I would not like to annoy the armiger or his advisers, but… what is published, may be discussed, is not it?
Among recent additions to the Burke’s Peerage & Gentry International Register of Arms, one finds following arms (previously these arms were registered by the American College of Heraldry).
http://www.armorial-register.com/arms-us/arms-images-us/zahner-ra-arms.jpg
What bothers me is the crown of Charlemagne (as it is blazoned) in the dexter chief. Actually such charge is a pretty honourable element which hardly may be just assumed. Moreover, this crown was borne by the Arch-Treasurers of the Empire (including the Guelphic monarchs of Britain, so this element belongs to the state heraldic pre-history of the USA), and, specifically in a chief Gules, by the Hereditary Treasurers, the von Sinzendorfs (see below). Is not this a wee bit too much for assumed arms?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/e/e4/Sinzendorf_wappen.jpg
Michael Y. Medvedev;75629 wrote:
What bothers me is the crown of Charlemagne (as it is blazoned) in the dexter chief. Actually such charge is a pretty honourable element which hardly may be just assumed. Moreover, this crown was borne by the Arch-Treasurers of the Empire (including the Guelphic monarchs of Britain, so this element belongs to the state heraldic pre-history of the USA), and, specifically in a chief Gules, by the Hereditary Treasurers, the von Sinzendorfs (see below). Is not this a wee bit too much for assumed arms?
I would say so. I’d be willing to bet that the owner of the arms is a member of the Order of the Crown of Charlemagne, a hereditary society of people putatively descended from the emperor, founded in 1939. (I’d also be willing to bet a small amount that the charge in sinister chief is the emblem of some other hereditary society, although I have no idea which one.)
A little ignorance goes a long way, and a lot of ignorance even further. This design went too far.
These arms remind me of President Eisenhower’s attemept at heraldry. That the shield must be quartered, then the emblems of the most prominent organizations to which the armiger belongs is thrown in somewhere.
Any royal or imperial crown should not be assumed, not any emblems of a state or sovereign for that matter. I, as some may know, am a fan of all heraldic pomp and circumstance, and even I would not go so far as to adopt such regal emblems in a coat of arms of a commoner. Though, I will admit, I have occasionally doodled my arms with an imperial crown and pavilion, just because it is so cool but never as a serious rendition.
Such arms are more fantasy then reality. Then again, heraldry is a bit of a fantastical study for most people.
http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/President/ike1.gif
The first version of Eisenhower’s coat of arms. Image by Mr. McMillan.
I, too, did a double-take when I saw the registration published in the American College of Heraldry’s "The Armiger’s News" (Vol XXXII, No 1, Winter 2010). Recognizable crowns like this strike me as implying some sort of official position in a government (like the aforementioned Treasurers of the Holy Roman Empire) or as a grant of an "augmentation of honor." A quick glance through my reference library failed to find a specific crown in a grant of arms that did not fall into one of these categories. (This is, of course, opposed to the more generic "crest coronet" or "ducal coronet" found more often in arms.) Even use of a "generic" crown such as the naval coronet or the mural coronet (civic coronet) often implies some sort of distinction in naval, military or civic service. Some systems of heraldry even reserve crowns and coronets specifically for this purpose, as Canada does with the "Loyalist coronet" recognizing services rendered in support of Britain during the American Revolutionary War.
Boutell (1950 ed, p 186) only mentions the grant of a British royal crown as an augmentation of honor (e.g. to the Earl of Kintore in 1677 to recognize his preservation of the Scottish regalia). Likewise, Fox-Davies treats the crown as a charge only under these set circumstances. More recently, in the Royal Heraldry Society of Canada’s publication "Heraldry in Canada," (Vol 43, Nos 1-2, 2009), an article by Marc-Philippe Vincent addresses the use of other distinctive components and charges (specifically from the French royal tradition) in arms borne by those unconnected to royalty which were granted by the Canadian Heraldic Authority.
Like I said, I’m pretty surprised at this registration, given that so much has been written in the heraldic literature about using symbolism connected to royalty (either past or present) in arms borne by non-royals.
Nick Hoffmann
PS: To the best of my knowledge, the other charge in the chief ("...to the sinister two swords in saltire, points downward Argent, debruised by a coronet Or.") does not refer to any other lineage/hereditary society that I am aware of. While the armiger may be a member in the Order of the Crown of Charlemagne, nothing in the registration makes reference to membership in the Order.
i agree with Michael and Joe with a small "out" if you will.
if i were designing an assumed coat of arms for someone named "O’Mahoney" i would allow for the use of the noble coronet that is in the crest for the arms, as it is a part of so-called "sept arms" and can be read of in Burke’s as well as MacLysaghts works relating to several members of this clan. i would do the same for "Robertson."
so that would be a small "out" in such cases, but in this case i completely agree with you both.
