A thought about Lord Lyon’s curious label of one point: Another way to express the fact that the father is assuming the arms of the son might be a label of three points reversed (points upward), since the transmission of the arms is going in reverse of the usual order. I don’t know that I’d ever recommend this; just daydreaming.
Pesonally, I think the crest change is sufficient - even unecessary in the US… My major problem with the label is.. what if, and I don’t mean to be morbid here, something happens to the son first? Does Dad remove his label?.. If the arms aren’t registered yet, could always get dad’s crest designed and register both at same time…
Whoever (Martin?) noted that he had refrained from commenting on the one-pendant label when it first appeared, is a better gentleman than I might have been. It may have served a purpose within the strictly regulated Scottish tradition, but that was IMO necessity rather than art—as IMO amply demonstrated by an apparent lack of takers since then. It certainly isn’t necessary, or IMO desirable, in the American context.
If your dad is a fisherman, you can very simply substitute his favorite species of fish for whatever your crest-beastie holds in his paws. Makes the point with minimal disruption of a really nice design.
I really wouldn’t advise having him drop the cotisses from the bend—since that is more likely to suggest that while you & he share the same surname, you’re not closely (if at all) related. Far better (parroting Joe & others) to eschew cadency altogether, at least on the shield.
If you have perhaps an Nth cousin Y times removed who likes your design, let him drop the cotisses if he likes—or better, engrail them or whatever.
Or better still, let him use the same arms as you & dad, to emphasize a shared family identity rather than fuss over each one’s relative place in the family. (Oops—I’m repeating myself ... that’s the first sign of ...what was that condition again?...)
‘Old age and decrepitude’ is the expression I use most often, Michael.
The crest-beastie holding a fish with its head upwards in both paws (as though presenting it) would definitely be the ‘way to go’!
As I belong to the ‘one man one coat of arms’ school then differencing the outer edge of the cotises by interested cousins would be a good place to start.
Regards,
Iain Boyd
I really like the idea of the wolf holding a fish. Now, how to do a Walleye 
Quote:
I also see no reason why your father would not be free to select his own crest and motto, since it is my admittedly anglocentric understanding that, although crests and mottos are often carried down for generations, that it is only the matter of the shield itself that is actually inherited.
This is not the case at all: generally once granted or confirmed arms and crest are inherited in toto. Although, there may one or two exceptions to this they are very rare indeed. Such an alteration of one’s arms would be the exception rather the rule. The motto on the other hand from the prespective of the College of Arms (unlike Lyon Court) has never been the subject or grant or confirmation and, therefore, may be charged at will.
As I mentioned in a previous posting upon this topic once you start chopping and changing elements within one’s armorial bearings it is no longer heraldry - the hereditary use of certain symbols upon a shield or worn upon a helm but mere fashion or whim.
With every good wish
John
John wrote -
"As I mentioned in a previous posting upon this topic once you start chopping and changing elements within one’s armorial bearings it is no longer heraldry - the hereditary use of certain symbols upon a shield or worn upon a helm but mere fashion or whim."
Sorry, John, but, I can not agree.
Regards,
Iain Boyd
liongam;85599 wrote:
This is not the case at all: generally once granted or confirmed arms and crest are inherited in toto. Although, there may one or two exceptions to this they are very rare indeed. Such an alteration of one’s arms would be the exception rather the rule. The motto on the other hand from the prespective of the College of Arms (unlike Lyon Court) has never been the subject or grant or confirmation and, therefore, may be charged at will.
As I mentioned in a previous posting upon this topic once you start chopping and changing elements within one’s armorial bearings it is no longer heraldry - the hereditary use of certain symbols upon a shield or worn upon a helm but mere fashion or whim.
With every good wish
John
Taken from the Polish Genealogical Society of America’s website.
Quote:
The crest is of unknown origin, was developed later than the coat of arms itself, and it is not exclusively used by any one person. Many similar Polish clan shields can be totally different and can share a same crest. The exaggerated use of the crest instead of the shield arms themselves during the 18th and 19th centuries resulted in families’ forgetting their shield of arms and claiming a crest only. The habit also had the effect of establishing the erroneous reference to a coat of arms as "the family crest."
The importance of a crest, compared to the arms itself is minimal. There was a good amount of time that the crest wasn’t even used at all, or you just had feathers on the top of the helm.
Dohrman Byers;85565 wrote:
A thought about Lord Lyon’s curious label of one point: Another way to express the fact that the father is assuming the arms of the son might be a label of three points reversed (points upward), since the transmission of the arms is going in reverse of the usual order. I don’t know that I’d ever recommend this; just daydreaming.
That would have been a great innovation! Better, in my opinion, than the one-pointed label.
I was speaking from a perspective of heraldic practice within the British Isles or the British tradition whereever found in the world, perhaps, Canada excepting and Scotland in relation to rematriculation that in the main armorial bearings once granted or confirmed stay very much the the same otherwise the hereditary concept of heraldry means nought. The notion I have been attempting to get across is that to keep on reinventing your armorial bearings detracts them from being from family arms to just a personal monomark for an individual for the time being.
