My arms by Nebojša Dikić

 
kimon
 
Avatar
 
 
kimon
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  28-03-2008
 
 
 
01 May 2012 16:09
 

Dragan Ćirić;93209 wrote:

in the serbian heraldic it is for new armigers forbbiden to have "double headed eagle". Why, I don´t no?

I believe it’s simply because the arms of the Royal Family of Serbia use the double headed eagle. In any case, the double headed eagle was (is?) a symbol of the empire and later the Church.

Of course, that hasn’t stopped people from adding the particular eagle to their arms…


Michael F. McCartney;93218 wrote:

IIRC the notion that a double-headed eagle was/is really two eagles back to back rather than an eagle with two heads, was either the reason for—or an explanation of—the bicephalous bird to symbolize the two Roman empires, Eastern & Western.

I translated an article written in the 1920’s by a Greek Orthodox Archimandrite on this very topic: http://www.idtg.org/archive/1836-the-shaping-of-a-symbol-the-double-headed-eagle/

It’s an interesting story smile

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
01 May 2012 16:30
 

@Kimon, thanks for preserving that article in your blog; very valuable information!

@Dragan, I hadn’t previously noticed that the dexter and sinister wings of your eagle charge differed in style until you mentioned it. Do the wing styles qualify as a distinctive heraldic difference when comparing charges in your heraldic jurisdiction?

 
Dragan Ćirić
 
Avatar
 
 
Dragan Ćirić
Total Posts:  44
Joined  23-04-2012
 
 
 
01 May 2012 16:34
 

The SHD forbids the use of double headed eagle, but that is a private organisation and you can choose yourself if you will respect their rules or not.

http://srpskoheraldickodrustvo.com/

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
01 May 2012 17:19
 

The eagles are different in all areas, not just the wings… You do have to see the larger version or be attentive…  I wonder if made into a badge for clothing if it would be quite so obvious.

 
emrys
 
Avatar
 
 
emrys
Total Posts:  852
Joined  08-04-2006
 
 
 
02 May 2012 03:35
 

Quote:

@Dragan, I hadn’t previously noticed that the dexter and sinister wings of your eagle charge differed in style until you mentioned it. Do the wing styles qualify as a distinctive heraldic difference when comparing charges in your heraldic jurisdiction?

Quote:

Mr. Dikic suggested to use white colour on one half and black on the other half. Because I´m born in Austria it would be ok to use the black colour, since the austrian eagle is black.

But I can´t identifay myself with that suggesten.

 

Maybe you have noticed that one half is made in German/Austrian style and the other in Serbian/East European style!


That is what I am saying the halfs are just a different style which makes them look different but they are the same. That is why I suggested a different colour of leg or something. And don’t get me wrong I like the picture but a different style of drawing makes the object not something else it is just another interpretation of that object.

 
sterios
 
Avatar
 
 
sterios
Total Posts:  78
Joined  17-10-2010
 
 
 
02 May 2012 04:19
 

emrys;93211 wrote:

This will sound pedantic but that is not the intention.

The eagle does have different halfs but it still is a double headed eagle argent, the halfs are just drawn different.

The only way to get what you want is to change something on one of the halfs perhaps change the beak or the leg to a different colour.

A double headed eagle, has always two symmetrical halfs.

The different halfs of mr. Ćirić creature, suggest that they are two different eagles despite the common colours.

 

A double headed eagle is a single eagle with two heads, it’s not two eagles back to back. As a Chimera is one creature although it consist of parts from a lion, a goat and a snake.

 
sterios
 
Avatar
 
 
sterios
Total Posts:  78
Joined  17-10-2010
 
 
 
02 May 2012 04:20
 

emrys;93228 wrote:

That is what I am saying the halfs are just a different style which makes them look different but they are the same. That is why I suggested a different colour of leg or something. And don’t get me wrong I like the picture but a different style of drawing makes the object not something else it is just another interpretation of that object.

emrys;93211 wrote:

This will sound pedantic but that is not the intention.

The eagle does have different halfs but it still is a double headed eagle argent, the halfs are just drawn different.

The only way to get what you want is to change something on one of the halfs perhaps change the beak or the leg to a different colour.


A double headed eagle, has always two symmetrical halfs.

 

The different halfs of mr. Ćirić creature, suggest that they are two different eagles despite the common colours.

