Good day, I have been thinking about creating my female personal lozenge for quite some time. I want the design to reflect my likes and profession.
I am not all the educated on emblazoning well but each element (ordinary, sub-ordinary and charges) mean something to me.
First my maiden name is WHITMAN… thus incorporated the "W" and the deer is apart of the Weightman family crest (though it is antlered).
I am well know as a traditional artist of dogs…. talbot and paint brushes
And if I paint flowers it is normally bearded irises… I did not the appearance of an iris in profile but the quatrefoils look much like an iris looking down at one, and I simply like the quatrefoil 
I will be blunt and save others from trying to find nice ways of saying it. This is graphic design, but it is not heraldry, so there really isn’t much point in trying to work out a blazon for it. There are, however, some good ideas here that would/could/should translate into good heraldry. Shall we try to suss those out?
Kenneth Mansfield;80833 wrote:
I will be blunt and save others from trying to find nice ways of saying it. This is graphic design, but it is not heraldry, so there really isn’t much point in trying to work out a blazon for it. There are, however, some good ideas here that would/could/should translate into good heraldry. Shall we try to suss those out?
Suss away, though you hurt me feeling a little… being blunt and to the point is better then beating around the bush. I am fairly new to understanding heraldry and its design.. I read but "just doing it" and working out the mistakes is how I learn best.
This was my initial design idea, more simplified and less cluttered, and a STARTING point I know its going to take more thought and such.
Great graphics!
Let’s see…
I’d get rid of the idea of using the field division as an attempt at a letter ‘w’ since I believe having english letters or words on a device seems kind of akward to me.
I’d move your demi hind up off the field and just make it issuant from your crest (the helm that sits above the lozenge).
I would eliminate the paintbrushes as separate charges, however, maybe have either the hind (wherever it occurs) grasping a paintbrush (or maybe a quill pen)?
So yeah, I would probably stick with one major animal charge (either talbott or hind), and possibly a second charge (the quatrefoil OR the paintbrush but not both).
If you want a fancy field division, or a dancetty cottised fess (which is itself a whole ‘nuther charge), I would get rid of another one of the previous mentioned charges.
Finally, most people try to avoid putting a black (sable) charge on top of a red (gules) field because of a pesky rule which says tincture should never occur on or next to tincture and metal should not touch metal (or something like that).
I look forward to seeing your design develop, thanks for sharing it on the board! :D
A few thoughts:
If you want to evoke irises, you’d do better with fleurs-de-lis than with quatrefoils.
Combining the dog and the hind on the shield seems rather like a hunt gone ... strange.
Since the heraldic shield is a painted surface, my thought would be to place on the oval the things you paint, e.g. a talbot (or talbot’s head) and fleurs-de-lis (irises – one or more).
The hind holding a paintbrush could be used as a "tenant"—a single supporter of the oval. (In the US, we recommend eschewing supporters; but as an artistic flourish one might be permitted.) I can imagine a good artist creating a charming tenant: a hind appearing to be painting the oval.
Is there any special significance to te tinctures argent, gules, and sable?
Dohrman Byers;80838 wrote:
Since the heraldic shield is a painted surface, my thought would be to place on the oval the things you paint, e.g. a talbot (or talbot’s head) and fleurs-de-lis (irises – one or more).
This seems like a good idea, although for my part I don’t see why you shouldn’t have a shield division suggesting the letter W. But I’d avoid the complications of counterchanging and fimbriation; just part the field per fess dancetty of two downward points (or use a chief dancetty in the same format).
I also see no reason not to use natural irises rather than either fleurs-de-lis or quatrefoils. Fleurs-de-lis have too many other connotations. I’d suggest putting the irises on the red area of the shield, so they could be white. Black irises seem bizarre, and black on red is a tincture foul.
This would permit the talbot to be black on the white area.
I’d put the dog on a chief (probably running, or courant) and the flowers in the main area. More interesting and less usual.
So: Gules three irises Argent [maybe slipped Or?), on a chief dancetty of two downward points a talbot courant Sable.
Quote:
The hind holding a paintbrush could be used as a "tenant"—a single supporter of the oval. (In the US, we recommend eschewing supporters; but as an artistic flourish one might be permitted.) I can imagine a good artist creating a charming tenant: a hind appearing to be painting the oval.
Alternatively (or in addition), since there is a long history in the U.S. of women using crests, a demi hind "holding" a paint brush would work nicely as a crest.
WOW! What a group of people willing to help me correct and make suggestions for my females arms.
Thank You Joseph for answering the question I was going to ask… It is allowed for female to establish a crest? Thinking I could NOT is why I am trying to cram everthing within the lozenge.
"a talbot(t) running or courant" is a good idea, the dog seems to be "begging" in passent. BUT I want this to be different… so I incorporate a LONG EARED TALBOT WINGED ELEVATED COURANT.
