Possible confusion between cadency and normal charge

The science of differencing and combining Arms

Post Reply
Brian O'Leary
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:14 pm

Possible confusion between cadency and normal charge

Post by Brian O'Leary » Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:10 pm

Hi there,

I'm playing around with a possible COA design for a friend, and I've come up with the below rough draft (the charge in base is still a work in progress) . My question is: it is bad hearaldry to have a crescent as a "regular" charge in the center chief point (at least in the English and Irish jurisdictions? Obviously that is the same point that a crescent would be displayed (albeit smaller) as a brisure to indicate mark of cadency in the English and Irish jurisdictions. Would be grateful for any thoughts you would have on this.

Also, just on a side note - I seem to remember reading that having the two boar rampants facing each other as separate charges (rather than combattant and touching each other) would also be bad heraldry, as traditional heraldry didn't incorporate more modern aesthetic values about symmetry. Not sure where I read that, but would be grateful for any thoughts on that too!

Many thanks in advance,

Brian
Attachments
1st draft design.png
1st draft design.png (25.04 KiB) Viewed 73 times

User avatar
Michael F. McCartney
IHS Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 12:30 am
Location: Fremont, California

Re: Possible confusion between cadency and normal charge

Post by Michael F. McCartney » Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:48 pm

A couple of immediate reactions -

First, a good start, but you might want to make the boars larger, to better fill the available space.

Second, the crescent does come across as
likely a cadency mark, given it's location and size. There just isn't sufficient space above the point of the chevron for a non-cadency crescent. If you were to move the crescent to the base (below the chevron) and enlarge it to fill the available space, it would look like a normal charge rather than a mark of cadency.

That's about all I can say without some idea as to the reasons for the charges - e.g. who or what they represent...
Mike~~
Fremont, California

User avatar
J Duncan of Sketraw
Site Admin
Posts: 536
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Banff, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Possible confusion between cadency and normal charge

Post by J Duncan of Sketraw » Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:41 am

I agree with Michaels reaction......good start though:)
Slaintè
John A. Duncan of Sketraw

The Armorial Register - International Register of Arms
http://www.armorial-register.com

Image

User avatar
Martin Goldstraw
Site Admin
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:32 pm
Location: Shropshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Possible confusion between cadency and normal charge

Post by Martin Goldstraw » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:55 am

A competent artist could make this better. If the chevron was more acute it would give more room for larger boars but here the crescent can't be mistaken for a mark of cadency.

Please note that no check has been made to see if this design clashes with any existing one.

oleary.jpg
oleary.jpg (85.7 KiB) Viewed 63 times
Martin Goldstraw

----------
The Armorial Register
http://www.armorial-register.com

Image

Brian O'Leary
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:14 pm

Re: Possible confusion between cadency and normal charge

Post by Brian O'Leary » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:55 am

Hello Michael, Sketraw, and Martin. I think that clears up my cadency question nicely - I will get rid of the crescent from centre chief to avoid any confusion.

Martin, thanks so much for taking the trouble to put together that coat of arms! I'm really struck by your rendering of it. I don't know why, but I've always been a big fan of sable and argent heraldry, and think this works very well.

My friend is quite happy with the basic layout including the boars (and I think Martin's version will strenghten that feeling), but I will discuss with him what he might like to see in base. Personally, I think that sable crescent in base suggested by Michael and Martin is a bold and attractive choice. But I will see what he thinks! I will also carry out some research to try and clarify whether there are any other arms sufficiently similar to ensure that there can be no question of cross-over.

Thanks very much to all for your input on the cadency question.

User avatar
Michael F. McCartney
IHS Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 12:30 am
Location: Fremont, California

Re: Possible confusion between cadency and normal charge

Post by Michael F. McCartney » Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:26 pm

My guess (only that) is that while you may find something similar, the chevron countetchanged likely will be different - but I could well be wrong!
Last edited by Michael F. McCartney on Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mike~~
Fremont, California

User avatar
Michael F. McCartney
IHS Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 12:30 am
Location: Fremont, California

Re: Possible confusion between cadency and normal charge

Post by Michael F. McCartney » Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:10 pm

Also, could you share a bit of basic info re: your friend? e.g. surname or roots, a bit of his family history, etc.? Not looking to highjack your design process, just maybe make better informed suggestions.
Mike~~
Fremont, California

Brian O'Leary
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:14 pm

Re: Possible confusion between cadency and normal charge

Post by Brian O'Leary » Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:01 pm

Hi Michael, thanks for the interest! He's of mostly Irish ancestry, or certainly identifies as such (like myself!). I won't share his surname online, if you don't mind, but I will say that the crescent would be particularly apt as a canting charge in translation to English. And he thinks the crescent sable in base is great! He's mulling it over for the moment and will decide what to do in terms of assuming them. In terms of the boars, in doing some research I noted that there were several Irish clans from his area of ancestral origin in Ireland that had boars as a charge. While not trying to insinuate relation to any of these clans, I thought they would be a nice reference to some of the heraldic traditions of that area (although none of the families in question have boars rampant or in any arrangement like the above). In terms of the sable/argent, I just always think they look good in a design - no particular reason for the chevrons other than the thought that they attractively divided the field.

User avatar
Mark A. Henderson
AR Reg. & IHS Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 7:40 pm

Re: Possible confusion between cadency and normal charge

Post by Mark A. Henderson » Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:47 pm

Image

Here is a quick image I devised.
Kindest regards,

Mark Anthony Henderson
Virtus et Victoria

User avatar
Michael F. McCartney
IHS Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 12:30 am
Location: Fremont, California

Re: Possible confusion between cadency and normal charge

Post by Michael F. McCartney » Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:55 am

Mark - nice work!
Brian - your anonymous friend now has two similar but not identical designs (versions,) to consider - the only heraldically significant difference being Martin's boars rampant vs Mark's boars statant.

Before he decides on one or the other, you might suggest a "refrigerator test" for a few weeks (if you're not familiar with the term, just ask; I don't remember if it came up when you were designing your own arms).
Mike~~
Fremont, California

User avatar
J Duncan of Sketraw
Site Admin
Posts: 536
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Banff, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Possible confusion between cadency and normal charge

Post by J Duncan of Sketraw » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:49 am

Of the two I kind of like Marks boars statant. :)
Slaintè
John A. Duncan of Sketraw

The Armorial Register - International Register of Arms
http://www.armorial-register.com

Image

Post Reply

Return to “Cadency and Marshalling”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest