Family And Personal arms WIP

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
01 August 2012 09:59
 

Claus K Berntsen;94972 wrote:

If you want arms in the Swedish tradition, and possibly to register them in Sweden, I would recommend not basing a coat of arms on the housemark. Housemarks are usually made up of lines that can be described heraldically, not letters.

I would instead use canting arms, Roth is eminently suited to this! Why not something like "Azure, an eradicated treetrunk Or"?

Michael Y. Medvedev;94973 wrote:

..."bisected fesswise by an arrow to sinister Or"?


Brilliant. On a red field, even better.

 
 
Carl Alexander Roth
 
Avatar
 
 
Carl Alexander Roth
Total Posts:  69
Joined  20-07-2012
 
 
 
01 August 2012 10:11
 

Claus K Berntsen;94976 wrote:

The eradicated treetrunk is canting as it is showing it’s roots…

Roth = rot (root in Swedish)

 


Um… no.  The name cam from Benjamin Roth who emigrated to Sweden from the Electorate of Saxony around 1707.  In Saxony the name was actually spelled Roht.

 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
Total Posts:  789
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
01 August 2012 10:19
 

I’m picky when it comes to heraldic design, but can be fairly liberal too. Considering the letter symbol has been in use for 150 years - that’s sufficient justification (IMO) for employing a symbol that is usually discouraged.

Guidelines are guidelines. I would never condone someone employing a letter because it’s convenient, but if it means preserving a historical symbol, I say go for it. It’s not like there isn’t a precedence.

 

The color orange is also discouraged in heraldry, but forum members were pretty pleased with the design for my grandfather based on the design of his lobster buoy.

 

That said… if you are open to omitting the letter, it would still be preferable to do so and I would encourage that. Ideally an alternative would grow on you just as much as the letter has. But your decision is based on just how important the letter is to YOU.

 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
Total Posts:  789
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
01 August 2012 10:21
 

Carl Alexander Roth;94978 wrote:

Um… no.  The name cam from Benjamin Roth who emigrated to Sweden from the Electorate of Saxony around 1707.  In Saxony the name was actually spelled Roht.


Carl, it was a pun… which is popular in heraldry. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canting_arms

 

It need not be an exact translation.

 

For example, when playing around designing arms for my ex-father-in-law, who’s last name is "Corbally," we entertained the idea of a polka dotted crow.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
01 August 2012 10:23
 

Jeremy Keith Hammond;94979 wrote:

I’m picky when it comes to heraldic design, but can be fairly liberal too. Considering the letter symbol has been in use for 150 years - that’s sufficient justification (IMO) for employing a symbol that is usually discouraged.

Guidelines are guidelines. I would never condone someone employing a letter because it’s convenient, but if it means preserving a historical symbol, I say go for it. It’s not like there isn’t a precedence.

 

The color orange is also discouraged in heraldry, but forum members were pretty pleased with the design for my grandfather based on the design of his lobster buoy.

 

That said… if you are open to omitting the letter, it would still be preferable to do so and I would encourage that. Ideally an alternative would grow on you just as much as the letter has. But your decision is based on just how important the letter is to YOU.


But the letter has stood as a stand-alone signifier all this time. There is no reason to move it on to a shield. The best honor that can be given to that mark IMO is to continue to use it as a stand-alone figure which serves as a family identifier. Square peg, round hole. Yadda yadda yadda.

 
 
Carl Alexander Roth
 
Avatar
 
 
Carl Alexander Roth
Total Posts:  69
Joined  20-07-2012
 
 
 
01 August 2012 10:25
 

I would also like to add that I seem to be sensing a lot of apprehension, pessimism and perhaps even some elitism from some of the members here.  Please understand that the very reason that I have joined this society and am using this forum is because I am fully aware of just how LITTLE I really understand about the various rules and traditions of heraldry.  I am trying to learn as quickly and completely as I can.  I am looking for criticism and input and do NOT by any means plan to rush into the final design.  I would once again like to thank those who are not simply informing me of how wrong I am but are offering advice / alternatives. : )

 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
Total Posts:  789
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
01 August 2012 10:26
 

Kenneth Mansfield;94981 wrote:

But the letter has stood as a stand-alone signifier all this time. There is no reason to move it on to a shield. The best honor that can be given to that mark IMO is to continue to use it as a stand-alone figure which serves as a family identifier. Square peg, round hole. Yadda yadda yadda.


I don’t disagree with you. I acknowledge a letter on a shield is not ideal… but I could easily tolerate it.

