Arthur Radburn wrote:
A photo of a certificate issued in November 2005 ... shows the Bureau arms on the seal at the bottom, between the two signatures ... The national arms are at the top of the certificate ... As for the State Herald’s title, there seems to be some confusion. The Heraldry Act established the office under the title "State Herald", and as this section of the Act hasn’t been amended, this must still legally be the official title, and it’s also the title used in the Government Notices (the most recent being three weeks ago).
However, for the past 3-4 years, the registration certificates have evidently carried the title "National Herald". And I’ve seen Mr Mabaso referred to as the "Director of the Bureau of Heraldry", which would seem to be a description rather than a title.
A friend of mine from Rochester had a registration go through South Africa that was returned to him December. The document is just like Arthur describes. The current national arms are at the top. Below those are the arms being registered, then the description. Below that is the seal with the Bureau’s arms between Mr Mabaso’s signature (described as National Herald), and the signature of the Chairperson of the Heraldry Council. Below that are the date and the certificate number.
Daniel C. Boyer wrote:
The treatment of the roots (both artistically and in terms of the blazon) is truly elegant and beautiful.
I have to thank the Niagara Herald Extraordinary, Gordon Macpherson, for the ends of the roots being flory. I commissioned him to illustrate the badge simply as an ash tree eradicated the roots interlaced without any mention of how the ends of the roots should terminate. When I received the drawing, I was so pleased with this extra artistic touch that he added that it was incorporated into the official blazon that I registered with the Bureau of Heraldry. The badge and corresponding blazon are further proof that the simple design is superior to the complex design.
As for the blazons of arms in general, I strongly believe that the best designed arms have blazons of between six and twelve words in length.
David Pritchard wrote:
As for the blazons of arms in general, I strongly believe that the best designed arms have blazons of between six and twelve words in length.
Oh, no! My arms’ blazon has seventeen! Aaarrrggg! :o 
I am not certain how you blazon your arms but when I blazon your escutcheon I use only eight words:Azure, a couped cross within an orle Argent. Maybe you confused my statement about six to twelve words as encompassing the entire achievement rather than referring to the blazoning of the escutcheon only.
David Pritchard wrote:
It has been a standard practice of the Bureau of Heraldry to face the helm affronty or totally to the dexter in their renderings. This is the first South African registration that I have seen with the helm partially to the dexter. Could it be that a new heraldic artist has joined their staff?
My own South African registration went through back in 2001 and it has the tilting helm facing partially to the dexter. To my mind, it would have been preferable had the helmet faced completely to dexter considering the crest atop it (A griffin passant holding in its dexter claw a cross bottonny fitchee Or).
David Pritchard wrote:
As for the blazons of arms in general, I strongly believe that the best designed arms have blazons of between six and twelve words in length.
I tend to agree.
Blazon: "Gules a fess between two griffins passant Or"
Pritchard’s Coefficient= 8.00
David Pritchard wrote:
I am not certain how you blazon your arms but when I blazon your escutcheon I use only eight words:Azure, a couped cross within an orle Argent. Maybe you confused my statement about six to twelve words as encompassing the entire achievement rather than referring to the blazoning of the escutcheon only.
If you’ll go to the USHR’s website, you will then find that my shield is blazoned thus: Argent, within a border Azure an inescutcheon of the Second charged with a cross of the First. That’s seventeen words, but I was just trying to humorously make the point that sometimes the blazon might have a couple of extra words, yet still describe a simply stunning achievement. The blazon follows the emblazon, IMHO.
Stephen,
I did appreciate you humour, heraldry can always use more humour. It is interesting that we can both look at the same shield and one of us sees a white shield with blue markings and the other sees a blue shield with white markings. I believe it is the visual simplicity of your design that is the cause of this confusion. Another example of this would be the zebra, is it a white wild ass with black stripes or a black wild ass with white stripes?
While looking for something else, I came upon a scan of a certificate of registration from the Bureau of Heraldry for the Sovereign Military Order of Malta’s South African relief organisation, the Brotherhood Blessed Gerard.
David Pritchard wrote:
Another example of this would be the zebra, is it a white wild ass with black stripes or a black wild ass with white stripes?
A horse, palewise of seventeen pieces, Argent and Sable. :D
David Pritchard wrote:
As for the blazons of arms in general, I strongly believe that the best designed arms have blazons of between six and twelve words in length.
Interesting, although totally unacceptable, since my brilliantly designed arms could not possibly be blazoned in 12 words! (More like twice that many.)
As a follow on to the work on the "recommended guidelines" code in the members section, I’d been thinking about asking folks to help put together a piece on good arms design. It would build on C.A. von Volborth’s suggestions in The Art of Heraldry, but not stop there. I had played around with the idea of working not from the number of words in the blazon but the number of distinct graphic elements in the composition. The number of each of the same item wouldn’t matter: three fleurs-de-lys are one element, just like one, two or five fleurs de lys. A partition counts as an item.
Giving examples from Presidential arms:
Washington: 2 (bars, mullets)
Eisenhower: 1 (anvil)
Roosevelt: 1 (rosebush) or 2 (mound, rosebush)
Adams (Boylston): 5 (cross crosslets fitchy, chief, pellets, lions, fleur-de-lys)
Kennedy: 3 (helmets, bordure, per saltire)
Clinton: 4 (lion, bars, cross crosslets fitchy, shamrocks)
Reagan: 5 (bear, star, chief, coronet, falcon)
My idea was that fewer elements were better, but I’m stymied by the fact that I think Reagan’s arms are better designed than Clinton’s even though they have more elements.
Joseph McMillan wrote:
My idea was that fewer elements were better, but I’m stymied by the fact that I think Reagan’s arms are better designed than Clinton’s even though they have more elements.
I’d agree. For some reason I’m not really in love with the composition of the Clinton arms and there even seems to be something vaguely annoying about them.
I think there are three annoying things (esthetically) about the Clinton arms. One is the two-and-two arrangement of the surrounding charges, which creates crowding on a classic heater shield. The second is the use of every tincture in the basic palette except azure (and that appears in the crest). And the third is the hackneyed use of the shamrock to denote "Irish."
I find it hard to believe that "Or a lion rampant gules charged with three bars Argent" wouldn’t have been unique.
For reference, for those not familiar with them, my emblazonment of the Clinton arms from our Presidential arms series:
http://www.heraldrysociety.us/presidents/clinton_files/clinton.jpg
(Which reminds me: I forgot the olive branch in the lion’s paw—that makes five elements and therefore ties it with Reagan.)
