Once more in English, please?

[Hermit]

Re: Once more in English, please?

 

I thought that might be what you meant, but I decided to base my actions on what you said.

 

I might emblazon them all, IF I had the various pieces I'd need already scanned in. However, I don't, and I don't have the time to do so.

 

Well, I'm repping your amazing efforts and dazzling knowledge, but I still want some 'purty pictures' ;P

[Curufea]

Re: Once more in English, please?

 

Theoretically TA blazons shouldn't be in French

 

If people see you using the real world standard for writing blazons - they may get confused into thinking you are trying to be historically accurate. Which you aren't - it's a fantasy setting. How heraldry developed in the TA world will be completely different from how it developed in ours.

As it's a high fantasy setting - I wouldn't be surprised if heraldry didn't also include magic. You could have neon, or even animated heraldry. It is, after all, something that is used exclusively by the nobility - who have money (or more importantly, land).

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Once more in English, please?

 

Considering that Steve's intent was that the descriptions be understandable to those not well-versed in heraldry, I think it can be assumed that charges not given a color are to be "proper."

 

I have seen heraldic resources that list some other colors:

 

bleu-celeste (sky blue)

brunatre (brown)

murrey (mulberry - reddish-purple)

 

As well as tenne and sanguine that you mentioned.

 

I believe the default position for a hand or gauntlet would be upright.

And I think the default arrangement for 7 things is 3, 3, and 1:

 

*  *  *
*  *  *
  *

Seven items can also be arranged "in orbicular form" - a hexagonal arrangement with on in the middle and six around it, it could sort of be described as 1, 2, 1, 2, and 1:

 

   *
*     *
  *
*     *
  *

 

It may also be that some of the regions of Ambrethel do not conform to the usual conventions of heraldry and use more primitive symbols. For instance, there may be some barbaric land whose symbol is "a bear's head" - in this case, they don't mean a heraldic escutcheon with a bear's head painted on it, they mean an actual bear's head, mounted on a wooden pole, or something similar.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Once more in English, please?

 

Elvenholme: Or, a mullet of 12 points azure between two antlers XXXX gules. (The orientation is not given. I suppose they are "upright," rather than the default horizontal.)

 

Elves in TA have mullets?

[Basil]

Re: Once more in English, please?

 

Considering that Steve's intent was that the descriptions be understandable to those not well-versed in heraldry, I think it can be assumed that charges not given a color are to be "proper."

 

I have seen heraldic resources that list some other colors:

 

bleu-celeste (sky blue)

brunatre (brown)

murrey (mulberry - reddish-purple)

 

As well as tenne and sanguine that you mentioned.

"Celeste" and "brunatre" are from French heraldry (as I mentioned, those colors are not used in British heraldry, but are used elsewhere). "Murrey" is a term I've seen for sanguine. I have no idea if the word is used in heraldry outside of Britain, or is an artistic term.

 

I believe the default position for a hand or gauntlet would be upright.

Quite possible, but I can't find any proof one way or the other.

 

And I think the default arrangement for 7 things is 3, 3, and 1:

 

*  *  *
*  *  *
  *

Seven items can also be arranged "in orbicular form" - a hexagonal arrangement with on in the middle and six around it, it could sort of be described as 1, 2, 1, 2, and 1:

 

   *
*     *
  *
*     *
  *

I'm not so sure there's a default/assumed arrangement for more than three objects, and I'm really doubtful about "in orbicular form": IME multiple objects are blazoned in rows. Now, in this instance I can see "a **** between six ****s in annulo"

 

It may also be that some of the regions of Ambrethel do not conform to the usual conventions of heraldry and use more primitive symbols. For instance' date=' there may be some barbaric land whose symbol is "a bear's head" - in this case, they don't mean a heraldic escutcheon with a bear's head painted on it, they mean an actual bear's head, mounted on a wooden pole, or something similar.[/quote']

Well, yes. I'd say that clearly some of the "Arms/Symbol"s aren't heraldic. But I was having fun getting as close as possible.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Once more in English, please?

 

I'm not so sure there's a default/assumed arrangement for more than three objects' date=' and I'm really doubtful about "in orbicular form": IME multiple objects are blazoned in rows. Now, in this instance I can see "a **** between six ****s in annulo"[/quote']

According to the sources I've read (I don't have the titles for you, they were library books I read a long time ago, so I only have my notes to go by), they specifically mention "orbicular form" (which may be a more modern addition to heraldry, 19th or 20th century maybe?), and the default arrangements of up to 10 items - which were said to be in the most evenly distributed arrangement possible within the field. Specifically, that 3 items are 2 and 1; 6items are 3, 2, and 1; and 10 items are 4, 3, 2, and 1. They also gave default positions for multiple items along with ordinaries: 2 items and a bend would be one above and one below; four items and a pale would be 2 in pale on each side; nine items and a chevron would be 2 and 1 in chief dexter and in chief sinister, and 1 and 2 in base; etc.

 

I have far more notes on this stuff than I'm ever going to need.

[Basil]

Re: Once more in English, please?

 

According to the sources I've read (I don't have the titles for you' date=' they were library books I read a long time ago, so I only have my notes to go by), they specifically mention "orbicular form" (which may be a more modern addition to heraldry, 19th or 20th century maybe?),[/quote']

I suspect it's not merely a late addition, but probably invented. With Fox-Davies and Franklyn both mute on the term, I doubt it was ever used by the actual heralds.

 

and the default arrangements of up to 10 items - which were said to be in the most evenly distributed arrangement possible within the field.

I'm a bit dubious about any defaults the College of Arms uses beyond three, but yeah, a symetrical arrangement goes without saying. Modern advertising-copy style "dynamic" arrangements are not found in heraldry.

 

Specifically' date=' that 3 items are 2 and 1; 6 items are 3, 2, and 1; and 10 items are 4, 3, 2, and 1. They also gave default positions for multiple items along with ordinaries: 2 items and a bend would be one above and one below; four items and a pale would be 2 in pale on each side;[/quote']

Those all sound like the arrangements I'd expect, but I'm not sure if they're default to the extent they don't have to be blazoned.

 

nine items and a chevron would be 2 and 1 in chief dexter and in chief sinister' date=' and 1 and 2 in base; etc.[/quote']

Errr.... I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying here.

 

I have far more notes on this stuff than I'm ever going to need.

There's no such thing!

 

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Once more in English, please?

 

I suspect it's not merely a late addition' date=' but probably invented. With Fox-Davies and Franklyn both mute on the term, I doubt it was ever used by the actual heralds.[/quote']

Aren't all the rules of heraldry "invented"? They weren't handed down by God. And aren't the people who keep track of heraldry still "actual" heralds, even if they deal with heradry of the last 2-3 centuries?

 

Errr.... I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying here.

Sort of like this:

 

*   *  ^  *   * 
     / \
 *  / ^ \  *
   / / \ \
  / /   \ \
 / /  *  \ \
/ /       \ \
/ /  *   *  \ \

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Once more in English, please?

 

So I finally dug up the blazon for my clan... the one I used to emblazon the standard we used to carry.

 

"Azure on a chevron or between three bears' heads couped argent muzzled gules a roebuck's head erased between two hands issuant from the ends of the chevron each holding a dagger all proper."

[Kintar]

Re: Once more in English, please?

 

I am truly amazed by the tenacity of people willing to learn heraldric language. That being said, I can't find Blazon 95 anywhere online any more. Anyone got a copy of it, or a link to the correct website? I want some purty pictures.