 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
Total Posts:  789
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
01 August 2012 10:29
 

Carl Alexander Roth;94982 wrote:

I would also like to add that I seem to be sensing a lot of apprehension, pessimism and perhaps even some elitism from some of the members here.  Please understand that the very reason that I have joined this society and am using this forum is because I am fully aware of just how LITTLE I really understand about the various rules and traditions of heraldry.  I am trying to learn as quickly and completely as I can.  I am looking for criticism and input and do NOT by any means plan to rush into the final design.  I would once again like to thank those who are not simply informing me of how wrong I am but are offering advice / alternatives. : )


We’re all opinionated… and that will definitely come across abrasively no matter how nice we are. But I promise most of us are pretty cool at the end of the day. My recommendation is take anything and everything with a grain of salt. If it hasn’t been said - everyone appreciates that you’ve joined us and are willing to walk through the gauntlet of our - hopefully constructive - scrutiny :-D

 
Carl Alexander Roth
 
Avatar
 
 
Carl Alexander Roth
Total Posts:  69
Joined  20-07-2012
 
 
 
01 August 2012 10:34
 

Kenneth Mansfield;94981 wrote:

But the letter has stood as a stand-alone signifier all this time. There is no reason to move it on to a shield. The best honor that can be given to that mark IMO is to continue to use it as a stand-alone figure which serves as a family identifier. Square peg, round hole. Yadda yadda yadda.


I understand your point and appreciate it.  I suppose my strong desire to use the mark is that I want the primary charge to be as historically / heritage based as possible and not simply invent something that I find enjoyable or appropriate.  This desire probably stems from the hundereds of hours of ancestry research my father has been doing over the last few years and what he has shared with me.

 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
Total Posts:  789
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
01 August 2012 10:40
 

Carl Alexander Roth;94985 wrote:

I understand your point and appreciate it.  I suppose my strong desire to use the mark is that I want the primary charge to be as historically / heritage based as possible and not simply invent something that I find enjoyable or appropriate.  This desire probably stems from the hundereds of hours of ancestry research my father has been doing over the last few years and what he has shared with me.


Like I said, I think the letter is certainly within heraldic tolerance levels… that said… what do you think of retaining just the arrow somehow as gesture of respect towards the original symbol?

 

And certainly, artistic renditions of your full achievement could employ the letter symbol outside the shield, or perhaps even within the shield with some creative diapering.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
01 August 2012 10:55
 

Carl Alexander Roth;94982 wrote:

I would also like to add that I seem to be sensing a lot of apprehension, pessimism and perhaps even some elitism from some of the members here.


If I’m one of the latter, I sincerely apologize. I think you are right to say that many of us are apprehensive. That first proposed coat of arms you presented was a real doozie of, to be blunt, really bad heraldry. You have expressed, however, the desire to learn and that goes a long way toward extinguishing the pessimism. smile


Carl Alexander Roth;94985 wrote:

I understand your point and appreciate it.  I suppose my strong desire to use the mark is that I want the primary charge to be as historically / heritage based as possible and not simply invent something that I find enjoyable or appropriate.  This desire probably stems from the hundereds of hours of ancestry research my father has been doing over the last few years and what he has shared with me.


I think you are misunderstanding my point on the use of the mark. As far as I’m concerned the family symbol of the R with the arrow through it, having been used for such a long time as a family cognizance, is as good as a coat of arms. I therefore see no reason to put it on one. It isn’t that I simply refuse to accept the use of letters on coats of arms. It is just that this device has stood on its own for more than a century. If it were my family’s I would simply continue to use it the same way it has been used in the past. To me, that is real and honest heritage.

 

For a coat of arms, I would look to other Swedish examples. Claus is a good resource given that he lives in Sweden. And as far as canting arms go, think homophone, not definition.

 
 
Carl Alexander Roth
 
Avatar
 
 
Carl Alexander Roth
Total Posts:  69
Joined  20-07-2012
 
 
 
01 August 2012 11:05
 

Kenneth Mansfield;94987 wrote:

is as good as a coat of arms. I therefore see no reason to put it on one. It isn’t that I simply refuse to accept the use of letters on coats of arms. It is just that this device has stood on its own for more than a century. If it were my family’s I would simply continue to use it the same way it has been used in the past. To me, that is real and honest heritage.


I see.  If you are saying that it is, in a way, a coat of arms unto itself, how then would one use it as such?

 
Claus K Berntsen
 
Avatar
 
 
Claus K Berntsen
Total Posts:  308
Joined  25-05-2005
 
 
 
01 August 2012 11:12
 

Carl Alexander Roth;94988 wrote:

I see.  If you are saying that it is, in a way, a coat of arms unto itself, how then would one use it as such?

One wouldn’t, but why not use it on letterheads, business/visiting cards, ex libris, and other things where you might also use a coat of arms.

 
Carl Alexander Roth
 
Avatar
 
 
Carl Alexander Roth
Total Posts:  69
Joined  20-07-2012
 
 
 
01 August 2012 11:14
 

Jeremy Keith Hammond;94986 wrote:

And certainly, artistic renditions of your full achievement could employ the letter symbol outside the shield, or perhaps even within the shield with some creative diapering.


I see.  Is there any way to blazon such things or would they be entirely dependant on the artist?

 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
Total Posts:  789
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
01 August 2012 11:15
 

Carl Alexander Roth;94990 wrote:

I see.  Is there any way to blazon such things or would they be entirely dependant on the artist?


It would be dependent on the artist… but certainly during your lifetime (and the lifetimes of informed descendants) the artists generally work with armigers in their designs.