The Helmet
TJ
Is it true that the direction of the helmet on the top of the shield
is an indicator of the status of nobility?
I think I read (or heard) once that a direct looking helmet is a sign
of a royal family, while a dexter looking (that is to the left of the
viewer) means something else and a sinister look means another thing
as well.... is that true? If so, what are the exact meaning?
Thanks!
TJ
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
wrote:
Yes, TJ - it is true, though not quite as you have said it (and no
helmet would face to the sinister).
Basically, the tilting helm used to denote a gentleman faces dexter,
the closed and barred helm used to denote a Peer of the Realm faces
dexter, the helm with open visor used to denote a knight or baronet
faces forward, and the Royal Helm also faces forward.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================
TJ
wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 21:13:03 -0700 (PDT), TJ <lonel...@qualitynet.net>
Go raibh maith agat!
Martin Goldstraw
>
> - Show quoted text -
It should be remembered that Patrick's comments above apply to
"British" heraldry where fortunately the rule (if there ever was one)
that the helms of gentlemen and esquires must face to the dexter is
nowadays ignored if it is more appropriate (because of the orientation
of the crest) to depict it facing to the front. The rules set out by
Patrick do not necessarily apply to the heraldry of other nations.
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi TJ,
Patrick is correct. In all gentleman's Letters Patent produced
through the Scottish Lyon Court, The Iirsh Heralds Office nd from what
I've seen, the College of Arms as well show Gent's helm facing to the
dexter. Martin is correct with respect to other countries, although
I have not heard of helms of gents facing front for esthetics or any
other reason - nor have I seen them of late: perhaps Martin can
elaborate. All modern commissioned artwork faces helms to the dexter:
be careful of the style of helm you choose - if you are doing your
own. It is best for you to choose a style / country that you wish to
depict in your design and study that style, you want to make the most
of your finished achievement.
Martin Goldstraw
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hi TJ,
>
> through the Scottish Lyon Court, The Iirsh Heralds Office nd from what
> I've seen, the College of Arms as well show Gent's helm facing to the
> dexter.
It is not correct to say that "all gentleman's (sic)" arms produced by
the English, Scottish and Irish offices of arms face to the Dexter.
>Martin is correct with respect to other countries,
Martin was not referring to other countries but referred specifically
to "British" arms.
>although
> I have not heard of helms of gents facing front for esthetics or any
> other reason - nor have I seen them of late: perhaps Martin can
> elaborate.
I have copies of many modern letters patent from England and Scotland
amongst which there are many examples of forward facing helmets where
it obviously felt to be appropriate because of the orientation of the
crest.
Perhaps you would like to reacquaint yourself with the arms of your
fellow HSS members as published in the HSS Gallery, namely: Hector
Sutherland MacDonald; Brian A. Lambie ; Dr David Craig; Charles John
Burnett, H.M. Ross Herald of Arms; Commander Edward Anthony Moritz and
Stephen J.F. Plowman to illustrate but a few known examples of
armorial bearings from both England and Scotland where the "dexter"
rule is ignored.
>All modern commissioned artwork faces helms to the dexter:
This is patently incorrect.
Joseph McMillan
>
> Perhaps you would like to reacquaint yourself with the arms of your
> fellow HSS members as published in the HSS Gallery, namely: Hector
> Sutherland MacDonald; Brian A. Lambie ; Dr David Craig; Charles John
> Burnett, H.M. Ross Herald of Arms; Commander Edward Anthony Moritz and
> Stephen J.F. Plowman to illustrate but a few known examples of
> armorial bearings from both England and Scotland where the "dexter"
> rule is ignored.
>
the College of Arms and Lyon Office quoted to the effect that the rule
(a late invention in any case) had formally been dropped as serving no
useful purpose.
Joseph McMillan
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes Martin. Of the147 arms listed in the HSS Scot’s arms, there are
four: save for a doctor, the rest are given to those of Rank: one Ross
herald, an MBE and one Lord. In the International arms section, there
are 27 arms depicted of those helms facing front, there are three that
are assumed: one from South Africa, one retired British commander and
one other. Many of these crests; Stuart Jamieson comes to mind, are
very healthy works of art and their helms face to the dexter.
My point to TJ is very clear: traditionally, helms of gent’s face to
the dexter and front facing helms have been reserved for those of
rank. When beginning… it is best to stay within the familiar usage,
otherwise beginners can be lulled in a false confidence and thereby
open themselves up to mistakes. I think TJ is intelligent enough to
understand what I’m saying, and it’s best to not confuse the issue.
If you are referring to those listed on other web-sites that feature
many assumed arms; then the source speaks for itself. My advice is
very clear: pick a tradition and work it.
Martin Goldstraw
> Yes Martin. Of the147 arms listed in the HSS Scot’s arms, there are
> four: save for a doctor, the rest are given to those of Rank: one Ross
> herald, an MBE and one Lord.
I did not point to a Lord and the holder of an MBE is of no greater
rank than esquire.
In the International arms section, there
> are 27 arms depicted of those helms facing front, there are three that
> are assumed: one from South Africa, one retired British commander and
> one other. Many of these crests; Stuart Jamieson comes to mind, are
> very healthy works of art and their helms face to the dexter.
I referred you to Scottish and English grants, not assumed arms or
South african arms.
>
> My point to TJ is very clear: traditionally, helms of gent’s face to
> the dexter and front facing helms have been reserved for those of
> rank. When beginning… it is best to stay within the familiar usage,
> otherwise beginners can be lulled in a false confidence and thereby
> open themselves up to mistakes. I think TJ is intelligent enough to
> understand what I’m saying, and it’s best to not confuse the issue.
> If you are referring to those listed on other web-sites that feature
> many assumed arms; then the source speaks for itself. My advice is
> very clear: pick a tradition and work it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Greg,
I pointed you to the arms granted by proper authority (i.e. Lyon Court
and The College of Arms) which featured front facing helms and it is
no use attempting to bring in the red herrings of other countries or
assumed arms. I stated all along and it is plain for all to see that I
was referring only to "British" armorial bearings. Now Joseph has
kindly indicated to you that the old policy of insisting on a dexter
helm has been swept away by both Lyon Court and The College of Arms.
