In the face of a variety of systems for heraldic inheritance with varying degrees of userfrieldlyness I thought up a slightly simpler system borrowing from several traditions for my little corner of the gene pool. I’d like to know what you knowledgable types think of it.
The oldest son and all the daughters would inherit their father’s shield, with no change, and a unique crest. Any subsiquent sons would take a unique crest and their father’s shield with some significant cosmetic difference (addition/subtration of a charge, change in tinctures etc.) but at the same time maintaining aconnection to the father’s shield. For instance, If I were to have two sons some time in the future, the oldest would take my shield and his own crest; the youngest would make some subtle yet noticable change to my shield (perhaps change the field to Or, or change the charge in the first quarter) also with his own crest…
Does that make any sence??? I’m not sure if it does… hmm…
I think that it makes sense but the specifics of how it is actually done requires sight of the arms. It might also be too drastic - but that depends on the arms. Are your arms the same as your avatar?
If the arms were a simple Argent a cross Gules then a tincture change to Argent a cross Azure would imply no relationship to many viewers
If the arms were Argent on a cross Gules cantoned by four widgets Azure five thingummies Or, then the same tincture change for the cross is less dramatic and the arms look as if the armigers are related because so many aspects remain the same.
If there is an ordinary in the design then a simple way of dealing with cadency is to vary the edges of the ordinary. Continuing with the Argent on a cross Gules cantoned by four widgets Azure five thingummies Or theme then the cross could be engrailed, invected, wavy, dovetailed or embattled or whatever - even nebuly if you can stand it :D That should cover even a large first generation.
Thereafter in this example the central thingummy could be replaced with an appropriate different charge and so on.
Just some ideas.
James
Unfortunately I am not one of the knowledgeable types here - still a babe in the woods. However, if you are going to have a system of cadency, which I personally do not support anymore, then I would say your system sounds as good as any I’ve seen so far.
8)
Quote:
Unfortunately I am not one of the knowledgeable types here - still a babe in the woods. However, if you are going to have a system of cadency, which I personally do not support anymore, then I would say your system sounds as good as any I’ve seen so far.
:cool:
Dennis, why don’t you support a system of cadency anymore?
In lots of ways I feel it ties the direct family all together and makes your arms in lots of ways a genealogical stepladder for future generations. OK I know in the US you do not have to go down this rout and neither do some other European countries but in my own opinion (for what its worth) there is a great historical tradition behind cadency.
Its great to look at a persons arms for example and at a glance be able to say, "Oh that’s the second son of Joe Blog’s 2nd son".
Donnchadh wrote:
Unfortunately I am not one of the knowledgeable types here - still a babe in the woods. However, if you are going to have a system of cadency, which I personally do not support anymore, then I would say your system sounds as good as any I’ve seen so far.
8)
The other choice would be to leave the shield exactly as it is for all decendants, each with their own crest… And, quite frankly, it hasn’t mattered yet. The last three generations there has only been one son, several daughters but only one son.
Here’s the progression I… for the visually minded
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/5882/dadshieldandcrestcopy7fb.th.jpg—> http://img427.imageshack.us/img427/8748/shieldandcrestcopy6li.th.jpg—> http://img427.imageshack.us/img427/4091/everettivcopy3ke.th.jpg and second son http://img427.imageshack.us/img427/186/secontson3vv.th.png
It is all conjecture, I have no sons, and my father and grandfather each only had one (my father and me). This is more just in the name of establishing a precident and I could (probably should) wait untill it is relevant… but still, what do y’all think?
Speaking as always only for myself—
first choise, why bother with cadency at all? Our families are not usually so large that we don’t know each other, and IMO the family identification is more important, and more relevant in our time & place, than individual differentiation (after all, how many modern Americans will go into battle along with with multiple siblings/cousins, all with our face covered and only our heraldic emblems to tell us apart?).
In other situations, even if there are two of you, each of you knows who the other one is (ain’t me, gotta be Fred…)
Second choice—if you anticipate situations where you really need or want individual heraldic differences (e.g. large family reunion where you want to identify the various far-flung branches at e.g. separate tables for each branch at the big family picnic), why not use one or the other of the existing systems? Not that they are perfect—they aren’t! - but (a) at least the knowledgeable observer will recognize & interpret them correctly, and (b) will your own system really be any better? Your 4th illustration, for example, with the shield tincture changed from silver to gold, doesn’t suggest a brother or younger son; rather it suggests a distant cousin from a distant location, or perhaps a different family altogether.
Third choice—if you must difference & don’t like the usual systems, at least follow James Dempster’s suggestions & make the differences in the minor rather than major features of the arms. Even then, however, the visual suggestion will be "strangers in blood."
But as noted at the start, just my opinions…
Michael F. McCartney wrote:
Speaking as always only for myself—
first choise, why bother with cadency at all? Our families are not usually so large that we don’t know each other, and IMO the family identification is more important, and more relevant in our time & place, than individual differentiation (after all, how many modern Americans will go into battle along with with multiple siblings/cousins, all with our face covered and only our heraldic emblems to tell us apart?).