I am still liking the Dancette divide yet took it down the the simplest form.
The irises in true form / modern form is again OKAY but I love things old so may resort back to the quatrefoils. Fluer-de-lis, in my opion, reminds me of French origins and why I avoid them in my arms. To date I am of English and German origins that I know of.
Here is a rough draft of changes including color problems and suggested corrections. I know my dog needs reworked to its new position but this was a quick fix to courant.
British Arms Law: A woman may NOT display helm with arms, since a crest sits ON the helm thus a woman can not have a crest. According to American Heraldry its law is established to be in reflection of the British Arms law, thus unless the woman has fought in battle she can not show the full Coat of Arms.
If there is any other American Heraldry law that states other wise please post it so use woman heraldry students can better understand the who, what and why.
Thanks,
Kelley
kkb-ia;80857 wrote:
British Arms Law: A woman may NOT display helm with arms, since a crest sits ON the helm thus a woman can not have a crest. According to American Heraldry its law is established to be in reflection of the British Arms law, thus unless the woman has fought in battle she can not show the full Coat of Arms.
If there is any other American Heraldry law that states other wise please post it so use woman heraldry students can better understand the who, what and why.
First: there’s no such thing as a British law of arms. There is an English law of arms and a Scottish law of arms. In the English law of arms, a woman other than the Sovereign may not bear a crest. In the Scottish law of arms, women may and do bear crests, particularly if they succeed to the chiefship of a clan or name, but not exclusively so. If you want proof, see the arms granted to Mrs Elizabeth Roads, Snawdoun Herald in Scotland’s Lyon Office.
http://www.heraldic-arts.com/Artists/Macpherson/Roads_550.gif
Canadian women are also granted crests (and may even display them on a helm, and their arms on a shield). Here is the 1998 grant to Suzanne Elizabeth Altvater:
http://archive.gg.ca/heraldry/pub-reg/ProjectPics/iii002_19940064_arms1_suzan.jpg
The same is true in Ireland:
http://www.nli.ie/MSS/GrantsOfArms/570.jpg
Secondly, when you say "According to American Heraldry…", what exactly are you referring to? A book? A website? The whole question of the extent to which the United States is bound by English heraldic law is a matter of robust debate. In any case, much of the heraldic law (or more accurately in this connection "convention") is customary law. As noted in the AHS Guidelines on Heraldic Usage, the American custom in this matter is not the same as the British.
The fact is that, as Eugene Zieber, Heraldry in America (1895) notes on p. 77: “It has been the American custom for a woman to bear the full arms or crest of her husband or ancestor, and it may possibly be claimed that ‘what custom sanctions becomes a law.’… Although the rule that ‘no woman except the Sovereign may bear a crest’ prevails in England and other countries, it is doubtful whether a change so sweeping as would be necessary in order to conform thereto can be made in a custom which has been established in America for so many years.” Most of the arms of women in the early 18th century Gore Roll of Arms are shown with crests, while approximately 2/3 of the women’s arms listed in Bolton’s American Armory (1927) are described as having crests.
The rules laid down by the English kings of arms do not govern our heraldic display in this country; our own customs do.
Dear Kelley,
It is my opinion that you can choose, if you will, to display your arms not only on a shield device, but with a crest as well (edit: though I would not display a helm or mantling with crest if I were to use a lozenge or oval).
I can see how you might wish to choose a lozenge or oval to express a feminine quality, however, I don’t really see the gender of arms as important (since in some cases they could be passed to daughters), thus to me a shield device seems most apropriate for women in the U.S. who wish to adopt their own arms. There is no custom in the U.S. (to my knowledge) which prohibits women’s equality as armigers.
I also believe that if arms are inherited, an effort to honor the armigorous practice of the original bearer be made. So if my grandfather had passed arms to my father, then upon my inheritance of those arms, I would honor my grandfather’s intended manner of adoption for those arms (for instance if I were a second son and his intention was for a system of cadency and differencing for arms be used, or if I were a daughter, and his custom was for daughters to use lozenges, then I would follow this practice).
If you are the first in your line to assume arms, I personally believe it is your right to determine the system and rules by which your heirs should treat the inheritance of those arms.
Best Regards!
- Jeff
I am referring to "Rules to Govern Heraldry in America. Heraldry in America"
As a member of International Assoc. of Amatuer Heralds I am restricted to the English rules or pretty much be banished from it.
Read 1. page 80 and then 11. page 81
http://www.custom-gifts-and-arts.com/heraldry/Heraldry_in_America.gif
I haven’t read this book and I am definitely not an expert or even well informed, but I see a fundamental problem with this passage. It seems to group Irish, English and Scottish heraldic traditions into one "British" set of rules and customs, which seems to me is not a very accurate thing to do.
