I have passed "the bug" on to my brother. We have come up with an intial concept for his shield…
Argent, a bull passant proper, on a chief engrailed azure seven Celtic crosses Or.
http://imageshack.us/a/img5/5121/thomshield.jpg
He would like to incorporate some Celtic knotwork on a quiver of arrows for his crest. Ideas on how to blazon and/or draw it are welcome.
I’m afraid those are not Celtic crosses. They are Pisan crosses, from the arms of the city of Pisa.
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/italy/italyb03.jpg
For a Celtic cross, see Kenneth Mansfield’s avatar.
I was going to call it an Occitan cross.
either way, it’s definitely not a Celtic cross
steven harris;96999 wrote:
I was going to call it an Occitan cross.
either way, it’s definitely not a Celtic cross
I’m going to go ahead and be “that guy”.
If you and your brother are both interested in assuming arms, it might be most in keeping with heraldic traditions for you to sit down with your other siblings (if any) and decide on one single shield design to assume on your father’s behalf. It looks like your designs are not too dissimilar already.
Then, you and your siblings can assume your father’s arms, appropriately differenced with Writhe brisures, Stodart bordures, or whatever system you decide on.
You would all be free to assume individual crests and mottos, but the shield would stand for your family.
Joseph McMillan;97000 wrote:
The cross of Toulouse or Occitan cross is similar but voided.
So it is…
AHS Heraldic Primer, page 5, article 1, para 3…
"None of this is required or even customary in American heraldry…
If an American adopts new arms then the use of brissures is entirely at the discretion of that armiger and his or her descendants."
David_T;97002 wrote:
AHS Heraldic Primer, page 5, article 1, para 3…
"None of this is required or even customary in American heraldry…
If an American adopts new arms then the use of brissures is entirely at the discretion of that armiger and his or her descendants."
I don’t have it in me to content the point with you right now.
Festive Solstice!
steven harris;97003 wrote:
I don’t have it in me to content the point with you right now.
Festive Solstice!
And to you and yours.
From the International Heraldry & Heralds site:
"Although textbooks on heraldry agree on the English system of cadency set out above, most heraldic examples ignore cadency marks altogether. Oswald Barron, in an influential article on Heraldry in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, noted:
"Now and again we see a second son obeying the book-rules and putting a crescent in his shield or a third son displaying a molet, but long before our own times the practice was disregarded, and the most remote kinsman of a gentle house displayed the "whole coat" of the head of his family."
Nay brisures.
Some like the notion of brisures, some don’t—outside of Scotland & Canada, they’re optional.
But the nature of a useful system of brisures is, first & foremost, to preserve the visual identity of the the family, and secondarily to distinguish between various members of the family. Brisures (cadency marks) typically are minor additions to, or deletions from, the basic arms of the family. In your case, maybe vary the chief from engrailed to invested or indented, etc., or add one of the usual English cadenbcy marks (crescent, star, etc.) or maybe a bordure; or maybe use a different form of crosses on the chief, or substitute some other small charge for the crosses. The basic design—a tree on a white field with a clue chief sporting small charges, would still visually tie the family together.
Changing the tree to a bull, or some other quite different charge, suggests that there are two unrelated families that both happen to like blue chiefs with small crosses as, respectively, secondary & terciary elements in their arms. For better or worse, the largest distinctive charge will likely be the strongest visual focus.
You and your brother can, of course, do as you wish; but you should at least consider whether the system you choose will strengthen or weaken the visual tie of family identity.
(Please note that both designs are IMO quite nice; they just don’t say "brothers" to me—maybe at most distant cousins, or maybe unrelated neighbors .)
I am one of those who dislikes the idea of attributing arms to one who has not assumed or inherited himself in his own lifetime.
I agree with the approach David has taken here, although I would only difference the animal charges and keep the chiefs the same. Just my opinion of course.
Happy holidays! :D
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;97010 wrote:
I am one of those who dislikes the idea of attributing arms to one who has not assumed or inherited himself in his own lifetime.
I agree with the approach David has taken here, although I would only difference the animal charges and keep the chiefs the same. Just my opinion of course.
Happy holidays! :D
Whatever you and your brother do—and there is ample precedent for brothers being granted or assuming totally different designs—your sons and grandsons decidedly should not be considering assuming arms but rather inheriting them. New assumptions of different designs, generation after generation, defeat the purpose of heraldic arms.
Indeed, the passages you quote from Oswald Barron and the primer on our website (the principle is in our AHS guidelines as well) all go to disparage the idea of any changes, even such trivial ones as the addition of the tiny English cadency marks.
Ditto Joe, & contra Jeff’s position—but we’ve chewed that plug often enough. As is patently obvious, our membership is of varying opinions on a variety of points, which helps keep the discussion lively.
JBG—Pfft!
I would recommend, however, that you find something relatively unique which can remain consistent throughout the family lineage… like, for example, two ravens proper jointly transfixed by an arrow fesswise point to sinister Or….
Just a similar division might lose the familial relationships faster than you wish…
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, They have 2,1, and 5-sons respectively, and in turn they have produced nearly 20-sons between them.
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.