The International Association of Amateur Heralds

1

Traditional design. Are you sure that Or a Fess between three Wolf's Heads Sable isn't already extant? If it were, my comments below about the crescent appearing to be a mark of cadency become highly relevant.

I assumed that the wolf heads were sable, but I now note that they are not the same tincture as the fess. Are they intended to be gray (an unusual tincture but not unknown)? Of course if they are, so is the mantling, which would be at odds with the usual "first colour doubled first metal" (by no means a rule, I had no trouble persuading York Herald that I wanted vert rather than azure).

Which brings us to the crescent which I assume is Argent goutté gules (or goutté de sang. Is this intended to be a charge, or the mark of cadency for the second son? It is perhaps rather large to be the latter, but would need to be for the goutté to be visible. If indeed it is a mark of cadency it could also appear on the crest (though Boutell says this is unusual). The torse would traditionally have been Or/Sable rather than the Sable/Or depicted. Of course torse and mantling should normally be the same tinctures, since they would have been made from the same cloth. Your torse definitely includes sable, but the mantling is gray.

This design closely resembles several Howe arms listed in Burke's General Armory, including those of three peers and a baronet. One of them, Lord Chedworth's, includes a crescent for difference.

1

Arthur Radburn wrote:This design closely resembles several Howe arms listed in Burke's General Armory, including those of three peers and a baronet. One of them, Lord Chedworth's, includes a crescent for difference.

Dusting off my 1868 edition of Debrett I find that the 1st Earl Howe bore (1 & 4) Or a fesse between three wolves' heads couped Sable. The 7th Earl might well cavil at someone with the Howe surname assuming arms that could easily be construed as those of his second son (which he does not have).

I really feel that a fundamental re-think is required. Were your design to proceed as is, the IAAH would have to make it crystal clear that we were in no way party to it.

Whether the earl would object or not, it's not good heraldry to design something implying a degree of kinship that doesn't exist. This could be fixed by changing one of the wolf heads to something else, altering the ordinary and perhaps its color, etc, using three crescents instead of one, etc.

Rather off topic, but, all that is displayed of Robert's two posts (as far as I am concerned) is the numeral 1.

Is there anything I can do to ensure that Robert's posts are displayed in full?

Regards,

Iain Boyd

Ditto Ian's question.

It appears that Mr Beste has deleted the image, which rather renders this thread irrelevant, save to underline the need for anyone who undertakes to design arms to be extremely careful not to in any way use the arms of someone else.

In this case the arms of the 7th Earl Howe (a senior member of the British Conservative party in the House of Lords) were differenced only by a crescent, which would imply that the recipient is Earl Howe's second son (he in fact has one son and three daughters). Now unless vouchsafed by Robert or his customer Mr Howe, we do not know whether the latter can prove any relationship whatever to the Earl. If he can, the College of Arms will be happy to oblige him with arms that demonstrate that connection. If he cannot, then to assume arms that strongly suggest the opposite, is quite wrong.

The Lord Lyon gets around the issue of arms for people with the same surname but no provable family connection by allowing the use of recognisable elements of the original arms with suitable changes, precisely the method suggested by Mr McM.