Spanish blazons

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
26 June 2011 21:39
 

A cursory reading of outlines of the norms of Spanish heraldry, as for instance http://www.grandesp.org.uk/heraldica/herald_en1.htm, suggests that Spain has a similar history to France with regards to external attributes like crests and supporters.

Would it be safe to say of Spanish blazons that they, like French blazons, concern only the shield, and that crests and supporters can be added or changed as a given generation wishes? It sounds like Spanish heraldry eschews external ornaments (other than crowns for nobles and the placing of the shield on crosses of orders of chivalry for their members) more than does French heraldry, but that being understood, would it be safe to say that Spaniards are less apt to fuss about the inclusion or exclusion of crest and supporters than would heraldically literate types in the UK, for instance?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
26 June 2011 23:18
 

Fred White;85330 wrote:

A cursory reading of outlines of the norms of Spanish heraldry, as for instance http://www.grandesp.org.uk/heraldica/herald_en1.htm, suggests that Spain has a similar history to France with regards to external attributes like crests and supporters.

Would it be safe to say of Spanish blazons that they, like French blazons, concern only the shield, and that crests and supporters can be added or changed as a given generation wishes? It sounds like Spanish heraldry eschews external ornaments (other than crowns for nobles and the placing of the shield on crosses of orders of chivalry for their members) more than does French heraldry, but that being understood, would it be safe to say that Spaniards are less apt to fuss about the inclusion or exclusion of crest and supporters?


I’m not sure what you mean about fuss, but Spanish heraldry has the same rule about commoners not using helms and crests.  Bernabé Moreno de Vargas, a leading 17th century writer on Spanish nobiliary law, wrote in Discursos de la nobleza de España (1659):


Quote:

Plebeians and persons who do not have nobility may bear arms as they wish, and call themselves whatever name and surname they wish, provided that they do not take the arms and surnames of nobles or hidalgos, but others that they may choose in moderation and in due proportion to their estate, only to differentiate themselves and to distinguish one from another, the shields of these arms and ensigns not having crests or foliages [mantling], but plain and simple, because taking arms that are proper and particular to the nobles, and bearing them in the form that they bear them, is prejudicial and commits the crime of falsification, because it attributes to them what is not their own.


According to an excellent site on Spanish heraldry, http://www.grandesp.org.uk/heraldica/herald_es5.htm#inicio,


Quote:

Spanish heraldic iconography from the Middle Ages until the beginning of the 16th century presents many examples of arms with crests, but their use has been lost in the modern period, in which the timbre of the shields of hidalgos has been restricted to a helm with a panache of five ostrich plumes, at times with a torse and its mantling.

Other distinctive elements are provided by the crosses of the military Orders of Santiago, Calatrava, Alcántara, and Montesa, placed behind the shield with their arms showing.

 

The other additaments follow the rules for the use of crowns, helms, mantles, and insignia of dignity according to the practice of the other countries of Europe.

 

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
27 June 2011 01:14
 

Joseph McMillan;85333 wrote:

According to an excellent site on Spanish heraldry, http://www.grandesp.org.uk/heraldica/herald_es5.htm#inicio . . .


That’s the site I was referring to, and I caught the restriction on helms and crests to nobles. What I meant by "fuss" was whether someone who is entitled to a crest would be considered free to change it, discard it, etc. without violating the integrity of the arms.

 

I gather that supporters in Spanish heraldry are rare, indeed, but again, that one could use or not use them as his tastes dictate, because the blazon concerns only the shield.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
27 June 2011 09:55
 

I’m not sure it’s necessarily correct to say that anyone may use supporters as he wishes just because the blazon mentions only the shield.  Many blazons don’t mention the kind of helm, and yet we know that a number of countries specify that certain helms are only available to people of certain ranks, or that certain ranks are not entitled to helms at all.

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
27 June 2011 12:33
 

Dear Fred, excuse my straightforwardness, but in my humble opinion the very initial statement of question needs a revision.

That there was a general habit to blazon only the most essential element of an armorial achievement does not mean that the elements not mentioned were regarded as merely decorative and not truly armorial. And, even more importantly, if crests and supporters were easily changeable and normally not fixed by grants and certifications, this also does not mean that these elements were regarded as merely decorative and not truly armorial; the latter presumption is understandable within the British [or "post-British"] context with its precise and detalised grants but it is still an erroneous presumption. Both within the French and Spanish contexts, the official heraldic records were designed to avoid usurpations and thus it was considered practical enough to confine such a record to the shields. After all, the crests and beast badges (there being no border between these and supporters) were never in such a common use on French or Spanish soil as in Britain. But this did not mean that the external elements were "not seriously heraldic" or "off the blazon".

Similarly, the coronets of rank were normally not blazoned but they were, and are, still perfectly heraldic and absolutely "serious".