I am afraid your own point is anything but clear; in fact, it is
misleading and, as usual, somewhat muddled. My point is that TJ would
be on perfectly safe ground if he chose to depict a front facing helm
of a plain design associated with a gentleman or esquire and you are
misleading yourself and others if you truly believe (per your post
above) that "All modern commissioned artwork faces helms to the
dexter".
Best wishes,
Martin
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog
Brian G. Hamilton.
So now he feels qualified to give advice?
BGH
Joseph McMillan
>. Now Joseph has
> kindly indicated to you that the old policy of insisting on a dexter
> helm has been swept away by both Lyon Court and The College of Arms.
Just to ensure that my certainty on this point is not exaggerated, I
*think* I've seen something to this effect, but am not absolutely
sure. However, the existence of grants from these two sources with
affronty helms for people who are not knights (or kings), pointed out
by Martin, is empirical evidence that such a change has been made.
Joseph McMillan
TJ
Thanks for all the information.
Now I'm getting more information more than I thought I would.
I didn't know before that the type of the helmet and whether the visor
is open or not would also define the status of the bearer!
Also, I didn't know the heraldic traditions concerning the helmet and
other things can be different from one nation to another. Does the
Irish tradition follow same pattern as the British one?
Greg
Martin, I note that your arms feature a helm facing the dexter. As
Joseph pointed out, you failed in your post to cite a reference for
the "New Rule" as it realtes to helms. The references I used are
easily obtained and tue to my point. For as long as I've been engaged
in this study, I've never seen, nor has anybody pointed to any new
rules in this respect. Any professional work (that I have seen, both
then and now) face a gent's helm to the dexter. (for a beginner it's a
safe bet). Heraldry is arcane enough.
But, if you're right Martin - then, you - are - right. There's no
sense in discussing the subject.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
wrote:
I have to say I am a tad puzzled here.
I was always under the impression that although the theory was that
the helms of gentlemen (and corporate and municipal bodies) always
faced to the dexter, the herald painters sometimes tweaked the
positioning slightly if it suited the crest better and brought the
helm slightly more to the front - but never so much so that it could
be confused with affronty!
If you think about it, any argument about the relative positioning of
a crest and the helm is a bit of a nonsence as when you come to an
affronty helm, the crest is usually shown in a position that is at 90
degrees to where it should be if the crest/helm combination was a
realistic combination.
Take the well known crest of the Percy Dukes of Northumberland, "On a
Chapeau Gules turned up Ermine a Lion statant with tail extended
Azure". In the Duke's arms the crest looks fine placed on top of a
barred helmet facing dexter. The lion faces dexter and so does the
helm - all balances and looks cute and cuddly.
Now let us suppose you were General Lord Henry Hugh Manvers Percy VC
KCB ADC, 3rd son of the 5th Duke of Northumberland . How would you
depict your arms and crest? As a Knight Commander of the Order of the
Bath you are entitled to use an open visored helmet placed affronty
over your arms. So how do you position your crest? If you argue that
as you've moved the helm round 90 degrees then you should also move
the crest 90 degrees, then you have the crest lion facing straight out
of the depiction. But in practice this is not what happens as the
depiction must follow the blazon - and it is always understood that a
Lion statant is one facing to the left of the observer.
to give another example from the arms of the Booth family, baronets,
Lords Delamer and Earls of Warrington. The crest is a lion passant
and whether it is on the afrronty helm of a baronet or the barred
dexter facing helm of a peer, the lion is shown the same, proudly
walking in a leftwards direction.
I think people sometimes forget that an achievement of arms is not
meant to be a still life picture with things shown according to the
laws of nature and physics!
Joseph McMillan
wrote:
>
>
> I was always under the impression that although the theory was that
> the helms of gentlemen (and corporate and municipal bodies) always
> faced to the dexter, the herald painters sometimes tweaked the
> positioning slightly if it suited the crest better and brought the
> helm slightly more to the front - but never so much so that it could
> be confused with affronty!
This was the case for a while, but I do believe the heraldic
authorities have abandoned the artificiality of the helm position
rules. If you think about it, the rules on position serve no purpose
at all. The four helms used in the UK to indicate degree (closed,
open, silver barred, gold barred) are sufficient to differentiate
between gentlemen, knights, peers, and royals regardless of what
position they're in.
>
> If you think about it, any argument about the relative positioning of
> a crest and the helm is a bit of a nonsence as when you come to an
> affronty helm, the crest is usually shown in a position that is at 90
> degrees to where it should be if the crest/helm combination was a
> realistic combination.
This is precisely the objection to the helm postitioning rules.
>
> Now let us suppose you were General Lord Henry Hugh Manvers Percy VC
> KCB ADC, 3rd son of the 5th Duke of Northumberland . How would you
> depict your arms and crest? As a Knight Commander of the Order of the
> Bath you are entitled to use an open visored helmet placed affronty
> over your arms. So how do you position your crest? If you argue that
> as you've moved the helm round 90 degrees then you should also move
> the crest 90 degrees, then you have the crest lion facing straight out
> of the depiction. But in practice this is not what happens as the
> depiction must follow the blazon - and it is always understood that a
> Lion statant is one facing to the left of the observer.
This is an accurate depiction of actual practice, but only heralds who
had never seen a real tournament helm would have invented such a
practice. In medieval rolls of arms, what Patrick describes is
exactly what happens. If the helmet is rotated, so is the crest. The
reasonable alternative is to put the helmet in the position in which
the crest as blazoned would realistically have been worn.
>
>
> I think people sometimes forget that an achievement of arms is not
> meant to be a still life picture with things shown according to the
> laws of nature and physics!
>
No, but the shield, helm, and crest are supposed to be a plausible
depiction of something that actually could have been carried and
worn. Unless one actually believes in crests that float in midair,
mantling that looks like seaweed, and helms into which no human head
could conceivably have fit.
Joseph McMillan
Greg
wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:46:56 -0700 (PDT), Greg <scoti...@comcast.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes Patrick. The afronte question was what I was getting at. Many
crests are very large and the applying artist’s always manages to work
within propriety. It may be, that the heraldic authorities decided to
"modernize" a bit, but I would be very surprised to see that Stephen
Plowman received a patent in his blazon that stipulated “afronte”.
You are quite correct: heraldic representation may have given an inch
here and inch there with regard to esthetics, but it doesn’t seem
plausible that the UK heraldic bodies would de-regulate the helm.
