I’m pleased to announce to fellow members of the AHS that my family has taken the first step (beyond my personal fantasies) in establishing a heraldic tradition.
I have recently shared the design (and rationale) of arms I had been working on in another forum thread for quite some time with my family and the concept was met with enthusiasm by everyone.
With the family in agreement, the arms of George Hammond (my grandfather) will be adopted in memoriam as:
Quote:
[DRAFT] Argent, a cross quarter-pierced palewise Orange, fesswise Vert.
The blazon is not finalized, however I believe this is as close as I’m going to get. There was already a bit of discussion on how to compose it, but I’ve nearly settled on this. I wanted to use as much blazon vocabulary as possible, so I did not use terms such as "vertical/horizontal arms" to describe the unique coloring. I’m also taking the suggestion of Joe McMillan to blazon the palewise cross arms Orange - as there is a (albeit rare) precedence in continental Europe differentiating between Orange and Tenne and the arms are intended to be emblazoned Orange - not an orange like stain or tan.
The crest honors my grandfather’s service in World War II and is blazoned:
Quote:
[DRAFT] A lion passant guardant holding a sword OR, its tip charged with a goutte gules.
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o158/jeremy6857/george_hammond.gif
The rationale for the design of the arms and crest can be seen in this thread, but in short, the shield is inspired by another family symbol, my grandfather’s unique lobster buoy (a picture of which is also in the previous thread).
While my entire family is enthusiastic about the idea of heraldry and this particular design, there is not as much enthusiasm about the esoteric intricacies of heraldry and customs associated with inheritance. For the sake of popularizing the tradition among family members we will make my grandfather’s heraldry as accessible as possible by employing small tweaks to the heraldic guidelines for inheritance as enabled by section 3.4.8:
Quote:
3.4.8. Persons assuming arms in the United States may specify different rules for inheritance than those set forth above if they so desire. We recommend that any desires on this matter be stated in writing and that all potential heirs be made aware of them.
Following the guidelines, all descendants of George Hammond are entitled to inherit the arms and crest without difference (regardless of surname) but may choose to difference the arms if they so desire.
This decision was made for two reasons. First, it avoids the awkwardness of singling out a couple of my married aunts and their children and disallowing their use of the arms and appearing to heraldically (heraldicly?) "not be in the family" - essentially punishing them for having married.
Second, I’m beginning to question the convention that "arms following the surname" benefits both heraldry generally, and affected families. It reinforces the common misconception that individuals are entitled to arms of the same surname without a genealogical connection. Further, I think it’s an opportunity for heraldry to serve a modified genealogical role in modern times, helping to keep track of family connections in a world of unconventional families and naming conventions, and diminishing the paternalistic DNA of heraldry which discourages married women from inheriting. An example of how this helps genealogy: if I choose to be unique and take a future wife’s name, the arms still exist as a record of my descent from the original armiger while my name then fails to do so.
(I’ve not lost the irony of choosing to change arms asserting that they’d serve as a more bedrock family representation than my name.)
So this does beg the question, what to do with my own arms? The original design for George Hammond was conceived in 2008 and has existed in my imagination and on the forum here for nearly as long as I’ve had the counterchanged escallops. I have wanted to remain committed to my heraldic device, as I feel flip-flopping diminishes the integrity of the arms and tradition. I do like my pre-existing arms, but for a number of reasons - even beyond the familial connection* - I’ve been more and more drawn to the Orange and Vert Cross.
I’ve sought some opinions, and (gladly) received many more unsolicited thoughts. Many have urged me not to switch as they have gotten to know me bearing the counterchanged escallops and they regard the design as good or excellent. They also share my reservations about switching in general.
However, with the memorial adoption of my grandfather’s arms, I feel fear of flip-flopping and the aesthetic opinions of others are no longer strong enough reasons to retain the old arms.
As of today I am adopting my grandfather’s arms with a green escallop in dexter-chief for difference. I will soon adopt a unique crest as well and am open to ideas.
Note: The blazon and future renditions of the emblazonment will include a properly oriented escallop instead of one reversed, another valued suggestion. The original decision to reverse the escallops was an artistic choice, as the shape fit the shield better, however this is no longer an issue in the new arms.
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1013091_10101077976643019_1656954206_n.jpg
I’m pleased that the United States Heraldic Registry appears to be back up and running. Despite it’s wavering and uncertain future, it does present an inexpensive opportunity to formalize this decision. I will be registering the arms for my grandfather and petitioning Mr. Swanson to replace the record of my old arms with my newer differenced version.
