Trump University Coat of Arms

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
28 March 2008 00:50
 

Joseph McMillan;56269 wrote:

I’d actually be very grateful if someone can explain why this case is different from Luxembourg, because, as I said earlier, I don’t think it looks that great.  But based on my understanding of the rule, I’m afraid it isn’t a violation, and therefore can’t be faulted on that account.


Joseph,

 

I think it is because the arms of Luxembourg (or perhaps the arms of the Grand Duke in right of Luxembourg) belong to a sovereign and sovereigns are not bound by the rules of heralds.  That is why it is okay for the Vatican as a sovereign to have metal on metal (gold on silver).  While The Donald is an institution in his own right, he is not yet sovereign.  Thankfully!

 

Edward

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
28 March 2008 03:31
 

I wouldn’t mind meeting or spending time with either (Trump or Sir Richard) myself. My point was to note that both men are cut from the same cloth and everyone seems to love Sir Richard and loathe The Donald. Both definitely dabble in all sorts of things, but this is their entrepreneurial spirit and when combined with their business genius, well, that’s why they’re so successful.

Of course the Donald does bother me a bit too, as he just seems so smug about it. Also Sir Richard seems to be more of a wild and crazy kind of guy and one you’d have fun sky-diving, or bungee jumping with. I can’t see the Donald doing either. More’s the pity of it. But, then again I dunno for sure. He might like to have fun but also be one of those guys who is ultra-competitive and therefore annoying himself.

 

As to the arms, I’m sorry, but no rule violation or not, arms associated with a media personality or a newbie here, they are just flat out ugly. While I am not a big fan of the graphic artwork per se, I am more a fan of that then the actual blazon/composition of the arms. Sorry if that offends.

 

As to Sir Richard having arms, I would guess he does, but I don’t know.

 
werewolves
 
Avatar
 
 
werewolves
Total Posts:  477
Joined  14-08-2007
 
 
 
28 March 2008 10:51
 

Joseph McMillan;56269 wrote:

I’d actually be very grateful if someone can explain why this case is different from Luxembourg, because, as I said earlier, I don’t think it looks that great.  But based on my understanding of the rule, I’m afraid it isn’t a violation, and therefore can’t be faulted on that account.


I agree, I don’t think it is an unusual practice at all.  A quick scan through the Heraldry Society page produced several examples of a colored (or metal) charge placed on a shield partitioned of metal and color.  The arms of Hesse Germany also use this approach, albeit a barry charge on a solid field.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
28 March 2008 12:09
 

eploy;56266 wrote:

But graphically, it ain’t good either….  I think The Donald could have hired a better designer.  Just my personal belief….  We can disagree to the cows come home.


No, it’s mediocre at best. That’s why I didn’t say, "It’s good." wink

 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
28 March 2008 13:20
 

eploy;56271 wrote:

Joseph,

I think it is because the arms of Luxembourg (or perhaps the arms of the Grand Duke in right of Luxembourg) belong to a sovereign and sovereigns are not bound by the rules of heralds.  That is why it is okay for the Vatican as a sovereign to have metal on metal (gold on silver).

Dear Edward,

There is actually no need to appeal to the sovereign rank of the Grand Dukes or Popes. The arms of Luxemburg are not violating the tincture rule because this rule has numerous exceptions and, inter alia, does not cover composed (metallic/coloured) fields and charges/ordinaries. See the arms of Hessen, Moravia (in Bohemia, not Caledonia) and numerous non-sovereign examples like the non-Royal Stuarts and the Lindsays, the Bohemian nobles and Counts von Kolovrat etc etc.

 

In the Vatican’s case, there is no gold charge charging silver charge at all. Do you mean the two keys? A key is not charging a key in the Holy See’s arms but they are crossed, one partly covering another only, which is totally different from charging and is not a subject of the tincture rule at all.

 

The sovereigns are expected to follow the rules in general, unless they are dictators and tyrants but today this is usually practicised as a presidential prerogative smile

 

The arms of the University are "militaristically looking" indeed and I rather dislike them aesthetically but in a free society, this is my problem rather than the University’s.

 

Yours M

 
Madalch
 
Avatar
 
 
Madalch
Total Posts:  792
Joined  30-09-2005
 
 
 
28 March 2008 14:26
 

Michael Y. Medvedev;56300 wrote:

The arms of Luxemburg are not violating the tincture rule because this rule has numerous exceptions and, inter alia, does not cover composed (metallic/coloured) fields and charges/ordinaries.

