Wow that looks great Kelley!
I didn’t think anyone had their feathers ruffled, I think everyone was just trying to illuminate that much of the choice was yours…
and you exercised that choice…
With amazing results; what an original design! :D
kkb-ia;80887 wrote:
British is termed for those of England, Scots, or Irish origins…
Oh, is it? I know more than a few Irish folk who would take exception to being called British.
Other than that, I think we know all what the word means. What you seem to be resisting is the notion that the concept of "British" is not particularly useful in discussions of heraldic rules because England and Scotland don’t share the same rules. It’s like law and religion: you can’t talk about the British legal system because Scotland and England have different legal systems; you can’t refer to the Church of Britain because the Church of Scotland and the Church of England are different in doctrine and structure.
Quote:
= there are more Americans with such origin than all other nations combined.
And this is simply untrue. According to the 2000 census, 10.8% of Americans identify themselves as being of Irish origin, 8.7% English, 1.7% Scottish, and 1.5% Scotch-Irish. That totals to 22.7%. Even if we assume that the 7.2% who identified themselves only as "American" were all of British Isles origin, that still totals only 29.9%, leaving 70.1% in the category of "all other nations combined."
If we count only people of acknowledged English, Scottish, or Scotch-Irish ancestry as "British," the total is only 11.9%. For comparison, 15.2% identified their ancestry as German.
Quote:
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.
If we’re going to use the term "law," then I would ask in what other sphere of life you are allowed to pick and choose which laws you will follow?
In the United States, as in most places, most of what we’re talking about is custom and convention, not law. We have our own customs and conventions that have developed over the past 400 years and that are simply not the same as the English ones.
Quote:
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.
How is it a great achievement, and what do you mean "granted"? Are you actually planning on shelling out £4,225 ($6,500) to the English College of Arms for an honorary grant?
Quote:
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.
The red, white, and black met the rule of tincture as long as you didn’t put the black quatrefoils on a red background. I like this version better, but if you prefer the other color combination, what’s the problem.
"Hound of long ears" is a strange bit of blazonry, however. What’s wrong with "talbot," or, failing that "long-eared hound"?
Kenneth Mansfield;80833 wrote:
There are, however, some good ideas here that would/could/should translate into good heraldry. Shall we try to suss those out?
This was the main point I was trying to make, that there were some good ideas there.
kkb-ia;80835 wrote:
Suss away, though you hurt me feeling a little… being blunt and to the point is better then beating around the bush.
I was trying not to beat around the bush, but not to you beat you down either. Sorry for hurting your feelings.
kkb-ia;80887 wrote:
I wonder, with the addition of the wings, is the dog really courant any more? Courant, while illustrated with all legs off the ground, still implies that it is mid-run not mid-flight.
Joseph McMillan;80891 wrote:
"Hound of long ears" is a strange bit of blazonry, however. What’s wrong with "talbot," or, failing that "long-eared hound"?
Quite. I’m a bit surprised GKS didn’t insist on "talbot".
OKay, here is the primary rant with Geoff. First since I choice to create my arms in a cartouche, sorry I had it mixed up with lozenge. That with this shape a helm and thus a crest CAN NOT be put together. BUT if I create the standard style shield (the male version) then the crest can be done since it now can have a helm. Without helm there should be no crest, there should be no seperation of the two… and you all know the reason so will not insult your intellegance.
Suzanne and Marcella has the regular mascillan shields thus can include helm and crest.
Geoff, also said ANYONE of ANY GENDER of the USA (or abroad) can get their arms granted by England… you simply need to pay the hefty fee. Reason is England law/regulation/rule does not apply to those who do not reside in England. I coughed when he told me this… after pushing me about RULES you throw this at me. I think he simply wants to teach me those RULES so I know them since it is the bases of England Heraldry.
In the end… he made me look/feel stupid and confused ~~~ Thanks to all of you who kept pushing the fact we are in U.S.A. and we have choices ~~~
PS: Geoff had TALBOT not "a hound of long-ears" yet in several English Heraldy dictionaries it specifies "Spaniel", "Greyhound," and other more bread specific terms. If I simply put HOUND they could put a Beagle there… or a Basset Hound… or etc. It actually is an American Black and Tan Coonhound but that is more lengthly then just saying hound with long ears <LOL>
Yes, Geoff insists that a crest should not be displayed without a helm supporting it. Well, that is hogwash. There are many, many examples of emblazonments - even from the College of Arms - illustrated with a crest and no helm.
kkb-ia;80999 wrote:
Geoff, also said ANYONE of ANY GENDER of the USA (or abroad) can get their arms granted by England…
Perhaps, as a resident of a Commonwealth country, Geoff doesn’t know any better. But the College of Arms’ own website, http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/About/08.htm#d, says the following:
Quote:
American citizens may be granted honorary arms. They must meet the same criteria for eligibility as subjects of the Crown, and in addition must record in the official registers of the College of Arms a pedigree showing their descent from a subject of the British Crown. This may be someone living in the north American colonies before the recognition of American independence in 1783, or a more recent migrant.
So "any gender" is correct, but "anyone" is not, only descendants of British subjects.
