i have seen many people assume badges. even multiple badges. though, i can not believe they are being used for the purpose they were intended (though a loosely adhered purpose at that).
so, if i may ask, to what reason has anyone assumed badges or multiple badges?
xanderliptak;62698 wrote:
i have seen many people assume badges. even multiple badges. though, i can not believe they are being used for the purpose they were intended (though a loosely adhered purpose at that).
I believe that the assumption of a badge, more so with multiple badges, has to do with the exercise of one’s heraldic design energy and knowledge rather than a true desire to utilise the badge in the manner in which it was meant.
It should be mentioned that not all badges that have appeared on this forum have been assumed, some have been received through governmental heraldic authorities.
In my own case, the use of my badge in real life is limited to a signet ring (as my arms are too complicated for an engraver or would require an enormous ring to be distinguishable) a paper embosser and a rubber stamp.
Quote:
I believe that the assumption of a badge, more so with multiple badges, has to do with the exercise of one’s heraldic design energy and knowledge rather than a true desire to utilise the badge in the manner in which it was meant.
David has hit the nail on the head. I sometimes design ‘badges’ for myself, and I’m sure many others do as well, as visions of "arms that could have been"................:boohoo:
Cheers,
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I had thought of using the bean badge for a seal and when I saw the artwork for the popinjay’s head badge, I figured I could find some use for it. I would like to get artwork for a standard, although I don’t expect one actually to be made.
I wonder if the re-emergence of badges in English heraldry in 1906 had anything to do with the greater elaborateness of coats of arms.
i always thought of it strange that people condone the use of supporters as unnecessary aspects of nobility that we do not need, yet have no problem adopting multiple badges, which originally was used by servants of nobles to identify them in their tasks to a lord.
so was more curios as to the use, whether utilitarian or aesthetic.
though it seems rather indecisive on the definitive use, its better to err on caution to have or as an exercise, if i am correct on my interpretation?
i must say the more lax rules are appealing.
i am also not dismissing them, i have somewhat adopted a mullet of twenty seven points as a pseudo badge. it is more for art purposes, rather than anything else.
This thread actually prompts me to tell a story.
After I assumed arms and also assumed a badge (A sea lion Argent its tail entwined around the shaft and center tine of a trident’s head Sable) I had t-shirts made for my wife, myself and my kids. The back of the t-shirt is the badge (large) and the front has the motto (ΑΡΕΤΗΣ ΤΙΜΗ (The Honor of Virtue)) in Greek over the left breast.
My oldest son is 14, after I had the shirts made I noticed he was wearing it a lot to school. I asked him about it and he said he loves wearing the shirt cause no one else has one like it. He also gets asked all the time what the design is. He replies "It is my family badge" - he told me every kid at school has commented that it is "cool" and they wish their family had one.
Now what better way to get future generations interested in Heraldry then to present it to them in their daily lives?
What would be useful is a comparative table comparing brands, housemarks, badges, and arms. It would explain hereditary status (i.e., leaning toward bloodline or farm/ranch/estate identity) and the primary function of each. Obviously, these distinctions would be geographical, i.e., arms in Scotland and in Switzerland have different functions and hereditary status.
My thought in adopting a badge was that it was more personal, something particularly mine and representing my own history. Recently I have been looking at it and wondering if I want to change it (my current badge looks a bit too much like a supporter for my liking). While I would consider changing my badge, I would not consider changing the arms I have adopted.
In adopting arms I had discussed with my brother the idea of future generations inheriting the arms, therefore they were less personal (although they do reflect some personal history) and are more familial.
tmp617;62776 wrote:
My thought in adopting a badge was that it was more personal, something particularly mine and representing my own history.
I think that Timothy’s comment underlines one of the problems with the badge in general, that is what is it that it represents. Is it a personal property mark? Is it a property mark of an estate? Is it a personal cognisance to be used only by the owner and the owners retainers? Is it a mark to be used by the members of the armiger’s family as has been suggested by the College of Arms? In different circumstances and periods of time the badge is all of these things. Knowing what I now know, if I were to apopt a mark of personal cognisance, I would adopt an Italain variation of the badge known as an imprese which combines a badge with a motto.
See this link for the imprese of Alessandro de Medici
Please see this link to a wonderful article by a SCA member regarding the history of the imprese as well as guidelines for creating one in the Renaissance spirit: Article
each medici had their own badge, yes. i will have to wait til i am home to look through my books, but i remember one member had three interlocked rings whilst another had a few plumes together.
michelangelo used three interlocking circles, and are displayed are three interlocking wreathes upon his tomb.
MohamedHossam;62713 wrote:
David has hit the nail on the head. I sometimes design ‘badges’ for myself, and I’m sure many others do as well, as visions of "arms that could have been"................:boohoo:
So true. I really like my arms, but since I have designed my badge, the idea of putting it on a shield is very tempting… but no… I wont.
tmp617 wrote:
My thought in adopting a badge was that it was more personal, something particularly mine and representing my own history.
