Just needed some confirmation of a blazon that appears in Crozier’s General Armory p. 133 for William Warren of Boston, MA. The blazon is listed as:
Gules, a lion rampant crowned Sable.
Matthew’s American Armory has no listing for William Warren. I’ve tried Burke’s as well; nothing. Tried a web search and still no clarification.
Three other entries in Crozier’s for "Warren" include "Gules, a lion rampant Argent" in their arms somewhere. Perhaps the lion is Argent crowned Sable? It would seem strange if the lion AND the crown were Sable.
Thanks again! :D
Regards,
Robert Tucker
The blazon does sound suspect. Maybe brother Appleton could look in his book?
Michael F. McCartney;69008 wrote:
The blazon does sound suspect. Maybe brother Appleton could look in his book?
good idea.
Michael F. McCartney;69008 wrote:
The blazon does sound suspect. Maybe brother Appleton could look in his book?
Alas—there are no Warrens in the Gore roll. Sorry!
(I’d love it if there were; I have New England Warrens on both sides of my family.)
David
It’s not unheard of to have a lion and its crown the same tinture.
arriano;69067 wrote:
It’s not unheard of to have a lion and its crown the same tinture.
But not usual to have a sable lion on a gules field.
Very true. Thanks Arian for providing another example. (The other being the arms of Ryner and James Tyson. "Vert a lion rampant, crowned Or.")
And Joe you bring up a good point, the Lion and crown both being sable would put tincture on tincture. While not usual to do so, it has happened.
Being the artist, shall I "stick to the blazon"? Or is more research needed?
Thanks again all for your input.
Regards,
Robert
I think it’s fairly obvious that the lion is based on the canton borne by many Warren families in England, though I have found none in BGA with the lion crowned. Going by those arms, the lion would be Argent as the canton is generally Gules a lion rampant Argent. Argent often tarnished to a metallic grey-black as is the case here.
http://diglit.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglitData/image/cpg848/1/290r.jpg
Of course this is a much earlier example, but if high silver content paint (or silver leaf) was used in the original it could tarnish quite quickly. It would then become quite easy for someone not well versed in heraldry to mistake Argent for Sable. After all, they appear to have ignored an entire field chequy Or and Azure.
James
James,
You do shed some light on the subject.
Regards,
Robert,
I think given the nature of the project, the only thing to do under the circumstances is to follow the blazon given by Crozier, wrong or not, and make a note querying his accuracy in this instance. Crozier was capable of providing good documentation (as in Virginia Heraldica), and it is always a little irritating that he didn’t do so in his General Armory. It’s also not helpful that he attributes backward to the earliest known ancestor in America arms that may only appear much later.
On the other hand, he’s better than Matthews. But we have to deal with what we’ve got.
Unfortunately with the lack of documentation, it’s impossible to say whether:
1. The lion should be argent and Crozier left in out in a typographical error
2. The lion should be argent but due to tarnish it appeared sable
3. William Warren altered the Warren arms to indicate he was from a cadet branch, but didn’t know the rules of heraldry and designed an arms with color on color that ended up looking similar to the Albanian arms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Albania
So I think Joe’s suggestion is best - depict the arms as blazoned and we can include a note in the comments section that the lion may have supposed to have been argent like other Warren arms.
Agreed. I will emblazon the arms as they are written, and we can annotate the concerns and differences. I thank you all for the valued input. This is not the last time I’m afraid that curiosities like this will appear as I work through this roll.
Personally, I rather enjoy little blazons like this. Not because they are "wrong" or that they are necessarily "bad". But they are interesting in the fact that it stirs up the ole’ gray matter a bit. It gets me excited and thinking. A perfectly articulate and unmistakable blazon is a great thing; and can be drawn with ease, which is the whole point. But it’s fun little ones like this that require some research and thought that make my day. Call me weird.
Thanks again,
Robert
Thank you all for your input. :D
Yes, it did. But do you think a brighter Gules would make the lion Sable stand out better?
I agree with David. Not only that, but in my opinion heraldic colors should always be bright and vivid, not dark and subdued, even where contrast is not an issue.
I see your point gentleman. I can change this easy enough.
You see the issue does arise in situations like this because of the color on color. This is the same "black" and the same "red" I have been using in all the arms that I have emblazoned for the Roll so far. I was hoping that I would be able to stay with the pallet I have chosen, it has worked will so far with no complaints.
Here is one with 255 R (on the RBG color mode) and 100% black. The contrast is greatly improved.
http://i356.photobucket.com/albums/oo3/blueoceanbob/Heraldry/Warren-William_Revised.gif
With a mac and the way I have my monitor set up (optimized for print production) this "pure" red looks really orange to me. :confused: Such is life. :rolleyes: