[img]http://www.harvarddems.com/files/u2/crest.png” class=“bbcode_url”]

Interesting, rather charming shield that understatedly says it’s affiliated with Harvard. I’ve enquired about the attitude of the asses though.

Presumably their attitude is "anti-W"!

But if you mean heraldically, I think I would blazon it "kicking," or whatever the Anglo-Norman equivalent is.  I don’t recall ever seeing this in traditional heraldry, and doubt that the folks in the club will know, but we’ll see.

*edited by member*

If the back was arched, it would be a bucking ass:p

BTW, I do believe the Democrats refer to their mascot as a donkey, so it should be blazoned that way.

Joseph McMillan wrote:

BTW, I do believe the Democrats refer to their mascot as a donkey, so it should be blazoned that way.

I don’t think so.  Sure "the donkey" is a symbol of the Democratic Party, but blazon shouldn’t be an explanation of allusions or references—as the animal in question is universally called an "ass" in heraldry and there’s nothing here other than the bearer to distinguish it (shouldn’t the blazon be the same as if it were born by a British viscount?) it should be so called in the blazon, and left to the reader (as it would be a non-issue with the depiction) of the blazon to say to himself that the donkey is a Democratic symbol.

Joseph McMillan wrote:

Presumably their attitude is "anti-W"!

But if you mean heraldically, I think I would blazon it "kicking," or whatever the Anglo-Norman equivalent is.  I don’t recall ever seeing this in traditional heraldry, and doubt that the folks in the club will know, but we’ll see.

I was in correspondence with Garrett Dash Nelson, their Communications Director, and I haven’t gotten that far yet discussing the blazon with him but he describes them as "in kick", though it’s not clear from the context if that is how he thinks they should be blazoned.  I’ve e-mailed him back and am awaiting a further response.

Daniel C. Boyer wrote:

I don’t think so. Sure "the donkey" is a symbol of the Democratic Party, but blazon shouldn’t be an explanation of allusions or references—as the animal in question is universally called an "ass" in heraldry and there’s nothing here other than the bearer to distinguish it (shouldn’t the blazon be the same as if it were born by a British viscount?) it should be so called in the blazon, and left to the reader (as it would be a non-issue with the depiction) of the blazon to say to himself that the donkey is a Democratic symbol.

For one thing, the fact that "ass" has other connotations, particularly in a political context.  Democrats call it a donkey; I would call it a donkey.  It’s not like an artist is going to be in any doubt as to what a donkey looks like.

There’s lots of flexibility in blazon to accommodate things like puns, etc.  If the bearer was named Burroughs, and the arms showed three asses, I would happily blazon them as burros.  If I were designing arms for a state and used the state bird or animal as a crest or supporters, and the bird or animal was called one thing in traditional blazon and another in the statute adopting it as a state symbol, or in common use, I’d use the statutory or common term, not the obscure heraldic one.

Joseph McMillan wrote:

For one thing, the fact that "ass" has other connotations, particularly in a political context.  Democrats call it a donkey; I would call it a donkey.  It’s not like an artist is going to be in any doubt as to what a donkey looks like.

And if an artist were in any doubt as to what an ass looked like, he’d be, well…

Quote:

There’s lots of flexibility in blazon to accommodate things like puns, etc.

I suppose, but this is not a canting coat.  At any rate, it’s cleverer, subtler, more sophisticated and more in keeping with the heraldic practice over the centuries to finesse the pun, not club someone over the head with it—I’m really at a loss why anyone or any entity (TIOH for example) promotes and defends the incremental dumbing-down of heraldry.  After we remove everything about it that was why we fell in love with it in the first place (the romantic use of language, everything adding up to its mystique that is not just another form of logotyping), what is there left to care about?  But as this coat isn’t canting, all this is moot.

Quote:

If the bearer was named Burroughs, and the arms showed three asses, I would happily blazon them as burros.

Well, this is debatable.  I tend to feel one way about this, and I suppose we may say that it comes down to how one feels about humour, and also with whether one views the blazon as the joke, or the coat as it appears (the Oxford Guide to Heraldry takes one side in this, mine, but I’m well aware that there’s a colourable other one).  If one goes in for the de-dum-dum, Catskills, kind of humour, fine.

Quote:

If I were designing arms for a state and used the state bird or animal as a crest or supporters, and the bird or animal was called one thing in traditional blazon and another in the statute adopting it as a state symbol, or in common use, I’d use the statutory or common term, not the obscure heraldic one.

But I’ll just go far as to say there’s absolutely no analogy here.  Ass isn’t an obscure heraldic term and indeed isn’t essentially part of heraldic terminology, period.

Daniel C. Boyer wrote:

After we remove everything about it that was why we fell in love with it in the first place (the romantic use of language, everything adding up to its mystique that is not just another form of logotyping), what is there left to care about?

I guess if all you fell in love with was blazonry, nothing. How on earth heraldry continues to flourish in countries that use normal language to describe arms, God only knows.

By the way, I’ve taken the liberty of replacing the image in the original post with one that shows the full arms, "On a red field, a silver chevron between three silver kicking donkeys."

Daniel C. Boyer wrote:

I tend to feel one way about this, and I suppose we may say that it comes down to how one feels about humour, and also with whether one views the blazon as the joke….

Canting heraldry isn’t about humour- it’s about being obvious.

I can’t imagine anyone either laughing or groaning at burros in the arms of Burroughs, or a swan in the arms of Swann.  It’s simply a representation of the person’s name, not of their sense of humour.

Evidently John P. Brooke-Little, late Clarenceux King of Arms, founder of the Heraldry Society, and editor of Boutell’s Heraldry also had a "dum de dum, Catskills, kind of humour":

Quote:

In blazoning, where possible a term should be used which preserves the allusion to the name; e.g. for Corbett, three corbies rather than three ravens.

<div class=“bbcode_right” >
—Boutell’s Heraldry (1973 ed), p. 101
</div>