I do intend to also record the arms with the New England Historic Genealogical Society and the International Armorial Register - however I live with modest means, being employed at a charitable organization, so that will have to wait as I budget savings to do so. That is, unless a more affluent family member becomes equally enthusiastic and volunteers to sponsor the registrations themselves.
If any of the talented artists in this forum felt so inclined, I would absolutely LOVE an original rendition of my grandfather’s arms completed that does not utilize clip-art. I’d love to share with my family how the arms can be rendered differently (with helmet and mantling), helping to explain the importance of the composition and blazon.
Lastly - I’m curious what people think regarding the new status of my old arms. What is the after-life of heraldry? Does the design go up for grabs for new armigers, or is it in the dustbin? Is it still remotely attached to me? Will it haunt me in the night? What is the historical precedence of people changing arms? I’d love to have a theoretical/academic discussion on this.
EDIT: I am retaining my conjoined escallop badge because I think it’s awesome. It’s as simple as that. MAYBE I will switch the Or to Argent, but I don’t think it’s necessary.
*As just a side note, my design criticism of my first arms has a number of angles. Primarily, I’ve never been satisfied with the bordure. I chose an embattled partition to symbolize my enthusiasm for castles and medieval history (despite the redundancy that bearing arms alone can accomplish that). However, an invected or engrailed partition line would have been a much nicer design choice to mirror the escallops. And since my initial adoption, I’ve shared the opinion that bordures (typically) serve well indicating cadency rather than appearing on an original design. Finally, arranging the escallops in pale was a decision to diminish the likelihood that my arms were a duplication of someone else’s (it also alluded to bucket shop Hammond arms I had grown fond of as a child which featured three counterchanged demi-lions in pale) - but doing so has presented a number of illustrating challenges and felt more like heraldic hacking than a clever design choice. I ultimately feel the new design is "smarter."
I have to admit that grown accustomed to your “old” arms.
Instead of dropping your original shield altogether, did you consider using it as a quartering for difference? Such as: Quarterly, I and IV Argent a cross quarter-pierced palewise Orange fesswise Vert; II and III Per pale Or and Vert three escallops reversed in pale within a bordure embattled all counterchanged. You could forgo the embattled bordure if you’re so inclined, and this would allow you to use your grandfather’s arms as you designed them in memoriam, now differenced by your personal quarter rather than by a shell.
To echo your grandfather’s arms, you could update your badge to be: Four escallops conjoined in cross ears inward, the palewise Orange and the fesswise Vert. This seems to nicely combine the shells for your original arms with the color scheme from your grandfather’s.
Are you keeping your motto: Amor Vincit Omnia (Latin: “Love conquers all”)?
For your crest, perhaps you could symbolize your charity work somehow…
steven harris;99654 wrote:
Instead of dropping your original shield altogether, did you consider using it as a quartering for difference? Such as: Quarterly, I and IV Argent a cross quarter-pierced palewise Orange fesswise Vert; II and III Per pale Or and Vert three escallops reversed in pale within a bordure embattled all counterchanged. You could forgo the embattled bordure if you’re so inclined, and this would allow you to use your grandfather’s arms as you designed them in memoriam, now differenced by your personal quarter rather than by a shell.
I had thought of it, but I ruled it out as needlessly excessive. If I’m going to make a change, I was going to go all the way. I think the American guidelines imply (if not explicitly) a discouraging of unnecessary quartering.
steven harris;99654 wrote:
To echo your grandfather’s arms, you could update your badge to be: Four escallops conjoined in cross ears inward, the palewise Orange and the fesswise Vert. This seems to nicely combine the shells for your original arms with the color scheme from your grandfather’s.
I could, though I don’t think it’s necessary for the badge to echo the arms as much and I’m quite content with it as it is.
steven harris;99654 wrote:
Are you keeping your motto: Amor Vincit Omnia (Latin: “Love conquers all”)?
Yes.
steven harris;99654 wrote:
For your crest, perhaps you could symbolize your charity work somehow…
A good idea, but I don’t plan on staying in the field I’m in.
Jeremy Keith Hammond;99658 wrote:
I could, though I don’t think it’s necessary for the badge to echo the arms as much and I’m quite content with it as it is.
I totally understand, my badge bears nothing in common with my arms at all. :p
Jeremy, let me begin by saying that I support your decision to drop your old design for your grandfather’s. There are good (if rare) reasons to change arms, and strengthening your heraldic connection to an ancestor is one of them. Just don’t change them again.
I would suggest that it’s not necessary to difference your arms with the escallop. I’m sure you’ve given this some thought, and the decision is yours, but to difference (outside of standard cadency) seems a decision to put distance between your ancestor and yourself - the opposite of what your rationale for changing is. And aesthetically, the shield is better without the escallop. If you keep the escallop, I agree with flipping it over. Right now, from a distance, it looks a wee bit like a stalk of broccoli.
