Post Your Granted, Assumed or Desired Arms

[Harold Cannon]

MOR Thanks a whole bunch but I have some questions.

As for a blazon, based on what is seen, I think I'd consider:

ARMS: Or within a bordure gules a lion rampant defamed* sable brandishing with its dexter paw a broadsword proper overall on a chief gules within a demi-bordure or three Maltese crosses argent.

(*It may be that you have intended this charge to be a bear rampant, but from the way it is drawn it can only be interpreted as a tail-less lion. If it is your intent to display a lion, then it would benefit from the addition of a tail; if it is a bear, then it needs to be drawn as such, ie: muzzled.)

CREST: (on a wreath of the colours or and gules) upon a grassy mound a bear* statant erect supporting a lochaber axe with his forepaws his dexter hind foot resting upon a rock all proper.

(*Bears, to distinguish them from other animals, are properly depicted as muzzled unless blazoned to the contrary.)

You will note that Joe and I have taken a different approach to the blazon of the bordure. I have chosen to treat both bordures as ordinaries (one red, the other gold) to avoid the possibility of confusing Harold's livery colours with those of the chief of his clan. Were no such confusion to arise, then I would follow Joe's blazon, but would be specific as to the counter-change:

all within a bordure counter-changed in chief

to avoid giving the impression that the bordure was being used as a mark of cadency.

(IS THERE A WAY TO NOT HAVE TO MUZZLE THE BEAR AND WHAT DO YOU VIEW AS MY LIVERY COLORS? I THOUGHT THEY WOULD BE GOLD AND BLACK AND I DONT MIND THAT BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO CHANGE MY COCKADES TO LIVERY COLORS AND THAT WOULD KILL TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE IN A WAY. ALSO THE BORDURE IS NOT A CADENCY MARK.)

[Cygnus]

That is interesting...

I knew that bears were commonly muzzled in Scottish heraldry and on the rare occasion they appear in English arms, but I wasn't aware that was the rule. Many German and Swiss arms include non-muzzled bears (often with bright red genitalia), and I know that both the bear and polar bear, muzzled and unmuzzled, are quite common in Canadian arms.

So, how would one specify that a heraldic bear is not muzzled?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

MOR Thanks a whole bunch but I have some questions:
(IS THERE A WAY TO NOT HAVE TO MUZZLE THE BEAR AND WHAT DO YOU VIEW AS MY LIVERY COLORS? I THOUGHT THEY WOULD BE GOLD AND BLACK AND I DONT MIND THAT BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO CHANGE MY COCKADES TO LIVERY COLORS AND THAT WOULD KILL TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE IN A WAY. ALSO THE BORDURE IS NOT A CADENCY MARK.)

Harold (and Cygnus)--

In heraldry, it's all about the blazon. So, if you want an unmuzzled bear, then you have to ask the question does the bear have his mouth closed, or is he snarling? Looking at the depiction it seems you want the bear snarling, so I would be tempted to blazon it as "... fangs bared, armed and langued gules" this would indicate to the painter that the teeth, claws and tongue of the bear would be red. (As far as gender is concerned, until the Victorian era it was quite common for animals so equipped to be blazoned as "armed, langued, and pizzled". The default was always red, unless the animal was red, in which case blue was most often used.)

Livery colours are (almost always) the first named metal (or [yellow] and argent [white]) and first named colour (red, blue, etc.). Depending on how your arms are blazoned your livery colours would be either yellow and black, or yellow and red. Since the bordure on your arms is not a mark of cadency, then the decision to blazon it depends on what you want for the "colours" on your bonnet. If, to show your allegiance to our clan chief you want to have yellow and black livery colours, then the bordure would come last in the blazon; if you wanted to have yellow and red livery (to match your kilt?) then the bordure would be treated as an ordinary, and it would be mentioned before the (black) bear.

Hope that answers your questions!

[WVHighlander]

So with those helpful lessons on language I would be looking at something like this:

Argent between in base a bear rampant, fangs bared, armed and langued gules and in chief between two crosses moline a raven displayed, beaked and armed Sable a fess Gules.

Is that about right??

[Harold Cannon]

MOR you are awesome! Thanks a whole bunch!!!! I want the livery to stay gold and black so I will leave that the way it is. I will add the part about the claws and teeth too.
Please tell me what you think.


ARMS: Or a bear rampant Sable fangs bared, armed, langued, and pizzled Gules, brandishing a basket-hilted sword proper on a chief Gules three Maltese crosses Argent all within a bordure counter-changed in chief.

CREST: [On a wreath of Or and Sable] Upon a grassy mound a bear statant erect supporting a Lochaber axe with his forepaws, his right hind foot resting upon a boulder all proper.

[Chas]

So with those helpful lessons on language I would be looking at something like this:

Argent between in base a bear rampant, fangs bared, armed and langued gules and in chief between two crosses moline a raven displayed, beaked and armed Sable a fess Gules.

Is that about right??

No. The way blazon works is that everything mentioned before the tincture is of the same tincture. The way you have blazoned it the bear is red! I really think that " fangs bared, armed and langued gules" is redundant. You just wouldn't see it.

There is what we call the 'postage stamp test'. Reduce your shield down to the size of a postage stamp. Sit down at your desk and place it in front of you. If you can see all that detail, you might include it in the blazon. But in the overwhelming number of cases, it would be left out.

Consider this: Argent a horse pulling a cart Proper. Is there a mention of the horse furniture? What type of horse is it? Big difference between a Shire and a Suffolk. What type of cart? How many wheels? 2 or 4? I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I can recognise the arms when I see them.

It is a big mistake to try and include everything in the blazon, there really is no need. Your next door neighbours are not going to have the same arms, but with the bear muzzled.

If it were me I would stick with the blazon I first quoted:

Argent between in base a bear rampant and in chief between two crosses moline a raven beaked and armed Sable a fess Gules.

It is accurate, but gives enough scope for an heraldic artist to add any 'poetic licence'.

Regards

Chas

[WVHighlander]

Cheers Chas. I appreciate you insight. Now all I need to do is get accepted at Edinburgh University or Kings College and submit my request! LOL

[WVHighlander]

Coat of Arms: Argent between in base a bear rampant and in chief between two crosses moline a raven beaked and armed Sable a fess Gules

Crest: A gryphon passant sable, holding a sword proper

Motto: Ego planto mea fortuna (I make my own fate.)

[Mike_Oettle]

Sorry to be a wet blanket, WVHighlander, but there are some drawbacks to your design.
Chas suggested the postage stamp test, and it is a good one.
What you will find is that while the two crosses moline can still be made out, and perhaps the bird in chief, the bear in base is somewhat lost.
You could try using just the bear’s head instead of the whole bear.
And by narrowing the fess (call it a bar, or a barrulet, even) you will gain space to display your other charges.

I do like Harold Cannon’s design.
Regards,
Mike

[WVHighlander]

Mike,

I appreciate your input; however, the bear rampart is a necessity based on a family history. Also, I shrunk down the picture to postage size and it doesn't look bad at all. This goes back to MoR's comment that it comes down to personal preference I think. However, I open for being refuted.

JC