We did not mention the crest so far. Maybe to keep the beastie in the shield and to place the cross atop the helmet or vice versa?!
Well, I thought I’d keep the crest, no need to change that… 
Dohrman Byers;66936 wrote:
While folks are suggesting alternative blazons, I may as well suggest one obvious derivative of Claus’s arms. What about: Azure a bear’s head erased Or and on a chief Gules a cross flory entire Argent?
Not bad! I think I would prefer the cross with outbent arms however… Possibly something along the lines of:
Gules, a bear’s head erased Or, on a chief Azure a cross with outbent arms Argent.
Claus K Berntsen;66946 wrote:
Possibly something along the lines of:
Gules, a bear’s head erased Or, on a chief Azure a cross with outbent arms Argent.
I think the blazon would be: Gules, a bear’s head erased Or, on a chief Azure a cross formy entire Argent.
If you want the cross "outbent" only near the ends of the arms, you would say formy at the ends entire.
If the cross does not extend to the edges of the chief, you would omit entire.
Claus—
I just saw your beautiful crest on the SHS website. I can see why you would hesitate to change it!
Had I seen your crest earlier, I might have suggested keeping it and adopting arms: Argent, a bear’s head erased Gules, on a chief Gules a cross flory entire Argent. That would have the advantage of using only two tinctures.
Dear Dohrman,
I would tend to use the description ‘throughout’ rather than ‘entire’ to describe a chief charged with a cross.
In fact, I have never seen ‘entire’ used in the way you have suggested before.
Regards,
Iain Boyd
Claus K Berntsen;66943 wrote:
Well, I thought I’d keep the crest, no need to change that…
...the crest in the shield, the demi-bear issuant from base holding the cross…
Iain Boyd;66964 wrote:
I would tend to use the description ‘throughout’ rather than ‘entire’ to describe a chief charged with a cross.
In fact, I have never seen ‘entire’ used in the way you have suggested before.
Brooke-Little, in An Heraldic Alphabet, treats the two terms as synonymous, making no distinction between them. "Throughout" or "entire"—just a matter of taste.
This might be a bit late and out of context, but I am going to ask it anyway. Claus, your arms aren’t necessarily quartered. They could possibly be quarterly Azure and Gules…etc. I am not really good at balzoning, but doesn’t it seem plausible?
Dear Dohrman,
Thank you for drawing my attention to the fact that Brook-Little regards ‘entire’ and ‘throughout’ as synonymous.
Even if it is ‘just a matter of taste’, I still prefer ‘throughout’ in this instance.
Regards,
Iain Boyd
Kelisli;67048 wrote:
This might be a bit late and out of context, but I am going to ask it anyway. Claus, your arms aren’t necessarily quartered. They could possibly be quarterly Azure and Gules…etc. I am not really good at balzoning, but doesn’t it seem plausible?
That’s how I see them, but I still don’t know if that will appease the registering office sense of proper heraldry. I find them proper and blazonable just as you said. But, after reading those commandments on the link provided I suspect they may be very strict and so anything that resembles a quartered coat will be off limits even if it is quarterly. Heck, I thought the cross over all was sufficient enough to make them not quartered in the proper sense. But, I guess I was wrong.
I understand such reasoning for refusing such arms. It seems at times a want to resemble those families that own multiple arms and rejects the notion of simple and large designs to be easily identifiable. Usually, any quartered original arms could be redesigned without using quarters themselves. So in nations where such designs of quartered arms is uncommon, I see no harm in a heraldic group rejecting such a desin to uphold the integrity of arms.
Donnchadh;67055 wrote:
Heck, I thought the cross over all was sufficient enough to make them not quartered in the proper sense.
Certainly not in Scandinavia!
It was actually quite common to use a cross to enhance the quarterings, at least in Swedish noble arms.
The most famous examples of a cross used to emphasize the quarterings are of course the State arms of Sweden and Denmark.
This is an argument I can quite understand, and I am, as stated before, quite willing to change my arms, and let the current one become a matter of history.
I’ve actually had misgivings before, when I first assumed the arms, but I guess I just didn’t listen enough, and was not sufficiently skilled in heraldry myself.
Would it be enough to remove one of the colors, as in making all of the "quarters" (sorry) either Azure or Gules?