Along the same lines, I disagree with choosing an individual crest. I know there is infrequent precedent for it in historical American heraldry, but despite the protestations of a few people on these fora, I remain unconvinced that there is a widespread and documented tradition of doing so. Crests were intended to be inherited intact. If - IF - differencing is required/desired, it’s normally done on the shield. Why else would we have standard shield-based systems of cadency?
Your grandfather’s crest is a delight. To me, it appears flexible enough to represent any number of attributes, if necessary - if the symbolism needs to be reimagined to fit younger generations, do that. Don’t change the design.
Congrats on getting your family to agree on a design - although speaking from only my personal opinion I think I like your original design better. But if you’re happy, the family’s happy, and a heraldic tradition has been established, all the better.
Not to throw a wrench into your works but have you considered adding a canton of your grandfather’s arms to yours as a mark of honor rather than doing away with your arms altogether?
Benjamin Thornton;99666 wrote:
I would suggest that it’s not necessary to difference your arms with the escallop.
I think it is an appropriate difference since Jeremy holds his maternal grandfather’s surname. But maybe that’s just me.
mjsmith;99668 wrote:
Not to throw a wrench into your works but have you considered adding a canton of your grandfather’s arms to yours as a mark of honor rather than doing away with your arms altogether?
Where is the precedence for that?
Kenneth Mansfield;99669 wrote:
Where is the precedence for that?
For an American precedent I would suppose that one could point to the widespread use of Cantons by the Institute of Heraldry to denote one unit’s ties to another.
I’m not saying its the best choice over simply keeping the original arms, but it could be an option.
Kenneth Mansfield;99669 wrote:
I think it is an appropriate difference since Jeremy holds his maternal grandfather’s surname. But maybe that’s just me.
If these arms were transmitted by a name-and-arms clause in a will, for example there’d be no need to difference - what (pardon the pun) is the diffefence here?
In any case, it’s not inappropriate, merely unnecessary.
Benjamin Thornton;99671 wrote:
If these arms were transmitted by a name-and-arms clause in a will, for example there’d be no need to difference - what (pardon the pun) is the diffefence here?
In any case, it’s not inappropriate, merely unnecessary.
A very good point, Ben. Clearly I’m not with it today. 
With the arms being my maternal grand-father’s, and me being a heraldic bastard (in a strictly technical sense, if you will) ... I’ve already determined that it’s appropriate for me to bear anything between my grandfather’s arms to something completely different (such as the old device). I am content with the differenced version as a balance between a firm familial connection and preserving my personal identity (as well as honoring the old coat of arms).
I am however reconsidering devising a new crest. I see what you mean about preserving a singular family version, such as those between the Adamses and Roosevelts as explained in the Arms of Famous Americans series. Certainly, the lion and sword is a handsome charge and I’d be happy with it in my achievement.
Jeremy Keith Hammond;99677 wrote:
I am however reconsidering devising a new crest. I see what you mean about preserving a singular family version, such as those between the Adamses and Roosevelts as explained in the Arms of Famous Americans series. Certainly, the lion and sword is a handsome charge and I’d be happy with it in my achievement.
Perhaps the lion instead of holding a sword, holding your old arms? Just a thought. See example in link below.
arriano;99691 wrote:
Perhaps the lion instead of holding a sword, holding your old arms? Just a thought.
I think if Jeremy wanted to preserve his old arms, he might’ve - you know - kept his old arms.
Just my (often dissenting) opinion, but not now overly fond of the "arms in memoriam" concept (though I once was). Instead, I’m more for creating a family association of descendants of a forebear (who did not in his/her life actually bear, or have a known interest in bearing arms) and then having arms created for representing that family/genealogical association… for which people might assume arms based on these (the net effect would be the same as differencing on arms in memoriam but I would be more comfortable with the arms reflecting the association itself).
My party pooping aside, as I’ve mentioned I do like the old arms "slightly" better (mostly because I’m used to them), however, the new arms look great, and though I dislike arms "in memoriam" (or any other sorts of attributed arms), I’d say otherwise that this is the right way to do it and commend you for getting your family excited and in on the whole thing. The choice of "opting for differenced or undifferenced based on individual preference seems like a good sensible approach given your use and purposes for a heraldic and genealogical rallying point for the family of your grandfather.
The familiy association arms is actually standerdized in official South African heraldic practice. The National Herald registers the family association arms with a blank chief, allowing individual members of the family association to register the arms with a differenced chief.