John
J. Stolarz;85603 wrote:
The importance of a crest, compared to the arms itself is minimal. There was a good amount of time that the crest wasn’t even used at all, or you just had feathers on the top of the helm.
This is precisely why when differencing is traditionally used, or even mandated by most English-speaking granting authorities, it is the shield that is differenced. The shield is the most important heraldic element, and so if for purposes of differentiating between individuals, this is where custom dictates differencing should occur.
I’ve never fully understood the advice often (unofficially) given here that Americans should difference crests if they want to instead of the shield. It smacks a bit of having one’s cake and eating it too - you want to use ‘family’ arms but personal crests.
If the argument is that arms can be heritable universally and unchanged among one’s heirs, then there is no need for cadency. But if differencing is required or desired to ensure identity, then leaving the most important and historically personal element unchanged, and changing the crest instead defies heraldic tradition.
It seems as if some people are trying to establish a new heraldic custom regarding inheritance and transmission of arms, instead of using the two old, established systems - shield-based cadency, or no cadency at all. If a third, new custom fits the American experience, then perhaps the Society or other learned bodies should help document its evoultion. But these clumsy work-arounds do leave the process open to criticism.
I see John’s point about questioning at what point heraldry ceases to serve its hereditary functions. I do think the attempt in this case is to maintain hereditary purpose - but I think this case study mixes in elements of both the old debates about cadency, and the personal assumption of arms. If father and son within the same family assume slightly different achievements of arms and use neither established method of cadency to differentiate them, it could create an awkward precedent. Or it could help establish a practical new custom. The result is certainly uncertain.
(Now, I bet that the true scholars here will be able to cite historical precedents that have escaped me for the differencing of crests instead of arms.)
It is apparently the custom in German speaking countries and elsewhere in Central Europe to use different crests as a way of distinguishing different lines of a family. This is covered in von Volborth’s Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles:
Quote:
In countries of the German language, brisures in the shield were never as popular as in France or Great Britain, and the adoption of different crests sometimes seemed sufficient to mark a diference.
But the example he gives shows the adoption of the crest of a maternal line, matched with the paternal shield, to difference the arms of a cadet line, and the family involved is the Habsburgs. It’s not clear to me that this custom extended to lesser families, or that it was customary in any case to simply design a totally new crest for differencing purposes. Perhaps our German members know.
well, Ben, it may smack of that to you, but that doesn’t mean it’s the reality. perhaps, just maybe, some, or many, of us are not Anglophile, or Anglo-centric, in our P.O.V.‘s in general or in heraldry specifically.
or perhaps some, or many, of us find it artistically obnoxious to deface the arms for no current, logical, or practical reason other than that’s simply how the English had always done it so it must be the best way (as one reads in most readily available books on the subject). from this artists P.O.V. differences lead to compounded differences as in the English system and they become increasingly annoying and ugly very quickly.
or perhaps people, mainly Americans, want something that is heraldic, but maybe not as, well, ‘stuffy’ as Anglo-centric arms may be (not likely though as many Americans including this one when i was first into heraldry want supporters…how much more stuffy can one get?).
my point is, and i don’t mean it rude or in a uncivil way, that just because something "smacks" of something to you does not mean it is so (same for me/all of us). i, as are you, as are we all, are products of our environment. and while most Canadians i know are frankly some of the nicest people i’ve ever known and almost exactly like us Americans (except they tend to be nicer than us) are all still at your core Royalists and therefore Anglo-centric in most ways especially heraldry. i can’t tell you of one person i know in real life America, not here mind you, that has even an inkling of royalist sympathies/tendencies other than a number of women i know fall for the "royal wedding" stuff every time that sort of thing comes around, but that’s for entirely different reasons i’d bet.
i think, Ben, it’s as simple as that. honestly.
Donnchadh;85625 wrote:
i can’t tell you of one person i know in real life America, not here mind you, that has even an inkling of royalist sympathies/tendencies other than a number of women i know fall for the "royal wedding" stuff every time that sort of thing comes around, but that’s for entirely different reasons i’d bet.
Denny, you forget that I am the forum’s token royalist.
Although it is perhaps none of my business, I think if a father and son are both going to have arms, they should try very hard to make them the same. Although I admit changing crests is a way to distinguish a cadet branch of a family, I feel uncomfortable with changing them every generation to show cadency.
I don’t see this opinion as having any necessary relationship to royalist or British sensibilities. And I also don’t see royalist and anglo-centric as necessarily synonymous.
lol Doc! i suspect there are several, if not many, who are royalist, or at least share/enjoy royalist sympathies here. that’s ok with me, as it seems to come with the territory of heraldry to be honest. and if i was a product of those environments i’d probably be one too. but, i’m not. 