will be in chief.

 

Think of them as an order Bend=1, Pale=2, Orle=3, 2 bendletts =4 etc. So my dad’s arms are a 1, and my uncle’s are a 2. if my dad had 4 sons then he would have a 1-2-3-4 for their arms. Now so that my uncle’s oldest has the same arms the pattern doesn’t work. If he had 4 sons it would have to go 2*-1*-3-4. The 2 & 1 need a cadency mark to indicate they are out of order. So if my uncle’s 4th son had 6 sons their arms would go 4*-1*-2*-3*-5-6. I hope this makes sense…

 

All children also inheret a charge, or mark of some sort, from their mother, which will be changed to artistically fit the shield. (for example I have an otter I inhereted from my mother, but changed from argent to azure).

 
Linusboarder
 
Avatar
 
 
Linusboarder
Total Posts:  732
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
02 December 2006 13:14
 

So now that we have the Parents to children inheretance Taken care of, there is a generational inheretance to take care of as well. The first generation (defined as my grandfather) will have a small mascule on the shield. There are eight of these marks. Mascule, Water Bouget, Trident, Point arrow (down), Horseshoe, bugle, troisfoil, and mullet of eight pierced. Seen here:

http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/f33c91b659.png

After 8 generations of these small cadency marks, then next set will be marked with wavy ordinaries, followed by embattled, raguly, dovetailed, potenty, indented and invected.

 

This pretty much covers the next 64 generations, which is ~1900 years which i think will be sufficient.

 
Linusboarder
 
Avatar
 
 
Linusboarder
Total Posts:  732
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
02 December 2006 13:15
 

So why would I go through this? and why do I want this?

Well to be honest I like the idea of cadency. I know there are varying opinions on cadency in this forum and in general but I like the idea of it. I haven’t liked the british, scottish, or any other system I have seen, so I wanted to come up with something new for my family. I also didn’t want arms to eventually be too cluttered so I wanted to come up with a system that isn’t adding stuff for cadency, but slightly altering them. (This was more difficult than i had thought).

 

I also wanted soemthing that combines both the mother’s and fathers arms, and quartering gets too complicated too quickly. I know the tradition is you just take your father’s arms, but I think it’s important for a mother’s arms to be represented in her child. It’s no longer customary for only sons to inheret but women now have all legal values as men when it comes to that stuff and I have thought that, for my arms, it was important to have that represented, while still keeping the arms looking good.

 

So this is what I came up with. In hindsight i should have done this before designing my arms, because now I have to go and put a trident on them, but I like the way it turned out and like the way the arms will look. for now and generations of Shisler’s to come.

 
Patrick Williams
 
Avatar
 
 
Patrick Williams
Total Posts:  1356
Joined  29-07-2006
 
 
 
03 December 2006 09:34
 

That’s interesting, Colin, and now I know what that little doodad in the middle of your bend means. Of course, nobody else but the Shislers will know, so the cadency system will only really work within the family, but wow…you’ve put a lot of thought and effort into this.

 
Linusboarder
 
Avatar
 
 
Linusboarder
Total Posts:  732
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
03 December 2006 13:33
 

Patrick Williams wrote:

Of course, nobody else but the Shislers will know, so the cadency system will only really work within the family.


You will smile

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
04 December 2006 21:23
 

Well, its almost Xmas, so somebody has to play the Grinch!

I have two concerns -

1) the rather major modifications (oh what the heck, wholesale substitutions) to the ordinaries IMO loses the family identity.  In short, these are major enough changes to be entirely sufficient for strangers in blood.

 

2) the multitude of little minor cadency marks, as noted, will be meaningless for anyone outside the immediate family & any friends with an interest in matters heraldic.  If anything, they will likely be viewed as more subtle indicators of strangers in blood.  They are far less intrustive than item 1 above—that is, they detract less visually, & perhaps symbolically—but I don’t see them as much better than the standard marks.

 

Sorry!  Of course others—yourself included—may hold different views.

 
Mark Olivo
 
Avatar
 
 
Mark Olivo
Total Posts:  536
Joined  23-02-2005
 
 
 
04 December 2006 22:05
 

Michael F. McCartney wrote:

1) the rather major modifications (oh what the heck, wholesale substitutions) to the ordinaries IMO loses the family identity.  In short, these are major enough changes to be entirely sufficient for strangers in blood.


I’d concurr with this.

 
Linusboarder
 
Avatar
 
 
Linusboarder
Total Posts:  732
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
04 December 2006 23:18
 

Michael F. McCartney wrote:

Well, its almost Xmas, so somebody has to play the Grinch!

I have two concerns -

1) the rather major modifications (oh what the heck, wholesale substitutions) to the ordinaries IMO loses the family identity.  In short, these are major enough changes to be entirely sufficient for strangers in blood.

 

2) the multitude of little minor cadency marks, as noted, will be meaningless for anyone outside the immediate family & any friends with an interest in matters heraldic.  If anything, they will likely be viewed as more subtle indicators of strangers in blood.  They are far less intrustive than item 1 above—that is, they detract less visually, & perhaps symbolically—but I don’t see them as much better than the standard marks.

 

Sorry!  Of course others—yourself included—may hold different views.

 


Normally I would agree. I feel, however, with the uniqueness of the tenne and argent checkerboard patter, coupled with the uniqueness of the elephant that the family identity of the armbearer would not be in doubt. All along I have felt that the family identity is the checkerboard and Elephant, and has nothing to do with the oridnaries.

 

As for the small cadency marks only being useful within the family, well that doesn’t bother me at all TBH. They are put in there more for future Shisler’s to look at, and difference their arms from their ancestors without losing the arms completely.

 
Linusboarder
 
Avatar
 
 
Linusboarder
Total Posts:  732
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
05 December 2006 10:23
 

After sleeping on it overnight, I am inclined to agree that maybe changing the ordinaries may be a little too drastic a change, and that some of the essence of the arms may be lost. This is especially true because I am still altering the second (non-elephant) charge from generation to generation. A charge (or lacking that, Something else) will be in that dexter base spot from the mother’s arms.

I will have to think of something else (not a charge) for the order of birth cadency.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
05 December 2006 21:25
 

While I’m no great fan of detailed individual cadency (IMO unnecessary in the American context at least), varying the charge in base for different branches of the family, while leaving the rest as is (checkerboard, bendlet, elephant in chief) wouldn’t be a bad way to go about it—it would at least preserve the basic "image" or family identity conveyed by the major components.

 
MMCDHoward
 
Avatar
 
 
MMCDHoward
Total Posts:  39
Joined  08-08-2006
 
 
 
05 December 2006 22:45
 

I think that following the cadency of this fraternity: http://www.alpharhochi.org/attach/cadencyguide-2006.pdf

Perhaps adding a small charge fitting with the preference of the bearer like they do in alpha ro chi is the best way to do it. It fits in with the regular system of differencing by adding a small charge while helping retain the individuality of the arms.

 
Linusboarder
 
Avatar
 
 
Linusboarder
Total Posts:  732
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
18 December 2006 13:36
 

The more i look at the trident, the more it fails the fridge test

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
18 December 2006 14:25
 

Linusboarder wrote:

The more i look at the trident, the more it fails the fridge test


No, it passes the fridge test.  It merely fails the freezer test.

 

[ATTACH]120[/ATTACH]

 

:rolleyes: wink