Like you, I find a flaw in Martin’s argument: it doesn’t square with
the objective facts. And this is the yellow brick road that newbees
get led down all the time – and then there are problems.
The best advice one can get is to stick to tradition – and go from
there. And, Joseph is right again: it's about reality.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<mcmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 4, 7:50 pm, Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <hme...@heraldicmedia.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> I was always under the impression that although the theory was that
>> the helms of gentlemen (and corporate and municipal bodies) always
>> faced to the dexter, the herald painters sometimes tweaked the
>> positioning slightly if it suited the crest better and brought the
>> helm slightly more to the front - but never so much so that it could
>> be confused with affronty!
>
>This was the case for a while, but I do believe the heraldic
>authorities have abandoned the artificiality of the helm position
>rules. If you think about it, the rules on position serve no purpose
>at all. The four helms used in the UK to indicate degree (closed,
>open, silver barred, gold barred) are sufficient to differentiate
>between gentlemen, knights, peers, and royals regardless of what
>position they're in.
>>
Joseph
I've had a quick look at some of the recent artwork coming out of the
College of Arms and I can't see any evidence of the old rules being
abandoned.
As it happens at the Heraldry Society Weekend at Fitzwilliam College,
Cambridge, this weekend one of the lectures will be on "Some Heraldry
of Recent Knights", given by Garter. It will be interesting to see
what he has to say about the positioning of the crest with the
affronty helm.
Martin Goldstraw
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Greg,
You would find a flaw in my arguement even if I said that Sable was
Sable.
For an example of a helm facing the front depicted in a grant by the
College of arms you only need to look at the Plowman arms. I have
shown you a number of examples where official grants have taken this
route and when you think about it, it is common sense to illustrate a
helm affronte when it the crest faces front.
It is not I who stated that the rule was official ('twas Joseph) so I
fail to see why you state that I have failed to cite anything. I have
cited what is relevant and I have pointed you to many examples of arms
by official granting authorities where the helm is allowed to face
front.
It would be rather nice Greg if, just for once, you could state that
you had learned something and had been mistaken in your belief that
all helms for gentlemen or esquires must face to the dexter.
Patrick, I have posted a copy of a Lyon Court grant depicting a helm
facing to the front - you can't get any more affronte.
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/helm-affronte.jpg
As to the depiction of crests by artists, I made a plea for the common
crest some time ago and copy it here.
There is an illustrated version on my weblog:
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/?p=43
[quote]Oh well, while we are on the subject of baronets (perhaps my
friend is a mind reader?) I will mention that whilst browsing through
Debrett’s of 1980 vintage looking for Cheshire baronets (that is to
say baronets with Cheshire connections) I came across the record for
Haworth, Creation (U.K.) 1911, of Dunham Massey, co Chester.
Arms: Azure, on a bend between two stags’ heads couped Or, as many
garbs Gules.
Crest: Issuant out of grass proper a stag’s head Gules armed and
collared with a chain Or.
The illustration reminded me of the brief paper I wrote on recently
for the newsletter of The Armorial Register entitled “A left handed
baronet - or chicken and egg.” In the case of Haworth, the baronet’s
crest features a stag’s head Gules and is illustrated on the Debrett’s
page thus:
http://heraldry.wordpress.com/files/2007/09/haworth-debretts-001.jpg
Why, I wonder, was it so illustrated?
I can guess. When a shield is emblazoned, the charge blazoned as a
stag’s head would, by default face to the dexter (to the left as we
look at the shield) and therefore this is how the charge on the crest
has been illustrated. I would bet that had the blazon been a stag’s
head affrontee the artist would have drawn it facing front but this is
where I make my plea. Crests are three dimensional things; they are
not flat charges painted onto a shield.
Let us imagine the resultant image had the Haworth baronet been of no
greater degree than gentleman or esquire; I have absolutely no doubt
that the artist would have drawn the crest in this way:
http://heraldry.wordpress.com/files/2007/09/haworth-crest-esquire.jpg
Note that when the stag’s head is drawn by default facing to the
dexter and placed on the helm of an esquire, it actually faces to the
front of the helm. So, bearing in mind that a crest is a three
dimensional thing, when, upon elevation to the baronetage, we
naturally turn the helm to the front, why on earth don’t we also just
turn the crest to the front like this?
http://heraldry.wordpress.com/files/2007/09/haworth-crest-baronet.jpg
Surely when we imagine the “real life” of a crest as worn on a helm in
tournament, most, if not all crests would have had a natural
orientation to the front?[end quote]
Far better to view the comments on the weblog.
Regards,
Martin
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk
Martin Goldstraw
>
> - Show quoted text -
Patrick (and Greg),
For an illustration of English grant of arms showing a helm facing
forward see:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stephen.plowman1/search.html
I don't think you can have a clearer example.
I rest my case.
Peter Constantine
> No, but the shield, helm, and crest are supposed to be a plausible
> depiction of something that actually could have been carried and
> worn. Unless one actually believes in crests that float in midair,
> mantling that looks like seaweed, and helms into which no human head
> could conceivably have fit.
There's no rule that says the shield, helm and crest must always be a
plausible depiction of armour that could be carried and worn. There is
also no rule that says that arms must always be depicted exactly as
shown on the original grant document.
Generally grants, rolls of arms etc seem to go for the more diagrammatic
rather than realistic style of illustration but to my mind it's really
just a matter of artistic interpretation.
Here's a typical illustration of English civic arms:
http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/new_forest.JPG
The helm in the illustration linked above is facing to the dexter but,
as with many (most?) illustrations of this kind, the 'shoulders' of the
helm sit over the top of the shield twisting the helm somewhat to the
front. The artist has not gone for a 'floating' crest but despite the
angle of the helm the crest is clearly depicting in a side/profile view.
The sealion of the crest in these arms is blazoned 'in front of an oak
tree' so if this were an accurate illustration of a helm the tree would
be at the back of the helm and in a side view should be behind the
lion... of course a helmet adorned in such a way is quite fantastical
and would probably never be practical even at a tournament.
When put under scrutiny the geometry of most armorial illustration seems
to owe more to M C Escher than to the skills of a Dutch master... but to
me this is all part of the charm and traditions of heraldry.