Agreed- the rule of tincture says nothing about charges on a field which is multitinctured.


Quote:

In the Vatican’s case, there is no gold charge charging silver charge at all. Do you mean the two keys? A key is not charging a key in the Holy See’s arms but they are crossed, one partly covering another only, which is totally different from charging and is not a subject of the tincture rule at all.

I assume that the original poster meant the arms of Jerusalem (gold crosslets on white), or possibly the flag of the Vatican (two keys on a white field), ratehr than the arms of the Vatican:

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/img/ss_scv/insigne/scv_stemma.gif

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
28 March 2008 14:32
 

I don’t know why I didn’t think of a more "American" example to illustrate this point:  the arms of von Steuben—Per pale Argent and Azure a bend Gules.

(The fact that the Baron von Steuben of Revolutionary War fame appropriated these arms from an unrelated family of the same name doesn’t negate their value as an example of the rule of tincture not applying to a colored charge on a parted metal-color field.)

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
28 March 2008 16:44
 

Dear Darren, thank you, I just wished to mention Jerusalem. This case was discussed in more than numerous authoritative treatises starting with, I suppose, Clement Prinsault’s masterpiece. The royal arms of Jerusalem, abnormal as they are, were normally justified via the concept of the "armes à enquerre", or sometimes just as anciently assumed. That they are royal arms, this AFAIK never was suggested as a valid reason to ignore the rule.

In the days when the basic concepts of armory were established and the Luxemburgian (Moravian, Hessian, [Upper] Saxon etc) arms were created, the monarchs and rulers were still, in lesser or greater measure, primi inter pares and were expected to provide their ‘lesser equals’ with followable examples of correct armorial practice, rather then to represent themselves as semigods smile

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
28 March 2008 20:22
 

Fair enough.  You have all given examples of valid coats of arms with color on color or metal on metal in various parts of the shield.  While these arms do not violate the tincture rule per se, I am still somewhat opposed (from a personal perspective) to having color on color or metal on metal in parts of a shield.

For example, Per pale Argent and Azure a swan Or, would not violate the tincture rule but still having metal (Or) on metal (Argent) on half of the arms does arguably make the swan harder to see.  I would simply have preferred countercharging or perhaps the use of another background like a fur (e.g., vair, counter vair, etc) to make the swan more visible.  What good is a shield if it is technically correct, but its features cannot be seen from a distance?

 
Alexander Liptak
 
Avatar
 
 
Alexander Liptak
Total Posts:  846
Joined  06-06-2008
 
 
 
16 June 2008 07:54
 

with regard to holy symbols, the tincture rule is abandoned to show them as divine.  jerusalem is allowed this on their escutcheon as it is a the holiest of holy cities.  when saint george or the archangel saint michael are shown, they are often shown argent and Or to show them in similar fashion.

as for duel tinctured fields, say for something like paleways of thirteen pieces argent and gules, as argent is the first stated colour it is assumed that argent is the primary tincture of the filed with gules painted over.  so as a metal is the primary in the example, a charge of colour is allowable despite a colour already upon the field.

 

for more complicated examples of charges with multiple tinctures, the duel metals or colurs touching are allowed because they are technically removed.  for an example argent an eagle sable armed Or, the field is of the metal argent, whilst the main body of the eagle is sable, following the tincture rules.  Or for the talons and beak is allowed because they touch the eagle body rather then the field, and in this sense the metal talons and beak are not on the metal field, though in appearance it would seem so.  a small technicality that is nonetheless allowed.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
16 June 2008 11:13
 

I used to think that Or and Argent were extremely rare especially for personal arms. However, they don’t appear to be as rare as I once thought. Thank you Abp. Heim (Or and Argent) for showing me this.

Metal on metal should be avoided by and large, but it is not as absolute even in British/Irish heraldry as I first thought.

 

Just thought I’d throw that in.

 
J Duncan of Sketraw
 
Avatar
 
 
J Duncan of Sketraw
Total Posts:  271
Joined  15-01-2006
 
 
 
17 June 2008 19:23
 

A couple of interesting Articles on Donald who was ‘trumped’ by Lord Lyon

Click Here Telegraph Article

 

Click Here Wallet Pop

 
arriano
 
Avatar
 
 
arriano
Total Posts:  1303
Joined  20-08-2004
 
 
 
23 June 2008 17:07
 

Quote:

Heraldry expert Hugh Peskett said authorities have the right to fine Trump or destroy the emblems unless he pays a registration fee of $US1,700. ($A1,900).


Gee, I hope he can afford that.