Joseph McMillan;75630 wrote:
I would say so. I’d be willing to bet that the owner of the arms is a member of the Order of the Crown of Charlemagne, a hereditary society of people putatively descended from the emperor, founded in 1939.
If membership means anything other than a certificate and pretty ribbons, I would think a member of that organization might be less likely than others to show presumption by assuming arms with that particular crown.
As far as I can tell, the armiger is not a member of the Order of the Crown of Charlemagne. I do not recognize the crossed-sword symbol in sinister chief.
/Charles
Donnchadh;75633 wrote:
if i were designing an assumed coat of arms for someone named "O’Mahoney" i would allow for the use of the noble coronet that is in the crest for the arms, as it is a part of so-called "sept arms" and can be read of in Burke’s as well as MacLysaghts works relating to several members of this clan. i would do the same for "Robertson."
OK, dear Denny, but this would be a modification of existing arms, not a creation of new ones, and the essentially honourable elements would be preserved rather than introduced.
Michael Y. Medvedev;75636 wrote:
OK, dear Denny, but this would be a modification of existing arms, not a creation of new ones, and the essentially honourable elements would be preserved rather than introduced.
agreed. just that they are similar is all i was saying. i still agree in this case it is a gross (more ways than one) assumption (more ways than one) of a coat of arms.
Am I correct in thinking that the American College of Heraldry has no authority in the arms submitted for registration? Could they refuse to register a submitted C. of A.?
Regarding Burke’s International Register of Arms. There is an acceptance clause that states arms are "vetted" to some degree! It would appear these arms have passed this test. Or are we saying, here is a classic case of "bad taste," but one that has to be accepted due to being ‘heraldically correct.’
Regards .............. Peter
Peter Harling;75641 wrote:
[...] being ‘heraldically correct.’
Aye, that is exactly what I am inclined to doubt…
Peter Harling;75641 wrote:
Am I correct in thinking that the American College of Heraldry has no authority in the arms submitted for registration? Could they refuse to register a submitted C. of A.?
Absolutely. They publish rules on what they won’t register—see http://americancollegeofheraldry.org/achreply.html#e.
But there are a number of old ACH registrations out there that violate these rules, and following the rules on things like additaments is not a guarantee of sound heraldic practice. For example, there’s a coat on the ACH website registered for someone named Sullivan that is a lightly differenced version of the arms of Washington. It’s hard to understand someone who knows anything about heraldry doing that.
Quote:
Regarding Burke’s International Register of Arms. There is an acceptance clause that states arms are "vetted" to some degree! It would appear these arms have passed this test. Or are we saying, here is a classic case of "bad taste," but one that has to be accepted due to being ‘heraldically correct.’
I guess what "has to be accepted" is up to the judgment of those operating the register.
I worked with the ACH to design and develop my family’s coat of arms back in 1997. I wanted the crest to incorporate a symbol from my ancestors’ homeland, Prussia, and a symbol of Texas, where they settled. Along with the Lone Star of Texas, I inquired into using the Prussian royal crown in some form. It was pointed out to me that due to the fact that the crown was a symbol of the sovereign Prussian nation, it would be inappropriate to use it in my arms, and that the ACH would not grant me a registration. It was no big deal to me and I dropped it. What’s changed?
Charles Glass;75645 wrote:
I worked with the ACH to design and develop my family’s coat of arms back in 1997. I wanted the crest to incorporate a symbol from my ancestors’ homeland, Prussia, and a symbol of Texas, where they settled. Along with the Lone Star of Texas, I inquired into using the Prussian royal crown in some form. It was pointed out to me that due to the fact that the crown was a symbol of the sovereign Prussian nation, it would be inappropriate to use it in my arms, and that the ACH would not grant me a registration. It was no big deal to me and I dropped it. What’s changed?
They still won’t put a coronet of rank in a crest, but apparently have no problem with putting an identifiable crown of sovereignty in the shield. This coat was registered less than five months ago.
Could it be that the folks now running ACH don’t know the history of the crown of Charlemagne as an emblem of high office?
Joseph McMillan;75646 wrote:
They still won’t put a coronet of rank in a crest, but apparently have no problem with putting an identifiable crown of sovereignty in the shield. This coat was registered less than five months ago.
Could it be that the folks now running ACH don’t know the history of the crown of Charlemagne as an emblem of high office?
Do they do their own artwork?
Because if they do they’d have had to draw it, which means they had to know what it looked like. And it’s pretty difficult to google "Crown of Charlemagne" and not find out that it was the crown of a sovereign state.
Nick
Could the charge in sinister be connected to the Manorial Society of GB?