Each of those countries has differences, and to reflect those differences, each of those nations has different heraldic authorities and granting agencies. Also, this passage states that continental european traditions ought not to displace or modify "british" ones (which again, do not exist to my knowledge as a unified agreement). I kind of disagree with that, as I believe german and scandinavian (and other european) immigrants contributed their part to key areas of American culture as well as a very large percentage of population numbers. Spain and France had key pieces of U.S. territory as early on as the "British." I’m not trying to correct you here, and I do appreciate you sharing this informative passage, but I just hate to see you limit yourself without questioning the validity of some restriction placed on you by a specific group (the IAAH? right?).
I am only attempting to offer constructive analysis, but I know it would be better if I actually studied up on the position and reasoning of the IAAH and this author before I actually try to advise… so that’s what i’ll do, hehe.
Thanks for sharing this info Kelley! :p
Okay, I’ve done some reading (preview available at Google books), of the pages preceeding and after this passage and it seems that the passage placed in greater context is more of a recommendation than anything.
It doesn’t attempt to set a rule to govern all American heraldry at the expense of individual preferences. It just seeks to guide those who wish to use English tradition in ways to apply that tradition where possible.
So, having read more of this book, I would not take it as gospel, as the author basically suggests these are merely guidelines.
EDIT: Doh, I just realized David Boven is president of IAAH and a good many other members of this board also frequent those forums. If that is the case Kelley, I believe it’s probably safe to assume you won’t be "banished" from IAAH for choosing to rely on non-English specific customs for your heraldry so long as the basic design guidelines are followed (ie. rule of tincture, avoiding usurpation of arms, etc.). Someone here will probably rapidly and tersely correct me if I’m incorrect in this statement…. *waits for the admonision to fall*
Quote:
As a member of International Assoc. of Amatuer Heralds I am restricted to the English rules or pretty much be banished from it
I would hope as an associate fellow of IAAH that this most definitely not true, and I would question who would have the authority to suggest such a case with out a broad discussion amongst the members. The first word in the name should be an indication of what the organisation represents.
JBGarrison;80879 wrote:
I haven’t read this book…
This is Eugene Zieber’s Heraldry in America (1895). A lot of what Zieber has to say makes a great deal of sense (no differencing for cadency, for example, and his acknowledgment that the use of crests by women has evolved differently in the U.S. than in England).
But neither he nor any other source can be taken as gospel. In particular, Zieber does not adequately explore the implications of total deference to English rules in the American context. For example: are we bound to follow changes in practice instituted by the English kings of arms since 1776? If so, doesn’t that imply less than full U.S. independence from the UK? If not, what mechanism exists to take account of changes in social mores and legal norms—such as the idea that women might actually bear arms in their own right?
I modestly think that our AHS Guidelines, which were the product of considerable debate within the Society over many months, provide a better and more workable framework than Zieber’s good but outdated effort. See the guidelines at http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Guide.Guidelines. To read the debates, search the forum for the term "Code of Conduct."
My own annotated version of the guidelines, with references to some of the sources I personally found useful in the development process, can be seen at http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeohzt4/heraldguide-ann.htm.
(Note: If the powers at the "International" Association of Amateur Heralds ask who made the AHS the arbiters of heraldic practice, you might ask who appointed Eugene Zieber to that role, and who gave the English kings of arms an international remit.)
Okay peeps I am NOT here to ruffle feathers, British is termed for those of England, Scots, or Irish origins = there are more Americans with such origin than all other nations combined. What I THINK it suggests that it is up to YOU on which law you want to use… rather it is England, Scotland, Ireland, German, France, Poland and etc.
I am of English (parental) and German (maternal) origins. IAAH wants its members to abide by the laws that govern each country. If I choice to go with England laws then I must abide by them. That is American… the right to choice yet it does not really give use the right to change "rules" to fit our desires.
There has always been exceptions to the rules, woman who reach a high placement in state or nation is normally granted MORE then what the rules state.
Certianly with out doubt I would love to have a crest and supporters yet untill I go from a simple person to a woman who has fought a great battle or have in some way achieved great heraldric title…. I will just do sheild. This in its self would be a great achievement if such is granted to me.
In close I have decided on this sheild. The argent, gules and sable I was not thrilled about, yet love the gold, argent and sable combination but could not come up with a design to meet the rules of tincture untill some great advice was given here.
So tincture based on that of the Weightman Coat of Arms (my maiden name is Whitman)
I have a passion for dog that is undisputed, my business and my world is surrounded by them. I am a dog artist (80% dog and 20% my other passions), owner, and lover.
The wings on the dog = a flying dog, expresses freedom, artistically and in general
When you look at it.. I see a dog flying over a planet… the enarched with three quatrefoils. The irises modern just seemed out of place.
