Joseph McMillan;49821 wrote:
Doing a quick search of "per bend az. and arg.", I find nothing in Papworth or Balfour Paul that would conflict with Fred’s design. You might also try googling French and German versions of the blazon to see if anything turns up elsewhere. Probably not, but you never know.
Papworth’s is not the easiest armorial to use but it has proved to be a very useful addition to my own library and I encourage everyone in the Society to buy a copy when they have a chance. Looking under between a fess, the closest listing that I could find to the proposed design was Per pale gu. and az. a fess wavy Arg. between three crosses formy Or.
I would be psyched if "Per bend Azure and Argent, a fess between six crosses paty counterchanged" were indeed an original design, though it isn’t a tremendou problem if it is, because I also like it with a bordure sable around it, perhaps charged with six or eight mullets argent. Is that too plain? Are bordures encompassed in the no color on color/metal on metal rule?
As for the crest . .
Joseph McMillan;49622 wrote:
A mullet sable alone bothers me, once again, as too simple. Perhaps you might charge it with one or more crosses paty as in the arms?
It is a very simple design, but I find it curiously enigmatic—a dark star on a ducal coronet. I feel like I haven’t seen anything like it in contemporary COAs. As per earlier advice, I sketched it charged with a cross paty argent, and wasn’t quite feeling it. I do like it pierced pretty well, and even though that might not go far towards differencing, in tandem with the other differences, I think it would cut the mustard. Of course, if the other differences would let me off the hook for changing the crest at all, I’d be happiest.
But, as has been well-established in other threads 
, I’m not one of the experts around here.
It occurred to me about 15 minutes ago that switching the mullet of five points for what seems to be a Marian star—six points, but not a Star of David—might be appropriate, since I am a convert to Catholicism and Marian devotion is central to my life these days. (Habersham, it so happens, was a very zealous companion of George Whitefield, and goodness knows what his view of "Popery" would be, though conversion he would understand). But I don’t think a star of six points looks too hot sitting on a ducal coronet Or.
And then there’s the greyhound. Decisions, decisions.
Again, I am grateful for any and all feedback on this!
fwhite;49825 wrote:
As for the crest . .
It is a very simple design, but I find it curiously enigmatic—a dark star on a ducal coronet. I feel like I haven’t seen anything like it in contemporary COAs. As per earlier advice, I sketched it charged with a cross paty argent, and wasn’t quite feeling it. I do like it pierced pretty well, and even though that might not go far towards differencing, in tandem with the other differences, I think it would cut the mustard. Of course, if the other differences would let me off the hook for changing the crest at all, I’d be happiest.
Then retain the crest as you like it. It is the design of the shield itself that truly requires individuality. Many people bear the same crest and/or motto.
Patrick Williams;49836 wrote:
Then retain the crest as you like it. It is the design of the shield itself that truly requires individuality. Many people bear the same crest and/or motto.
Same motto: absolutely no problem.
Same crest: OK if coincidental, but (in my view, and as I think we say in the guidelines) not OK if an intentional copy. Since there is evidently a family connection in this case, it bothers me a bit less, but I still think that since it’s the Habersham crest and Fred’s not a Habersham, some type of differencing would be preferable. Removing the crest coronet and placing the mullet on a torse might be enough; what do others think?
One thought that is a minimal change is to enfile the crest coronet with the Marian star. This can work because the star is six-pointed and would probably unique.
Such enfiling is used in some of the badges of Scottish heralds which can be seen on the HSS website at http://www.heraldry-scotland.co.uk/officearms.html
James
fwhite;49825 wrote:
Are bordures encompassed in the no color on color/metal on metal rule?
They’re exempt.
I like the design. If it turns out that you add a bordure, I’m still not sold on a sable one. The main reason is that it will barely contrast with the azure part of the field. Heraldry was originally created to be easily recognizable at a distance, and black on blue wouldn’t be very easy to distinguish. That happened to be the comment on my arm’s original tinctures (az. & v.); they don’t contrast all that well. So although there is nothing forcing you to not use a sable bordure, you should still try follow that general principle.
Quote:
It occurred to me about 15 minutes ago that switching the mullet of five points for what seems to be a Marian star—six points, but not a Star of David—might be appropriate, since I am a convert to Catholicism and Marian devotion is central to my life these days. (Habersham, it so happens, was a very zealous companion of George Whitefield, and goodness knows what his view of "Popery" would be, though conversion he would understand). But I don’t think a star of six points looks too hot sitting on a ducal coronet Or.
Actually, I think I prefer the mullet of six over the mullet of five in your design. Not for what it means, just because I like the look. The only think I would highlight regarding the mullet of six points is that it can legitimately be emblazoned to look like a Star of David because both are mullets of six points. I saw one College of Arms design with Star of David looking mullet of six that were described as "ridged." The best I can figure is that this was done to specify that those mullets should be emblazoned like a Star of David everytime and not as a Marian Star. In the end, I don’t think it’s a huge deal. I’ve seen the mullets on my arms emblazoned to look like Stars of David, when like yours they a supposed to be Marian Stars.