Incidentally... do those who prefer arms to be depicted in a realistic
manner extend this preference to supporters as well as crests? How would
you deal with the New Forest example above in which there would be a big
difference in size if the supporters (a boar and a pony) were shown to a
realistic scale?
x
[A believer in helmets into which no human head could fit]
Joseph McMillan
wrote:
>
> I've had a quick look at some of the recent artwork coming out of the
> College of Arms and I can't see any evidence of the old rules being
> abandoned.
In addition to the examples mentioned by Martin, here's another, to an
American professor who is clearly not a knight (his degree in the
MVOStJ is stated in the LP), with an unambiguously affronty closed
helm:
<http://www.siue.edu/~bragen/PatentPage.html>
>
> As it happens at the Heraldry Society Weekend at Fitzwilliam College,
> Cambridge, this weekend one of the lectures will be on "Some Heraldry
> of Recent Knights", given by Garter. It will be interesting to see
> what he has to say about the positioning of the crest with the
> affronty helm.
>
Yes, indeed. It will be hard to get a more authoritative source than
that.
Best,
Joseph McMillan
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Martin, you have stated your case well. I did not know that the rules
had changed. Nor had I read or heard any discussion on it. As I said
in my last post: it may be that the heraldic authorities have
modernized their representations, and this is apparently the case. I
have to ask the question then; doen't this open the door to more
confusion, as in TJ's original question and Patrick's misgivings, or
do you think that this trend will grow and perhaps the only notations
of rank in the helms will be the guilding?
And, it's not Sable BTW, it's light black - don't forget that.
Peter Constantine
> In addition to the examples mentioned by Martin, here's another, to an
> American professor who is clearly not a knight (his degree in the
> MVOStJ is stated in the LP), with an unambiguously affronty closed
> helm:
http://www.siue.edu/~bragen/BARPatent.jpg
I think it's noteworthy that most (all?) of the examples of front facing
helmets are those where the crest is a beast/being blazoned as affronty
and/or with wings/arms outspread. Crests like these are the ones that
look the most incongruous when depicted with the usual angled/sideways
helmet.
I would suggest that the direction the helmet faces is a heraldic
convention rather than an inviolable rule and is therefore open to a
certain degree of artistic licence.
x
Greg
wrote:
I think you're right. That was the point that Martin was trying to
make. It would be interesting to know how long this - practice - has
been evident? Although, I have to say that in visualizing a crest
affronty it does not [seem] necessary to turn the helm. It is, as was
said, up to the artists I suppose. And if the authorities okay it,
then...
Joseph McMillan
time, the College of Arms would have emblazoned these crests exactly
the same way, but on crests placed in profile, so that Prof. Ragan's
bear would be facing to the left of someone wearing the helm.
Conversely, if someone with a crest that looked normal on a helm in
profile had been granted a knighthood, the College would exemplify his
arms with the new affronty helm of a knight but with the same
depiction of the crest as per the original blazon. So if the crest
was "a lion's head erased," it would face in the same direction as the
helm before the knighthood, but toward the wearer's right shoulder
when placed on an affronty knight's helm.
It's a good thing that the College now exemplifies such crests in a
sensible way; my question is whether there was a formal decision of
the chapter to change the old practice, or if the old "rule" was never
more than something made up by heraldic writers with too much time on
their hands.
Joseph McMillan
Peter Constantine
> > http://www.siue.edu/~bragen/BARPatent.jpg
> >
> > I would suggest that the direction the helmet faces is a heraldic
> > convention rather than an inviolable rule and is therefore open to a
> > certain degree of artistic licence.
> >
> I think that's the point Martin and I are trying to make. At one
> time, the College of Arms would have emblazoned these crests exactly
> the same way, but on crests placed in profile, so that Prof. Ragan's
> bear would be facing to the left of someone wearing the helm.
> Conversely, if someone with a crest that looked normal on a helm in
> profile had been granted a knighthood, the College would exemplify his
> arms with the new affronty helm of a knight but with the same
> depiction of the crest as per the original blazon. So if the crest
> was "a lion's head erased," it would face in the same direction as the
> helm before the knighthood, but toward the wearer's right shoulder
> when placed on an affronty knight's helm.
I thought Martin was suggesting that the helm should be depicted as an
accurate illustration as if of a real helm with the crest attached?
Therefore if the helmet is shown at an angle the crest fixed to it
should be shown rotated through a similar angle.
The point about the arms of Brian Ragan is that the crest is blazoned as
"a bear sejant erect and affronty..." and therefore must always be shown
facing the front. Even if the helm is rotated through 90° the crest
cannot be shown in profile. The black bear of the crest is blazoned as
facing the front and therefore it must always face the front (just as it
does on the badge).
Presumably the crest in heraldic terms (or in modern heraldry?) should
not be seen as a design for a 3-dimensional ornament to a helmet but is
only a 2-dimensional concept.
x
Martin Goldstraw
>
> Martin, you have stated your case well. I did not know that the rules
> had changed.
Thank you for the acknowledgement, I am pleased that you have now
learned that the rules are different to those you thought were in
place; however, as I think I stated earlier, I am not quite sure
whether they were actually rules or just a stereotypical vogue
followed as a convention. What is clear is that there is no hard and
fast rule that the helm of a gentleman or esquire must face to the
dexter (in any case, there were always exceptions to this so called
rule on crests shown on the stall plates and where a gentleman has two
crests and depicts them facing one another but that is another
matter).
>Nor had I read or heard any discussion on it.
It is not necessary to read any discussion, the information is there
for all to see; the secret is to see what you are looking at. These
images of grants of arms with forward facing helmets have been
floating around the ether for quite some time.
>As I said
> in my last post: it may be that the heraldic authorities have
> modernized their representations, and this is apparently the case.
It is undoubtedly the case but it depends what you call modern. The
Plowman arms were granted as long ago as 1993 and that grant depicts a
forward facing helmet. I will grant you that 1993 is beyond question
modern in terms of the art and science of heraldry itself but in terms
of the personal study of heraldry undertaken by any student today, it
is bordering on being a long established practice. I was, I confess,
rather surprised that there are contributors to this forum that were
unaware of it.
> I have to ask the question then; doen't this open the door to more
> confusion, as in TJ's original question and Patrick's misgivings, or
> do you think that this trend will grow and perhaps the only notations
> of rank in the helms will be the guilding?
