Page 3 of 4

Re: College of Arms Newsletters 2016

Posted: 01 Feb 2016, 10:25
by Martin Goldstraw
We tend to get too hung up on the so called tincture rule, there are numerous examples of the heralds accepting breaches in the English Visitations. It is arguably good practice visually to comply with this rule but was it ever an official taboo? I doubt it.

Re: College of Arms Newsletters 2016

Posted: 01 Feb 2016, 11:08
by Chris Green
Martin Goldstraw wrote:We tend to get too hung up on the so called tincture rule, ...


Which is why I invariably call it the tincture "rule".

Re: College of Arms Newsletters 2016

Posted: 01 Feb 2016, 12:27
by Chas Charles-Dunne
JMcMillan wrote: If they didn't realize that this coat violates it, they never would have weasel-worded the blazon.


What you see as weasel words, I see as the clever use of blazon to overcome a perceived problem.

Re: College of Arms Newsletters 2016

Posted: 01 Feb 2016, 14:58
by JMcMillan
Certainly there are a great many examples of officially approved English arms with tincture violations. For example, the arms "Argent on a chief or three corbies proper" confirmed at the 1619 visitation of Warwickshire to George Corbin of Hall End. My objection is not to the violation but to the gutless (or what Chas prefers to call "clever") wording of the blazon. If you're going to put a colored chief on a colored field, then do it and call it what it is; don't pretend that calling it "per fess enhanced" somehow changes reality. The visiting herald in 1619 called the thing by its right name; the kings of arms who issued the University of Manchester grant didn't.

See Confucius, Analects XIII:3

Re: College of Arms Newsletters 2016

Posted: 23 Apr 2016, 15:24
by Arthur Radburn
The April newsletter is now online at http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/news- ... tter-no-46 .

Re: College of Arms Newsletters 2016

Posted: 23 Apr 2016, 15:54
by Chris Green
I find it increasingly irritating that the College of Arms cannot/will not illustrate all its grants of arms in the Newsletter or elsewhere. It is hardly a labour of Hercules.

Re: College of Arms Newsletters 2016

Posted: 23 Apr 2016, 19:18
by Michael F. McCartney
Perhaps the heralds are reluctant to post the artwork without prior OK from the grantee?

Personally I'd love to see them set up an online armorial similar to the Canadians; or at least do as Chris suggests. But either would require a far bigger unpaid workload than the current approach. As mothers tell their daughters, who will buy the cow if the milk is given away free? ;)

Re: College of Arms Newsletters 2016

Posted: 29 Jul 2016, 10:04
by Arthur Radburn
The latest newsletter (no 47) is now online. The lead story is the Team GB arms, which is old news by now. A few other arms are illustrated, including another example (arms of Pedder) of the use of "proper" to get around the rule of tincture.

Or is it? As steel is not an heraldic metal, and is clearly distinct from Argent in this blazon, does placing steel cogwheels proper on a field Or go against the established principle?

Re: College of Arms Newsletters 2016

Posted: 29 Jul 2016, 11:58
by Chris Green
I think the Pedder arms would fail the "fridge" test.

Re: College of Arms Newsletters 2016

Posted: 29 Jul 2016, 13:10
by Mark Henderson
Why does a "steel gear-wheel" need to be proper? Could it not be Sable or Azure?

On another note, the arms of Rumney are rather nice.