Hmm… you’re probably right, I’ve created a so-so solution in need of a problem…. I suppose that makes the discussion moot… as if the fact that the situation doesn’t yet exist didn’t already…
ESmith wrote:
Here’s the progression I… for the visually minded
It is all conjecture, I have no sons, and my father and grandfather each only had one (my father and me). This is more just in the name of establishing a precident and I could (probably should) wait untill it is relevant… but still, what do y’all think?
I think using the part of the cross in chief for UK cadency marks (Argent on Gules) would be very attractive, or leave them off altogether.
Hi John. Here’s why I no longer support a cadency system.
One, as others have pointed out there is not now, nor had there ever been, a system of primogeniture inheritance in American society. As such, it seems rather artificial to introduce it in heraldry.
Two, in my experience in the American life the importance of family is at the least on par, if not greater (and in my family tends to be greater), than that of individual. For example, MY GGG-Granddad had 9 kids (5 boys and 4 girls) after he came over from Armagh, Ireland. Two died very early (1 boy at a couple of years and another in his teens). My GG-Granddad had 8 kids (5 boys and 3 girls) and he was the eldest son of the previous relation after the two year old son died. My G-Granddad had 6 kids (3 boys and 3 girls) and he was the second son of the aforementioned. MY Granddad had 3 kids (1 girl through adoption upon marriage and 2 boys of his own) and he was third son of the aforementioned. My dad had 3 kids (2 boys and 1 girl) and he was the youngest son of the aforementioned. I had 1 kid (1 girl) who did not make it alive out of pregnancy and I am my father’s oldest son; my brother has 4 kids (2 boys and 2 girls) with the second boy dieing in the 7th month. Now I lay this all out because when we all get together in either Iowa or Nebraska (the two states where my GGG-Granddad had American Frontier Homesteads [ranches for pioneers]) or here in Colorado we do not see each other as distant cousins at all. In fact we act like and see each other very much like brothers and sisters. So, in our family while the individual is important (as an artist I am very individually minded) the family is even more so. For us it is a core element of who we are. To introduce cadency in a way that is practiced in heraldry it would be like placing artificial boundaries up between ourselves and neither I, nor anyone of my aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. would much like, let alone go for.
Three, given my own family’s level of numerical development, as mentioned above, one can see that at our family reunions there is always in excess of a coupe hundred people who are in fact related in one degree or another, if we were to take a step back and look at the possibility of a single coat of arms being used by the patriarch of our little family and then differencing them in either the English or Scottish tradition by the time the arms reached me and my kid they would be so overblown with cadency marks so as to make the arms not only less of a heraldic statement that is simple, clean and direct, but more of an genealogical labyrinth that would assuredly be visually grotesque to say the very least.
These three reasons are why I decided in cooperation with Dad and Pat, that to introduce cadency would be a mistake in our situation. Instead we have decided to keep the arms the same and change the crests, as crests were more of a jousting tournament novelty that simply caught on anyway. And it was either Fox-Davies, or Neubecker, or Lynch-Robinson, I forget which that mentioned that when they were first introduced that it was not uncommon to see the same knight or lord or whatever use different crests at different tournaments. So, if they were not so fixed in their initial usage why not do that for ourselves? In this way we make our own arms individually unique and yet show our common familial relationship. To our way of thinking this makes perfect sense in that it protects both the family connection and the individuality of heraldry while all the while retaining beautiful artistic expression in the arms themselves.
This does not even take into consideration the problem I first noticed in cadency; namely, that at what point do the strict rules of cadency bend? Say Armiger 1 has three sons. Son 1 dies at 15. Son 2 has no male sons. And son 3 has 2 of his own. In this case where does the ball stop bouncing on who has the right to the un-differenced arms? – Especially when their children are introduced into the equation and so on down the line. To my way of thinking cadency is good only up to a point and then it falters terribly. I see the changing of crests as more logical and practical. But, that is only me and as I said I am still a babe in the woods of this great forest of heraldry.
The British royal family has an interesting way of showing differences by putting the cadency marks on labels, and thus leaving the shield the same for all family members. That way, everyone’s arms are unique, yet the same.
I’m not sure that’s a good idea for everyone, but certainly an option.
For a comprehensive discussion of this topic see rec.-heraldry, "A Case for
‘Family Arms’ in America. From: S.D. Ullman, Date: Saturday, May 11, 1996.
The thread contains 76 responses. Besides, I don’t know if it is possible or legal to cut and paste something like this.
Admittedly I’m not a computer wiz, however every time I ‘Google’ rec.heraldry I come up with either the FAQs or a roll of arms and that’s basically it. So, how does one access these articles that everyone mentions from time to time?
Donnchadh wrote:
Admittedly I’m not a computer wiz, however every time I ‘Google’ rec.heraldry I come up with either the FAQs or a roll of arms and that’s basically it. So, how does one access these articles that everyone mentions from time to time?
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=A+Case+for+Family+Arms’+in+America&qt_s=Search
Try http://groups.google.com/group/rec.heraldry. There’s a "search this group" function on that page.
thanx…got it…took a bit but after updating my ie browser there it was in between all the others i had clicked on previously…along with some others i hadn’t seen before…thanx.
