Celtic Crest

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Ok, so here is an article from the Lord Lyon and reprinted on the web site of the Society of Scottish Armigers that substantiates what has already been stated here both about the clansman's badge only being in black and white, and about the belt itself not being blue.

http://www.scotarmigers.net/leaflet2.htm

And, while recognizing that this may be the current norm, I still have my suspicions about this. For one, I already mentioned the fact that it doesn't make any sense to have a specific rule agains the belt being shown in blue if the clanman's badge can only be done in black and white to begin with.

The justification given for the black and white rule is the fact that the clansman's badge is worn as a pin on the bonnet in silver and therefore a printed (or otherwise) depiction of this should either be silver or black and white. But the reason I don't buy into this wholeheartedly is that it seems (if you'll forgive me) rather contrived. I mean, there is an exception written in already about the clansman's badge sometimes being made from gold for ladies to wear as brooches -- should that, then, mean that it is appropriate for ladies to depict the badge of their clan in yellow?

And if a drawing of a clansman's badge is supposed to be a representation of a metal crest pin, isn't that metal crest pin itself a representation of the cheif's crest (encircled by the belt & buckle), which is a heraldic device; a graphic design in which COLOR plays role of major importance?

You can see where I am going with this. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, or argumentative, but I'm just attempting to see the logic in this.

It would be interesting to know the history as to how long this particular convention has been around? Who first articulated it? It seems to flow from the general practice of wearing the clansman's badge as a metal pin, but how old is this practice? And if custom today has expanded the use of the clansman's badge to other forms of display (such as stationary, clothing, clan banners, wall art, and the like), will the norms as they pertain to color remain relevant, or will they be reevaluated?

All food for thought!
M

[Sketraw]

Ok, so here is an article from the Lord Lyon and reprinted on the web site of the Society of Scottish Armigers that substantiates what has already been stated here both about the clansman's badge only being in black and white, and about the belt itself not being blue.

http://www.scotarmigers.net/leaflet2.htm

And, while recognizing that this may be the current norm, I still have my suspicions about this. For one, I already mentioned the fact that it doesn't make any sense to have a specific rule agains the belt being shown in blue if the clanman's badge can only be done in black and white to begin with.

The point is Mat, that the Clans Person is only allowed by courtesy of the chief to wear the badge in a Belt & Buckle as a metallic badge if it is reproduced in other media it should be in B/W to represent that this is the Clans Persons Bonnet Badge.

The justification given for the black and white rule is the fact that the clansman's badge is worn as a pin on the bonnet in silver and therefore a printed (or otherwise) depiction of this should either be silver or black and white. But the reason I don't buy into this wholeheartedly is that it seems (if you'll forgive me) rather contrived. I mean, there is an exception written in already about the clansman's badge sometimes being made from gold for ladies to wear as brooches -- should that, then, mean that it is appropriate for ladies to depict the badge of their clan in yellow?

No Mat, it should be depicted in B/W in other media, because they had badge made in gold is their personal choice. Technically if you put the crest in a belt & buckle on a piece of silver for example you are stating that this belongs to the Chief or Armiger as it is his crest you are using as a courtesy.

And if a drawing of a clansman's badge is supposed to be a representation of a metal crest pin, isn't that metal crest pin itself a representation of the cheif's crest (encircled by the belt & buckle), which is a heraldic device; a graphic design in which COLOR plays role of major importance?

Yes in heraldry colour does play an important roll however this does not transpose over to badges as such. Evan in Fairbairns Crest they are depicted in B/W. At the end of the day the Clans Person is only entitled by courtsy to wear the badge and no more.

You can see where I am going with this. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, or argumentative, but I'm just attempting to see the logic in this.

It would be interesting to know the history as to how long this particular convention has been around? Who first articulated it? It seems to flow from the general practice of wearing the clansman's badge as a metal pin, but how old is this practice? And if custom today has expanded the use of the clansman's badge to other forms of display (such as stationary, clothing, clan banners, wall art, and the like), will the norms as they pertain to color remain relevant, or will they be reevaluated?

All food for thought!

I suggest Mat you join the Heraldry Society of Scotland forum Click hre for details on how to register to the Forum they are far more learned than I and would give you a better more knowlageable answer. The forum may be of interest in other aspects also.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

John,

I am afraid I have a slightly different take on some of the points you've raised with Matt:

The point is Mat, that the Clans Person is only allowed by courtesy of the chief to wear the badge in a Belt & Buckle as a metallic badge if it is reproduced in other media it should be in B/W to represent that this is the Clans Persons Bonnet Badge.

I'm about halfway here on this point. The clansman's badge (CB) is comprised of two basic elements: the Chief's crest, and the buckle and strap that encircle it. The chief's motto should always appear on the strap.

The badge, although purchased by the clansman and therefore his property, can only be worn or displayed without the objection of the chief. Although usually made of white metal and worn on the bonnet, the badge may be made from any material and worn in any manner that is appropriate.

It is not, even in the broadest sense, merely a clansman's bonnet badge (emphasis mine).

No Mat, it should be depicted in B/W in other media, because they had badge made in gold is their personal choice.

This goes back to the days of engraved printing, and really only applied to things like the letter paper used by Clan Societies. There was also a strong social convention that implied colour printing was, some how, "vulgar" (probably because of the obvious cost).

Technically if you put the crest in a belt & buckle on a piece of silver for example you are stating that this belongs to the Chief or Armiger as it is his crest you are using as a courtesy.

