Can someone explain the use of a canton? Is it used like cadency to show difference, or is it used to commemorate a deed or victory? Or both? Pimbley and Parker go a long way to describe cantons, but I haven’t found much in the way of why they’re used.

sometimes they are simply used as an ordinary, while at other times they are used as a mark of honour.  there is no one singular answer for what the canton is.

when used as a mark of honour, it usually has a charge placed within to lend explanation of the deed that warranted the honour.  something similar to an augmentation.

Dear Arian,

A ‘canton’ originally was just another heraldic charge - possibly a diminutive of the quarter - that was soon used as a mark of difference and then a vehicle for the display of arms derived from the female line.

Subsequently, it was used as the vehicle for the display of an honourable augmentation.

Regards,

Iain Boyd

To augment Iain’s correct comment, may I remark that, being originally just an ordinary, a canton was used in medieval armory, like other ordinaries, as a "false shield", i.e. a place to bear some arms which are importantly related to the armiger but could not be borne by him: this practice was most used in the arms of bastards, who often enjoyed not the father’s arms debruised with a bend sinister, but a field (sometimes coloured after a livery tincture) with a canton (or another ordinary - even sometimes a chevron) of father’s arms. Later the use for other occasions (augmentations, female links etc) became more widespread.

In my collection of books on Irish arms, most all granted from Ulster KOA, there is an overabundance of examples of cantons being used and since the Irish system inherited much/most of its heraldry from England one would assume the reasons for a canton to be the same. However, I’ve found almost an equal number to be on the sinister side as the dexter. Further I’ve read, can’t site where as I forget right now so I guess this isn’t worth much, but that in Ireland it was quite common to have arms from a distant family member/different family with which there is some sort of connection to be displayed there. So, in that regard it would mirror what Michael just posted above.

I don’t know if that helps with any your question on cantons Arian, but there it is anyway.

My maternal grandmother was surnamed Godbee (vars. Godby, Godbey), and the arms attributed to her family were:

Arms: Gules a fleur-de-lys Or on a canton Azure a leopard’s face Or.

Crest: A demi-talbot rampant Sable.

I’ve no idea where these arms came from, for there was never a grant, as far as I know, and they do not appear to be a copy of someone of the same surname, which would be the usual scenario. I haven’t found them in a book so far.  The fact that they seem to be unique lends some credibility to the attribution.

/Charles

Thanks everyone for your input. Seems like cantons have been used for a variety of reasons. I think the addition of a canton can be attractive sometimes, but other times they cover up other charges on the shield and are less attractive, at least to my eyes.

In any case I would recommend to anyone - whithin the modern context - not to use a canton in one’s assumed arms unless this canton is either plain (and thus may be easily interpreted as a "mere" ordinary) or bearing a separate coat (for the reason of a well-justified marshalling).

Just a follow-up: For those who added a canton to their arms to mark some achievement (I would guess this would usually be military), did their descendants then usually inherit the arms with this change, or did it revert back to original?

I must confess that I am unaware :oops: of any case of assumption of a canton as a kind of a commemorative addition or even a "self-award".

To modify one’s arms for a very good reason is OK per se; but probably a canton is an imperfect tool for that because of its quasi-escutcheon quality (actually a coat with a canton normally looks, if not is, not heraldically indivisible).

Theoretically if someone changes, either by grant or by assumption, arms to reflect an important event, this normally implies a creation of new arms which is as much a subject of succession as the previous version.

