I have one child, a young daughter, and I am trying to determine how her arms should be emblazoned, but with no “American rules,” I’m not sure how to proceed.
Personally, I don’t like lozenges, and I do like the Canadian system of cadency. I see, though, that in the British royal family, the women’s arms first have a label on their father’s arms, and then have a unique charge on the label. If my daughter’s arms were to start with my undifferenced shield, would she also get a label with a heart for cadency as the first daughter, or just a heart with no label? And would the heart be placed in the honor point, fess point…?
Charles Glass;77365 wrote:
I have one child, a young daughter, and I am trying to determine how her arms should be emblazoned, but with no “American rules,” I’m not sure how to proceed.
We may not have American "rules," but the society has recommended American guidelines, which suggest not differencing for cadency for daughters. Or for sons, either.
Or you could follow the English "rules," which don’t difference for cadency for daughters and make it optional for sons. (Yes, really; both the last and present Garter Kings of Arms have said so.)
While Charles may not be a fan of the lozenge for daughters, his arms would at least work reasonably well on that shield shape—not all do. Or perhaps use an oval, or experiment with various ornamental cartuche shapes, some of which would work quite well with these arms. Or just use the same shield as dear old Dad. Our traditions generally treat arms as a shared family badge (in the generic sense of the word) so, in this case, one size/shape/form can fit all.
Eventually, she’ll inherit the arms undifferenced. However, in my lifetime, in order to distinguish her arms from mine, I was considering possibly this:
[ATTACH]718[/ATTACH]
Or are y’all saying that her arms (during my lifetime) would be identical to mine?
Charles Glass;77372 wrote:
Eventually, she’ll inherit the arms undifferenced. However, in my lifetime, in order to distinguish her arms from mine, I was considering possibly this:
[ATTACH]718[/ATTACH]
Or are y’all saying that her arms (during my lifetime) would be identical to mine?
Yep. Just like daughters’ arms everywhere, and sons’s arms most places.
The official tradition, pretty much everywhere, is for daughters to use their father’s arms undifferenced. The Canadians have a system of cadency for girls, but they’re the only ones, and you ain’t Canadian.
So she should probably use your arms on a cartouche for now. There are reasons for that besides tradition. First off, she’s young now and she’s gonna be stuck with these arms for life. Maybe she’ll hate red hearts. Secondly if you don’t have more kids she’ll inherit the undifferenced arms anyway. In the meantime the cartouche will b enough to tell the two of you apart.
Nick
Charles Glass;77372 wrote:
Or are y’all saying that her arms (during my lifetime) would be identical to mine?
If an opinion of an "eastern antipode" may matter, I would say that your daughter may difference her arms if this correspond to her de facto position within the family, and this is IMHO neither un-American [as far as I understand that] nor, actually, unmedieval.
Non-differenced maiden arms are remnants of the times when daughters were not expected to have a self-standing social position. If your girl, apart of being more than close and dear, enjoys (or presumably will enjoy in future) a public status, reputation and merits of hers own, I would rather recommend her to get [for your lifetime] a distinct coat of hers own - that is, your arms, but with a brisure, rather freely chosen.
She may very well choose her own arms later in life, and that will be her decision.
As for now, I’ve thrown together a version of her arms in a cartouche:
[ATTACH]719[/ATTACH]
Still, not very feminine. So what comes next? No helm or crest, if I’m not mistaken. Would she get a ribbon or a motto scroll?
There’s plenty of historic precedent for American women to bear crests with their arms, much as some purists disparage it. Just put it on a free floating torse above the shield/cartouche/lozenge.
If your initial thought was to difference the arms with a heart, then go for it. As everyone has pointed out, while there is little precedence for it, there is also little practice of any other cadency system. Easily understood, given that in the past painting a new emblazon for each and every descendant became quite expensive quite quickly. It was easier just to have a couple emblazons lying around and letting the family use them as available.
I find the Canadian brisures for daughters very useful. When I published a genealogical account of the descendants of my gr-gr-grandfather, who had six sons and five daughters, I gave each of them a chapter and placed a cadency mark at the head of each chapter. For the earlier generations I just used a wyvern.
My wife is of Canadian descent, but her (father’s) arms are English. She and her sisters sometimes use the Canadian brisures, sometimes not.
As my wife is an heraldic heiress, for my daughter I have just added a quarter for her mother.
The Canadian equality laws do not permit special favours or privileges to men over women, and cadency was included in this.
Elsewhere, female cadency was useless. A woman would gain the right to use her husband’s arms, and placing her husband’s arms next to her father’s provide all the differencing needed. Even the Canadians have dropped their cadency system for men who are married and their wife is an heraldic heiress, citing the inclusion of the wife’s arms as sufficient difference from the father’s arms and that no additional mark is needed.
I’ve been searching the web for images of women’s arms with a bow or ribbon instead of a crest. Ordinarily, I’d find that sort of thing quite easily, but now that I’m specifically searching for it, I’m coming up empty. Does anyone have any such images they could share?
xanderliptak;77387 wrote:
Elsewhere, female cadency was useless.
Dear Alexander, here I would disagree. It is quite useful in British Royal heraldry and in the very same way it either is or may be useful in other areas. A brisure, apart of mere demonstration of the non-chiefly status, is (or may be) a very effective and relevant personalisation factor, and, last but not least, a family branch marker.
Michael Y. Medvedev;77390 wrote:
Dear Alexander, here I would disagree. It is quite useful in British Royal heraldry and in the very same way it either is or may be useful in other areas. A brisure, apart of mere demonstration of the non-chiefly status, is (or may be) a very effective and relevant personalisation factor, and, last but not least, a family branch marker.
Its usefulness only lasts for time between the grant of the brisure (generally around the age of 18) until the woman’s marriage, when the addition of the husband’s arms supply ample difference. Then it becomes a useless after that. Typically, this would provide utility for only a few years.
Brisures are more like armorial jewelry, something that can be added though its value is minimal, if any. That is not saying I do not like them, I do, but I see no substantial value in them.
xanderliptak;77387 wrote:
The Canadian equality laws do not permit special favours or privileges to men over women, and cadency was included in this.
I know this is the official reason put out by the CHA, but I really do wonder if indeed this is true and if they received advice from a responsible law officer before making this statement. That is, I don’t think that the Canadian Charter of Rights necessarily means that there can be no distinction between the sexes but that there can’t be discrimination between the sexes. For example, if the CHA held that a woman couldn’t bear her paternal arms after marriage, while sons were free to do so, that would be discrimination based on sex. But to say that sons must bear differences while women are not required to bear differences doesn’t necessarily discriminate against the woman, who has the right to bear the undifferenced arms.