Spanish translation?

[Martin Goldstraw]

My Spanish is non existent and we have just had a request to record the arms of a Spanish Certification (D.Alfonso Ceballos-Escalera and Gila, Marquis of Floresta). I confess to having some difficulty blazoning the horses in base and wondered if a translation into English might help?

fernandez-blazon.jpg (149.66 KiB) Viewed 16455 times

Thoughts gratefully accepted.

[Chris Green]

I have wrestled with the Spanish, which does not appear to provide an unequivocal blazon for the three horses (caballos) riding the waves (onda). Why they should be en echelon is a mystery.

Don Alfonso de Ceballos-Escalera y Gila is of course Cronista de Armas de Castilla y León. Surely he knows the English blazon of his arms. Or do you mean that the certification is by Don Alfonso and the arms are someone else's?

[Martin Goldstraw]

Certification by. Like we do when we put the "College of Arms" in brackets after referring to Letters Patent.

Thanks for attempting to assist.

[Chris Green]

The only explanation I can provide for the horses being en echelon is the phrase "moviente del flanco sinistro" which, as we English might imagine, describes moving from sinister (to dexter). This must imply that each horse is further from sinister than the prevous one.

My - very tentative - blazon of the base would be: Azure barry of three three wave-riding Horses en echelon from sinister Argent. En echelon should not require further explanation, though to be absolutely clear one could say "in right echelon". Admittedly this leaves the heraldic artist with a minor conundrum as to what "wave-riding" might entail, but heraldic artistry wasn't meant to be painting by numbers.

[Chris Green]

The only explanation I can provide for the horses being en echelon is the phrase "moviente del flanco sinistro" which, as we English might imagine, describes moving from sinister (to dexter). This must imply that each horse is further from sinister than the prevous one.

My - very tentative - blazon of the base would be: Azure barry of three three wave-riding Horses en echelon from sinister Argent. En echelon should not require further explanation, though to be absolutely clear one could say "in right echelon". Admittedly this leaves the heraldic artist with a minor conundrum as to what "wave-riding" might entail, but heraldic artistry wasn't meant to be painting by numbers.

[Martin Goldstraw]

I am now wondering how best to describe the two charges positioned higher than the middle charge in the upper portion of the shield. The term enhanced comes to mind though this is usually reserved for ordinaries.

As a draft blazon (which will be altered subject to more scholarly suggestions) I propose recording it as:

Arms: Per fess Or and Azure in chief a tower Gules between a crescent and an eight pointed star, both enhanced, Azure and in base barry of three three wave-riding Horses en echelon from sinister Argent.

Crest: Issuing from the waves of the sea Argent and Azure, a demi-horse salient Argent.

Supporters: Two Lions rampant Gules, the dexter charged on the mane by a star of eight points and the sinister charged on the mane by a crescent Or.

Motto: Omnia Gloria Fluxa Est.

[Chris Green]

If one follows Boutell, the first part of the blazon might be:

Per fess Or and Azure at honour point a Tower Gules between at dexter chief a Crescent and at sinister chief an eight pointed Star Azure ...

The problem I see with saying that the tower is in chief, is that it is meant to be bigger than the star and crescent. Take away all the other charges from the shield and the tower is definitely not in chief. Draw an uncharged chief taking up its customary top third of the shield and it would (approximately) bisect the tower.

[Martin Goldstraw]

Per fess invected Gules and Or, in chief two lions rampant argent, armed and langued Azure, in base a garb Vert banded of the First.

I see it slightly differently. In the above example, the two lions are described, quite properly, as in chief (on a field parted per fess) so this is exactly like the tower in our own example. The tower, were it on its own, would, like the two lions, be described as "in chief" . The crescent and the star are also included in the "in chief" description (because, in these types of blazon, the "in chief" simply describes the fact that they are on the top tincture of the division and nothing more) but are smaller and raised above the tower. Enhanced seems to me to be an appropriate way in which to describe them and of course they remain "in chief" either side of the tower.

One wonders whether it is actually necessary for the star and crescent to be depicted so, it wouldn't make a different achievement, or one with sufficient difference to make a difference, if the three charges "in chief" were all the same size. How or why we ought to describe them as being smaller is open to debate.

[Chris Green]

I do see the point of in chief as against in base in the example you give. The problem with the Spanish CoA is to distinguish between the tower (prominent) and the crescent and star (not so prominent).

[Martin Goldstraw]

In that, we are entirely in agreement. My personal view, for what it is worth, is that I can't see the point in having three charges in chief, two of which appear to be smaller and in an elevated position when compared with what is presumably the main charge. Since they clearly can't be marks of cadency, which are made to be smaller lest they be mistaken for a main charge, then I see no reason why they can't be the same size. And, I would argue, it doesn't make a different coat if they were to depicted as all of the same size.

Does the Spanish blazon give any direction which we might find useful?

[Chris Green]

Does the Spanish blazon give any direction which we might find useful?

It refers to the crescent and star as being en el cantón diestro del jefe (in the dexter canton of the chief) y el sinistro (and the sinister). We of course do not use the word canton to describe a position, rather a subordinary in a position.

[Martin Goldstraw]

Thank you. The translation doesn't actually help us then.