Modern [broadly modern] Spanish heraldry actually developed the peculiar concept of "real" crests (rarely borne indeed) as opposed to panaches (which, like mantlings, may be left unblazoned as by default they just reflect the main tinctures of the arms). Not absolutely compatible to what we are accustomed to smile but still absolutely heraldic.

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
27 June 2011 12:40
 

Joseph McMillan;85340 wrote:

I’m not sure it’s necessarily correct to say that anyone may use supporters as he wishes just because the blazon mentions only the shield.  Many blazons don’t mention the kind of helm, and yet we know that a number of countries specify that certain helms are only available to people of certain ranks, or that certain ranks are not entitled to helms at all.

Seconded.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
27 June 2011 18:48
 

Michael Y. Medvedev;85346 wrote:

Both within the French and Spanish contexts, the official heraldic records were designed to avoid usurpations and thus it was considered practical enough to confine such a record to the shields.


Given the amount of repetition in d’Hozier and its genesis as a tax-farming scheme, I have a hard time seeing how avoidance of usurpation was the main imperative at play there, but I can’t speak to the Spanish context. Either way, how do the goals of heraldic records in either France or Spain differ substantially from the goals of heraldic records elsewhere?


Quote:

After all, the crests and beast badges (there being no border between these and supporters) were never in such a common use on French or Spanish soil as in Britain. But this did not mean that the external elements were . . . "off the blazon".


I’m sure you have good reason for saying this, but what, exactly, is the evidence that helms, crests, and supporters were "on the blazon" if they were not recorded in blazons?


Quote:

Similarly, the coronets of rank were normally not blazoned but they were, and are, still perfectly heraldic and absolutely "serious".


We must be miscommunicating. I haven’t asserted that any heraldic tradition doesn’t take an additament seriously or doesn’t feel it is truly heraldic if it isn’t typically part of a blazon. The question is whether or not its use is flexible, optional, etc., assuming one meets any relevant rank criteria. But I’ve been talking about crests and supporters, not coronets of rank, the meaning of which is never ambiguous.


Quote:

Modern [broadly modern] Spanish heraldry actually developed the peculiar concept of "real" crests . . .


How are those distinct from other crests?

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
27 June 2011 21:38
 

The French scheme to force you to register arms (old or on-the-spot) so they could be taxed (e.g. the Hozier armorial) was near the end of the ancien regime—not a long-standing integral feature of French heraldry.

As to uniqueness, IIRC (always doubtful!) it was limited to the particular region of France, not the whole nation.  Same idea as unique within a country, but applied to a kingdom—really an empire of sorts, well before Bonaparte—that was a patchwork of once-autonomous provinces, duchies, and at least one smaller former kingdom.  (Not that I support that approach—I don’t—but that was for better or worse the approach then & still taken by some…)

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
27 June 2011 22:54
 

Michael F. McCartney;85371 wrote:

The French scheme to force you to register arms (old or on-the-spot) so they could be taxed (e.g. the Hozier armorial) was near the end of the ancien regime—not a long-standing integral feature of French heraldry.


Well, I guess you could say "near the end," but d’Hozier et al commenced in 1696 and the storming of the Bastille was in 1789.


Quote:

As to uniqueness, IIRC (always doubtful!) it was limited to the particular region of France, not the whole nation.  Same idea as unique within a country, but applied to a kingdom—really an empire of sorts, well before Bonaparte—that was a patchwork of once-autonomous provinces, duchies, and at least one smaller former kingdom.  (Not that I support that approach—I don’t—but that was for better or worse the approach then & still taken by some…)


I didn’t know that, though I guess the division of the volumes by region suggests it. Still, I think many will agree that the pursuivants were a little lazy in all the recycling they did. It almost looks like they would say, "Ok, the next twenty guys in line get a fess chequy and no charges. Just vary the metals and the tinctures and collect the fee."

 
Derek Howard
 
Avatar
 
 
Derek Howard
Total Posts:  116
Joined  08-05-2009
 
 
 
28 June 2011 06:39
 

Fred White;85383 wrote:

Well, I guess you could say "near the end," but d’Hozier et al commenced in 1696 and the storming of the Bastille was in 1789.

This should really be under the French thread. On a technicallity: The d’Hozier family became juge d’armes in 1641 (the office existed from 1615). The office was suspended 1696-1701 when it was reestablished and they continued to hold it to the Revolution. They were responsible for all heraldic matters. They approved the arms for the nobility and new enoblements, delivered confirmations of arms, after 1706 controlled arms with timbres, registered arms, confirmed nobility, changes of names and arms, grants of arms, etc. Charles d’Hozier was garde of the Armorial général from 1696.
Fred White;85383 wrote:

I didn’t know that, though I guess the division of the volumes by region suggests it. Still, I think many will agree that the pursuivants were a little lazy in all the recycling they did. It almost looks like they would say, "Ok, the next twenty guys in line get a fess chequy and no charges. Just vary the metals and the tinctures and collect the fee."

