I have seen many examples where the main device on a coat of arms is "proper". I was wondering what the current feeling is on "proper". Is it to be use more with crests and badges? Is a "proper" charge in any way considered bad heraldry?
I think whether it is bad heraldry depends. If "proper" is used as a way of evading the tincture rule, then I think it’s bad, even slightly dishonest, heraldry.
<div class=“bbcode_indent” >
"I want my arms to be ‘Vert a raven Sable.’"
"You can’t have that; you can’t put color on color."
"Okay, then, what about ‘Vert a raven proper?’"
"Oh, that’s fine, as long as the blazon says ‘proper’ and not ‘sable.’"
</div>
No, I don’t think so.
But, say, "Argent at the foot of a pine tree a moose couchant proper?" No problem.
Joseph McMillan;102529 wrote:
But, say, "Argent at the foot of a pine tree a moose couchant proper?" No problem.
Although I support Joseph almost entirely in his view, I’m a bit more radical than that. Whether by accident or design, Joseph’s blazon implies that both the pine tree and the moose are proper; I can’t see why the pine tree needs to be proper; in fact, thinking about it, I can’t really see why the moose needs to be proper either. I can however, see why on occasions it is simpler to use proper if absolute detail is required for, let us say, a raccoon, where one is anxious that it should not be of one simple tincture and that the tail is depicted properly. It might be seen as cumbersome to describe the hoops of the tail in heraldic terms so an easier (lazier?) option is to describe it as proper. I am not a great fan of complicated heraldry and believe that first principles dictate that charges should (or ought to be) as simple as they can to resist them becoming real. In my humble opinion, "a lion rampant Or" is undoubtedly heraldic whereas "an African Lion Proper" is bordering on portraiture.
My view is that Proper should be used with great reluctance.
There’s also the problem of what’s "proper" to one person is not "proper" to another. Is "a bear proper" black, brown or white? Is "a poppy proper" red, white, pink, yellow, orange? And that’s when you have to go into more detail: "a grizzly bear proper" or "a California poppy proper."
I think, also, that "proper" is often used to include colors that are not standard heraldic colors—ie, brown, gray, etc.
But "proper" has been used for ages. I’ve seen "a pelican in her piety proper" on 600-year-old crests.
Thanks for the replies. They help.
A friend of mine is creating a coat of arms for his family. I’ve done my best to steer him in the right direction. To be specific, the design is: "Gules an arctic grayling naiant embowed proper." The fish in question is silver, blue-gray, and gray. I think a proper grayling would not unnecessarily violate the rule of tincture, but I wanted to see what your ideas were before the two of us continued with the design.
As to the question of ‘proper’. From my own perspective I find that beasts blazoned as proper are often aesthetically discordant when they appear on a charge on a shield as there is a risk as Martin has alluded to already of them becoming zoological rather than heraldic.
A quasi-heraldic case in point was when Britain’s Decimal Currency was being designed in the late 1960’s for introduction in February 1971, the 10 pence piece had on its reverse, ‘a lion passant guardant imperially crowned’. The artistic rendering of this lion was entirely zoological and not at all heraldic which was a shame for up until that point most of Britain’s currency in general circulation was heraldic in design. Other reverses of the decimal currency at that time although ‘heraldic’ in content were tweaked so that they no longer appeared so.
I think ‘proper’ is fine in the main for crests, although sometimes one must be even wary of this. Here I must declare an interest in that my crest is a ‘proper’ one: ‘In front of a palm tree a dromedary camel couchant proper’. Whilst I have got used to it, others may think differently.
So suppose that as heraldry abounds with all manner of mythical monsters it matters not a jot whether you blazon a lion or a wolf azure or any other tincture that takes your fancy.
John
Brad Smith;102536 wrote:
Thanks for the replies. They help.
A friend of mine is creating a coat of arms for his family. I’ve done my best to steer him in the right direction. To be specific, the design is: "Gules an arctic grayling naiant embowed proper." The fish in question is silver, blue-gray, and gray. I think a proper grayling would not unnecessarily violate the rule of tincture, but I wanted to see what your ideas were before the two of us continued with the design.
It seems to me that in this case the fish should be blazoned "argent," and the details of representation can be left to the artist.
I’d note that he needs to be careful about duplication. Without getting into the theology, an arctic grayling is for all practical purposes indistinguishable on a coat of arms from a salmon or a trout. I’m not sure that it’s even distinguishable from many other species, expect perhaps to an ichthyo-heraldist.
Which reminds me: you and he should take a look at Thomas Moule’s 1842 classic, The Heraldry of Fish, available at https://archive.org/details/heraldryoffishno00moul.
In 100 years time who’s going to know it’s an Arctic Grayling anyway? It’s not a particulary distinctive fish if the photos I see are anything to go by. We don’t and won’t all have access to the written blazon.
I would personally try to persuade him to go with fish Argent.
http://www.gofishing.co.uk/upload/37986/images/Ranalds sea trout.jpg
One of these shows the Arctic Grayling, the other shows Sea Trout.
Ditto the last few replies.
I don’t mind its being blazoned as one kind of fish or another at the outset—especially if there’s a cant that depends on the particular fish, e.g. the bearer’s name is "Grayling." But I agree with James that 100 years from now someone seeing the arms will just say "fish," and the photos he posted very effectively underline my previous point that "Gules a grayling…" cannot be considered a different coat of arms than "Gules a trout…," "Gules a salmon…," or "Gules a fish…"
Those pictures are interesting, as they don’t seem to show the sort of grayling the prospective armiger has in mind. In my (admittedly limited) experience, the arctic grayling is easily distinguishable from other fish of the same genus by the gigantic dorsal fin. (Check google images).
That being said, your points have merit. Argent would seem to be the best tincture for the charge. Thanks to Joseph for the link.
Would it then be better to simply blazon "a fish" and leave it to the artist to depict a grayling if desired? Or would that be a foul? (not a fowl…;))
It’s not a good idea to have a blazoned "fish" with the artist interpreting it as a grayling as this blazon should really be interpreted in a generic way with nothing to make it a particular type or species.
If it’s really, really important that it be a grayling, then blazon it as such, just as you would blazon something a salmon or a pike or whatever. But for purposes of evaluating the uniqueness of the design, treat it as a fish. I know I’m repeating myself, but a grayling is not different enough from other salmonidae, or for that matter from many other species, for "Gules a grayling embowed Argent" to be considered a different coat of arms than "Gules a trout embowed Argent," or "Gules a fish embowed Argent."
I don’t personally see any problem with a grayling or moose or aq pine tree Proper - for the tree, it’s obvious; for the moose, we have no heraldic term for "brown" at least in English; & for the fish, it is what it is. I strongly agree with Joe’s point that using "Proper" to avoid the tincture rule, while perhaps "proper" per the rules, is not a Best Practice.
Joseph McMillan;102574 wrote:
If it’s really, really important that it be a grayling, then blazon it as such, just as you would blazon something a salmon or a pike or whatever. But for purposes of evaluating the uniqueness of the design, treat it as a fish. I know I’m repeating myself, but a grayling is not different enough from other salmonidae, or for that matter from many other species, for "Gules a grayling embowed Argent" to be considered a different coat of arms than "Gules a trout embowed Argent," or "Gules a fish embowed Argent."
By way of an example see my blog on the arms of The Catholic Diocese of Aberdeen (granted 1990 by Lyon Court) vs the arms of Troutbeck (Visitations of Cheshire).
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2011/09/04/another-jurisdictional-enigma/
More good points. Thanks to Martin for the link.
