Very nice badges Everett!
Hassan, I am sorry that I gave the impression that I was using those specific charges as a badge. I just meant to say an example to show Trent of a badge derived from one’s coat of arms. The crescent and three stars argent is just the first thing that popped into my head. Sorry about the mixup!
Cheers,
Kelisli wrote:
...
Mohamed,
I am afraid that your use of a shield or circelt, that is: Vert, a crescent and three five pointed starts Argent would not be advised. That would be the pre-revolution Egyptian flag and that would be claiming that you are the monarchist Egyptian government (pre-1952).
A wee bit off topic (kinda-sorta), but I just found this badge on e-bay and thought you’d apreciate its design:
http://imagehost.vendio.com/bin/imageserver.x/00000000/jebmil/k613.jpg
US Civil War 7th Corps 2nd Division badge, 1861-1865
E-Bay: here
Cheers,
—Guy
Guy Power wrote:
A wee bit off topic (kinda-sorta), US Civil War 7th Corps 2nd Division badge, 1861-1865
This Army Corps was formed for the second time on 6 January 1864. The Department of Arkansas as of March of 1865 encompassed the State of Arkansas and the Indian Territory with its headquarters at Little Rock. I suspect that the use of the crescent and star in this form which is a symbol of the City of New Orleans, has something to do with the founder of the first US Army 7th Corps that was formed in 1862 by Major General John Dix who became famous for his telegram sent in 1861 while he was the US Treasury Secretary to federal agents in New Orleans instructing them: "If any one attempts to haul down the American flag, shoot him on the spot."
<div class=“bbcode_center” >
Flag of the US Army 7th Corps 2nd Division, Department of Arkansas.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0e/VIIcorpsbadge2.png
</div>
As a US Civil War buff, I did these some time ago for a friend. I believe it has most of the badges used at that time in color. On some of the designs you can see some logic, some not so clear.
Brian wrote:
As a US Civil War buff, I did these some time ago for a friend. I believe it has most of the badges used at that time in color. On some of the designs you can see some logic, some not so clear.
I think that its interesting that while the 1st Corps (now pronounced "eye" Corps) maintained the shape, but not the color of their shoulder insignia...
Kelisli,
Thanks for that post. So when considering the tincture of a badge, one should factor in the intended livery colors as well? That is, should one choose a tincture for the badge that will contrast well with the livery colors just in case one intends to use the livery colors as a background?
Should the intended livery colors, if different from the colors of the arms, be mentioned in the blazon of the badge, or just taken into personal consideration as mentioned above?
Does a charge on a roundel count as a badge? For instance, in the post above Everett has a boar’s head on a roundel that contains his cross and he says that that device is his badge. Is the entire device considered to be the badge or is the boar’s head alone considered the badge? The same question goes for the image I’m posting in this post. Click on it to make it larger.
[IMG]http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4507/wingedserpentorkx2.th.jpg
Trent,
Badges don’t necessarily have to be comprised of the livery colors. I think I said this earlier in this post, but some badges were as simple as a piece of knotted rope (Duke of Buckingham during the War of the Roses). The avatar that I use is the badge that was emblazoned by Chap and blazoned by Nenad:
On a plate, an eagle displayed Sable charged on the breast with a fleur-de-lis, ensigned by a Latin Cross and within a bordure all Or
The badge doesn’t have to be displayed on a roundel or plate, if you look at David Pritchard’s badge, his is an Oak tree.
You could use your pricipal charge as your badge and have it stand alone, you could use charge surmounted by your crest, or you could use something completely different. It’s all up to you!:D
Trent wrote:
Does a charge on a roundel count as a badge? For instance, in the post above Everett has a boar’s head on a roundel and he says that is his badge. Is the entire device considered to be the badge or is the boar’s head alone considered the badge? The same question goes for the image I’m posting in this post.
Andrew J Vidal wrote:
The badge doesn’t have to be displayed on a roundel or plate, if you look at David Pritchard’s badge, his is an Oak tree.
Roundels (or any other shape for that matter) may be included in a badge, but they don’t have to be. In my case the roundel (specifically the plate) is part of the badge, but that doesn’t mean that a badge must include one (as noted above). My badge was created when I was a bit naive and so it came out rather simplistic, but I grew attached to it. Personally, as I think as noted above, I would say you should forget the liveries and use the winged serpent and fret bit as your badge.
Andrew,
I think Everett better understood what I was getting at in this last post. Let me explain what I was thinking.
