Hi All,

A couple days ago when I joined the forum, my thought was to reflect my heritage.  A response from Colin stating that I can have an american style arms got me thinking back to a design I have had in mind for many years.  With this thought I went to work on putting it into graphical form since my ability to explain myself and ideas in blazon are limited if not non existent.  The image below I am sure will seem a bit clipartish…that is because I am not an artist so I had to hunt and clip to find stuff….sorry.

Here are the reasons and meanings of each item to me.

The chequy Azure and Argent - displays my connection to Clan Stewart.  It is a long story that I will gladly share if anyone is interested.  But the base is my birth last name is a Sept of Clan Stewart.  I even got married kilted

Your comments, thoughts and advise are very welcome.

Possibly:

Sanguine above an elephant statant bearing on it’s back a tower, a rose Argent, a tierce chequy Azure and Argent

lol - yours makes far more sense then my backwards jumble of confusion   I’m learning thou.  Thank you!

I’ve never dealt with a tierce before, but I would imagine it be better to list the tierce first. I think a tierce is a primary charge like fess or a pale, and so is listed first before the secondary charges. Even if it isn’t, it’s still better to start on the dexter side and work left, rather than start left and jump right. Terry, be sure to specify colours for he elephant and tower. As for the rose, I believe "barbed and seeded proper" needs to be tacked on.

Side note Terry, "on a chief" describes how the stars are on my arms. A chief is, for lack of a better description, a big strip at the top of a shield. "In chief," on the other hand, indicates a location.

Allow me to finish Daniel’s explaination:  His three mullets are "on a chief" while my three Celtic crosses are "in chief."  His’ chief" is another charge; my "in chief" is simply a position located in the top third of the shield.

Hi Terry. Kudos on your movement forward. Before this gets removed to the member’s only section, please let me say a couple of things I see as artist/heraldic artist.

One, from an artistic POV proper utilization of space is important. When you have a larger – both length and height – piece (towered elephant) below in a smaller space and a smaller piece (rose) up in a larger area the whole appears very much off balance. You can achieve the same thing (your desired symbolism) with a much better use of space by swapping the two – place the rose below the elephant. This way the piece appears in better harmony and is more balanced.

Two, having a tierce is an interesting choice. I will not make a strong effort to talk you out of it, for it is rather rare to my eyes for American heraldry. Having said that it is important to note that such a charge will contribute to making the whole appear off-balance and when combined with the very off-balance nature of the rose and elephant as they are now it makes the whole, well, you know. So if you are going to keep it you really must look to swap the other two.

Why a tierce anyway? Not that it is wrong…I’m just wondering. You could just as easily give a nod to your Stuart heritage with a fess, or chief or even a border checkered like your tierce. But, again you do not need to change the tierce like you do the other two in their placement only.

Have a good day.

Dcgb7f;53099 wrote:

I’ve never dealt with a tierce before, but I would imagine it be better to list the tierce first. I think a tierce is a primary charge like fess or a pale, and so is listed first before the secondary charges. Even if it isn’t, it’s still better to start on the dexter side and work left, rather than start left and jump right. Terry, be sure to specify colours for he elephant and tower. As for the rose, I believe "barbed and seeded proper" needs to be tacked on.

Well, I’m by no means an expert blazoner (is that a word?), but in the few places I’ve seen it, it’s usually treated like a chief.  So much like your blazon has the chief last, I think it makes sense to put the tierce last.  I’d be interested to see examples to the contrary though.

Good point about the rose details, although if that’s just the clipart he happened to have, and he doesn’t care about that detail…

So maybe:

Sanguine above an elephant statant bearing on it’s back a tower all Argent, a rose also Argent barbed and seeded proper; a tierce chequy Azure and Argent

Donnchadh;53104 wrote:

Why a tierce anyway? Not that it is wrong…I’m just wondering. You could just as easily give a nod to your Stuart heritage with a fess, or chief or even a border checkered like your tierce. But, again you do not need to change the tierce like you do the other two in their placement only.

Why not?

Due to discussion in another thread, I have to say I’m less sure it’s proper to treat a tierce as an ordinary.  Although this reference seems to support it, with the addition of the side it occupies.

http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/heraldry/charges/ordinaries_3.html

Sanguine above an elephant statant bearing on it’s back a tower all Argent, a rose also Argent barbed and seeded proper; a dexter tierce chequy Azure and Argent

yes, Kevin, this looks much better.

Daniel and Rev. Henry - Thank you for your guidance. I am attempting to learn.  I sort of feel like I am trying to learn French while standing in the middle of Paris )

<div class=“bbcode_center” >
I have never cared for the depiction of stone towers on the backs of heraldic elephants as it is obviously a factual error. It would be better to depict a howda instead rather than what some long dead uneducated European mistook for a tower.

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/5928/aa032ahb1.jpg
</div>

David Pritchard;53137 wrote:

I have never cared for the depiction of stone towers on the backs of heraldic elephants as it is obviously a factual error. It would be better to depict a howda instead rather than what some long dead uneducated European mistook for a tower.

Well, to disallow the tower on the elephant would be the same as disallowing heraldic antelopes, tygers, and panthers because they are based on what some long dead European mistook for a fabulous beast.  Just because it’s not realistic doesn’t mean it’s not good heraldry.

Now I will address your proposed design. In its present form it is most awkward, not only is is un-balanced but at least for me it is unpleasant to the eye. This does not mean that asymmetrical designs cannot be balanced, but rather that asymmetrical designs are much more difficult to balance especially for someone new to the field of heraldry.

The simplest way to balance the design would be to move the chequey area to the chief and eliminate the rose from the field, relegating it to the crest instead. By the way, it is most usual for a chequey pattern to be blazoned using the metal first rather than the tincture. Gules, an elephant Argent, a chief chequey Argent and Azure. Of course this blazon would give you a torse and mantling of Gules and Argent unless you were to blazon it otherwise.

Just remember that you have not had a coat-of-arms for most of your life so take the time to develop a good design rather than rush into it. So many people new to heraldry design their arms in a rush of excitement like a frantic child in a candy store. A good well developed heraldic design is much more satisfying than one concocted in a hurry.

Madalch;53138 wrote:

Well, to disallow the tower on the elephant would be the same as disallowing heraldic antelopes, tygers, and panthers because they are based on what some long dead European mistook for a fabulous beast.  Just because it’s not realistic doesn’t mean it’s not good heraldry.

My statement "I have never cared for the depiction of stone towers ..." was an opinion not a judicial ruling above appeal if you viewed it as such then I thank you for holding my thoughts on heraldry in such high regard.

Hi David,

Yes, it is a bit awkward in it’s present state.  but again, I was attempting just to put thoughts into form, first draft. :D

Respectfully,

Terry

David Pritchard;53139 wrote:

By the way, it is most usual for a chequey pattern to be blazoned using the metal first rather than the tincture. Gules, an elephant Argent, a chief chequey Argent and Azure.

If you blazon the metal first, then the top dexter square would be of metal- what he has drawn has Azure in that spot, so it must be blazoned "Chequey Azure and Argent".