Okay, I know this topic is very complex and is different in places and times… but could someone please give me a crash course on how women and heraldry go together?
What are the historical conventions, are they different now?
How might an American go about displaying a woman’s arms?
Is there any particular reason women should not display their arms the same way as a mans?
What about when they are married?
Or their children, any conventions (other than quartering I guess) for passing the mother’s arms, or elements there of, on to her children?
Okay… I think that’s the list….
Thanks in advance! :yoda:
See the thread on heraldry of women among the code of conduct discussions in the members section. Here’s what we came up with:
Quote:
3.1.1. Women in the United States have the same rights as men to assume arms of their own devising, to use arms granted or certified by foreign heraldic authorities, and to inherit arms in accordance with the principles discussed in the section 3.3 on armorial inheritance. The available evidence indicates that many of the the restrictions placed on women’s armorial display in some other countries, and particularly those
prohibiting women from bearing a crest and motto, have not historically been observed in the United States.
3.1.2. There is precedent for women to display their arms either in the same form as men (on a shield accompanied by crest, helm, and mantling) or in one of the following forms:
<ul class=“bbcode_list”>
<li>Single women: own arms on a lozenge or oval.</li>
<li>Married women: either (1) in the same form as for an unmarried woman, or (2) on a shield , impaled with the arms of the husband, with his arms to dexter, or (under certain circumstances) with her own arms placed on an inescutcheon surmounting his arms (see the section on Marital Arms for further guidance). A married woman who is not armigerous in her own right may use the arms of her husband, provided she uses the same surname.</li>
<li>Widow: either (1) in the same form as for an unmarried woman, or (2) on a lozenge or oval, impaled with the arms of her late husband. A widow who is not armigerous in her own right may use the arms of her late husband, provided she uses the same surname.</li>
<li>Divorcée: As for an unmarried woman, dropping any use of the former husband’s arms.</li>
</ul>
3.1.3. If a crest is used with arms displayed on a lozenge or oval, it is normally depicted without helm or mantling.
I’ve since learned that some sources say a married woman may impale her husband’s arms and her own on a lozenge, with his crest. I’ll add that to the language above in the final version.
Okay… so that means that either of these renderings below for my (yet?) unmarried girlfriend would be appropriate given historical and current conventions for the United States…
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/Horatio86/Tori2copy.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/Horatio86/ToriLozenge2copy.jpg
...right?
well ... some of us despite being very conservative and a fan of tradition have no problem with a woman displaying them in the same manner as a man. the way i see it ... if she can put on either a military uniform or wear a police man’s badge ... who am i to say she can’t bear a heraldic achievement like her male counterparts?
yes ... this is very hard for me to say as i am a traditionalist in many, many things ... sigh ...
p.s. i like the one with the helm most between the two displayed here…
I prefer them being displayed in the same manner as a man. Women won equality in our country a long time ago and I feel that should be displayed in our heraldry, but as always it is her preference
Linusboarder wrote:
...but as always it is her preference
She likes the lozenge design but she is in love with the heraldic sea-lion… but she didn’t like the way the crest looked with the lozenge (I have since removed it, does anyone know of an aesthetically pleasing way to add a crest to a lozenge shaped shield?)... so she is at a bit of an impass….
Mostly she just thinks I’m a dork for being so into "that shield stuff"... but she likes her arms (Gyronny Azure and Argent, a mascle quadrate coungercharged)... I believe her words were something along the lines of "it makes me feel like a princess"....
ESmith wrote:
What are the historical conventions, are they different now?
How might an American go about displaying a woman’s arms?
Is there any particular reason women should not display their arms the same way as a mans?
What about when they are married?
Or their children, any conventions (other than quartering I guess) for passing the mother’s arms, or elements there of, on to her children?
Here goes at a short answer to Everett’s queries.
In England historically it was considered that a woman had right to bear her father’s arms by courtesy on a lozenge which could be surmounted by a "true lover’s knot" if unmarried. On marriage she would bear the impaled arms of her husband on the dexter and her father on the sinister without the knot. On widowhood the impaled arms could be surrounded by a cordelier. She had no right to use a helm or crest but if an heiress to arms with supporters had the right to use them and if a peeress to use any supporters and surmount the lozenge with the appropriate coronet.
Also in England these arms would not be passed on to children unless the woman was an heraldic heiress (no surviving brothers or children of brothers) AND her husband was also armgerous. In such a case the arms would be quartered. I don’t know if there were any cases where a non-armigerous husband married a peeress in her own right and therefore a peer son was refused arms - I imagine such a husband either got a grant PDQ or the College turned a blind eye for a short while.
The College of Arms would probably consider all these rules still to be in force. They have allowed women to be granted substantive arms recently (I assume the granting of Life Peerages to women from the 1950s pulled the rug out from any arguments against such) but I have always got the impression that they enjoy doing so with the same enthusiasm as having teeth pulled without anaesthetic. Recently they have stated that they have a rule that such arms have to be temporarily debruised with a escutcheon voided. This "rule" seems to have come in with the grant to Baroness Thatcher in the 1990s.
As to the age of all these rules, I would imagine that few of them pre-date the Tudor period when heralds were making up all sorts of additional rules. There have been some powerful women in English history and I can’t imagine a herald telling Eleanor of Aquitaine what his new fangled science of armory allowed her to do.
In Scotland many of the traditions are similar to those in England but less restrictive in that there has been no ban on women showing arms on a shield. Indeed there are quite a number of examples of them doing so - complete with crest. There has also tended to be more recognition of the awkwardness of the lozenge shape and more use of the cartouche than in England.
