Is this bad heraldry?

[HemiRopata]

The Most Rev. David John Moxon Archbishop of the New Zealand Dioceses in the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia was granted arms from the English Kings of Arms in 2008:

Gules two bars wavy Or between in chief three plates each charged with a rose Gules barbed and seeded Proper and in base a Maori Ta Moko symbol Or

I was under the impression that a blazon should be so exact that the arms can be visualised or reproduced from the description alone.

In the case of the Rev. Moxon's arms, the Maori Ta Moko (facial tattoo) charge is a reproduction of the moko worn by one of his ancestors, and has a specific visual representation. Without some prior knowledge of what the charge should look like, there is no way a heraldic artist would be able to reproduce that blazon; not to mention that by blazoning "a" Maori Ta Moko implies that any design could be used (which is not the armigers intent).

Far be it from me to question the learned professionals of the College of Arms, but it seems to me that the charges and blazon are not exactly correct heraldry. Or am I wrong?

[Martin Goldstraw]

Granted, this would not be a straight forward task to draw the arms directly from the blazon (and I certainly couldn't do it blind) but when defining the " in base a Maori Ta Moko symbol Or" the College most likely fall back on the wording of the letters patent "as in the margin hereof more clearly depicted".

[Chris Green]

"Non-traditional" heraldry can be fraught with minefields. In the case you describe any heraldic artist (including I suspect most New Zealand ones) would have to see the original to be able to attempt their own illustration. Any attempt at a written blazon describing a Ta Moko would be doomed to failure, as would, say, an attempt to describe arabic calligraphy. Moreover a Ta Moko design would hardly be distinguishable on a European shield in the midst of a medieval battle (I don't suppose the Maori warriors who bore them stopped to check the designs when engaging each other with taiaha or tewhatewha; they had other means of distinguishing friend from foe).

Should one therefore dismiss such charges as "bad" heraldry and scold the naughty herald who went along with the grantee's request? If the arms were intended to be widely reproduced, probably. The risk of error is great. But for private use? It seems a bit harsh to preclude the use of non-traditional imagery completely.

[Arthur Radburn]

Should one therefore dismiss such charges as "bad" heraldry and scold the naughty herald who went along with the grantee's request?

The "naughty herald" was probably the New Zealand Herald of Arms Extraordinary, whose badge of office is blazoned as "A complex Maori koru coloured in the traditional manner proper ensigned by a representation of the Royal Crown also proper." Complex the koru certainly is, and it would also be impossible to reproduce accurately without having seen the original.

There are probably similar situations in Canada, Australia and South Africa, where traditional emblems of the indigenous nations have been adapted to the purposes of transplanted European-style heraldry. A possible solution to the problem would be for the heralds concerned to give each traditional design a specific name and to publish definitive renditions of them for reference.

[Chas Charles-Dunne]

I don't see anything wrong with this. It is neither unique nor new. Many armigers bear animals on their shields which require looking up before depicting. If a man had "a Puffinus puffinus in flight", it would have to be looked up to make sure that it was a Manx Shearwater and not a Lava, Hole's or Scarlett's Shearwater.

[Ryan Shuflin]

My love of precision does not endear me to these charges, but I think there are two modern ideas in heraldry clashing here. Precise replication of arms and unconventional arms. One only has to be as accurate as the blazon allows. After all the blazon mentions a Ta Moko symbol, so any generic Ta Moko symbol would do.

These symbols seem to be more like Celtic knots, which aren't used in heraldry. However, there are some knots that are used in heraldry, and one basically just has to memorize or look up the wake knot. What needs to be done to new charges, is that they need to be stylistically adopted to heraldry. Something that seems to me to be imperfectly done.

[HemiRopata]

Should one therefore dismiss such charges as "bad" heraldry and scold the naughty herald who went along with the grantee's request?

The "naughty herald" was probably the New Zealand Herald of Arms Extraordinary, whose badge of office is blazoned as "A complex Maori koru coloured in the traditional manner proper ensigned by a representation of the Royal Crown also proper." Complex the koru certainly is, and it would also be impossible to reproduce accurately without having seen the original.

There are probably similar situations in Canada, Australia and South Africa, where traditional emblems of the indigenous nations have been adapted to the purposes of transplanted European-style heraldry. A possible solution to the problem would be for the heralds concerned to give each traditional design a specific name and to publish definitive renditions of them for reference.

You can contrast these blazons with that of Sir Paul Reeves which include poutama and pitau patterns. Both of these are ubiquitous, and a small amount of research will tell the artist how it should look, as opposed to a complex Maori koru or a Maori Ta Moko which are so broad as to be effectively useless.

I did wonder how the Canadian Heralds handled these things. I don't think a definitive list of indigenous designs with specified names is a bad idea - a Dictionary of Indigenous Heraldic Designs, if you will.

[HemiRopata]

I don't see anything wrong with this. It is neither unique nor new. Many armigers bear animals on their shields which require looking up before depicting. If a man had "a Puffinus puffinus in flight", it would have to be looked up to make sure that it was a Manx Shearwater and not a Lava, Hole's or Scarlett's Shearwater.

The only problem is that Rev. Moxon's charge is a reproduction of a facial tattoo. Without seeing the original image there is no reference from which to look up. By blazoning it "a" ta moko I suppose it would technically correct to put any Ta Moko symbol (as Ryan remarked), however it would not be to the armigers wishes, nor would it be culturally correct.

[Chas Charles-Dunne]

I don't see anything wrong with this. It is neither unique nor new. Many armigers bear animals on their shields which require looking up before depicting. If a man had "a Puffinus puffinus in flight", it would have to be looked up to make sure that it was a Manx Shearwater and not a Lava, Hole's or Scarlett's Shearwater.

The only problem is that Rev. Moxon's charge is a reproduction of a facial tattoo. Without seeing the original image there is no reference from which to look up. By blazoning it "a" ta moko I suppose it would technically correct to put any Ta Moko symbol (as Ryan remarked), however it would not be to the armigers wishes, nor would it be culturally correct.

The armiger would have approved the design before the final scrivening and painting. If he wanted a further depiction by a different artist, it would be up to him to show that artist the original.

I think that there is a danger of creating bad heraldry by over description and over classification. There has to be room for artistic interpretation.

A running horse is a running horse. It would be up to the artist as to whether it was a thoroughbred or a heavy horse unless stipulated in the blazon.

It is only one step further on from regulating charges, to stipulating the exact shade of colour that is to be used and nobody want to go down that road.

[Ryan Shuflin]

I don't think it is about regulating them, so much as finding a way to classify and describe these types of symbols.