Page 1 of 1

Claes Zangenberg, Baron of Pittenweem No.0431

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:34 pm
by J Duncan of Sketraw
The Arms of Claes Zangenberg, Baron of Pittenweem, Scotland

Image

Entry: http://www.armorial-register.com/arms-s ... -arms.html

Re: Claes Zangenberg, Baron of Pittenweem No.0431

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:42 am
by Michael F. McCartney
Nice arms, very nicely emblazoned!

Interesting blazon - per pile reversed - don't think I've seen this terminology before. I likely would have said Per Chevron throughout, but per pile reversed does emphasize the acute angle better than the more variable per chevron throughout. Good choice of terms!

Re: Claes Zangenberg, Baron of Pittenweem No.0431

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 10:53 am
by Chris Green
Friar says: "When a single pile issues from base (i.e. reversed or transposed) it should always be depicted in relief and narrower than the per chevron partition with which it may be confused." Boutell merely says that a pile may issue from the base, which is less helpful. I don't always go along with Friar, but in this case the "should be narrower" part seems sensible. The "in relief" bit only really works if the whole emblazonment is in relief, which Mr Z's is.

Personally, I would blazon Mr Z's arms: Or on a Pile inverted Vert a Scroll Argent with seal pendant (of the first), in chief two Maunches Gules. Though, since the maunches are arguably not in chief one could even say: Or between two Maunches Gules on a Pile inverted Vert a Scroll Argent with seal pendant (of the first).

Re: Claes Zangenberg, Baron of Pittenweem No.0431

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:56 am
by Baron of Pittenweem
A quick note to thank Sketraw and the Armorial Register – and to introduce myself as a member of the forum.

Regarding the arms, the Lord Lyon’s Office tried a number of different blazons. Originally, I believe “Per pile transposed Or and Vert, a scroll Argent with a seal pedant Proper between two maunches Gules” was used. Since a scroll Argent, in order to follow heraldic rules of tinctures, could not be placed anywhere but on the Vert transposed pile – and since the two maunches Gules could not be placed anywhere but on the Or background – I presume the position of the elements followed naturally by this blazon. But to make the chief position of the maunches clearer, the wording was changed for the final Letter Patent.

Sincerely,
Claes

Re: Claes Zangenberg, Baron of Pittenweem No.0431

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:28 am
by Michael F. McCartney
Welcome!!!

Re: Claes Zangenberg, Baron of Pittenweem No.0431

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:04 am
by Chris Green
As to the blazoning of the maunches as in chief, my feeling is that that would indicate that they should be shown in the top third of the shield. In both the emblazonments however they reach below half way. The inverted/transposed pile leaves space on either side that clearly needs to be filled and this is what the artist has done. Thus in chief was deemed artistically irrelevant to the design and, I conclude, correctly. Leave the phrase out of the blazon and what you get is what you want. Put it in and the next artist could be forgiven for hoisting the maunches up and leaving two large gaps beneath.

Re: Claes Zangenberg, Baron of Pittenweem No.0431

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:15 pm
by Mark A. Henderson
Personally, I would blazon Mr Z's arms: Or on a Pile inverted Vert a Scroll Argent with seal pendant (of the first), in chief two Maunches Gules. Though, since the maunches are arguably not in chief one could even say: Or between two Maunches Gules on a Pile inverted Vert a Scroll Argent with seal pendant (of the first).
I like your blazon, Chris.

Re: Claes Zangenberg, Baron of Pittenweem No.0431

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:59 am
by Baron of Pittenweem
Ah, good point about "in chief" indicating not just the starting position, but also limiting the size of the maunches to the upper part of the shield. Did not think of that…