Similar rules for inheritance and quartering also apply but again with less restriction. The main rule in Scotland is that arms follow the name. Thus if a non armigerous John Doe marries the armigerous Jane Dee and their children take the surname Doe then there is little chance of them using the Dee arms unless John Doe becomes armigerous in which case they could apply for a matriculation quartering Doe and Dee (even during their parents lifetimes). If however the children take the surname Dee then they can apply to matriculate the Dee arms. In Scotland the right quarterings and inheritance is controlled by the Lord Lyon whereas it is more ad hoc in England, therefore in Scotland the usual thing to do with anything complex in this area is to run it past the Lord Lyon to see what the response is likely to be.
Scottish women have been matriculating substantive cadet versions of their father’s arms for generations so that a Scottish woman can apply to matriculate a cadet version of her father’s arms even when she has brothers and is not heiress to the undifferenced version of her father’s arms. A Scottish woman therefore has the choice of the courtesy use of her father’s arms or to apply for substantive arms of her own as cadet of her father. Currently there are no specific differences for women, they are treated in the same way as their brothers.
I can’t comment on traditions elsewhere.
As for US use, I think that Joseph’s draft guidelines make a lot of sense.
I haven’t commented above on the specific question of the passing on of elements of the mother’s arms because it is slightly different and in Scotland tends to be part of cadet differencing (pun only half intended).
What happens very often in Scotland is that when there is a non-heiress mother any cadet matriculations for younger sons (and daughters) may take some part of the maternal arms as part of the differencing. If the paternal arms were already cadet arms (with the near-ubiquitous bordure) then the bordure could be charged with charges from the maternal arms. Not a rule, more an option.
This idea of incorporating paternal and maternal elements is greatly used in the devisal of new "indeterminate cadet" arms which need (under Scottish tradition) to show similarity to the plain arms of the name without implying a proven blood relationship.
Thus if the plain paternal arms were Argent a fess Purpure and the plain maternal arms were Per pale indented Tenne and Ermine two widgets in chief and a crescent in base all counterchanged then some ideas for indeterminate differencing could be to make the paternal fess a fess indented or a plain fess per pale indented Tenne and Ermine or to charge the fess with two widgets and a crescent or put the fess between two widgets and a crescent &c.
Hope this helps
James
James Dempster wrote:
...Hope this helps
James
Wow, that helps a lot… There are a few points that I want to make sure that I’ve gotten right.
According to the relatively new English "rules" an unmarried woman who bears arms in her own right differences them with a "lozenge voided" (isn’t that just a mascel?).
When she is married her arms (or her father’s arms if she doesn’t hold them on her own) are impaled with her husbands… on a shield or a lozenge? I’ve seen both on the internet… some places imply that impaled arms on a lozenge are held by widows…
In Scotland, there is little or no historical limitation on women using shields, helms and crests and they can, if they choose, difference their arms as a son would.
Did I get all that right?
That leaves one question: is there any precedent for a combination of a crest and a lozenge shaped shield and if so, where/how is it incorporated into the rendering?
Everett, I rendered an achievement for a woman who wanted her arms on a lozenge and wanted a crest (of course she also wanted and paid for supporters, so…ignore that part if you don’t like them) and I will post it here for you so you can basically copy the layout of my lozenge and crest if you’d like. I do so, as there is IMHO, no right for me to have a huff over someone else using a style of shield that I do…only when they copy my work exactly and so on… so feel free to use this design if you’d like, or it may just give you an idea of your own… 
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/Horatio86/ToriLozengecopy2.jpg
hmmm… I’m not sure I like it….
It worked very well with your pine tree Denny but I think that has something to do with the fact that the tree sort of continues the shape of the lozenge…
ESmith wrote:
Wow, that helps a lot… There are a few points that I want to make sure that I’ve gotten right.
According to the relatively new English "rules" an unmarried woman who bears arms in her own right differences them with a "lozenge voided" (isn’t that just a mascel?).
When she is married her arms (or her father’s arms if she doesn’t hold them on her own) are impaled with her husbands… on a shield or a lozenge? I’ve seen both on the internet… some places imply that impaled arms on a lozenge are held by widows…
Not quite, at least as I understand it. By the 1997 College of Arms rules:
- Unmarried: father’s or own arms on lozenge or oval.
- Married: either (a) father’s or own arms impaled with husband’s arms on shield; OR (b) father’s or own arms on shield with a small escutcheon for difference; OR (c) husband’s arms alone on shield with a small lozenge for difference.
- Widowed: either (a) father’s or own arms impaled with husband’s arms on lozenge or oval; OR (B) father’s or own arms on lozenge or oval with small shield for difference; OR (c) late husband’s arms alone on lozenge or oval with small lozenge for difference.
- Divorced: father’s or own arms on lozenge or oval with option of a small mascle for difference (formerly mandatory).
I see the English Kings of Arms insistence that a woman’s arms must indicate her marital status (and the armorial status of her husband) rather quaint, among the last vestiges of a rear-guard action against the tide of legislation that has abolished most of the real-world bases on which the intricate English heraldic rules were justified. Like the doctrine of coverture of married women, the disabilities of bastardy, etc., etc. No reason to copy such a reactionary position in the US, since we abandoned most of these rules in our own heraldry long before the College of Arms got around to changing.
ESmith wrote:
...(Gyronny Azure and Argent, a mascle quadrate coungerchaRged)
"Change" that to CounterchaNged
—Guy