I don't know about the practice growing; I think it has already
reached maturity with a demonstrable willingness of the granting
authorities to depict a front facing helm where it is appropriate to
the type of crest. I see no reason why it should not continue.
I can see no reason for any misgivings and I certainly would not agree
that the use of a forward facing helm, where it makes sense because of
the design of the crest, opens the door to more confusion. How can
there be any confusion between the helms of various ranks whatever
direction they face? Gilding would never be considered to be important
as a difference because it would be meaningless in a monochrome image.
If you compare a gentleman's front facing steel closed helm with that
of an open knight's helm and that of a peer I believe that there could
be no possible mistake and I believe that both Lyon Court and The
College of Arms must be of the same opinion otherwise they would not
have allowed such depictions on grants as those we have seen presented
as evidence during this discussion.
>
> And, it's not Sable BTW, it's light black - don't forget that.-
Hmm.
>
> I think you're right. That was the point that Martin was trying to
> make.
Indeed I was.
>It would be interesting to know how long this - practice - has
> been evident?
I am quite sure that Stephen Plowman has been aware of it since at
least 1993.
>Although, I have to say that in visualizing a crest
> affronty it does not [seem] necessary to turn the helm.
Thankfully the granting authorities have acknowledged that it does
indeed make sense to show a front facing helmet where there is a front
facing crest. An acknowledgement that it IS necessary to turn the
helmet. I applaud them.
>It is, as was
> said, up to the artists I suppose. And if the authorities okay it,
> then..
Not only do the authorities OK it but they themselves do it.
Isn't heraldry wonderful?
Regards,
Martin
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog
Brian G. Hamilton.
wrote:
> Yes, TJ - it is true, though not quite as you have said it (and no
> helmet would face to the sinister).
I would not normally comment on heraldry due to my limited knowledge
but see:-
http://heraldry-scotland.com/copgal/displayimage.php?album=7&pos=112
Is that an example of a sinister facing helm?
BGH
Martin Goldstraw
Constantine) wrote:
>
> I thought Martin was suggesting that the helm should be depicted as an
> accurate illustration as if of a real helm with the crest attached?
> Therefore if the helmet is shown at an angle the crest fixed to it
> should be shown rotated through a similar angle.
I was initially replying to the erroneous statement made very early in
this thread that all crests of gentlemen and esquires must face to the
dexter. Clearly this is not the case and I wished to present the
appropriate evidence.
>
> The point about the arms of Brian Ragan is that the crest is blazoned as
> "a bear sejant erect and affronty..." and therefore must always be shown
> facing the front. Even if the helm is rotated through 90° the crest
> cannot be shown in profile. The black bear of the crest is blazoned as
> facing the front and therefore it must always face the front (just as it
> does on the badge).
>
> Presumably the crest in heraldic terms (or in modern heraldry?) should
> not be seen as a design for a 3-dimensional ornament to a helmet but is
> only a 2-dimensional concept.
I have placed my view on this on record many times and written on the
topic at length. When I received my grant of arms I was advised by the
herald who assisted me with the design, Norroy and Ulster King of
Arms, that when designing a crest one should do so in such a way as to
make it possible for it to be carved out in three dimensional form "in
anticipation of your elevation to the rank of a Garter Knight" so that
your crest can be carved and placed in the Chapel.
I believe that all crests should be thought of as being three
dimensional and my article about the Leigh baronets of Charlestown
South Carolina illustrates why I think that when a crest is first
blazoned such terms as "in fess" and "in bend" should be avoided
precisely because upon elevation to the baronetage when the helm
orientation changes it makes the crest look silly; when crests were
actually in use, such crests as a stag's head or a spear would have
faced to the front, not sideways on. In the days when crests were
actually in use a bear sejant would have faced to the front of the
helm not to the side so it is unnecessary to blazon any such crest as
affronty.
http://armorial-register.com/monthly/newsletter-2-2-2007.pdf
My point being that certain charges, when used as a crest should have
a default position affronty because that is how they would have been
worn.
See the example I gave earlier of the crest of Haworth, of Dunham
Massey, co Chester.
Regards,
Martin
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk
pgrho...@tiscali.co.uk
>
> >It would be interesting to know how long this - practice - has
> > been evident?
>
> I am quite sure that Stephen Plowman has been aware of it since at
> least 1993.
I have a painting of an esquire's achievement with a crest affronty,
painted by one of the Herald Painters and authenticated by Thomas
Woodcock when he was still Rouge Croix. That dates it between 1978
and 1982. If you imagine that a helmet facing dexter is looking due
west, in this painting the closed tilting helm is facing south-south-
west. This seems to me to be the ideal compromise.
Peter G R Howarth
Martin Goldstraw
>I was initially replying to the erroneous statement made very early in
>this thread that all crests of gentlemen and esquires must face to the
>dexter. Clearly this is not the case and I wished to present the
>appropriate evidence.
My apologies. The erroneous statement referred to all *helms* facing
to the dexter not all crests.
Martin Goldstraw
These conversations are addictive!
I had actually left my office and headed for home (only across the
garden!) when I remembered that I had seen at least one example of the
reverse of that of a gentleman's helm facing to the front; that of a
knight's helm facing to the dexter because it suited the crest better.
A quick reverse back to the office and I found the arms I had in mind.
http://www.heraldicsculptor.com/mccart1.jpg
Sir Paul McCartney, Kt, M.B.E.
This is perhaps a perfect illustration (for Greg) that there can be no
confusion. This helm faces in the direction the majority of
gentlemans' helms face but it clearly can't be mistaken for that of a
gentleman because it is an open helm and gentlemen do not use open
helms.
I am now going home.
Greg
wrote:
Yaknow, that's a good catch; but it's a double achievement ( I don't
know the official name for those). All of them are that way, but, I
wonder now, if there have ever been any single grants presented to
sinister?
StephenP
>
> Yes Patrick. The afronte question was what I was getting at. Many
> crests are very large and the applying artist’s always manages to work
> within propriety. It may be, that the heraldic authorities decided to
> "modernize" a bit, but I would be very surprised to see that Stephen
> Plowman received a patent in his blazon that stipulated “afronte”.
> You are quite correct: heraldic representation may have given an inch
> here and inch there with regard to esthetics, but it doesn’t seem
> plausible that the UK heraldic bodies would de-regulate the helm.
