Looking for input on the following as yet un-finished blazon for my personal arms. The blazon gramar is in what I believe to be the swedish style. The structure / grammar of the blazon is taken from the Swedish Royal coat of arms, though I do not know how closelly it follows correct blazoning, if at all.
"A shield quarterly, in the first field azure, three open crowns placed two above one Or; in the second field the arms of the House of Vasa (Bendwise azure, argent and gules, a vasa Or); in the third field the arms of the United States of America (Argent, six pallets gules, a chief azure); in the forth field the arms of Saxony (Gules, a Saxon Hoarse rampant argent). An inescutcheon the arms of House of Roth (Azure, a capital letter R in Times New Roman bisected fesswise by an arrow to sinister Or)."
Carl,
Leaving aside the blazoning, unless you are a prince of the royal house of Sweden (in which case you would not be named "Roth"), with hereditary claims to sovereignty over the United States and Saxony as well, the design itself is inappropriate on all kinds of fronts. Being of Swedish, Saxon, and American ancestry doesn’t give you the right to quarter the arms of those countries. In any case, with very rare exceptions a newly designed coat of arms should not be in quarterly format but rather have a single integral field.
As for the fourth quarter, using an initial as principal charge is generally not considered good heraldry, and specifying the type font even less so, but this field is at least minimally acceptable as an original coat. If you are in love with this design, you’d be better off using it alone than with all the Sweden/Saxony/USA emblems.It would be blazoned as "Azure a letter R [surmounted by? pierced by?] an arrow fesswise point to sinister Or."
The part in brackets has to do with whether the R is on top the arrow, the arrow on top of the R, or whatever.
I agree with everything Joe said, except that he seems to have confused your fourth quarter with what I assume is an escutcheon overall. Other than that, he is spot on. 
Everything that Joe said.
Also, I highly recommend becoming a paid society member (annual dues are inexpensive) and then use the members only section of the forum to obtain assistance in designing the best arms possible.
My confusion is that I have seen precedence in american heraldry where arms of nations / kingdoms are used not to make a claim but to reference origin / heratige (I.E the arms of the State of Alabama). One would assume the state’s govornment is not making a claim to the throne of France, Spain, Great Britain and the presidency of the Confederacy. Comments?
Kenneth Mansfield;94940 wrote:
I agree with everything Joe said, except that he seems to have confused your fourth quarter with what I assume is an escutcheon overall. Other than that, he is spot on.
Yes, the escutcheon overall. I got confused.
Also I should have pointed out that "Gules a horse rampant (or forcene) Argent" is not the coat of arms of Saxony but historically that of the old Principality of Hannover and now of the German land (state) of Lower Saxony, which more or less coincides with the territory of Hannover. Saxony’s arms are "Barry of ten Sable and Or a crancelin bendwise Vert."
Carl wrote, "My confusion is that I have seen precedence in american heraldry where arms of nations / kingdoms are used not to make a claim but to reference origin / heratige (I.E the arms of the State of Alabama). One would assume the state’s govornment is not making a claim to the throne of France, Spain, Great Britain and the presidency of the Confederacy. Comments?"
Arms of sovereigns (in this case, the State of Alabama) don’t follow the same rules as personal arms. When they incorporate the arms of previous sovereigns, they demonstrate (or at least express a claim) that they are the successor to the sovereignty exercised over their territory by those former sovereigns.
One may disagree with the artistic desirability of this form of expression, but it is common enough to be de facto an accepted practice. Look at e.g. the State of Maryland (successor to the Calverts, former Lords Proprietary) or Hawaii (successor to the former Hawaiian kingdom).
In the case you cite, the State of Alabama is in practical terms the successor sovereign, within it’s own territory, of France, Spain, GB and the Confederacy; and may be thought of as a "cadet" of the Federal government.
Not a model to be emulated in assuming personal arms.
Carl Alexander Roth;94942 wrote:
My confusion is that I have seen precedence in american heraldry where arms of nations / kingdoms are used not to make a claim but to reference origin / heratige (I.E the arms of the State of Alabama). One would assume the state’s govornment is not making a claim to the throne of France, Spain, Great Britain and the presidency of the Confederacy. Comments?
Alabama’s arms are not good heraldry, either (and I speak as a sixth-generation Alabamian). If I’d been around in 1939 I would have made the same argument I’m making to you. It’s probably too late for Alabama—the arms are on the State Troopers’ uniforms and cars, the governor’s flag, and many of the welcome signs at the state line. But you still have time to be saved.
All that notwithstanding, sovereigns (including U.S. states) may do things that we ordinary mortals may not.
Fair enough. In response to the concern over the use of a letter in the principle charge:
I am fully aware that letters are non-conventional and usually frowned upon. The reason for it’s use is it is a family symbol that has been in use for over 150 years in Sweden for stamping products and as a seal on official correspondence.
By the way, love the community here! Application for membership submitted : )
If your ancestors have been using this R with arrow mark, there is no need to incorporate it into a coat of arms. It would appear that your family already has a heraldic badge.
Also, I mentioned a specific font because the family seal was in a specific font. I knew at the time this was also not in the greatest taste but that’s why I’m here seeking input : )
Kenneth Mansfield;94949 wrote:
If your ancestors have been using this R with arrow mark, there is no need to incorporate it into a coat of arms. It would appear that your family already has a heraldic badge.
I can say for certain that the mark has NOT previously been used as part of a heraldic badge and that there has NOT been a family arms of any kind. The reason I am incorporating it into a coat of arms is because I desire one and to establish a legacy. Unless I misunderstanding what you are getting at, which is totally possible.
Carl Alexander Roth;94951 wrote:
I can say for certain that the mark has NOT previously been used as part of a heraldic badge and that there has NOT been a family arms of any kind. The reason I am incorporating it into a coat of arms is because I desire one and to establish a legacy. Unless I misunderstanding what you are getting at, which is totally possible.
It says on the facebook caption that the Roth family in Sweden used the mark as a seal for official correspondence. To the extent that a badge is a freestanding identifier not residing on a coat of arms, it seems almost precisely to have been used as a heraldic badge of sorts. So then the question is, was it used by your Roth family in Sweden?
Searching briefly through various Swedish, Danish and Norwegian armorials I found no arms for the family name of Roth, Rothe or von Roth. Reistap on the other hand lists no less than 18 CoA for this name.
I can confirm for certain that is was used by my family. The reason one wouldn’t find any arms for the name Roth or von Roth is because no Roth has even been inducted to the Swedish House of Lords (basically we have never been nobility).