Does cadency stack?

 
StarScepter
 
Avatar
 
 
StarScepter
Total Posts:  56
Joined  10-06-2011
 
 
 
31 August 2012 11:19
 

For example;

The second son of an armiger (person X) has a crescent in middle chief point for cadency.

Would the second son of X have a crescent at honor point for cadency?

 

Would first son of X have the label stacked on the crescent?

 

 

You can see how a family with numerous male line descendants could eventually have a pretty "busy" achievement.

 

Are there any heraldic customs (or laws) in place to prevent a situation like this from turning into bad, or downright ugly, heraldry?

 
James Dempster
 
Avatar
 
 
James Dempster
Total Posts:  602
Joined  20-05-2004
 
 
 
31 August 2012 12:04
 

StarScepter;95515 wrote:

Are there any heraldic customs (or laws) in place to prevent a situation like this from turning into bad, or downright ugly, heraldry?


The answer is yes and no.

 

Examples of such stacked minor differences can be found, especially in 18th and 19th century heraldry. In theory in English heraldry it is the "correct" thing to do. However the lack of any proper enforcement mechanism means that it is not common, rather the bearing of undifferenced arms is common.

 

The simple fact that it is not only such "stacking" ugly, it doesn’t actually clearly difference the arms - a cadency mark tends to be quite small and if it is charged with another that must itself be smaller than the first…. Miniscule happens quite soon.

 

Of course one of the get-arounds used is that English heralds consider arms to be differenced by quartering, so just marry an heraldic heiress and problem solved. wink

 

In Scotland, where the "stacking" of differences does occur, these marks are not used as the main form of cadency, though they do have their place. Though the heraldy textbooks will mention the Stodart system and present it as a fait-accompli, even here there is considerably more flexibility. There are ways round what a rigid system would make really ugly. They’re not always successful.

 

If you are thinking of applying differencing and looking for ideas, it’s worth looking at how it has been done in practice over the centuries in Scotland rather than following an over-systematised text. You will see considerable flexibility and sometimes rather inventive solutions.

 

James

 
StarScepter
 
Avatar
 
 
StarScepter
Total Posts:  56
Joined  10-06-2011
 
 
 
31 August 2012 14:30
 

James Dempster;95518 wrote:

If you are thinking of applying differencing and looking for ideas, it’s worth looking at how it has been done in practice over the centuries in Scotland rather than following an over-systematised text. You will see considerable flexibility and sometimes rather inventive solutions.

James

In the Scottish system wouldn’t multiple bordures also get unwealdy?

 
James Dempster
 
Avatar
 
 
James Dempster
Total Posts:  602
Joined  20-05-2004
 
 
 
31 August 2012 14:52
 

The Scottish system doesn’t put bordure upon bordure, rather the original bordure is altered. The Wikipedia entry on Scottish heraldry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_heraldry has an illustration of the theory, rather than the practice, of which this is a medium sized depiction.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Differencing-en.png/640px-Differencing-en.png

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
03 September 2012 03:33
 

The main difference between the English-born system of the small charges and the Scottish Stodart system of borders is that the former is applied by the armigers themselves and the latter is a guideline for Lord Lyon who is free to interpret it in an individual way in any given case. What is more, the English officers of arms declared brisures optional at all. In pure theory, a second son of the second son of the head of a family should, to follow the English system, use a crescent over a crescent, but this does not mean that this will be really done. As the main purpose of brisures is to avoid the confusion of armigers, the common sense and the understanding of context (the situation within the family etc) are necessary to find a reasonable solution.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
04 September 2012 19:25
 

Since you’re an American (Floridian, which counts smile ) and not— at least in this generation—really a Scot, the heraldic custom would be to do without cadency as an unnecessary complication.  (See our Guidelines, which discuss this matter.)

If your arms were/are Scottish (i.e. originally granted or matriculated there) you could, if you wish, refer the question to Lyon, who would then determine an appropriate individual difference per JD’s posting—but he (Lyon) will of course charge the usual matriculation fees.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
11 November 2012 14:20
 

Canada has a cadency system of minor brissures that identifies both male and female children such as second daughter or third son rather than simply first child or second child. In South Africa, one’s arms must be differenced from those of other members of your family if one does not inherit the un-differenced arms. How these arms are differenced however, are between you and the Herald.

 
Alexander Liptak
 
Avatar
 
 
Alexander Liptak
Total Posts:  846
Joined  06-06-2008
 
 
 
15 November 2012 15:21
 

David Pritchard;96535 wrote:

Canada has a cadency system of minor brissures that identifies both male and female children such as second daughter or third son rather than simply first child or second child..


The Canadian heralds created brissures for daughters due to laws forbidding discrimination amongst genders, an issue for a male-oriented art. The heralds took a seperate-but-equal stance, citing the long history and custom for the brissures used for sons and arguing it would cause great confusion to suddenly use the same brissures for woman. Interestingly, these laws have made a minority opinion that argues the line of succession should include woman as equals, meaning that one day the monarchies of Canada and the United Kingdom could diverage if it gains greater support.

 
Alexander Liptak
 
Avatar
 
 
Alexander Liptak
Total Posts:  846
Joined  06-06-2008
 
 
 
15 November 2012 15:35
 

StarScepter;95515 wrote:

For example;

The second son of an armiger (person X) has a crescent in middle chief point for cadency.

Would the second son of X have a crescent at honor point for cadency?

 

Would first son of X have the label stacked on the crescent?

 

 

You can see how a family with numerous male line descendants could eventually have a pretty "busy" achievement.