David said earlier that a badge "should" be freestanding. Then Everett put up his badge, and it seemed to contradict that claim. Then Kelisli noted that some badges of nobility appeared on the livery colors in a circle, which was something I had seen before.
So was I just trying to figure out whether a badge either should or must be freestanding. Or if it was still considered freestanding if it appeard on a field of the livery colors. Or if the field of the livery colors was considered to be something separate from the badge, that is, main charge. Of if the two together were considered the badge.
It seems that Everett has answered the question, unless some others will post later disagreeing with him.
Everett, don’t have any misgivings about your badge. I think it is great. I can’t see what one would find wrong with it. It’s one of the better examples.
The earliest badges were freestanding. A modern badge should be freestanding. However, badges were often recorded upon a roundel of the liveries which gave rise to the long standing misconception that a badge was depicted upon a roundel when they were once again granted by the College of Arms early in the 20th century. In my own opinion using a roundel as a background mentally restricts the badge designer to the limitations of a traditional coat of arms. A field-less badge offers so much opportunity for design creativity.
By the way, my badge is an ash tree that is a variation of my crest. In Medieval times badges were more than often derived from the crest rather than from charges on the escutcheon.
This is a general thought, not directed at anyone in particular but if you have a heraldic design that you have assumed and you have decided through research, reading and general heraldic knowledge that the design is somehow lacking, I see no reason why you should not change your heraldic design to reflect your more developed heraldic tastes. My first coat of arms (which no one has seen) is one on record with the Chancellery of the Republic of Estonia from the early 1990’s. Later as my knowledge grew, my tastes changed. I took years designing my present arms, thinking through every plus and minus of the design. Thus far they have stood the test of time or at least the test of a decade.
David Pritchard wrote:
...when they were once again granted by the College of Arms early in the 20th century.
I don’t disagree with anything David says on the subject of badges, except that I question whether this was actually a matter of "once again." I’ve never seen any evidence that the English (or Scottish) kings of arms ever tried to regulate badges before they started granting them in the early 20th century. Certainly they recorded them, in the sense that heralds who knew a badge was used by a particular person or family of note would draw it in their books, but is there any record of their actually granting a badge before the practice was "revived" in the last century?
Quote:
This is a general thought, not directed at anyone in particular but if you have a heraldic design that you have assumed and you have decided through research, reading and general heraldic knowledge that the design is somehow lacking, I see no reason why you should not change your heraldic design to reflect your more developed heraldic tastes.
The reason I can see is that changes—especially repeated changes—tend to defeat the arms’ role as a form of identification. Rather as if someone changed his name every few years; he’d soon find his credit rating a complete disaster.
I wouldn’t say that a person can’t ever change his arms, but would urge really, really careful consideration before "officially" taking the plunge on a design in the first place.
*edited by member*
Joseph McMillan wrote:
I don’t disagree with anything David says on the subject of badges, except that I question whether this was actually a matter of "once again." I’ve never seen any evidence that the English (or Scottish) kings of arms ever tried to regulate badges before they started granting them in the early 20th century. Certainly they recorded them, in the sense that heralds who knew a badge was used by a particular person or family of note would draw it in their books, but is there any record of their actually granting a badge before the practice was "revived" in the last century?
I agree with you on this point that prior to the early 20th century badges were never granted officially, simply recorded.
Joseph McMillan wrote:
I wouldn’t say that a person can’t ever change his arms, but would urge really, really careful consideration before "officially" taking the plunge on a design in the first place.
Again Joseph very good advice. My main problem with my first arms was that I had adopted the livery colours and a charge from the arms of a family which I had thought I was descended only to find out later that my actual genealogy proved otherwise. Remember that when I was doing my initial research there was no AHS or IAAH with whom to consult. I only had my copy of Fox-Davies for heraldic guidance. I like to think of my first arms as being void because the premise for them was in error.
Sorry about the mistake David, I was trying to type on the run!
Trent wrote:
Kelisli,
Thanks for that post. So when considering the tincture of a badge, one should factor in the intended livery colors as well? That is, should one choose a tincture for the badge that will contrast well with the livery colors just in case one intends to use the livery colors as a background?
Should the intended livery colors, if different from the colors of the arms, be mentioned in the blazon of the badge, or just taken into personal consideration as mentioned above?
Does a charge on a roundel count as a badge?...The same question goes for the image I’m posting in this post…
Trent,
Sorry, I did not mean to ignore your question to me. I just did not see it until today. However, I think it has been thoroughly answered by many members and guests here. Let me know if you have any further questions.
Regards
