You seem to think you've scored a point and won the argument. I'm almost past the point of caring, but if you'd like others to understand what precisely makes you believe that, feel free to explain.Then you should check out 2.
Hans
Imperial flag
- Thread starter rancke
- Start date
Hans
Number 2 under you dictionary definition.
What about it?
And BTW, if I didn't understand what you were getting at the first time, what could possibly make you think it would be in any way useful just to repeat yourself? If you don't want to continue the discussion, just say so and be done with it instead of playing silly buggers.
Hans
Sir Arthur Charls Fox-Davies is the definitive author on British and European Heraldry pre WWI.
I strongly suggest, however, that you actually do some research - at least one post Fox-Davies patent includes a yellow object on a gold and tinctured checkered field (checky of Or and something); I found it in Papworth's whilst doing research for a client.
Further, as an SCA Persuavant-Extraordinary at large (in english, lesser ranked herald not in an official office), I can say with authority that Fox-Davies is THE authoritative source for SCA heraldry - Anything Fox-Davies asserts, excepting only the white/silver distinction, is the gold standard of SCA heraldry. (Pun intended.) It is also worth noting that Fox-Davies is used to exclude a lot of modernisms on the basis of of ACFD's dates, since SCA Heraldry requires "period style," and thus requires proof pre 1650...
His works are also listed as recommended by the UK College of Heralds last I checked.
Last edited:
No, it is just that you are wrong, heraldry has eveything to do with militarism, warfare, uniform colors and house colors. The silly bugger is what do you think it has to with, identifying an individual? That is totally incorrect, it identifies positional authority, rank and family.
I give up. You're wrong and you're evidently obstinately bound and determined to remain wrong. I shall leave you to it, then.
Hans
I was talking about current rules, not the historical flagstones in the road that led to current rules.
I'm astonished to hear that. Not about a gold object on a checkered gold and something field, but about a yellow object on a checkered gold and something field. It goes againt the fundamental principles described in every authority I've read. What are the circumstance of the creation of this coat of arms you speak of? A few coats of arms were deliberately created to break the rules of heraldry in order to draw attention to them. The arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem springs to mind. The fact that the arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem had gold figures on a silver field doesn't prove that there isn't a rule against metal charges on metal fields.
I do have to admit that it proves that there are exceptions to heraldric rules (The City of Bonn has a red lion on a blue field).
Does that mean my original objection is wrong? Perhaps, but I still think that having the flags of two Imperial organizations distinguished by the difference between gold and yellow would be incredibly awkward. I'm still waiting for the example of two coats of arms that are distinguished solely by the tincture of a charge or field on one of them being white or yellow and the tinkture of the corresponding charge or field being gold or silver.
Even better, two flags that are thus distinguished.
Hans
The proof you provided was wrong. You're either misreading the entire article or not reading anything more than the first paragraph, in which case your just misinterpreting that.
Hans
You do enjoy pointless quibbles, don't you? All right, I stand corrected. Let me rephrase: The alleged proof you provided was wrong and thus not actually proof of anything. You're either misreading the entire article or not reading anything more than the first paragraph, in which case your just misinterpreting that.
Evidence. You're referring to the evidence I linked to. Unfortunately, you're either misreading the entire article or not reading anything more than the first paragraph, in which case your just misinterpreting that.
Hans
Your interpretation isn't congruent to the common use of the term.
Just an FYI, Shakespeare has an Amoral Achievement,so what positional authority, rank or family dose he have?
ALL Amoral Achievements are either Personal or Organizational. You don't get them just because you have a some rank but to recognize that you achieved said rank, position, or honor that's why they are called Achievements. Coat of Arms are a part of a full Achievement and were used to identify individuals who were all suited up in armor.
All English and almost all European arms are personal property. (Exception: certain Polish achievements were issued as familial property and worn as livery.)
"Family Arms" don't exist outside of those rare few exceptions.
Now, they are heritable property, so your heir can get them when you die.
Your heir , however, only gets to use yours while you live with a difference mark, and even then, only if you let them. In the UK, it was still a criminal offense to use arms not your own as of last summer.
"Family Arms" don't exist outside of those rare few exceptions.
Now, they are heritable property, so your heir can get them when you die.
Your heir , however, only gets to use yours while you live with a difference mark, and even then, only if you let them. In the UK, it was still a criminal offense to use arms not your own as of last summer.
Granted, it definitely looks to be carried out differently in England, most of what I know is from hearing about it from relatives, not reading books.
Do you mean armorial?
From victory in battle you could get futher Entailment, which would have been the real recognition, to add to your estate. You could also be given part of the baggage train as booty, either in goods or people. Later you could just purchase a title.
FreeTrav
SOC-14 1K
Indeed, and the literature that I've seen refers to the colors as "livery" rather than heraldry; in a full achievement, the livery colors are often referred to as merely "the colors" as in Arms, yadda yadda yadda; Crest: On a wreath of the colors, yadda yadda; Mantling: (here is where "the colors" are actually described); Supporters: yadda.
Actually, Mantling and house colors are NOT the same.
A full achievement consists of:
1) The Arms (what's on the face of the shield)
2) The Helm or Hat
3) The Torse and Mantling (as a unit)
4) The Crest "upon" the helm (above it)
5) The Supporters and compartment
6) a Ribband bearing the motto
7) The encircling belt, chain, laurel or riband
ALL of these are part of the registered achievement of arms. If you weren't granted item X, you don't get to add item X...
For SCA heraldry, only the arms are registered, with the torse and mantling being presumed to match the field as divided, and if undivided, field and primary charge. Hat/helm by rank.
Mantling isn't always of the house colors, either. Gules mantling is used on English achievements, but Red livery is (by tradition) restricted to the Royal Family (and the UK Army); brick red, blood red, several other shades non-heraldic replace it in English livery.
Livery is literally a uniform. But it's not inherently related to the Arms
A full achievement consists of:
1) The Arms (what's on the face of the shield)
2) The Helm or Hat
3) The Torse and Mantling (as a unit)
4) The Crest "upon" the helm (above it)
5) The Supporters and compartment
6) a Ribband bearing the motto
7) The encircling belt, chain, laurel or riband
ALL of these are part of the registered achievement of arms. If you weren't granted item X, you don't get to add item X...
For SCA heraldry, only the arms are registered, with the torse and mantling being presumed to match the field as divided, and if undivided, field and primary charge. Hat/helm by rank.
Mantling isn't always of the house colors, either. Gules mantling is used on English achievements, but Red livery is (by tradition) restricted to the Royal Family (and the UK Army); brick red, blood red, several other shades non-heraldic replace it in English livery.
Livery is literally a uniform. But it's not inherently related to the Arms