> Like you, I find a flaw in Martin’s argument: it doesn’t square with
> the objective facts. And this is the yellow brick road that newbees
> get led down all the time – and then there are problems.
Just for the record; the relevant passage in my father's grant read:
"...do by these Presents grant and assign unto the said Ronald Tweedy
Fitzherbert Plowman the Arms following that is to say: - Argent three
Anchors Sable each entwined by a Serpent Gules on a Chief enarched
nebuly Azure three Martlets rising Or And for the Crest upon a Helm
with a Wreath Argent and Azure Within a circlet of Crosses each cross
having seven triangular arms each arm terminating in two points Argent
a demi-Savage wreathed about the waist and head with Laurel Leaves
holding in his dexter hand a Sword erect proper quillons hilt and
pommel Or and in his sinister hand a Shepherd’s Crook proper Mantled
Azure doubled Argent......"
No mention of the position nor type of helm. He is, however,
described as an Esquire in the preamble.
Yours aye
Stephen
Joseph McMillan
wrote:
> I would not normally comment on heraldry due to my limited knowledge
> but see:-
>
> http://heraldry-scotland.com/copgal/displayimage.php?album=7&pos=112
>
> Is that an example of a sinister facing helm?
>
achievement emblazoned in the German style, where multiple crests are
typically arrayed so that all the helms (and crests) face the
center.
There is such a thing as a sinister-facing helm in Spanish heraldry,
at least, where it is (or was) used to signify a bastard.
Joseph McMillan
Peter Constantine
> I've had a quick look at some of the recent artwork coming out of the
> College of Arms and I can't see any evidence of the old rules being
> abandoned.
How about this example from last year:
http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/Haines.htm
x
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
OK
Garter was quite unequivocal that as far as he is concerned the helm
should follow the aspect of the crest. If this means sometimes having
a knight's helm facing to the dexter (and he illustrated his talk with
a few examples of these) or a gentleman's helm facing affronty, then
so be it.
He was quite adamant that the open helm (whether dexter or affronty)
would continue to be the mark of a knight and the closed helm (whether
dexter or affronty) would continue to be the mark of a gentleman.
He was honest enough to say that he hadn't fully sold this to his
fellow officers.
Patrick
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
wrote:
In the lecture by Garter I've referred to in another posting, he did
say that he was not at all happy with a crest and helm being in trian
aspect (this is the SSW you refer to). He felt this was a bodge, much
preferred by Garter Swan.
As far as he was concerned the helm and crest are either facing dexter
or facing affronty - no half-way compromises for him!
Patrick
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
That was not the view of Garter - he was quite clear that in his view
the crest should always be considered as a 3 dimensional object.
Patrick
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Interesting that both Cracroft's Peerage about six months ago and
Burke's Peerage more recently have picked up on the arms of the Leigh
baronets. In my article on them I disputed the marshalling of the
quarterings (and we both appear to have been supplied with the same
graphic!).
illustrates why I think that when a crest is first
>blazoned such terms as "in fess" and "in bend" should be avoided
>precisely because upon elevation to the baronetage when the helm
>orientation changes it makes the crest look silly; when crests were
>actually in use, such crests as a stag's head or a spear would have
>faced to the front, not sideways on. In the days when crests were
>actually in use a bear sejant would have faced to the front of the
>helm not to the side so it is unnecessary to blazon any such crest as
>affronty.
>
>http://armorial-register.com/monthly/newsletter-2-2-2007.pdf
>
>
>My point being that certain charges, when used as a crest should have
>a default position affronty because that is how they would have been
>worn.
>
>
>See the example I gave earlier of the crest of Haworth, of Dunham
>Massey, co Chester.
>
>Regards,
>Martin
>http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Not in the sense we've been discussing matters. When there are two or
more crests it is traditional to have the two outer ones facing
inwards so as to balance the composition.
Regards
Patrick
Peter Constantine
> Garter was quite unequivocal that as far as he is concerned the helm
> should follow the aspect of the crest. If this means sometimes having
> a knight's helm facing to the dexter (and he illustrated his talk with
> a few examples of these) or a gentleman's helm facing affronty, then
> so be it.
That's very interesting. I wonder if there'll be any tendency to grant
affronty crests to gentlemen on the basis of their future likelihood of
getting a knighthood...
This afternoon I was reading A C Fox-Davies' rather grumbling discourse
on this topic. He cites the example of William Crookes whose front
facing elephant crest became a sideways facing elephant crest when
Crookes was knighted. With the 'new rule' there won't be this problem.
x
Martin Goldstraw
wrote:
>
> Interesting that both Cracroft's Peerage about six months ago and
> Burke's Peerage more recently have picked up on the arms of the Leigh
> baronets. In my article on them I disputed the marshalling of the
> quarterings (and we both appear to have been supplied with the same
> graphic!).
Patrick,
I do not have access to your Peerage and therefore have not had sight
of the Leigh article. I am however extremely interested in your
comment that we both appear to have been supplied with the same
graphic. I must correct your chronology; the Burke's article was
written by me and published by Burke's over 14 months ago and
therefore predates the Cracroft's Peerage article; all of the graphics
in the article were especially prepared by me for the Burke's article.
I do not recall giving anyone else permission to use any of the
graphics.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to privately email me your source.
Regards,
Martin
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk
> >http://armorial-register.com/monthly/newsletter-2-2-2007.pdf
Brian G. Hamilton.
wrote:
>
> Not in the sense we've been discussing matters. When there are two or
> more crests it is traditional to have the two outer ones facing
> inwards so as to balance the composition.
Since I have admitted my ignorance please permit me to ask a basic
question. Why do helms not face sinister; is therre something
sinister about that?
BGH
Joseph McMillan
wrote:
>
> Since I have admitted my ignorance please permit me to ask a basic
> question. Why do helms not face sinister; is therre something
> sinister about that?
>
Apart from all the fancy symbolism about the honorableness of the
right side, etc., I think it probably originates from the convention
of depicting a knight on horseback riding toward the viewer's left, so
that the shield carried on his left arm is visible. That's why
heraldic charges in general face to dexter by default, so they're
heading in the same way as the person bearing the shield.
(As a separate but related matter, that's also why German blazon
sometimes refers to dexter as forward and sinister as behind in
describing the shield.)
Joseph McMillan
Brian G. Hamilton.
Thank you.