 

A double headed eagle is a single eagle with two heads, it’s not two eagles back to back. As a Chimera is one creature although it consist of parts from a lion, a goat and a snake.

 
emrys
 
Avatar
 
 
emrys
Total Posts:  852
Joined  08-04-2006
 
 
 
02 May 2012 07:52
 

but that is what we have here, look at the tail there is no sharp division it looks like one tail with different sides to it. Perhaps if the roundel was not in front of the "eagles" you could see more clearly that they were in fact two eagles instead of one double headed one but that is not the case here.

 
James Dempster
 
Avatar
 
 
James Dempster
Total Posts:  602
Joined  20-05-2004
 
 
 
02 May 2012 09:11
 

As someone whose interest in heraldry stems from its history I, like Ton, am somewhat uncomfortable with this concept.

Imagine the eagle carved on a stone, outdoors for 300 years (depending on the stone maybe even just 100 years). Weathering will have removed much of the fine detail. Unless the two halves are more different than here, it’ll be noted down as a double-headed eagle. Think of it too, when reduced to an image on an old wax seal (possibly also much degraded) or if it were espied 400 yards away on a misty battlefield. It will all too often be mis-identified as a double-headed eagle.

 

I’m personally of the view that in general, heraldry that relies too much on subtlties of form is held prisoner by the need for access to an original written blazon. Heraldic charges should be big and bold and easily identified without need for that written blazon or, worse, written blazon and translation of some latin taxonomy. Far too many modern armigers (and modern heralds) produce arms with specific flora and fauna. Roses and lilies fine, they have developed conventional forms, but if it is essential that I can tell the difference between something like strawberry flowers and flowering dogwood, count me out.

 

James

 
J. Stolarz
 
Avatar
 
 
J. Stolarz
Total Posts:  1483
Joined  30-11-2007
 
 
 
02 May 2012 10:35
 

Very nice emblazon smile.  Welcome aboard as well.

 
sterios
 
Avatar
 
 
sterios
Total Posts:  78
Joined  17-10-2010
 
 
 
02 May 2012 11:33
 

emrys;93236 wrote:

but that is what we have here, look at the tail there is no sharp division it looks like one tail with different sides to it. Perhaps if the roundel was not in front of the "eagles" you could see more clearly that they were in fact two eagles instead of one double headed one but that is not the case here.

You have a point here, but this is a crest and being a crest in 3D it’s natural for not having so sharp lines. Besides, why to stack on the tail since the heads, the wings and the talons are different?

Now I agree with mr. Dempster that Heraldic charges should be big and bold and easily identified, but heraldry rely very much on details. After all in the Scotish system (which I presume that mr. Dempster is familiar with) by the change of a single charge or by the addition of an extra charge we can identify the position of a person in a generation or in the family. The addition of a Mullet suggest that the bearer is the third son in the family.

 

So the conclusion is that the use of details is vital on heraldry.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
02 May 2012 12:04
 

I’m pretty much with Ton on this.  I suppose that the question "is it different enough from a double-headed eagle Argent" is one that can only be answered within a Serbian framework, since the reservation of the white double eagle to official/royal use exists within that framework.

But to me, this seems like an excessively clever way of evading the prohibition that doesn’t pass serious heraldic muster.  In my opinion, differences that can’t be detected except on close examination are not differences.  If it looks like a double-eagle Argent, it is a double-eagle Argent.

 

But, as I say, in this case it’s ultimately something that has to be judged by the people who made the particular rule.

 
sterios
 
Avatar
 
 
sterios
Total Posts:  78
Joined  17-10-2010
 
 
 
02 May 2012 13:42
 

Joseph McMillan;93246 wrote:

If it looks like a double-eagle Argent, it is a double-eagle Argent.

I can’t agree with this. Take a mule for example. It looks like a horse but it’s not.

 
Dragan Ćirić
 
Avatar
 
 
Dragan Ćirić
Total Posts:  44
Joined  23-04-2012
 
 
 
02 May 2012 14:44
 

I thank you all for your time and effort that you have put in this discussion. Hopeffuly we will find a solution?

I´m not planing on changing the coloure maybee it would be enough to make the "christian monogram" smaller to see the difference?

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
02 May 2012 20:20
 

sterios;93247 wrote:

I can’t agree with this. Take a mule for example. It looks like a horse but it’s not.


Don’t let a horseman or horsewoman see this - to them a mule is obviously a mule.  I still believe the rendition is obviously different birds… or two halfs mushed together ...  If the artist has chosen to separate the tails, would folks be more likely to think of it as two?...