I updated the wiki entry on the American College of Heraldry and Arms, or rather, I added links to stubs about the officers. I would welcome anyone adding to these brief bios.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Heraldry_and_Arms
Mike,
Nice job, but a couple of glitches in the description of the arms on the seal:
Per pale Gules a castle Or and Argent a Lion rampant Purpure (9) on an Escutcheon over all Argent six Pallets Gules on a Chief Azure thirteen Mullets Argent. It should be noted that the escutcheon is an erroneous representation of the arms of the United States of America, which correctly should not have mullets (stars) on the chief.
Also, I thought I recalled that the fimbriation in the LBJ arms was silver and the star and eagles gold. I’ll have to check my files at home to say for sure.
Joseph McMillan wrote:
Mike,
Nice job, but a couple of glitches in the description of the arms on the seal:
Per pale Gules a castle Or and Argent a Lion rampant Purpure (9) on an Escutcheon over all Argent six Pallets Gules on a Chief Azure thirteen Mullets Argent. It should be noted that the escutcheon is an erroneous representation of the arms of the United States of America, which correctly should not have mullets (stars) on the chief.
Also, I thought I recalled that the fimbriation in the LBJ arms was silver and the star and eagles gold. I’ll have to check my files at home to say for sure.
The blazons were already there, but I updated the one in the caption based on the information you supplied above. As for the US arms being misrepresented, I am not sure of their intent. Perhaps it was to follow the law and not use the US arms?
Why would they exclude helms from crest in their grants? This seems illogical; people are not the same as corporations be they civic, non-profit, religious or commercial. If that is your choice - fine. But to do so as a rule seems very strange.
Donnchadh wrote:
Why would they exclude helms from crest in their grants? This seems illogical; people are not the same as corporations be they civic, non-profit, religious or commercial. If that is your choice - fine. But to do so as a rule seems very strange.
I am still trying to find where their historical papers (grants, documents, etc.) are located. Little is known about their activities, which appear extensive.
Mike wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps it was to follow the law and not use the US arms?
There is no law prohibiting private use of the US arms. There is a law prohibiting misuse of the US great seal, which to me means an image of the arms (surrounded by an annulet) in the same emblazonment as they appear on the actual seal. Certainly marshalling the shield of the arms as part of a bigger composition, while heraldically bad (Mr. Scotland, whose mother was born Miss Sweden, whose mother was Miss Ireland, etc., and who is married to Miss United States, a heraldic heiress), would not be illegal.
RE: omitting helmets—did they try to say that using helmets was "wrong"? Or did they just decline including (depicting) the helmet in their "grants"—thus sidestepping questions as to which helmets were or were not appropriate in an American context? —thus leaving the decision as wo when/how/what etc. to the individual?
Thank you, Michael, for the the informative Wlki article on the ACHA. I have never come across a reason as to why the ACHA would omit the helm. Its goal was to become the "College of Arms" of the US. To that extent it seemed to have developed its own standards. The whyfore of those standards, I do not know. I have been unable to trace the present location of its papers. The decendents of the founders do not reply to inquiries. My guess is that the papers no longer exist.
st_louis_herald wrote:
My guess is that the papers no longer exist.
Any possibility copies were sent to the Library of Congress?