It does appear that the USHR is back up and running. The most recent entry is dated 2/24/2010. In addition to the new look and feel of the site, Michael seems to have changed the tinctures on the registries arms. The new image is hatched…
http://usheraldicregistry.com/pub/skins/newspaper/ushrtiny.jpg
...and appears to be Or on a fess Gules between three mullets Azure an open book Argent. I suppose that means all of us with older registration certificates have collector’s items from "before the color change."
Tincture violation aside, I believe I liked the old version better.
Jay Bohn;75206 wrote:
And some are fairly hideous (the following is not necessarily the worst)
http://assumearms.com/Images/Achievements/Simone.Fontaine.Caulderwood-Coat-of-Arms.png
Not apparently designed by assumearms.com but by the "armiger": Rev. Cts. Simone Fontaine Caulderwood, Minisster "Holy Temple of the Twelve Gates", Grand Master Sovereign Templar Order Saint Michael and Saint George Knights Templars of Light (formerly Known As Alpha Omega International Order Knights Templars of Light
O U C H ! ! ! - - - the burning, please for the love of God, stop my eyes from burning!!!!! please pass the water so i can rinse them out!
Jay Bohn;75206 wrote:
http://assumearms.com/Images/Achievements/Simone.Fontaine.Caulderwood-Coat-of-Arms.png
That lion supporter to sinister looks as dismayed as we are at how bad those arms are.
It’s true…they have a look on their face like they can’t believe they’re being forced to be a part of something already so terrible :D
BCT;75238 wrote:
That lion supporter to sinister looks as dismayed as we are at how bad those arms are.
To turn that lion’s frown upside down you first need to get rid of the "arms".... Pistols for both supporters at close range should do the trick. :shootout:
Someone please call the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Supporters!
Jay Bohn;75206 wrote:
Not apparently designed by assumearms.com but by the "armiger"
Looking back at the site, I see that the arms were designed by someone other than the reverend countess, one Russell G. Giampietro 2nd , whose MySpace page lists him as HSH Prince Russell G Giampietro 2nd, Grandmaster of the Noble Order of Valour. Count of Salem, Lord King of Heralds, Royal College of Arms of Salem (at another site he signs himself an Archduke). Didn’t know they had those in Sparta, Tennessee.
Do you suppose that the lack of rules allows for the assumption of titles as well as arms?
Good question, Jay… They do not understand that they may assume any heraldically-looking stuff, but that stuff will be truly heraldic only if they assume arms without specifically honourable elements, which elements may be obtained only by a grant or by an immemorial tradition, but not by assumption; and without claiming heraldic symbolism which is too close (according to the heraldic criteria) to the arms already in use…
And they may assume a fancy name - it may be "King", "Pope", "Emperor" or whatever, but this will not become a title just because it sounds like one.
Actually lack of rules means not omnipotence but lack of advantages. "No road" means not "Go where you wish" but "Stay home".
Or rather "Find what is left of the old road and build the rest".
Michael Y. Medvedev;75282 wrote:
Actually lack of rules means not omnipotence but lack of advantages. "No road" means not "Go where you wish" but "Stay home".
Umm… think I’ve got some problems with that; it sounds an awful lot like "1984": that which is not specifically permitted is forbidden.
Quote:
Or rather "Find what is left of the old road and build the rest".
Not bad, but I prefer an extrapolation of Edmund Burke’s comment on the French Revolution.
Burke: "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations."
Extrapolation: "Precisely because you have the liberty to do as you please, you have a moral obligation to moderate what it pleases you to do."
Michael Y. Medvedev;75282 wrote:
They do not understand that they may assume any heraldically-looking stuff, but that stuff will be truly heraldic only if they assume arms without specifically honourable elements, which elements may be obtained only by a grant or by an immemorial tradition, but not by assumption;
"Specifically honourable elements" are different in different heraldic realms. In the one place certain elements have a meaning in another they do not. The custom of granting arms and or certain elements is not commonplace.
emrys;75285 wrote:
"Specifically honourable elements" are different in different heraldic realms. In the one place certain elements have a meaning in another they do not. The custom of granting arms and or certain elements is not commonplace.
But if by long use, positive legislation or some combination a specific element comes to have a specific meaning, should that not be respected everywhere? An escutcheon argent with a couped left hand gules has a specific meaning in the United Kingdom, but even outside that jurisdiction no one who is not a baronet should adopt it as a charge. To do so is a species of misrepresentation. I think someone else said in another thread that without rules, it isn’t heraldry.
I prefer the thought without tradition or, say conventions - it isn’t heraldry. However - I think it’s well established whether in a country with an heraldic authority or a country with common practices - Each authority or geographic location or tradition follows it’s own structure. For instance, I understand the background but have little respect for the "rules" regarding arms and women in some locations.
Of course, the last I heard, Tennessee was part of the US and we don’t recognize such titles as archduke here. Yet, if this is one of the "roleplaying" realms, then they can pretty much do what they want within their "realm" and those of us outside don’t necessarily take it seriously. I’ve been quite the Orc Hunter in World of Warcraft - but, I don’t go about setting traps or having my dog attack folks out here in the real world… often….
For those who are trying to maintain the artistry, heritage and general intent of heraldry - not applying such charges in order to not "confuse" or indicate inappropriate intent is a choice in locations without heraldic authority which may turn into a tradition over time.
The dialog on Assume.com states anyone in the US can have supporters, which is true, but most folks trying to mantain or establish heraldic traditions seem to agree supportes indicate specific status in most locations and choose not to have them.
Joseph McMillan;75283 wrote:
Umm… think I’ve got some problems with that; it sounds an awful lot like "1984": that which is not specifically permitted is forbidden.
Well, of course I did not mean that. Actually my post was unnecessarily emotional and messy. What I had and wished to say is "No rules, no game; no meaningful context - no expression of the individual".
emrys;75285 wrote:
"Specifically honourable elements" are different in different heraldic realms. In the one place certain elements have a meaning in another they do not.
That’s absolutely correct. There is no such a thing as the international code of heraldic norms or conventions - thanks God Who created us so different. Of course I do not suggest an application of Russian stereotypes to the American reality - even in Alaska - or vice versa. But American heraldry did not come from nowhere, and, having several main "parent traditions", could not avoid borrowing some "significances" from them, at least as far as they agree themselves.
There are some symbols of authority in any system and, mutatis mutandis, their use by private armigers always must be IMHO somehow restricted for the essentially heraldic sake of non-misleading.
Joseph McMillan;75283 wrote:
Extrapolation: "Precisely because you have the liberty to do as you please, you have a moral obligation to moderate what it pleases you to do."
The version I like is "Freedom is not the right to do what you want, but the power to do what you should."
/Charles