 

Are there any heraldic customs (or laws) in place to prevent a situation like this from turning into bad, or downright ugly, heraldry?


It does get quite cluttered quickly since the practice is to stack the marks upon and within one another, making the second mark smaller to fit within the first; say a label on the crescent for the first born to a second son or a crescent on a crescent for the second born of a second son. However, it is seemingly common practice to only stack two brissures, your own upon your fathers, and ignore any older generations’ cadency marks because such devices would become overly complicated, cluttered, tiny, indistinguishable and thus useless.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
15 November 2012 15:42
 

It would seem to make more sense to keep the older generational brisures (shared by all of their "branch" and therefore meaningful even today) and do without brisures for more recent generations, especially where (as in the US) primogeniture & all that is obsolete i.e. legally abolished at or shortly after Independence.

 
mjsmith
 
Avatar
 
 
mjsmith
Total Posts:  121
Joined  15-08-2012
 
 
 
29 January 2013 11:46
 

I’ve got a question to ask in order to revive this old topic.  Recently, one of my maternal cousins asked me about a "family crest" and to see if we had one.  After explaining about that fallacy, I thought maybe the best course would be to register arms in the name of our grandfather, and then difference those accordingly.  I will try to involve him (my grandfather) in the process as much as possible but he is 88 and has Alzheimers.  Differencing will come into play as he has 3-sons, 8-grandsons, and nearly 20-great grandsons.

I’ve got some very preliminary ideas for arms but is it entirely out of the realm of possibility to difference the design by tincture starting at the second generation and move on from there?  Here is an example.

 

I only ask because I’ve been fiddling with this design for a while now (haven’t presented it to any of my uncles) and since one of my uncles lives in Baltimore, MD, I was inspired by the tincture scheme of the arms of Lord Baltimore and wondered if that might be an appropriate way of differencing the arms of my grandfather.

 

The rough blazon that I have for the base arms is Quarterly, Gules and Argent four oak leaves crosswise stems to the fess point between as many acorns counterchanged.  I’m not even going to attempt to blazon the second arms as I am sure I would completely butcher it.  I have no idea if this design is even acceptable to my uncles, at this point I am just trying to satisfy my cadency curiosity.

 
steven harris
 
Avatar
 
 
steven harris
Total Posts:  696
Joined  30-07-2008
 
 
 
29 January 2013 13:39
 

mjsmith;97412 wrote:

I’ve got some very preliminary ideas for arms but is it entirely out of the realm of possibility to difference the design by tincture starting at the second generation and move on from there?

I’m certain that you would be able to find historical precedence for that somewhere.  Here in the States, however, cadency is not required and could very well turn into quite a mess in short order.

If the original desire was for “family” arms, as one design that could serve to unite your family, then an option may be to design arms akin to a “family association”, defined as all of the descents of your grandfather and grandmother (or however far back you care to go).

 

I know that the Canadians engage in just such a practice:

http://archive.gg.ca/heraldry/pub-reg/project.asp?lang=e&ProjectID=143

http://archive.gg.ca/heraldry/pub-reg/project.asp?lang=e&ProjectID=411

http://archive.gg.ca/heraldry/pub-reg/project.asp?lang=e&ProjectID=620

http://archive.gg.ca/heraldry/pub-reg/project.asp?lang=e&ProjectID=1039

 

These arms are more like corporate or institutional arms than they are personal arms, but it may be an option…

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
29 January 2013 14:19
 

This doesn’t answer your question, but why difference in the first place in the US?

If you don’t difference, then all the male (and female?) line descendants use the same undifferenced arms.  Since we’re not having to identify an individual on the battlefield, it seems to me that the modern purpose of heraldry is to show the hereditary connection between individuals, instead of differentiating between individuals within a family.  I suspect, too, that few folks in your family will actually display these arms once the newness and excitement has worn off.

 

So, what’s the worse that happens?  Perhaps a hundred years from now one of your descendants spots a stranger with a coat of arms on his jet-mobile.  He recognizes that it’s the same arms as on his signet ring.  When he walks up and starts a conversation he finds that he and the stranger are third cousins, once removed.  Hasn’t heraldry served its modern purpose?

 
arriano
 
Avatar
 
 
arriano
Total Posts:  1303
Joined  20-08-2004
 
 
 
29 January 2013 16:16
 

I’d suggest you ask your grandfather if he is OK with the arms you have designed. If so, then he assumes them and you’re good to go. Then let the different branches (and individuals) of your family decide what they want to do:

* Keep them the same

* Use some kind of cadency (cadency mark, tincture change, bordure, etc)

* Alter the crest

* Create an entirely different arms for themselves

* Ignore the whole heraldry thing altogether

 
mjsmith
 
Avatar
 
 
mjsmith
Total Posts:  121
Joined  15-08-2012
 
 
 
29 January 2013 16:22
 

David Pope;97415 wrote:

This doesn’t answer your question, but why difference in the first place in the US?


An excellent question, there may indeed be no reason it has to be differenced at all.  As I said, I haven’t even showed this to my uncles.  They may end up with something completely different.  I mean, I know what my grandfather represents to me but they might decide on something entirely different.  I was just picking your brains a bit to see if anyone knew of any precedent for that type of difference.  Just gathering knowledge.wink

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
29 January 2013 16:27
 

David Pope;97415 wrote:

This doesn’t answer your question, but why difference in the first place in the US?


Or almost anywhere else, for that matter.  Even in England, where the textbooks treated it as mandatory, the present kings of arms acknowledge that it was always more a matter of courtesy than law, and the last Garter publicly deprecated the practice in the absence of any compelling reason for it.