steven harris;94074 wrote:
Despair not, my friend, my first strike at arms were much MUCH worse! (if I can find v.1 I’ll post it)
I am a Latinist – what sentiment are you attempting to express with “Doctrinam Pro Divinitas”?
A Latinist?!?! Exciting!
I was tring to say "Wisdom instead of riches". I used variant words for alliteration. Its derived from Proverbs 8:10.
Help?
Nothing wrong with an English motto. Not implying there’s anything wrong with a Latin one either - just saying.
My goodness! This feels like a baby shower! I love you guys and gals!
As to actually helping out with the design process is that we are really only supposed to offer suggestions to those who are dues paid members in the members only section.
All we are really allowed to do here is tell people what’s wrong with their arms, lol… I know, magnetic marketing in reverse. 
Jeremy Corbally-Hammond;94088 wrote:
Nothing wrong with an English motto. Not implying there’s anything wrong with a Latin one either - just saying.
I concur 100%
I’ve been studing Latin for almost 20 years now, and my motto is in English!
Guy Power;94085 wrote:
And yours: Gules three tobacco leaves Or and on a chief Azure a Jerusalem cross Argent.
Since I like the orginality of his cross, I might flip them:
Azure a Crusaders’ cross Argent and on a chief Gules three tobacco leaves Or
that way the cross can be larger, and the three leaves fill the chief nicely. If the cross can be Or as well, then that would cut you down to just two colors and one metal - less is more!
mpnmatthews;94086 wrote:
I was tring to say "Wisdom instead of riches". I used variant words for alliteration. Its derived from Proverbs 8:10?
I’ll look in my Vulgata and my dictonaries when I get home tonight.
Guy Power;94085 wrote:
And yours: Gules three tobacco leaves Or and on a chief Azure a Jerusalem cross Argent.
Since I like the orginality of his cross, I might flip them:
Azure a Crusaders’ cross Argent and on a chief Gules three tobacco leaves Or
that way the cross can be larger, and the three leaves fill the chief nicely.
steven harris;94092 wrote:
I concur 100%
I’ve been studing Latin for almost 20 years now, and my motto is in English!
Since I like the orginality of his cross, I might flip them:
Azure a Crusaders’ cross Argent and on a chief Gules three tobacco leaves Or
that way the cross can be larger, and the three leaves fill the chief nicely. If the cross can be Or as well, then that would cut you down to just two colors and one metal .
I would think about maybe switching the azure and gules so it’s Gules with the Jerusalem cross Or. That would work better with the Or ibis Giles of the wife’s side. And then I believe both would have an azure chief.
mpnmatthews;94084 wrote:
That’s interesing, Joseph. If the symbols in your heraldry do not have any true relation to you or your life, then what exaclty do they represent more than a collage of pretty pictures?
A fair question.
First, you’ll notice that many, if not most, coats of arms are not collages of pretty pictures. Many were originally designed for reasons other than totemic value - visibility comes to mind, as does the desire to show familial or feudal connections.
Second, if a coat is intended to be a biography, wouldn’t an optometrist have to change the arms he inherited through his bricklayer father, soldier grandfather, and sailmaker great-grandfather?
Finally, I always liked this poem by Sir Edward Hamly:
"A moth-eaten rag on a worm-eaten pole,
It does not look likely to stir a man’s Soul,
‘Tis the deeds that were done ‘neath the moth-eaten rag,
When the pole was a staff, and the rag was a flag."
For me, I want my daughter to want to bear my arms out of love for me and respect for my deeds. Other think differently, I am sure, and with good reason, but this is why I said what I did. I hope no offense was taken; none was meant.
I encourage you to join the Society. It is an amazing learning experience and a load of fun!
At the risk of being a spoilsport:
Quote:
The use of the Society’s Forum for extensive discussions working through the design is limited to Society members and will be conducted in the Member Area section established for that purpose. Non-members may use this area to raise specific questions, but any exchanges concerning detailed design work need be pursued either by e-mail or using the personal messaging feature.
We of course always welcome new members!
j.carrasco;94095 wrote:
and then I believe both would have an azure chief.
I would advise against this. Impaling two arms which are both Gules with a chief Azure would, I think, loose the impalment.
An analogous situation existed when Sophie Rhys-Jones married Prince Edward (in June 1999). Her arms, those granted to her father, were designed with their future impalment with the royal arms in mind - the red and blue quarterings intentionally arranged so as not "blend" with those of the royal arms. That is to say, if her field were reversed, then her red quarter III would have abutted the Prince’s red IV<sup>th</sup> quarter (for Scotland).
steven harris;94100 wrote:
I would advise against this. Impaling two arms which are both Gules with a chief Azure would, I think, loose the impalment.
An analogous situation existed when Sophie Rhys-Jones married Prince Edward (in June 1999). Her arms, those granted to her father, were designed with their future impalment with the royal arms in mind - the red and blue quarterings intentionally arranged so as not "blend" with those of the royal arms. That is to say, if her field were reversed, then her red quarter III would have abutted the Prince’s red IV<sup>th</sup> quarter (for Scotland).
I would agree with you on this. However I was under the assumption that one side was Azure and one side was blue celeste (based on the way the original picture looked). So I thought the two halves of the chiefs would still be blue but each in their respective shades. But if its not Blue Celeste, then yes, I would agree and not make the two chiefs that same blue.
arriano;94098 wrote:
At the risk of being a spoilsport:
We of course always welcome new members!
Thanks all! I think I have broken some rules here, so I’m sorry, and thank you so much for all of your suggestions!
j.carrasco;94101 wrote:
I was under the assumption that one side was Azure and one side was blue celeste (based on the way the original picture looked). So I thought the two halves of the chiefs would still be blue but each in their respective shades. But if its not Blue Celeste, then yes, I would agree and not make the two chiefs that same blue.
I would avoid this color scheme. Many people are not likely to notice the difference at a first glance, and with heraldry that is often all you will get. I think the design would be more vibrant if you don’t put similar colors next to one another. Better have radically different tinctures next to one another as it’s more visually distinct - and that is one of the purposes of heraldry.
I would treat both arms separately and design them without consideration of how they would look impaled. Each design IMO should be solid and stand on its own. 
mpnmatthews;94086 wrote:
...I was tring to say "Wisdom instead of riches".
Help?
I’m NOT a Latinist and I DIDN’T play one on television ... but I did sleep at Motel 6 .... where I got these results from (shudder-shudder) Google Translate:
Sapientia pro divitias
Wisdom Instead of Riches
(Well ... doesn’t pro mean "for" ... like "Pro Patria" means for the country?)
so maybe Sapientia potius divitias ???
or (with some fiddling about)
Sapientia non Divitias
Wisdom Not Riches
Sapientia magis quam divitias
Knowledge Rather Than Riches
Sapientia super divitas
Knowledge Over Riches
