Fox:
Or, a Fox head erased Gules, in it’s mouth a paint brush Proper.
This is an initial design. She is an artist (tattoo, fine, face paint, make up) so I punned her name with the Fox and went with a direct approach with art reference by using the brush. As for now this is just a thought and nothing has been presented. Any thoughts? She doesn’t want to do anything reference her past, so this is a new design starting with her.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/snydergroove/rockhold1_Fox.jpg
Rockhold:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/snydergroove/rockhold1_Rockhold-1.jpg
Vert a pair of stags rampant addorsed Argent on a chief Azure a trout naiant within a bordure Argent.
These arms are going to twins. They were adopted as babies, so they decided to start the arms directly from them rather than their (adopted) father. These two are avid…obsessed…hunters, fishers, and campers. The addorsed stags represent the traditional meanings of "one who wont fight unless provoked, peace harmony", their love of hunting, and as well as show there are two of them. Ignore the crests, they were just examples I used to show them. The motto, which was a random pull on my part, is one they both love and are planning on keeping it. It’s fitting for twins.
Twins purposely avoiding an armorial connection with their adopted parents, while certainly their right, seems (to this adoptive parent) a bit of a slap in the face.
It’s also IMO a visual rejection of the legal basis of adoption in the US, which is that adopted children are, in law, equivalent to those born the old fashioned way. Our Guidelines reflect that legal context.
But maybe that’s just me…
You will have to forgive my previous post, I didn’t mean to make it sound like they were slapping the family name in the face. During my conversations with them about this, I asked if they wanted to create the arms under their father and inherit them and they said no. The short and impersonal reasoning is that they want something unique to them. Though they love and respect their parents and are proud of the name they carry, there is curiosity to who their biological parents are and where they came from. It’s more of an issue of forming a unique identity between them because of the adoption. It’s more complicated than that, but I assure you there is no face slapping going on. Honestly, I could have just left the adoption detail out of the mix. In my state of exhaustion I opened up to much about everything 
Michael F. McCartney;96324 wrote:
Twins purposely avoiding an armorial connection with their adopted parents, while certainly their right, seems (to this adoptive parent) a bit of a slap in the face.
It’s also IMO a visual rejection of the legal basis of adoption in the US, which is that adopted children are, in law, equivalent to those born the old fashioned way. Our Guidelines reflect that legal context.
But maybe that’s just me…
In my humble opinion, as an adopted daughter with an adopted brother. DITTO. But we each have our stories which are quite unique.
Understand your response to this post by Michael—and understand their curiosity regarding natural parents—but…
This appears to be the same shield with different crests for two individuals. What heraldic traditions, if any, are you trying to follow? Remember always that heraldry is not meant to be a one-off per person event. It is the establishment of a family tradition which hopefully will pass through generations. I would also comment that although assuming arms which reflect the original armiger is an option - assuming arms which help tie the family together over the generations (as in canting, or based on family tradition) should be considered.
You may also consider if they are each starting a new tradition for their families, you could consider a larger charge like just the rack or the head… here we lose it to my inability to produce artwork—but—options:
Vert antlers per pale Or and Argent on a chief wavy azure a trout naiant Argent.
Vert antlers with a chain linking them <that’s wrong, but I hope you get the picture> per pale Or and Argent on a chief wavy azure a trout naiant.
Each twin could reverse the Per Pale so one would have Gold to dexter and argent to sinister and the other would have argent to sinister and or to dexter. You can also consider conjoined antlers of different types like this badge:
http://archive.gg.ca/heraldry/pub-reg/project-pic.asp?lang=e&ProjectID=731&ProjectElementID=2589
I think you can lose the border (I just don’t see a reason for it given the discussion).
I would avoid the colour on/next to colour, and change the azure chief to argent with a fish azure.
I remember one instance where twins had the same arms with color/metal reversed. I’ll have to see if I can find the reference.
On this one, the only way I see it as a slap is if the adoptive parents already have arms, which apparently they don’t. If they don’t, it’s no different than anyone else adopting or being granted arms for himself or herself.
Claus K Berntsen;96352 wrote:
I would avoid the colour on/next to colour, and change the azure chief to argent with a fish azure.
And get rid of the bordure, unless one of them wants to use it to difference from the other.
If the twins are the progenitors of the arms and not the father (adopted or otherwise is irrelevent), then I think each of the arms should be different at least slightly (not just the crests).
I like the idea of just reversing colors in some way for each of the arms to identify between them.
And I agree with Joe about losing the border… I probably sound redundant here, but borders are too easily identified with cadency or some other form of differencing on an existing coat.
Kenneth Mansfield;96353 wrote:
I remember one instance where twins had the same arms with color/metal reversed. I’ll have to see if I can find the reference.
Tomax and Xamot?
OK I’ve cooled my jets a bit on the adoption aspect—still feel that way, but hopefully not so huffy about it.
However, echoing (I hope) Kathy, even if adoption vs birth is ignored, arms which make no attempt reflect one’s family IMO miss the mark. To the degree (IMO a high degree) that arms should serve as a unifying element within extended families, a design that is meaningful and useful for a broader reach of siblings & cousins is preferable (absent dysfunctional or abusive behaviours) to a design that visually sets one apart from the extended family.
IMO (and FWIW, caveat lector) the twins could as easily have sought an underlying design that would be appropriate for extended family and then if they wished, difference their own personal arms from that basic design in a way that would reflect their twinliness (is that a word?) without losing the broader connection—e.g. parting & counterchanging the basic family design, or adding some simple symbol(s) suggesting twinnishness—bars gemel or a pair of whatevers.
But all this reflects my own personal values & prejudices, and others of course are entitled to believe, and behave, differently.
David Pope;96368 wrote:
Tomax and Xamot?
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
Knowing is half the battle.
Brad Smith;96384 wrote:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
Knowing is half the battle.
Glad somebody got that reference…
Any reference to G.I. Joes after they went from 12" fully-articulated action figures down to 4" toys is lost on me. :cool:
Kenneth Mansfield;96390 wrote:
Any reference to G.I. Joes after they went from 12" fully-articulated action figures down to 4" toys is lost on me. :cool:
Your loss. :D The comic books for the small joes were particularly well written. I enjoyed them both sizes.