That's right. An Armiger (someone with is own coat of arms) may display his crest in any manner of his choice. You may not.

Yes in heraldry colour does play an important roll however this does not transpose over to badges as such. Evan in Fairbairns Crest they are depicted in B/W.

Fairbairn's Crests was created as a guide for jewelry engravers and printers. As neither of these trades would have any need for colour renditions of the crests, to say nothing of the cost of producing the two volumes in colour, it was done in B&W.

Yes, in heraldry colour does play an important role. In the Letters Patent of a grant of arms the crest is as carefully blazoned as the shield of arms itself. The crest of a Chief is therefore always represented in colour unless worked in a single metal, or engraved on paper (and even here it may be reproduced in full colour). Because it is at all times and in all mediums the property of the Chief, he may direct that, when used as a clansman's badge, it only be displayed as a monochromatic line drawing, in all of its technicolour glory, or a combination of either depending on use, display, and medium.

The only time that it would be "wrong" to display the clansman's badge in colour, would be if the Chief had directed otherwise.

At the end of the day the Clans Person is only entitled by courtsy to wear the badge and no more.

I would agree with this, as there is no "right" to wear or display the clansman's badge, other than without the objection of the Chief. The same applies to "clan societies" which are not recognized by the chief.

Oh yes. And to tee-shirt printers, as well!



I suggest Mat you join the Heraldry Society of Scotland forum Click hre for details on how to register to the Forum they are far more learned than I and would give you a better more knowlageable answer. The forum may be of interest in other aspects also.[/QUOTE]

[M. A. C. Newsome]

The only time that it would be "wrong" to display the clansman's badge in colour, would be if the Chief had directed otherwise.

This, I find perfectly reasonable. It makes much more sense than to have an overarching rule stating the clansman's badges can only be portrayed in B&W. And at the same time it honors the fact that the crest which makes up the badge is the personal property of the chief.

Sketraw:

The point is Mat, that the Clans Person is only allowed by courtesy of the chief to wear the badge in a Belt & Buckle as a metallic badge if it is reproduced in other media it should be in B/W to represent that this is the Clans Persons Bonnet Badge.

But how does rendering it in B&W represent the fact that this is the clansman's badge? Doesn't encircling the crest withint the belt and buckle bearing the motto serve that function?

[Sketraw]

But how does rendering it in B&W represent the fact that this is the clansman's badge? Doesn't encircling the crest withint the belt and buckle bearing the motto serve that function?

Rendering it in B/W is meant to depict the badge in metal, silver coloured metal in heraldry is depicted as white. I don't think Lyon Court would be saying it should always be depicted this way unless it was. After all Lyon is the one that dictates the rules for helraldry.

The only way a clansman can show allegiance to his Chief is the wearing of the clansman's badge in a belt and buckle and that is only as a courtesy even to his own sons.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

This, I find perfectly reasonable. It makes much more sense than to have an overarching rule stating the clansman's badges can only be portrayed in B&W. And at the same time it honors the fact that the crest which makes up the badge is the personal property of the chief.

Sketraw:


But how does rendering it in B&W represent the fact that this is the clansman's badge? Doesn't encircling the crest withint the belt and buckle bearing the motto serve that function?

Absolutely. Whether engraved on metal, laser-printed on paper, or tattooed on someone's... arm, it is the buckle and strap with motto that transforms the crest into a badge.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

The only way a clansman can show allegiance to his Chief is the wearing of the clansman's badge in a belt and buckle and that is only as a courtesy even to his own sons.

John, this raises a tangentially interesting point.

Angus Armiger has three sons, all of whom have now reached their majority and have married. Sons 2 & 3 have matriculated a differenced version of their father's arms and are now entitled to wear a single eagle feather on high days and holidays and at the Pursuviant Highland Games. What is the status of #1 son?

[Highland Logan]

Angus Armiger has three sons, all of whom have now reached their majority and have married. Sons 2 & 3 have matriculated a differenced version of their father's arms and are now entitled to wear a single eagle feather on high days and holidays and at the Pursuviant Highland Games. What is the status of #1 son?

Not to cut in, but I beleave that the 1st son, or heir would properly wear the crest of his father (same number of eagle feathers depending on rank of the father) in a plan circlet with the motto, the only difference between father and son would the the addition of a label of three points cadency mark.

Frank

[Sketraw]

John, this raises a tangentially interesting point.

Angus Armiger has three sons, all of whom have now reached their majority and have married. Sons 2 & 3 have matriculated a differenced version of their father's arms and are now entitled to wear a single eagle feather on high days and holidays and at the Pursuviant Highland Games. What is the status of #1 son?

The 1st son as heir of the undifferented arms of his father has to wait until his father dies. The second and third son have to matriculate differenced arms on leaving the family home if they wish to continue using arms so could well be armigerous before the heir.

Not to cut in, but I beleave that the 1st son, or heir would properly wear the crest of his father (same number of eagle feathers depending on rank of the father) in a plan circlet with the motto, the only difference between father and son would the the addition of a label of three points cadency mark.

The heir Frank, who is allowed to use the arms of his father as a courtesy but differenced by a three point label is not armigerous. He should not wear a feather and he must wear his fathers crest in a belt & buckle.

[Highland Logan]

Thanks for the correction John. I took a look around at some heraldy site to see if I could get the answer. Check out the Harden site. I may have read it wrong.

Frank