All these suggestions are helpful. If the bordure sable will fail to be visible, and there’s basic agreement that the shield as specified looks good without any bordure (and doesn’t require another difference to be original), then perhaps moving on to seeking a difference in the crest is the next step. I think the shield as is has a way of being easy on the eyes—legible, good contrast, a combination of basic geometrical shapes, cool (temperature) color combination, etc.
My only concern about the mullet of six points is that it might appear to be floating above the coronet (which I want to keep), whereas one of five points strikes me as clearly sitting on it. Symbolically, there is—come to think of it—some resonance in my biography with the Star of David (Jewish step siblings, girlfriends, some time on a kibbutz in Israel, etc.), so it wouldn’t necessarily be bad if I went with a mullet of six points and it got rendered that way. Does anyone else think the mullet of six points looks better than the mullet of five? What about "mullet of five points sable charged with a mullet of six points argent"?
The idea James had about enfiling the coronet with the Marian star sounds good. Maybe that’s enough of a difference by itself.
Despite these precedents (along with Adams/Boylston) . . .
Van Santvoord/Manton
http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/pmwiki.php?n=Roll.V
Wheeler/Pepperell
http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/pmwiki.php?n=Roll.W
and despite early training which taught me to see myself as a member of the Milledge-Habersham clan and forget about all other lines, I accept the principle that in America, taking arms from outside the direct male line is in some sense usurpation, but I do think the kind of minimal differences we’ve discussed are adequate. Are we all on board with that idea?
And would I really be stopped by NEGHS, the American College of Heraldry, or whomever, from registering the undifferenced Habersham arms as my own given lineal descent, etc.? This is not to start a debate, just to find out.
fwhite;49843 wrote:
And would I really be stopped by NEGHS, the American College of Heraldry, or whomever, from registering the undifferenced Habersham arms as my own given lineal descent, etc.? This is not to start a debate, just to find out.
Yes, I think you probably would be. The format of the Habersham (Haversham) arms is so typical of medieval English armory that any serious registry would immediately check for duplication, and among the first places they would look would be Papworth’s Ordinary and the standard American armorials (Crozier, Bolton, Matthews, Vermont). These arms are listed in Papworth as those of Haversham and in Crozier’s General Armory as those of James Habersham of Savannah, Ga., 1740.
Joseph McMillan;49844 wrote:
Yes, I think you probably would be. The format of the Habersham (Haversham) arms is so typical of medieval English armory that any serious registry would immediately check for duplication.
I’ll trust your judgment, Joe.
Maybe my imagination is failing me, but I think I want the difference in the crest to just be "pierced of the field" for the mullet sable. I know that in early COAs, pierced was sometimes understood even when not specified, but the bottom line is that the Habersham arms don’t specify that, so it is a difference. Perhaps the ducal coronet or could be changed to a coronet or of three fleurs-de-lis as well.
Caveats? Warnings? Threats?:)
fwhite;49848 wrote:
Perhaps the ducal coronet could be changed to a coronet of three fleurs-de-lis as well.
This is in reality a coronet of four fleurs-de-lys but with only one fleur-de-lys wholly visible between two two fleurs-de-lys partially visible. This coronet is known in English heraldry (but not Scottish heraldry) as an ancient coronet.
fwhite;49848 wrote:
Maybe my imagination is failing me, but I think I want the difference in the crest to just be "pierced of the field" for the mullet sable. I know that in early COAs, pierced was sometimes understood even when not specified, but the bottom line is that the Habersham arms don’t specify that, so it is a difference. Perhaps the ducal coronet or could be changed to a coronet or of three fleurs-de-lis as well.
Caveats? Warnings? Threats?:)
When on a shield, a mullet pierced is understood to be pierced of the field unless some other tincture is specified. In a crest, there is no field; if some other tincture isn’t specified, the artist should simply depict the mullet with a round hole in the center, with the background showing through.
Hmm. Well, then, I guess what we come to is:
Shield: Per bend Azure and Argent, a fess between six crosses paty counterchanged.
Crest: A mullet sable pierced on a coronet of four fleurs-de-lys Or.
Fred,
Is this what you had in mind?
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e221/pblanton/White-4.jpg
That was soooooo much easier to draw than the greyhound with cotton sprig. I personally like the greyhound, though, as it was much more unique.
David Pritchard wrote:
This is in reality a coronet of four fleurs-de-lys but with only one fleur-de-lys wholly visible between two two fleurs-de-lys partially visible. This coronet is known in English heraldry (but not Scottish heraldry) as an ancient coronet.
It is also known as a ducal coronet. Per Parker, "A coronet without the cap, and shewing but three leaves, is called a Ducal coronet, and frequently a Ducal crown." Shown without the cap of maintenance it represents no rank.
Take care,
