Though I am not petitioning the lyon court at this time, I would like to stay within the Scottish tradition.

The full blazon of the arms of the Chief of Clan Wood are ( as I have been told ) as follows.

Shield:  Argent, an oak tree vert eradicated Proper fructeted Or. - (not my spelling)

Crest:  a ship under sail Proper.

Motto:  Tutus in Undis.

Supporters:  Two sailors Proper, their caps and jackets Vert, their lapels, cuffs and trousers Argent.

I am considering the image below.

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj301/norinko/Heraldry/Woodofroanokeshield2.jpg

The Oak tree is intended to be Proper.

Would the blazon below be accurate? And would this be allowable under Scottish tradition?

Azure, A oak tree proper. Two eastern dogwood ( cornus florida ) blossoms proper in fess.

I think it would be something more like this:

Azure, an oak tree Proper, between two dogwood flowers in fess Argent, seeded Or.

The arms seem perfectly well within the Scottish tradition. I would suggest that the blazon in Scottish terms could be:

Azure an oak tree eradicated Proper fructed Or accompanied on either side by an Eastern Dogwood flower also Proper

or

Azure an oak tree eradicated Proper fructed Or between two Eastern Dogwood flowers also Proper in the flanks

The former is based on the styles of the blazon of arms of Major Denis Wood in 1964 and the latter of Canongate Primary School, St Andrews in 1973.

On a historical note, the simplest Wood arms seem to be the arms of Wood of Colpny (? Colpie? Aberdeenshire) which were just Azure an oak tree eradicated Proper.

Other branches differenced either by placing two charges either side (cross crosslets: Wood of Bonnytoun, ships: Wood of Largo) or by having items hanging from the branches (keys: Wood of Balbegno, a hunting horn: Wood of Craig).

There seems to have been no agreement on whether the oak tree was eradicated or growing out of a mount in base Vert. Nisbet lists all except Colpny growing out of a base.

The Lyon Register lists

Mount in Base

Sir John Wood of Bonnytoune Bt: LR 1/222 c1673

Alexander Wood of Grangehauch: LR 1/441 c1674

Major Alexander Wood: LR 1/569 9-Jun-1795

Eradicated

John Wood, Governor of the Isle of Man, Representative of Wood of Largo & Chief: LR 1/233 25-Mar-1775

Wood of Gatton Park, Surrey: 1809

Wood of Potters Park, Surrey: 1845

Thomas Wood: LR 19/48 27-Nov-1907

Norah Brodie-Wood of Keithick: LR 22/74 9-May-1916

Major Denis Wood: LR 44/130 26-Feb-1964

There has also been a move towards a field Argent rather than Azure. Nisbet has all except Grangehauch with fields Azure but in Lyon Register only Bonnytoun has a field Azure.

Earlier the field seems to have been Azure, with occasional deviations from that.

The Slains Roll (c1565) is consistently Azure for Bonnytoun, Largo, Craig and Balbegno (named as Fettercairn)

The Dunvegan Armorial (c1582) has arms for

"Wood": Argent a tree Proper fructed Or and the editors of the 2006 edition note "All the sources have the surname Wood associated with an Azure field, except DLS [Linday of the Mount Secundus])

Wood of Craig: Azure an oak tree eradicated Proper &c

Lord Crawford’s Armorial (aka Lindsay of the Mount Secundus) (c1601) has

Wood of Craig: Or a tree Vert &c

Wood of Largo: Azure a tree (Alex Maxwell Findlater, the editor of the 2008 edition says Proper I would say Or)

James

Thank you Arriano and James. That is very informative.

Admiral Sir. Andrew Wood, baron of largo ( B 1450-D 1515? ) historians are not quite sure about the birth and death dates. Was the first Chief of the name and arms. The current arms seem to vary from his. I prefer azure as opposed to argent for the field, purely because I find it more attractive with the rest of the achievement. It seems that the Scottish tradition dictates that my arms be based on the arms of the Chief. By " based " is a variation in tincture of the field allowable? I am not at all opposed to the oak being eradicated. However is the fructed Or wording requisite?( one moment I like it and the other I dont, I think I am warming up to it however ).

I discounted this blazon. "Azure, an oak tree Proper, between two dogwood flowers in fess Argent, seeded Or." for the following two reasons. In nature some dogwoods have more than 4 petals, and I insist on 4. And secondly it seems that in nature the Eastern dogwood only blooms Argent, seeded Or.

