Daniel C. Boyer;64226 wrote:
I have a question about the bezants. Are there supposed to be three in chief and, if so, shouldn’t one of them be absconded?
By the looks of the National Archives image one is a very prescient 
James
Typically when a canton is added, it covers up whatever would have been in the upper dexter chief—something that I personally think is a major drawback from using cantons. But from this, I can’t tell if there were four bezants or five.
arriano;64228 wrote:
Typically when a canton is added, it covers up whatever would have been in the upper dexter chief—something that I personally think is a major drawback from using cantons. But from this, I can’t tell if there were four bezants or five.
Sable on the Waves of the Sea proper a Lion passant Or in Chief three Bezants.
arriano;64228 wrote:
Typically when a canton is added, it covers up whatever would have been in the upper dexter chief—something that I personally think is a major drawback from using cantons. But from this, I can’t tell if there were four bezants or five.
Well, seeing the emblazon of his arms on Wikipedia, and then reading the blazon, it’s clearer. While I agree with you about four or five actualy charges, two apparent (three actual) charges in chief and a canton is a standard setup, and absent perversity on the part of a herald one should have no difficulty blazoning. And four or five is a situation so rare it’s not worth fretting about.
I think it is to a specific time period that the charges were moved over to avoid cantons and other marks added at a later date. I believe the reason was that even though blazoned, there is little point if not seen. It fell on the wayside though.
Dohrman Byers;64205 wrote:
A thought for the descendent of John Hawkins: For a crest, what about a demi-Blackamoor affronty, arms raised above his head, wrists shackled, but the chain between them broken? —not denying the history, but evolving from it.
My preference would be to use the crest—I think this should be done (outside of, perhaps, Scotland, but it’s not Scottish) as it is the crest inherited—and either use a motto (as mottos can in most jurisdictions be changed at will) to express some anti-slavery sentiment or somehow play off the crest in a similar way, or, if a later Hawkins were to become to supporters or a compartment, use those to express opposition to slavery, the historical evolution from slavery to freedom, or the like.
Daniel C. Boyer;64250 wrote:
My preference would be to use the crest—I think this should be done (outside of, perhaps, Scotland, but it’s not Scottish) as it is the crest inherited—and either use a motto (as mottos can in most jurisdictions be changed at will) to express some anti-slavery sentiment or somehow play off the crest in a similar way, or, if a later Hawkins were to become to supporters or a compartment, use those to express opposition to slavery, the historical evolution from slavery to freedom, or the like.
If the modern armiger is not merely a descendent but the proper heir of John Hawkins’ arms, I would agree that he should use the crest as inherited. If, however, he is merely a descendent of some branch of the family, then I think modifying the crest would be a good way to both preserve the memory of the family’s history and difference ones’ own from the principal line of succession. I like the custom of distinguishing different branches of a family by using different crests with the same basic arms. (O Neubecker notes this usage in several noble Alsatian families.) It allows one to distinguish different lines within a family without cluttering the shield with marks of cadency.
I see crests as inherently personal. I see no problem with, in each generation, individual crests for each inheritor. If I were a direct descendant of Drake, I would definitely NOT want to have all that water sitting over MY head! LOL!
http://texaslesstraveled.com/1d284e690.gif
Quote:
JOHN HAWKINS
Admiral Sir John Hawkins was an English shipbuilder, and commander, merchant, and slave trader. As treasurer and controller of the navy, he rebuilt older ships and helped design faster ships that withstood the Spanish Armada. He devised the naval blockade to intercept Spanish treasure ships. One of the foremost seamen of England, he was the chief architect of the Elizabethan navy. Hawkins used Padre Island [Texas] as an ambush point and easy access to Spanish shipping lanes.
Source HERE
Wiki portrait:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/John_Hawkins.JPG
Wiki article also states,
Wiki wrote:
...In 1590 Drake and Hawkins founded a charity for the relief of sick and elderly mariners. This was followed by a hospital in 1592 and another in 1594, the Sir John Hawkins’ Hospital. The charity continues today….
Wiki again wrote:
Hawkins: Sable, on a point wavy a lion passant or; in chief three bezants; on a canton an escallop between two palmer’s staves sable.
Source: "Pilgrim’s or Palmer’s Staff" in A glossary of terms used in heraldry by James Parker, at [1] (accessed 15 Feb 06).
The hospital is probably why the canton was awarded.
—Guy
The points about transforming the symbolism notwithstanding, if I were a Hawkins descendant, there is no way I would use that crest. I rather like the arms, however.
Doug Welsh;64265 wrote:
If I were a direct descendant of Drake, I would definitely NOT want to have all that water sitting over MY head! LOL!
For what its worth, Drake had no children, and the descendants of his brother and heir, Thomas, are extinct in the male line. He does have heirs-general who have a right to his arms as a quartering, but as far as I know, none of those with name and arms status are extant. Therefore, his crest may not currently be in use. Even Drake disliked it, and did not use it.
/Charles
Charles E. Drake;64288 wrote:
For what its worth, Drake had no children, and the descendants of his brother and heir, Thomas, are extinct in the male line. He does have heirs-general who have a right to his arms as a quartering, but as far as I know, none of those with name and arms status are extant. Therefore, his crest may not currently be in use. Even Drake disliked it, and did not use it.
/Charles
Suggesting that it was designed ... well, perhaps that is the wrong word ...fantasized (!) by some pursuivant or herald at the College in that day without asking his input?
How ... barbaric! To be awarded an "additament of honour" that one so dislikes one refuses to use it. "We would not be amused."
:boohoo: :banghead: :shootout:
Doug Welsh;64291 wrote:
Suggesting that it was designed ... well, perhaps that is the wrong word ...fantasized (!) by some pursuivant or herald at the College in that day without asking his input?
How ... barbaric! To be awarded an "additament of honour" that one so dislikes one refuses to use it. "We would not be amused."
The College of Arms has, on occasion, designed arms with a minimum of consultation with the armiger (probably even more so back when consultation required physically travelling to the College by horse and carriage), assuming that the armiger will pay up instead of waiting another year for a second draft.
<i></i>
Doug Welsh;64291 wrote:
Suggesting that it was designed ... well, perhaps that is the wrong word ...fantasized (!) by some pursuivant or herald at the College in that day without asking his input?
How ... barbaric! To be awarded an "additament of honour" that one so dislikes one refuses to use it. "We would not be amused."
The story is more complicated than that, and I tell it in great detail in the paper I read in Quebec. A web version can be found here:
http://www.wyverngules.com/Documents/ArmsofSFD/arms_of_sir_francis_drake.htm
Charles
Well, after reading that lengthy story I have to agree that it is more complicated. Thanks for sharing. It proved to be fascinating reading.
Very interesting, Charles. Nicely done.
Amazing, is it not, the things that can turn up in places far removed from their points of origin!
