I ran across this blog, and apparently the Globe Theatre had approached a man to designs arms for each of the plays shown at the theatre, as well as arms specific to the 2010 season. Yes, arms for the 2010 season and not for use in another season. The blog states these arms were used in national advertisements, which I take to mean either England or the entire U.K., so perhaps our British friends may have seen them?
The arms are rather poor. The designs are cliche and show a lack of heraldic understanding. For instance, the mantling issues out of the crest in one image and not from the torse, and in another design it is stated that a major component of the design was the shape of the shield. Be sure to skip to the bottom, the images are repeated, but larger and easier to see.
http://mrahayes.blogspot.com/2010/02/shakespeares-kings-rogues.html
Alexander, you are right, imo. These designs incorporate heraldic elements but seem to have been designed mostly as symbolic "logos" for the plays.
Shield shapes appear to have been chosen mostly to suit each composition.
I do like the black and white graphic qualities.
The Globe should write the College of Arms and seek permission to display Shakespeare’s arms if they wish to have a bit of heraldry and history added to the buidling. The Globe’s owners went to great lengths to build an exact replica, I am sure the College would oblige if asked.
xanderliptak;80643 wrote:
The Globe should write the College of Arms and seek permission to display Shakespeare’s arms if they wish to have a bit of heraldry and history added to the buidling. The Globe’s owners went to great lengths to build an exact replica, I am sure the College would oblige if asked.
I’m sorry, perhaps I don’t understand the comment. If permission is needed for the theatre to display Shakespeare’s arms, what is the source of authority for the College of Arms to grant such permission?
That’s brings about an interesting question: If there are no legal heirs to a coat of arms granted by the College, does the College then gain the rights to them? It’s my understanding that WS has no living descendants, male or female. Perhaps descendants of his sister can claim the arms, but ....
If I recall correctly, the College of Arms and The Duke of Norfolk were given the power to grant and regulate heraldic ornaments in England, so the College can (and has) granted the use of arms for people and institutions that otherwise had no right to them. I recall the James Bond films requested permission to use a nobleman’s arms in a film, though the end result was that the film created a new coat based on elements of the actual arms. But it isn’t that the College inherits or gains the rights to the arms, so much as a court that is able to dictate and lord over its jurisdiction, it has final say on heraldic matters.
Whatever powers the Earl Marshal and College may possess, they certainly don’t include that of licensing one person to display another person’s arms.
If there was ever any doubt, the decision in the Court of Chivalry in the 1954 Manchester case strongly implies that displaying someone else’s arms is not illegal in England as long as you don’t try to pass them off as your own.
It seems I was recalling wrong, it says that Mr. Fleming only asked for assistance, not permission to use the historical escutcheon for Bond.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PaoZBSarfic/SN_MVXQgmKI/AAAAAAAABIg/YcxmGaX7eEM/s1600-h/bond_arms.gif