No pursuivants or heralds as these had been relegated to an advisory and ceremonial role. It fell to Charles d’Hozier and his commissioners.

The edict of 1696 creating the Armorial général raised 6 million livres for the royal treasury. However, many neglected or refused to register, despite repeated Council rulings, and others were unhappy with the creations of the commissioners. Nevertheless, it included some 180,000 entries for the whole of France, albeit some 30,000 in Paris or Versailles. Registration in the Armorial général ceased in 1709 and the registers were deposited in the Cabinet des Titres in the royal library in 1711.

Incidentally, it was also intended in 1696 that there be a grand master and a range of masters of the Armorial to know all the differences and deal with arguments over arms and blasons. This clause was abolished in 1700 as they had not managed to sell a single office, which had been the purpose.

Derek Howard

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
28 June 2011 13:26
 

Derek Howard;85386 wrote:

This should really be under the French thread.


Suits me. What I hoped to get at in this thread is just how helms, crests, and supporters figure in Spanish heraldry. My sense is that the short answer is that both are rare, that helms and crests are restricted, and that supporters are not, but the larger question of just what it signifies that these things are not typically part of the blazon is also interesting.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
28 June 2011 15:36
 

The last Cronista de Armas to be recognized by the Spanish ministry of justice, Vicente de Cadenas Y Vicent, stated very clearly that although in other nations helms and the various types of helms are restricted by rank, this is not the case in contemporary Spain.  There are no rules or customs limiting the use of supporters in Spanish heraldry, though they are seldom seen.  I must say though, that from my own observations of the use of supporters cut into the face of stone houses (common sight in many small towns in Spain), they are usually used by the high nobility.  My sense is there are no rules against the use of supporters in Spanish heraldry other than good taste and "not bearing more sail than your boat can handle".

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
28 June 2011 21:18
 

Luis Cid;85396 wrote:

The last Cronista de Armas to be recognized by the Spanish ministry of justice, Vicente de Cadenas Y Vicent, stated very clearly that although in other nations helms and the various types of helms are restricted by rank, this is not the case in contemporary Spain.


But just to make sure we’re being crystal clear: There are no restrictions on helms, but there are restrictions on crests?


Quote:

There are no rules or customs limiting the use of supporters in Spanish heraldry, though they are seldom seen.  I must say though, that from my own observations of the use of supporters cut into the face of stone houses (common sight in many small towns in Spain), they are usually used by the high nobility.  My sense is there are no rules against the use of supporters in Spanish heraldry other than good taste and "not bearing more sail than your boat can handle".


My sense is that you’re right, but more than a couple of registrations/certifications/grants (What do they call those?) I’ve seen to Americans from the Cronista include supporters. How high can the nobility bar have been set?

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
29 June 2011 00:45
 

Fred White;85400 wrote:

But just to make sure we’re being crystal clear: There are no restrictions on helms, but there are restrictions on crests?

 

 

My sense is that you’re right, but more than a couple of registrations/certifications/grants (What do they call those?) I’ve seen to Americans from the Cronista include supporters. How high can the nobility bar have been set?


There are no restrictions on crests or supporters, but crests are rare and supporters uncommon even in royal or corporate arms.  As for the Spanish heralds, they were often quite ready to accommodate a client ready to pay for embellishments such as crests and supporters which no longer have a place in Spanish heraldry and are in no way an indicator of rank.  All the same, most Spanish heraldrists look ascance at the use of such exterior adornments if they are not of ancient use in the family as they are seen to be foreign.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
30 June 2011 00:05
 

Fred White;85400 wrote:

My sense is that you’re right, but more than a couple of registrations/certifications/grants (What do they call those?) I’ve seen to Americans from the Cronista include supporters. How high can the nobility bar have been set?


I seriously doubt that there more than a dozen and a half certifications to US citizens that included supporters spread over Don Vicente’s fifty plus year career as a Cronitsa de Armas.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
30 June 2011 03:26
 

David Pritchard;85477 wrote:

I seriously doubt that there more than a dozen and a half certifications to US citizens that included supporters spread over Don Vicente’s fifty plus year career as a Cronitsa de Armas.


Good to hear from you again, David. Perhaps you’re right. I’m sure you’re better situated to know than I am, because—as it happens—yours is one of the certifications I have in mind.

 

Another I recall is Charles Drake’s, but when I went to look at it, I realized it was not from Don Vicente but from the Marques de la Floresta, and if memory serves, these authorities are not esteemed equally in heraldic circles.

 

In any case, the question remains, where does the bar for nobility lie in Spanish certifications (from the Franco era to the present)? And how many certifications for Americans did Don Vicente issue in total?