I like this blazon for its simplicity and exactness:

Azure an oak tree eradicated Proper fructed Or between two Eastern Dogwood flowers also Proper in the flanks

What function does the " in the flanks " serve? does it possibly dictate the scale of the blossoms in regard to the oak?

Thank you so much for your valuable comments and opinions.

The "fructed Or" relates to the acorns you do not show in your emblason, so in your case, that can be eliminated if you wish.  If you warm to them, then add the acorns.

I do have to say, however, that as a heraldist, I do not really feel comfortable using "Proper" to violate the tincture rule (Vert tree on Azure shield).

The changing of the field colour is an accepted Scottish way of differencing the arms of a clansman from his Chief, but I would say that today, more than just the field tincture, or the tincture of a principal charge, must change to be an acceptable difference.

As to "in the flanks", it’s a style choice.  Just as "Per pale" vs. "Party per pale".  It may in time to come become more, but it’s really just a matter of style, as was your original blason..

My English arms have oaks with golden acorns:

Per pale Argent and Azure, three oak trees eradicated, counterchanged, fructed Or, a chief per pale Azure and Argent.

Not everyone agrees, but I belive that differencing by tincture alone is insufficient in modern heraldry. (I know this was done historically.) There should be two "line differences" from the stem arms, which means the arms would be clearly distinct if depicted in a black and white drawing.

I also dislike the green tree on the blue field, even though the "proper" technically avoids the tincture violation.

/Charles

Would the dogwood blossoms act as a second line difference. As they were my own addition, and I am not aware of this format elsewhere. I have looked. Though others surely have wider resources to search than myself.

Deer Sniper;68702 wrote:

Would the dogwood blossoms act as a second line difference. As they were my own addition, and I am not aware of this format elsewhere. I have looked. Though others surely have wider resources to search than myself.

I think so, though you might consider some other difference, such as an ordinary or a partition.

/Charles

Deer Sniper;68702 wrote:

Would the dogwood blossoms act as a second line difference. As they were my own addition, and I am not aware of this format elsewhere. I have looked. Though others surely have wider resources to search than myself.

The two dogwood blossoms strike me as a perfectly adequate difference, though only an attempt to matriculate at Lyon Court would confirm for sure. I got away with a single difference from the accepted chiefly arms of Dempster even though I’m an intermediate cadet.

There are no Wood arms with dogwoods (or any other flowers) in Lyon Register up to 1973. Those recorded in Lyon Register in 20th century have the following differences.

On a chief Gules a cannon Or : Thomas Wood LR 19/48 27-Nov-1907

A bordure gules : Norah Brodie-Wood of Keithick LR 22/74 9-May-1916

accompanied on either side by dexter an escutcheon and sinister a sun both Gules all within a bordure Vert : Major Denis Wood LR 44/130 26-Feb-1964

If you ever decide to add an ordinary, it’s possibly best to avoid a fess overall as an oak tree with a fess overall tends to be Watson.

James

Hello all,

Another possibility would be to counterchange the charges as in this very quick sketch; although the tinctures used makes it somewhat close to the English Drake arms.

/Ronny

Ronny Andersen;68709 wrote:

Another possibility would be to counterchange the charges as in this very quick sketch; although the tinctures used makes it somewhat close to the English Drake arms.

Possibly a better fit with the Wood arms would be to have the field/tree in Azure and Or. There are historic examples of Wood bearing Azure tree Or and of the tree Proper on a field Or.

James

Something along these lines?

/Ronny

While parted per pale is likely better artistically, parted per fess Argent & Azure (the rest all counterchanged) would at least have both dogwood flowers in white which is AFAIK the only way they appear in nature—while its quite common in heraldry for charges from nature to be in unnatural colors (e.g. lions in all the colors of the rainbow!—in blue the blossom strongly suggests some other kind of flower.

Not necessarily a controlling concern, but IMO worth thinking about.

Good idea - and perhaps with some varied line of partition?

/Ronny

James Dempster;68710 wrote:

Possibly a better fit with the Wood arms would be to have the field/tree in Azure and Or. There are historic examples of Wood bearing Azure tree Or and of the tree Proper on a field Or.

James

"Or an oak tree eradicated proper fructed or" had crossed my mind.

I agree that I prefer the blossoms Argent, Michael.