BGH
Joseph McMillan
While (as I've made clear) I applaud the College's enlightenment on
this front, I suggest that it would be better yet to amend such
blazons as that of Prof. Haines ("A Sea-Elephant sejant affronty with
two piscine tails in saltire Argent tusked and crowned with a Naval
Crown Or") by deleting the word "affronty." That way, the helmet and
crest could be depicted in any orientation, either affronty, 3/4
perspective, or profile, without violating the blazon. This would be
more in keeping with the purpose of real crests: it is the three-
dimensional physical device that is distinctive, not the perspective
from which it is seen.
Joseph McMillan
barrassie
>
> - Show quoted text -
Martin,
The photocopy of the Arms with affronte helm seem to look as though
they have been reduced, they are crossed out, the cross appears white,
I see also that the copy has the Lyon Court rubber stamp to show that
it is a notarised? copy. I am puzzled by the crossing out, what
happened?
Charles
Martin Goldstraw
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Charles,
Thank you for checking with me. I can assure you that the arms have
not been "reduced". I scanned the copy into my computer and then
doctored the image to erase as much of the personal information of the
armiger as I could (address, genealogy, etc.) in an attempt to
protect, a part at least, of his personal details. I also erased a
portion in the form of a crossing out without giving any thought that
this "crossing out" may lead anyone to believe that this was a
reducing action.
The copy I have in my possession is, as you rightly identified, a
notarised copy from Lyon Court but it is otherwise unmolested.
Patrick,
I have not received a reply to my email regarding your use of the
Leigh image I created especially for use in my article. I do hope that
the email address you give on your website is still active. Perhaps
you have not yet seen the post above nor had a chance to open your
emails. I look forward to the courtesy of a reply.
Regards,
Martin
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk
Greg
wrote:
That is a very good question Brian. Seems there's so much of heraldry
that has been left to the depths of wonder. And the simplest things
too!
Brian G. Hamilton.
> Patrick,
> I have not received a reply to my email regarding your use of the
> Leigh image I created especially for use in my article. I do hope that
> the email address you give on your website is still active. Perhaps
> you have not yet seen the post above nor had a chance to open your
> emails. I look forward to the courtesy of a reply.
>
> Regards,
> Martinhttp://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk- Hide quoted text -
Here is something else that I am not an expert in. However, is this
an example of intellectual property theft?
BGH
Greg
wrote:
> On Sep 9, 8:06 am, Martin Goldstraw <heraldryad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Patrick,
> > I have not received a reply to my email regarding your use of the
> > Leigh image I created especially for use in my article. I do hope that
> > the email address you give on your website is still active. Perhaps
> > you have not yet seen the post above nor had a chance to open your
> > emails. I look forward to the courtesy of a reply.
>
> > Regards,
>
> Here is something else that I am not an expert in. However, is this
> an example of intellectual property theft?
>
> BGH
If Patrick isn't selling the image, or claiming it is his design art,
then the web is an open book really. If Martin receives credit for
the artwork, all the better. If the image is used as a simple
reference with a free page on the web, then it might just be something
of an ethical issue.
Brian G. Hamilton.
> If Patrick isn't selling the image, or claiming it is his design art,
> then the web is an open book really. If Martin receives credit for
> the artwork, all the better. If the image is used as a simple
> reference with a free page on the web, then it might just be something
> of an ethical issue.- Hide quoted text -
Another example of this idiot giving advice on something he knows
nothing about.
BGH
Peter Constantine
> > http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/Haines.htm
>
> While (as I've made clear) I applaud the College's enlightenment on
> this front, I suggest that it would be better yet to amend such
> blazons as that of Prof. Haines ("A Sea-Elephant sejant affronty with
> two piscine tails in saltire Argent tusked and crowned with a Naval
> Crown Or") by deleting the word "affronty." That way, the helmet and
> crest could be depicted in any orientation, either affronty, 3/4
> perspective, or profile, without violating the blazon. This would be
> more in keeping with the purpose of real crests: it is the three-
> dimensional physical device that is distinctive, not the perspective
> from which it is seen.
This would be a big departure from current/historical practice.
As I understand it, in English (if not in Scottish) heraldry every crest
is unique and an animal's head, for example, is considered a different
crest when depicted in profile than when the same animal's head is shown
facing the front.
If the '3-D crest' idea were to be adopted, it's possible that two
crests that are currently unique would become identical.
x
Greg
wrote:
For your edification Brain,
[ Intellectual Property is, any - original creative work that can be
protected by law. All original works, whether they are artistic
creations, commercial designs, or scientific inventions, are
considered intellectual property. ]
Did Martin design the arms? or did he render them as I see on his web-
site?
Brian Hamilton - you are an amazing mass of angry contradictions.
Probably the most confusional character I've ever encountered.
Joseph McMillan
Constantine) wrote:
>>
> This would be a big departure from current/historical practice.
That depends on the date at which you deem "historical practice" to
have begun.
Martin Goldstraw
>
> For your edification Brain,
>
> [ Intellectual Property is, any - original creative work that can be
> protected by law. All original works, whether they are artistic
> creations, commercial designs, or scientific inventions, are
> considered intellectual property. ]
>
> Did Martin design the arms? or did he render them as I see on his web-
> site?
Greg,
It is unfortunate that you are not conversant with what is and what is
not an original creative work. I am extremely disappointed that you
appear to be one of the myriad of people who seem to think that it is
perfectly alright to allow another to work hard to create a piece of
work and then think that it is perfectly alright to use that piece of
work without permission; this is an attitude which regrettably is all
too prevalent on the web.
The legal definition you quote and which you clearly do not understand
has nothing to do with who did or did not design the armorial bearings
but everything to do with who created the work in question (the image
or graphic). I did not design you, nor did I create you but if I took
a photograph of you or I painted you, that photograph or painting
would be my artistic creation and therefore would be the subject of
copyright. If I painted the Queens ceremonial robes, I would not have
created those robes, nor would I have designed them, but I would have
created the painting and therefore the painting would be my artistic
creation. If I painted the Royal Arms, that painting would be my
creation and therefore my intellectual property; an electronic graphic
is, for the purposes of copyright and from the perspective of being a
piece of work or a labour, no different to a painting.
