gselvester;51902 wrote:

Repeating the names of the tinctures is the traditional manner: it is the traditional American manner and this is America. Using phrases like "of the second", etc. have been abandoned for good reason. It makes the blazon confusing and the blazon should be anything but confusing. The standard set in American blazon is to repeat the names of the tinctures each time they come up.

What "ancestors" are you referring to?

I agree that using such verbiage is cumbersome. You should have seen the blazon for some of my early designs; ‘of the fourth… and so on! As I stated way back at the beginning, I’m new to the art and am seeking guidance and understanding for/of same.

And as for the ancestors i was referring to, those (mine/yours) that brought the heraldic tradition with them when they came to this country.

i know i am not a member and only a guest from time to time, but i’m uncertain how this thread is not a violation of the ‘no design’ rule that shut down the other two threads by Joshua….perhaps because this one is up and if i’m not mistaken was done so after Joshua’s first one was closed and before the second one was that is the reason the other newbie started the second thread…that and maybe ‘cuz he is new…i dunno…but in case either man needs to (i.e., both men’s design threads shut down) i recommend bringing these design questions up at IAAH as well so they can discuss them until their membership here comes through whereby they can then go to the members design section for assistance.

regardless of all that, however, i second Ton’s last post on these arms. really nice arms in design and execution, but at first sight i think of military arms. that could be my hang-up only though.

i’m not sure i follow on the anchor only being a military sign, i mean, i know that is why you put it there, but it could also be meant for just about anything else too - a Christian/Catholic symbol (Catholic crucifix on necklaces can have an anchor with Jesus on it) etc. so, IMO your kids could think of them as something other than their father’s military service even if that is what you thought of them. i still think it might be better to get rid of it ‘cuz of the military part already discussed.

i really like the two bendlets wavy myself…my favorite part of the arms.

good luck with your final design and blazon and thank you for your service to our nation.

gscsderby;51909 wrote:

And as for the ancestors i was referring to, those (mine/yours) that brought the heraldic tradition with them when they came to this country.

That’s what I figured you meant. I only asked because it does point out that America, like many other countries as well, is drawing from the heraldic traditions of several different places. We sometimes tend to favor the English way of doing things since we are a (primarily) English-speaking country. To be sure many draw heavily from the Scottish and Irish traditions as well but there are a wealth of other heraldic systems that have gone into making up so-called "American" heraldry.

Why not have two anchors, without too precisely blazoning them - just specify Argent or Or—which leaves to the individual artist, or descendant, just how plain or fancy to draw them?  Then perhaps include a bird or wings in the crest.  The symbolism, while perhaps a bit less obvious, would still fit you; and allow your descendants to merely say "grandpa was a sailor" if they wished.

I believe there are posts here (somewhere in our forum archives) from Guy Power, noting the problems a too-precise specification of his father’s military unit insignia as a charge in the arms, made it difficult for Guy to use the arms while he was in the military but not in the same unit.  A less precise copying of military insignia would preserve the symbolism without creating a false impression or requiring constant apologetic explanations, especially if any of your descendants serve in the military.

Guy may want to comment…

Donnchadh;51918 wrote:

i’m uncertain how this thread is not a violation of the ‘no design’ rule that shut down the other two threads by Joshua

When I started this thread it was not with the intension of garnering assistance in designing my arms but rather in clarifying whether or not I understood the ‘rules’ concerning proper blazoning a set of arms. I may have inadvertently lead the field astray by answering a couple of questions about my thought process in creating the design and for that I apologize.

Donnchadh;51918 wrote:

i really like the two bendlets wavy myself…my favorite part of the arms.

good luck with your final design and blazon and thank you for your service to our nation.

Thanks for the kind words and thought!

Michael F. McCartney;51933 wrote:

Why not have two anchors,...

One of the reasons I chose to include the rating symbol (prop with wings) is that I REALLY enjoyed my tour as a jet engine mechanic and wanted to memorialize that period of my life. If I understand the ‘Rules’ about differencing correctly, my descendents will need to change the arms slightly after I’m gone any way and can remove the ‘winged prop’ if they so choose.

(After reading over the last statement again, I have believe that I have just successfully demonstrated exactly HOW NEW to the craft I really am!)

I have tried using a design with two anchors in chief, including the prop in base, but it tends to get rather busy in appearance and won’t allow the use of the bend or bendlets, which I prefer.

Michael F. McCartney;51933 wrote:

A less precise copying of military insignia would preserve the symbolism without creating a false impression or requiring constant apologetic explanations, especially if any of your descendants serve in the military.

With a fear of sounding condescending, the ‘proper’ image of my rank insignia would have included a cable (rope) or a chain fouling (entwisting) the anchor.

As near as I can tell from research conduct prior to my promotion to Chief Petty Officer, and thus the right to wear the ‘fouled anchor’, as well as searching the internet while designing my arms,  no-one seems to know why a symbol of a sailor’s disgrace was chosen as a symbol of the three highest US Navy enlisted paygrade but also of the British Admiralty.

After having said all that, my armorial design quest actually started a couple of day after I shipped my youngest of the the US AF Boot Camp in San Antonio, TX!