I presume that a grant may be more restrictive, imposing some reservations - for example, "for the grantee’s lifetime only" or "for the grantee and his spouse to be borne for life", or otherwise. Maybe similar reservations may be provided on an assumption as well; however one may wonder if such privately imposed conditions of assumption may overrule the common order of descent as established by local Law of Arms. In the heraldically liberal USA, I dare to presume, such private restrictions may be made (it is a different question if they will be observed). In Russia, theoretically, rather not.

cantons have been inherited, just as augmentations are.  i am not quite sure the difference of the two items.  the augmentation seems to be ranked as a higher honour.

the duke of wellington given an augmentation of of the british flag.  ross of bladensburg was given a canton with the order of knighthood he won in his efforts against the american rebellion/independence.  both have been inherited through the generations.

arriano;63029 wrote:

Just a follow-up: For those who added a canton to their arms to mark some achievement (I would guess this would usually be military), did their descendants then usually inherit the arms with this change, or did it revert back to original?

Arian,  I’m a little unclear what you have in mind.  Can you be more specific, maybe give an example?

I’m not aware of a custom of adding a canton to ones’ own arms to mark an achievement—are you referring to the augmentations of honor mentioned by some of the previous posters?  Those are granted by sovereigns, not self assumed.  Adding a canton to your arms to celebrate your own achievements would be like awarding yourself a medal.  When an augmentation is granted by a sovereign, it does become hereditary.

There are also some orders of chivalry that permit the holders of certain degrees or offices to bear a canton of the arms of the order—for example, a grand prior of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta places a canton Gules a cross Argent on his arms as a sign of office.

Personal opinion (don’t recall the subject being addressed in our AHS Guidelines)

In an American context of more-or-less free assumption, IMO the guiding principle should be good taste.  A plain canton can be a useful distinction to avoid infringement of other existing arms, if arms long borne are found to be not unique or if inherited, the proof of succession comes into doubt.  IMO we shouldn’t encourage knowingly taking existing arms to which we have no bona fide claim & merely sticking a canton in the corner as a "wink-wink, nod-nod" to propriety or intellectual/creative honesty.

Any other use of a canton should IMO only be acceptable if the arms, without the canton, are acceptable as either a unique creation or honestly & provably inherited.  The canton then could IMO be used as a difference if desired, or to show the arms of e.g. a maternal line.

But as noted, my opinion only.  Others may differ…

Joseph McMillan;63034 wrote:

Arian,  I’m a little unclear what you have in mind.  Can you be more specific, maybe give an example?

I’m not aware of a custom of adding a canton to ones’ own arms to mark an achievement—are you referring to the augmentations of honor mentioned by some of the previous posters?  Those are granted by sovereigns, not self assumed.  Adding a canton to your arms to celebrate your own achievements would be like awarding yourself a medal.  When an augmentation is granted by a sovereign, it does become hereditary.

OK, now I understand better. Thanks for the clarification. I was specifically referring to the arms of Lt. Col. Wright Sherlock listed in Fox-Davies. It’s my understanding that the canton was added to his "family" arms because of some military achievement. I didn’t know if he had done it himself or if it had been granted, but from your post I guess it would have been granted by Queen Victoria. He had two sons and I wondered if they would have inherited the canton on the arms, but apparently not.

I have (as explored in a previous thread) devised arms for my maternal grandfather. My mother is not an heiress. I am a bastard and use arms that have nothing to do with my paternal side. How (in)appropriate would it be to augment my arms with a canton of my grandfathers? This question is mostly out of academic curiosity, but I admit, the idea is appealing. I love my grandfather very much and could possibly see doing this. Squash the idea while you still can!

arriano;63333 wrote:

OK, now I understand better. Thanks for the clarification. I was specifically referring to the arms of Lt. Col. Wright Sherlock listed in Fox-Davies. It’s my understanding that the canton was added to his "family" arms because of some military achievement. I didn’t know if he had done it himself or if it had been granted, but from your post I guess it would have been granted by Queen Victoria. He had two sons and I wondered if they would have inherited the canton on the arms, but apparently not.

Ah, now I understand.  Yes, this would have been granted by the kings of arms as an augmentation, with the approval of the Queen, and it would be hereditary.  (All the more reason why we who are fortunate enough to live in unregulated heraldic jurisdictions should refrain from awarding such things to ourselves!)