Is this bad heraldry?

General Heraldry subjects
User avatar
Chas Charles-Dunne
Posts: 624
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 15:48
Location: England - TL 80102 93862
Contact:

Re: Is this bad heraldry?

Postby Chas Charles-Dunne » 12 Jul 2013, 22:02

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


But isn't that like so much Polish heraldry - "Argent the house mark of the Clan XXXX Sable"?

Or ecclesiastical heraldry - Argent a representation of our Lady Proper?

There are so many charges that defy codifying. The blazon describes them as best as they can and then it is up to the heraldic artist to interpret as best he can with what knowledge and resources are available to him.
Regards
Chas
IAAH Fellow

Image

Jonathan Webster
Posts: 304
Joined: 11 Jul 2012, 21:47
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Is this bad heraldry?

Postby Jonathan Webster » 12 Jul 2013, 22:45

Chris Green wrote:"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.


But then I would expect the person reading the blazon to take the trouble of finding out what the Maori design is, as I would with any obscure charge. Particularly in these days when information is so easily available.

User avatar
JMcMillan
Posts: 613
Joined: 13 Jul 2012, 22:33
Location: United States

Re: Is this bad heraldry?

Postby JMcMillan » 12 Jul 2013, 23:01

Jonathan Webster wrote:But then I would expect the person reading the blazon to take the trouble of finding out what the Maori design is, as I would with any obscure charge. Particularly in these days when information is so easily available.


I think the problem is that there is no single Ta Moko, but (if I understand correctly) potentially as many as there are Maoris. Presumably it's a bit like blazoning a coat of arms as "Argent an inescutcheon charged with a coat of arms proper."

I'm not totally convinced that this necessarily means that a Ta Moko is bad heraldry--although part of the traditional definition of heraldry is that it involves the use of conventional ordinaries and charges--but certainly a blazon referring simply to "a Maori Ta Moko" without further description is a bad blazon. Reference to "as more clearly exemplified in the margin" is a cop-out, because it requires one to have the granting document in hand. One might as well revert to the 15th century practice illustrated by a recent thread on English armorial grants to Gascon subjects in the HSS forum, which omit any blazon and simply contain a painting of the shield.
Joseph McMillan
Alexandra, Virginia, USA

Ryan Shuflin
Posts: 582
Joined: 26 Jul 2012, 13:00
Location: Germany

Re: Is this bad heraldry?

Postby Ryan Shuflin » 13 Jul 2013, 03:57

Chas Charles-Dunne wrote:
Ryan Shuflin wrote:I don't think it is about regulating them, so much as finding a way to classify and describe these types of symbols.


But isn't that like so much Polish heraldry - "Argent the house mark of the Clan XXXX Sable"?

Or ecclesiastical heraldry - Argent a representation of our Lady Proper?

There are so many charges that defy codifying. The blazon describes them as best as they can and then it is up to the heraldic artist to interpret as best he can with what knowledge and resources are available to him.


But what if the blazon was Argent, a Polish house mark Sable?

User avatar
Chas Charles-Dunne
Posts: 624
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 15:48
Location: England - TL 80102 93862
Contact:

Re: Is this bad heraldry?

Postby Chas Charles-Dunne » 13 Jul 2013, 11:22

Ryan Shuflin wrote:
Chas Charles-Dunne wrote:
Ryan Shuflin wrote:I don't think it is about regulating them, so much as finding a way to classify and describe these types of symbols.


But isn't that like so much Polish heraldry - "Argent the house mark of the Clan XXXX Sable"?

Or ecclesiastical heraldry - Argent a representation of our Lady Proper?

There are so many charges that defy codifying. The blazon describes them as best as they can and then it is up to the heraldic artist to interpret as best he can with what knowledge and resources are available to him.


But what if the blazon was Argent, a Polish house mark Sable?


Well, that is a rubbish blazon and no herald worth his salt would ever write that. We might as well write "A shield with something on it, I think".
Regards
Chas
IAAH Fellow

Image

Ryan Shuflin
Posts: 582
Joined: 26 Jul 2012, 13:00
Location: Germany

Re: Is this bad heraldry?

Postby Ryan Shuflin » 13 Jul 2013, 21:31

can anyone find a picture of the Bishop's arms?

HemiRopata
Posts: 4
Joined: 08 Jul 2013, 08:45

Re: Is this bad heraldry?

Postby HemiRopata » 14 Jul 2013, 02:44

I found it in The New Zealand Armorist the journal of the Heraldry Society of New Zealand (No. 127 Winter 2013). Unfortunately I do not have a scanner or any way to copy it
Hemi Ropata


Return to “General Heraldry”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests