Need some help with cadency

[EagleJCS]

In a follow-up to a post I made in this thread: http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f...ed-arms-65298/

My niece has a coat of arms assignment for school, and I’d like to figure out what our coats of arms might look like, with the appropriate cadency bordures applied.

Here’s the original post, with some changes:
If I were to petition a grant of arms from Lyon for my 5xg-gf (that's how far back I have to go to get to a subject of the Crown, much less Scotland), he would likely start with the Scott coat of arms, thus: "Or, on a bend Azure a star between two crescents Or". That's the blazon for the Scott coat of arms on the Buccleuch line (Chief of the name Scott).



Since I can't trace back definitively to the chiefly line or to a cadet branch of known armigers, in order to distinguish between the chiefly line and mine, we could discuss different things to include on the shield. I think a long rifle or something to represent the Bluegrass would be appropriate, since my family settled on the VA frontier in the mid-1770's and were among the first to settle in KY in the 1790's. Maybe I could put that in chief above the bend azure?

Lyon would then difference the arms accordingly for each succeeding generation:

o my 4xg-gf, the second son, would be differenced (under Stodart's conventions probably a bordure, possibly Or, maybe Argent)
o my 3xg-gf, the eldest son, would be undifferenced from above
o my 2xg-gf, the eldest son, would be undifferenced from above
o my g-gf, the third son (either a change in the patten of the bordure or a change in color, or both)
o my gf, the eldest, would probably be undifferenced from my g-gf (although his parents didn't marry until 2.5 years after his birth. After my previous posting, a lawyer friend found that my gf would be legitimized under KY law, so no bordure compony.)
o my f, the eldest, would be undifferenced from my g-gf
o me, the eldest, would be undifferenced from my g-gf (except for a label argent of three points until my father passes)
o my brother, the second son of our father, would be differenced by yet another change in the bordure
o my niece, the eldest daughter of my brother, would be undifferenced from my brother’s (he passed away last August), but instead of a shield her arms would properly be on a lozenge

Just what those bordures might be has me a bit confused, since the primary color of the Scott arms is Or and under Stodart, the second son - in this case my 4xg-gf - gets a bordure Or.


Applying for a grant of arms and matriculations is moot point for now, as I don't have the funds to continue the research for proofs.

[Cygnus]

John,

Cadency isn't so much a science as it is an art. If taken as the former, it leads to some pretty ridiculous combinations. Here's an exercise I did taking Stoddart to the extreme (the image is pretty big).

From what I've seen, Lyon tends to simplify things considerably when granting arms that far up the family tree. In your case, for example, you might end up with a simple change in the line of partition on the shield (a bend invected) for your great-grandfather as the only "difference" from the original grantee. This wouldn't present much of a problem unless your entire extended family also matriculated arms, but even then, I'm sure Lyon could introduce minor brissures or charges to suitably difference the other branches without causing too much of a problem.

Your brother's arms would probably have a simple bordure, in this case it could be chequy Or and Azure (since the field is Or), and your niece would, as you say, bear his arms on a lozenge, though she would only be an heraldic heiress if she has no brothers.

Again, this is all speculation, as Lyon has the prerogative to do as he pleases in these situations.

I also wanted to say that I am sorry to hear about the loss of your brother; if your niece is still in school, it seems much too early to have lost him, particularly for your niece. My sincere condolences.

[EagleJCS]

John,
I also wanted to say that I am sorry to hear about the loss of your brother; if your niece is still in school, it seems much too early to have lost him, particularly for your niece. My sincere condolences.

Thanks Cygnus. Yes, he was taken from us much too early. He was 39. There's a thread in the Miscellaneous forum with more details - I don't want to derail things here too much. My niece has only a younger sister, so she would indeed be my brother's heraldic heiress. It falls to me to continue the family line ... tough to do for now as I'm still a bachelor.

Regarding the starting point Mike Oettle was questioning: I was informed a few years back by a member of the SSA that since our family name is Scott, if I were to petition Lyon for a grant of Scottish arms in honor of our ancestor (see below regarding the timeline), in order for those arms to be visually recognized as Scott arms, Lyon would probably start with the chiefly Scott arms I've indicated above, then add charges, change lines and so forth to differentiate them, but keep them similar. The trick would be to avoid making them similar to existing Scott arms as well.

A few years ago, I found a list of Scott armigers from Nisbet’s A System of Heraldry (1722). Most of them have the basic Scott arms as above, with different charges either on the bend or in the field. About 90% of them start with Or, then follow with an Azure element (mostly a bend, though a couple have a fess Azure). The Scotts of Harden don't have a bend or fess but is rather "Or, two mullets in chief and a crescent in base Azure". There are also a couple of Scotts that were Argent to start with (apparently all related to the Scotts of Balwearie) with "lions heads erased Gules".

As I've mentioned in other threads, we have a brick wall in our Scott lineage at about 1780 or so (just before the Treaty of Paris of 1 Sep 1783, which officially ended the Revolutionary War). Since we can get that far back, I have somewhat tenuous proof that my ancestors were subjects of the Crown and are therefore eligible for a grant of arms (posthumously), from which my immediate family may then matriculate our own. My distant cousin, who has also been researching this line, has been unable to find the records indicating when/where our family came to the New World, and thus which branch of the Scotts we may be related to. (We may not be "Scottish" Scotts at all - there are English and Irish as well.)


Thanks to everyone for the help so far!

[Chas]

Hello,

In practice the intermediate armigers who are dead are not ignored, just passed over. I would think a bordure (engrailed/invicted/embattled/raguly/wavy), possibly quartered (two colours) and charged with up to eight charges should cover all the cadency.

Stodart is a very rigid system and often falls down at the first hurdle (like here). Where there is a colour clash, they go for the next colour. If you were to matriculate there is no reason why you should not ask for furs, rather than colours of metals.

Regards

Chas

[Mike_Oettle]

While I am writing this from the office, without my reference books at hand, my recollection is that different Scott families have arms that are quite dissimilar from those of Buccleuch. The common feature is that they display two mullets (stars) and a crescent, but there is little else that they share.
It is highly probable that EagleJCS does not belong to the duke’s family. There are plenty other perfectly respectable Scott families. He might be related to one of those that already bear arms, or on the other hand he may be unable to prove a connection. In this instance, Lyon would start afresh. EagleJCS might also want to start afresh, with or without reference to Lyon.
Regards,
Mike

[Cygnus]

Hello,

In practice the intermediate armigers who are dead are not ignored, just passed over. I would think a bordure (engrailed/invicted/embattled/raguly/wavy), possibly quartered (two colours) and charged with up to eight charges should cover all the cadency.

Stodart is a very rigid system and often falls down at the first hurdle (like here). Where there is a colour clash, they go for the next colour. If you were to matriculate there is no reason why you should not ask for furs, rather than colours of metals.

Regards

Chas

Hmm. From what I have seen of recent grants and matriculations, it seems that bordures compony counter-compony are in vogue (rather than bordures chequy, and despite the stigma often associated with them as a mark of illegitimacy) in cases where the field and bordure tinctures are the same. Also, are you sure that Lyon would choose to incorporate all of the differences? I'm certain I've seen grants/matriculations at the Heraldry Society of Scotland website that don't account for each and every generation between the ancestor and the actual petitioner. I would think this would generally be the practice, as introducing too many differences makes it that much more difficult to difference the arms for future matriculants from that line who, given the fact that there is already a grant in the family, seem far more likely to matriculate their own arms than distant relatives who sprung from the branch generations ago.

To the OP, I can highly recommend the Heraldry Society of Scotland webpage and forum as a wealth of information and samples of grants of arms.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

In a follow-up to a post I made in this thread: http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f...ed-arms-65298/

My niece has a coat of arms assignment for school, and I’d like to figure out what our coats of arms might look like, with the appropriate cadency bordures applied.

Here’s the original post, with some changes:
If I were to petition a grant of arms from Lyon for my 5xg-gf (that's how far back I have to go to get to a subject of the Crown, much less Scotland), he would likely start with the Scott coat of arms, thus: "Or, on a bend Azure a star between two crescents Or". That's the blazon for the Scott coat of arms on the Buccleuch line (Chief of the name Scott).



Since I can't trace back definitively to the chiefly line or to a cadet branch of known armigers, in order to distinguish between the chiefly line and mine, we could discuss different things to include on the shield. I think a long rifle or something to represent the Bluegrass would be appropriate, since my family settled on the VA frontier in the mid-1770's and were among the first to settle in KY in the 1790's. Maybe I could put that in chief above the bend azure?

Lyon would then difference the arms accordingly for each succeeding generation:

o my 4xg-gf, the second son, would be differenced (under Stodart's conventions probably a bordure, possibly Or, maybe Argent)
o my 3xg-gf, the eldest son, would be undifferenced from above
o my 2xg-gf, the eldest son, would be undifferenced from above
o my g-gf, the third son (either a change in the patten of the bordure or a change in color, or both)
o my gf, the eldest, would probably be undifferenced from my g-gf (although his parents didn't marry until 2.5 years after his birth. After my previous posting, a lawyer friend found that my gf would be legitimized under KY law, so no bordure compony.)
o my f, the eldest, would be undifferenced from my g-gf
o me, the eldest, would be undifferenced from my g-gf (except for a label argent of three points until my father passes)
o my brother, the second son of our father, would be differenced by yet another change in the bordure
o my niece, the eldest daughter of my brother, would be undifferenced from my brother’s (he passed away last August), but instead of a shield her arms would properly be on a lozenge

Just what those bordures might be has me a bit confused, since the primary color of the Scott arms is Or and under Stodart, the second son - in this case my 4xg-gf - gets a bordure Or.


Applying for a grant of arms and matriculations is moot point for now, as I don't have the funds to continue the research for proofs.

The general practice is to base the arms of an unknown, or indeterminate cadet on those of the clan chief.
Without having recourse to all of the known Scott arms, it is pretty well impossible to say with any certainty what you might end up with, generation piled upon generation. Were you to assume arms of your own mere motion, I suppose a fair staring point would be to convert the bend to a chief azure with a crescent between two mullets of the field (or). Rather than mess with a bordure for your 4x g-gf I'd vary line of partition by engrailing the chief. When you get down to your g-gf enclose the arms in a bordure azure (3rd son). Your father and you (with a red, not white, label) would bear the same arms, while your brother would engrail the bordure as a mark of his cadency, these arms passing to his daughter, undifferenced. As far as the shape of your niece's escutcheon is concerned, there is no reason (other than the custom of the granting authority) why a lady's arms can not be displayed on a traditional heater-shaped shield. Likewise, when displaying a crest it can be "upon a chaplet of roses befitting a lady on a wreath of the colours her crest."

[EagleJCS]

Thanks, Scott. With your experience, I was hoping to get your input. I hadn't thought of changing the bend to a chief or using a different color for the label. I've not seen many examples of labels being used. Most of the labels I've seen are argent.

In changing the bend to a chief, I'd probably want to figure out something besides a Kentucky long rifle to go in the field. I'd still like to have something representing my family's long residency in the Commonwealth. Maybe a horseshoe (tips up), or possibly a cardinal proper, close (state bird and mascot of the University of Louisville, from which my gf and I both graduated)? An anvil or smith's hammer might also work, given that some of my ancestors - including my g-gf - were blacksmiths.

We'd probably stick with the stag trippant proper (from the Scott crest) and the motto ("Amo") for the arms of my 5x g-gf, then change them for my father, myself, or my niece (or all three).

I wouldn't presume to assume arms on my own - I think I'd want to at least get the input of a granting authority for suggestions. That way if I could eventually afford to have them granted/registered, I could do so.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

In the heraldry common to the British Isles white labels have become the prerogative of the British Royal family. This is because they carry, on their tabs, cadency marks unique to the royals.

[Mike_Oettle]

While it is generally thought that white labels are a royal prerogative, this is misleading on two different scores.
Firstly, the labels used for members of the royal family are always blazoned as being argent (silver). Their appearance is white, but contrary to popular opinion, they are not intended to be white as distinguished from silver (this distinction largely exists only in Iberian heraldry).
Secondly, while in England there is a tendency for non-royals not to use argent labels, this is not an absolute requirement. And in Scotland, labels argent are as common as labels in any other colour – the primary consideration is one of contrast.
The use of the label argent in English royal heraldry goes back to Edward, the Black Prince. Previously all heirs to the English throne had borne the lions of England (without any additional quarterings) with a blue label, and some younger sons also used blue labels (with additional charges).
But since his father, Edward III, had claimed the throne of France and had quartered the fleurs de lis of France (in the prime position, first and fourth quarters) with England, a label argent provided the contrast required to stand out against both the blue and gold of France and the red and gold of England.
Since that time, every Prince of Wales has borne a plain label of three points argent on his shield.
All other royals have labels with specific additional charges assigned to them – with three, five or seven points as the case may be.
Regards,
Mike