For a Scottish grant, you have to prove male-line descent from someone within Lord Lyon’s jurisdiction, normally either someone in Scotland or a Scot living in one of the British colonies. The Chief Herald of Ireland will accept descent in either the male or female line as qualifying someone for an Irish grant of arms. You may want to take a look at our page, http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Registration.Foreign
Quote:
PS: Geoff had TALBOT not "a hound of long-ears" yet in several English Heraldy dictionaries it specifies "Spaniel", "Greyhound," and other more bread specific terms. If I simply put HOUND they could put a Beagle there… or a Basset Hound… or etc. It actually is an American Black and Tan Coonhound but that is more lengthly then just saying hound with long ears <LOL>
But a "hound of long-ears" could be a bloodhound, or a bluetick coonhound, or for that matter a basset or dachshund. If you want it to be a black and tan, then blazon it as a black and tan coonhound.
(This, by the way, suggests a reversal of tinctures, with a black dog on gold and perhaps white quatrefoils on black. "A black and tan coonhound Argent" sounds self-contradictory.)
Quote:
It actually is an American Black and Tan Coonhound but that is more lengthly then just saying hound with long ears
If a coonhound is a recognised breed then why not blazon it as such? What is wrong with a coonhound courant winged argent?
I admit I wouldn’t know one if I fell over one 
, but if I needed to know I would find out as would any competent heraldic artist.
I was reminded of a couple of other threads while reading all of this. The Talbot is an extinct breed of dog, having existed back when there were many fewer diverse breeds, but it is still something of a universal symbol of dogs that is used in heraldry. I’m a dog lover myself, and I’d be happy to see Golden Retrievers used as charges, crests and supporters, but then, that’s only one of hundreds of dog breeds and I don’t like clutter. As is being discussed in the thread concerning mechanical devices as charges, I think it’s great to keep heraldry as a living science/art form by updating it with modern charges, as long as we stick to the basics and don’t go overboard.
As for the type of shield women should use, I started a thread last year about just that question since I have only one daughter who will be my heraldic heir. Canadians use the same shield for women as for men, which includes the helm and crest. Other countries use a lozenge and others a cartouche, or round shield. I was pleased when I came to the realization that as an American, my daughter can choose to use any shape shield she damn well pleases, or use all of them for different purposes. I would consider our full achievement of the shield, helm and crest as her arms, and if she wants to display them on a lozenge or a cartouche, that’s her choice. You’ll note that my avatar displays my arms on a banner and not a shield of any kind.
A matter of taste of course, but IMO a detailed multi-colored breed-specific dog would probably make a better crest than a charge on the shield itself.
If the heraldric artist keeps with the noted structure description of a Talbot; which is a Mastifs body, a hound’s head, and Bloodhound length ears (An Herldric Alphabet, JP Brooke-Little) then this none breed specific heraldric dog will work.
If I decide to use the standard sheild, which in turn enables me to place helm and thus a crest these are my options of presentation, less the Banner/Flag seen, correct?
Those are your options, yes. I think you are really stretching the idea of per fess enarched in your effort to make it look like the dog is flying over a planet. I look forward to seeing your painting of these arms and finally getting away from the stencil-like silhouettes. As to the crest, it seems a little…anachronistic isn’t the right word…hmm…out of place? I think you’d do much better to have an actual demi-hind rather than a painting of one on an easel. Whether it holds a paintbrush or quill being immaterial.
I agree with Mr. Mansfield that the demi hind would look happier if it were issuant from the torse (without an easel). I really like the dual quill pens!
The shield device to me looks awsome, colors and all. The only thing that I am not sure about is the talbot being winged… I feel like it would look really sharp without wings, but I don’t know, it does look good as is just as well. 
I would so love to see this painted, even if left unchanged; overall I like it!
I like the arms in all renditions shown, and I also agree about loosing the easel. You could have the hind holding a paint brush or something similar to give a similar allusion.
Kenneth Mansfield;81064 wrote:
Those are your options, yes. I think you are really stretching the idea of per fess enarched in your effort to make it look like the dog is flying over a planet. I look forward to seeing your painting of these arms and finally getting away from the stencil-like silhouettes. As to the crest, it seems a little…anachronistic isn’t the right word…hmm…out of place? I think you’d do much better to have an actual demi-hind rather than a painting of one on an easel. Whether it holds a paintbrush or quill being immaterial.
Ken, it is one of those… changed dancette to enarched… then what do I do with the quartrefoils and the winged Talbot. Okay this here and that there, this looks better then this here and that there.. dont forget the tincture rules…. OH! the dog looks like it is flying over a planet if I removed wings… okay now the dog is jumping over a planet… but in all due creation I did not initially think this when moving things around and making sure tincture rules stayed in place. I could flip the enarched to be up in the dexter with a sable talbot and then the quartrefoils argent against the sable sheild. Then it would look like a dog flying up with the sun over some flowers…lol.
I winged the Talbot is for indifference, I just have not seen the Talbot displayed this way so far in other arms. I also liked the idea since for the most part flying can represent freedom to go anywhere in life.
I think you misunderstand my comment regarding the division. I think the construction of your arms is just fine. I am talking about the illustration of them. Per fess enarched is a division which is usually seen using a slightly curved line. Particularly the division on the lozenge above seems to me to look more like a mount rising from base than a simple curved line dividing the shield in two. Perhaps I’m just being picky. Below is a good example of what I think of when I think of per fess enarched:
http://www.heraldry.ca/arms/m/mackie_c_350h.jpg
And since I’m being picky, my name is Kenneth, not Ken.