I understood the opposite to be true. At least from the contexts I’ve read… your arms are the most personal and would be used by no one but you. The badge, as mentioned by others here, is what your retainers would bear. You could slap it on all sorts of things, even pet’s collars. I think it’s far less personal.
Terry wrote:
This thread actually prompts me to tell a story.
After I assumed arms and also assumed a badge (A sea lion Argent its tail entwined around the shaft and center tine of a trident’s head Sable) I had t-shirts made for my wife, myself and my kids. The back of the t-shirt is the badge (large) and the front has the motto (ΑΡΕΤΗΣ ΤΙΜΗ (The Honor of Virtue)) in Greek over the left breast.
My oldest son is 14, after I had the shirts made I noticed he was wearing it a lot to school. I asked him about it and he said he loves wearing the shirt cause no one else has one like it. He also gets asked all the time what the design is. He replies "It is my family badge" - he told me every kid at school has commented that it is "cool" and they wish their family had one.
Now what better way to get future generations interested in Heraldry then to present it to them in their daily lives?
That is an excellent story.
Of course, to go back to the title of the thread, the vast majority of the heraldry-attentive world* meets all its heraldic needs perfectly well without badges. As, for that matter, did the entire heraldry-attentive world between roughly 1600 and 1900. There’s nothing wrong with marking your property with your arms, or using your crest for all the purposes for which badges are used. Why we are so taken with this decidedly secondary and almost quasi-armorial phenomenon is an intriguing question.
_____
* That is, the entire land surface of the planet world minus what the teacher in the film Hope and Glory called "the pink bits."
Jeremy Hammond;62808 wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmp617
My thought in adopting a badge was that it was more personal, something particularly mine and representing my own history.
I understood the opposite to be true. At least from the contexts I’ve read… your arms are the most personal and would be used by no one but you. The badge, as mentioned by others here, is what your retainers would bear. You could slap it on all sorts of things, even pet’s collars. I think it’s far less personal.
Dear Jeremy, there is no contradiction.
The retainers, if you have ones 
, are rather personally yours than the lineage’s. They usually form a social system focussed on their senior’s person. Your -say- brother will have the same arms (presumably with a brisure - or maybe not) but if he maintains a separate household, feudal army etc, he will need a totally separate and distinctive badge. This does not mean that a badge cannot be inherited. It may, just as a household. But, unlike typical arms which ideally correspond, first of all, to the lineage deeply rooted and growing into eternity (Braudel’s "lengthily time"), typical badge is often intended to reflect matters more changeable - like one’s attitude towards political circumstances. (The famous example: the Duke of Orleans’ club with the motto "I challenge" and the answering plane with the motto "I accept" of the Duke of Burgundy.) Yet it would be misleading to oppose arms to badges in this aspect - they were not opposing but complementing phenomena.
If you, say, keep both cats and dogs, you may create two different badges of yours for their use. It will be then up to you to decide if a purely decorative dog will bear both or not. For your bookplate, you may design the third. To mark the stuff formerly owned by a late unkle, you may use yet another one, assumed quasiment in his name. That is the way in which multiple badges may, and often were, achieved.
Joseph McMillan;62820 wrote:
Of course, to go back to the title of the thread, the vast majority of the heraldry-attentive world* meets all its heraldic needs perfectly well without badges. As, for that matter, did the entire heraldry-attentive world between roughly 1600 and 1900. There’s nothing wrong with marking your property with your arms, or using your crest for all the purposes for which badges are used. Why we are so taken with this decidedly secondary and almost quasi-armorial phenomenon is an intriguing question.
I am not sure if arms are sufficient for marking property. It all depends on the arms, property, and method of application. The rump of a cow, the tree trunks at the property line, and underwear (the Brits marked military issue underwear with a pheon) need a simpler mark than the usual multi-tinctured arms. Housemarks, though used in arms, were monochrome and used on documents because they were simpler to draw.
But this does not address the need for badges….
Quote:
I understood the opposite to be true. At least from the contexts I’ve read… your arms are the most personal and would be used by no one but you. The badge, as mentioned by others here, is what your retainers would bear. You could slap it on all sorts of things, even pet’s collars. I think it’s far less personal.
In my case, my arms were designed in conjunction with my father. In point of fact, as we don’t use cadency marks, they are his arms. Although I had a heavy hand in their creation, they reflect his ancestry and ideals.
I decided a while back to adopt a badge that reflected a bit more of me personally, as well as my German ancestry from my mother’s side.
Now if I could just manage to get off my lazy bum and actually draw the thing up (as well as finish Terry’s arms, re-do the helm on my arms…)