As always, Thanks to all for the insight and suggestions.

gscsderby;51940 wrote:

If I understand the ‘Rules’ about differencing correctly, my descendents will need to change the arms slightly after I’m gone any way and can remove the ‘winged prop’ if they so choose.

The general rule, almost everywhere heraldry is used, is that arms are inherited undifferenced by all legitimate descendants in the male line. In Scotland, the requirement is that younger sons must matriculate differenced versions of the arms with Lyon Court, but these ordinarily involve the addition of bordures or something similar, not making a fundamental change to the basic design of the arms. In England, it is/was customary for younger sons to add small cadency marks, but this is no longer generally practiced and seems never to have been universally enforced.

In America, the general practice has been to disregard any British-style requirement for differencing, particularly since the Revolution. The lawyers’ rationale for "requiring" differencing in England was that it was necessary to signify the distinction between the eldest son as sole primogeniture heir to the family estate and the younger sons who had lesser positions in the family. The 19th century American heraldist Eugene Zieber argued (persuasively in my view) that since the abolition of primogeniture in the US in the late 1800s had eliminated the rationale for differencing for cadency, it made no sense to continue the differencing itself.

Even if differencing for cadency were to be practiced, making fundamental changes in the composition of the arms, such as by deleting or changing one of the main charges, would totally defeat the purpose of the arms as a symbol of kinship—something that virtually all heraldists recognize as key to distinguishing heraldry from other types of symbol. Such significant differencing as you’re describing is more appropriate for brothers or cousins who do not share a common descent from the original bearer of the arms (yourself) than for children of the original bearer.

See our Guidelines for Heraldic Use on the main, non-forum area of the site.

Joseph McMillan;51943 wrote:

Such significant differencing as you’re describing is more appropriate for brothers or cousins who do not share a common descent from the original bearer of the arms (yourself) than for children of the original bearer.

And for descendants from an armiger not in the direct male line, like me.

As for the tradition of the fouled anchor, I have heard several stories:

1.  (The "official" story) - The foul anchor as a naval insignia got its start as the seal of the Lord Howard of Effingham. He was the Lord Admiral of England at the time of the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. During this period the personal seal of a great officer of state was adopted as the seal of his office. The fouled anchor still remains the official seal of the Lord High Admiral of Great Britain. When this office became part of the present Board of Admiralty, the seal was retained—on buttons, official seals, and cap badges. The Navy’s adoption of this symbol and many other customs can be directly attributed to the influence of British Naval tradition. The fouled anchor is among them.

2.  The fouled anchor has long been the symbol of the Chief Petty Officer. In terms of the Chief, the fouled anchor symbolizes the trials and tribulations that every Chief Petty Officer must endure on a daily basis.

3.  Sailors who had completed an enlistment period (but declined to re-enlist) got a tatoo of a fouled anchor, a "landlubber sailor" being as useful as a fouled anchor.

4.  The anchor (both with and without the entwined rope) is a traditional heraldic device used in ancient British coats of arms. Although it is a sign of poor seamanship, the fouled anchor is a stylized representation used merely for its decorative effect.

5.  Last, but not least, my personal favorite:  The "Killick" or "Fouled Anchor" is used by the British Navy as well as the various navies of the Commonwealth.  The word "killick" comes from a Scottish gaelic word referring to a primitive form of anchor. Small fishing boats would be held stationary by means of a large stone surrounded by a tangled root or some other construct made of branches wrapped around the stone.

Interestingly, the rank badge of the "Leading Seaman" in most, if not all Commonwealth navies, features the classic "fouled anchor" most seen in naval tradition. Not coincidently, in Commonwealth navies, the word "killick" has come to be synonymous with the rank of Leading Seaman because of the association with the fouled anchor symbol. In the Royal Navy and the navy of the Canadian Forces, a Leading Seaman is often referred to as a Killick. Therefore, Killick and Fouled Anchor basically mean the same thing. (I know that a "leading seaman" is below the rank of Petty officer, and that the Chief is "king" among sailors, but I still like the explanation.)

WBHenry;51955 wrote:

As for the tradition of the fouled anchor, I have heard several stories:

1. (The "official" story) - The foul anchor as a naval insignia got its start as the seal of the Lord Howard of Effingham.

 

(snip)

 

4. The anchor (both with and without the entwined rope) is a traditional heraldic device used in ancient British coats of arms. Although it is a sign of poor seamanship, the fouled anchor is a stylized representation used merely for its decorative effect.

These two are, of course, not mutually exclusive. The other two strike me as the same kind of folk myths as the eagle on the US Presidential arms swiveling back and forth for war and peace.

Quote:

5. Last, but not least, my personal favorite: The "Killick"...

Now that’s fascinating! Do you happen to know the name of Captain Aubrey’s steward in Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey-Maturin novels?

I always assumed the fouled anchor represented the British naval version of "the very model of a modern Major General"—"for I am the Captain of the Pinafore, and a right good captain too.."

Joseph McMillan;51959 wrote:

Now that’s fascinating! Do you happen to know the name of Captain Aubrey’s steward in Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey-Maturin novels?

Preserved Killick!