The International Association of Amateur Heralds

From time to time, we've discussed substitutes for the conventional helmet, e.g. astronaut helmets and fur-lined parkas. Here's another example, which I came across yesterday : a shaman's headdress instead of a helmet, and a "ceinture flechée" in place of mantling.

These are the arms granted to James R.T. Norquay by the Canadian Heraldic Authority in 2000 :


Arms : Per fess Azure and Vert over all on a fess Argent a First Nations Sacred Pipe bowl to the dexter Or in chief a representation of the constellation termed Little Dipper of seven mullets Argent issuant in base a pile Gules fimbriated Argent.

Crest : A demi-coyote Gules gorged with a collar of prairie crocus flowers holding in its dexter paw an eagle feather proper.

The headdress represents the armiger's knowledge in healing techniques, and the ceinture his Métis heritage.

Any thoughts about the use of these external ornaments in place of the usual ones?

I have no problems with new types of helmet used in the right context.

This one 'fits well'.

I hope it was included in the official blazon so that future heraldists are aware of its origins.

Iain Boyd wrote:I have no problems with new types of helmet used in the right context.

This one 'fits well'.

I hope it was included in the official blazon so that future heraldists are aware of its origins.

The headdress and ceinture aren't included in the blazon as such, but are mentioned in the accompanying description on the CHA webpage. So that leaves the way clear for an alternative rendering with a conventional helmet and mantling, if the armiger or one of his descendants would like one.

While I don't disagree with the use of these substitutes for helmets, I do find it incongruous that crests and torses are placed on top of them. To my mind, it would be more suitable to treat them like arms which are ensigned of mitres or ecclesiastical hats, i.e. depict the crest separately.

Ditto Arthur

While I don't disagree with the use of these substitutes for helmets, I do find it incongruous that crests and torses are placed on top of them. To my mind, it would be more suitable to treat them like arms which are ensigned of mitres or ecclesiastical hats, i.e. depict the crest separately.

I agree.

I have written on this before when Canada granted the helmet of an astronaut and said helm had upon it a crest; my view is that it is just silly. At some point in history, knights' helmets really did have crests upon them (for tournaments) and this has been translated into "paper" heraldry using an historical tradition or fact. Astronauts, and for that matter, Native Americans, never wore or wear crests mounted upon their helmets/headgear.

Whatever next?

In this case, it they could have just made the headdress the crest.

To me the importance question is, is he a shaman?

Arthur Radburn wrote:

James R.T. Norquay - CHA 2000.jpg

I'm not sure which is more incongruous, the crest mounted atop a headdress that never would have had one, or the fact that the headdress is affonte and the crest in profile, so that the coyote faces out over the shaman's right ear.

JMcMillan wrote:

I'm not sure which is more incongruous, the crest mounted atop a headdress that never would have had one, or the fact that the headdress is affonte and the crest in profile, so that the coyote faces out over the shaman's right ear.

I find the whole thing quite bizarre: I wouldn't be at all surprised if some "representative" of the the young adults of the 2010s, who are a tad more sensitive than their older brethren, suggests that it is offensive.