I did not design the arms in question (it is not relevant that I did)
but I did labour long and hard to create the image you see; it is in
its own way unique and it is therefore an original work created by me
and I own the intellectual copyright to that particular image (or in
your parlance "rendition"). Anyone may create or use their own version
of those arms but they may not use my version (rendition) of those
arms without my permission.
I am often given the courtesy of being asked if images I have created
can be used on other web sites and where they are to be used on non
commercial web sites I usually grant permission as long as it is made
clear that I created the image (as indeed I did). However, in the
circumstances which gave birth to this conversation the image I
created, and which is therefore my intellectual property, has been
used in a commercial website without my permission (or knowledge until
recently) and therefore that use is particularly vexatious to me.
I really had no initial intention of making such an issue over the
misuse of an image I spent many hours creating however, I do however
remain disappointed that I have not had the courtesy of a reply from
Patrick. Perhaps he is unavoidably detained and may yet contact me. I
remain hopeful that I will be afforded at least the courtesy of a
reply.
Greg
Actually Martin, I'm not. But I've learned that the web is another
matter. It is unfortunate, but if it's not being sold, it's okay.
What you refer to is a professional courtesy, and that happens none to
often.
> The legal definition you quote and which you clearly do not understand
Sorry, I very well understand: you missed the part where I mentioned
"rendering the design" (an existing blazon) so the rest of your
argument on that is negligible. As I said, it is unfornuate that the
laws seem to get bent on the web. The best we can get is a allegement
of piracy. Perhaps you should be happy with that, and also be happy
that somebody thought your work worthy of duplication. You can, as I
have done; set your web pages to block right clicking. That is the
best way to protect yourself. I'm surprised you hadn't thought of
that.
Martin Goldstraw
> >I am extremely disappointed that you
> > appear to be one of the myriad of people who seem to think that it is
> > perfectly alright to allow another to work hard to create a piece of
> > work and then think that it is perfectly alright to use that piece of
> > work without permission
>
> Actually Martin, I'm not. But I've learned that the web is another
> matter. It is unfortunate, but if it's not being sold, it's okay.
> What you refer to is a professional courtesy, and that happens none to
> often.
>
> > The legal definition you quote and which you clearly do not understand
>
> Sorry, I very well understand: you missed the part where I mentioned
> "rendering the design" (an existing blazon) so the rest of your
> argument on that is negligible.
I did not miss your mention of "rendering the design" and your
reference to rendering a design is mentioned in my reply where I
attempt to explain to you that a my rendering of that design creates
an original work. Not only the rest of my argument but my entire
argument is far from negligible but I do not expect you to understand
it.
You just simply can't apply your mind to the fact that a "rendition"
of a coat of arms , or more properly the emblazoning of an blazon can
be an original piece of work.
If you can't grasp that then you must clearly be of the view that it
is perfectly proper for anyone to reproduce (for example) the arms
created by Mark Dennis for his wee book Scottish Heraldry (published
by The Heraldry Society of Scotland) in an article or book of their
own without acknowledgement or permission. According to you, they are
simply "renditions" of existing coats of arms and can't possibly be
original pieces of artwork subject to copyright. That being your
misguided opinion I see no point in further discussion with you (but
then again, I never do anyway).
>As I said, it is unfornuate that the
> laws seem to get bent on the web. The best we can get is a allegement
> of piracy.
It is a common misconception that there are not enforceable copyright
laws on the web. But then you are of the view that the work of such
people as myself and Mark Dennis are simply "renditions" and not
copyrightable!
Oh boy, give me strength.
Perhaps you should be happy with that, and also be happy
> that somebody thought your work worthy of duplication. You can, as I
> have done; set your web pages to block right clicking. That is the
> best way to protect yourself. I'm surprised you hadn't thought of
> that.-
Right clicking is no deterrent - I could show you how anyone could
lift an image from your web site but I won't bother as you seem to
take a delight in arguing just for the sake of it.
Martin
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh my God... I don't delight in simple arguing. A rendering of a
work of anything is a custom design. You are not going to stop web
piracy. The best you can hope for is professional courtesy; I think
that you use clip-art anyway. You have customized a design and
therefore can call it your design - of... But that does not negate
what I said. I'll let Microsoft know that their encyclopedia
definition doesn't match yours. I'm sure they'll be interested....
C'mon Martin, cut it out. How does mark Dennis figure into this? If
somebody - anywhere - lifts a cutomized image (done by one's own
hand), this excludes clip-art ( with that you're just rearranging
someone else's work) and attempts to market that image as thier own,
then it is a vilolation of applicable copyright in the jurisdiction
from which the work originated. That not withstanding; if someone out
on the web lifts an image - from any source, and simply displays it
(as you do on your site), then at best, it's a form of piracy.
There's nothing you can do about it. It's an international issue that
is never going to be resolved because no money changes hands.
There have been instances wherein a logo of specific design is removed
as a vilolation because the use of the logo, in the plantiff's view,
misrepresents the posistion of the offended company or person. (Not a
contradiction, just common knowledge). But if the company offended has
indeed been invloved in what is alleged or has been proven to be, then
they have no case.
But, I think you're making much adoo about nothing really. You didn't
design the arms, and I don't believe you drew them. If you did, well,
then the same argument applies - they're not sale.
Again Martin, your pointed argument is meritless because of the
circumstances - you can be offended, but that's about it. And I
agree, it's a tough situation, but that't it. Nice web site by the
way.
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
PS: It ocurred to me to check your International registrer site, and
in a random sampling of twleve, only two artists were listed: even on
a Canadian grant there was no mention of the artist. A simple
question of each entry would have solved that proplem. So, as you can
see Martin, your own logic fails you.
Martin Goldstraw
> Oh my God... I don't delight in simple arguing. A rendering of a
> work of anything is a custom design.
Yes, and therefore it is a unique piece of work. You go on to
contradict yourself later in this latest of your posts.
>You are not going to stop web
> piracy. The best you can hope for is professional courtesy; I think
> that you use clip-art anyway.
Yes I do use clip art and I have purchased the right to use that clip
art to emblazon coats of arms, some of which are quite complicated
quartered coats. The images I create are not off the peg.
>You have customized a design and
> therefore can call it your design - of... But that does not negate
> what I said. I'll let Microsoft know that their encyclopedia
> definition doesn't match yours. I'm sure they'll be interested....
My definition does not differ from that of microsoft .... only your
understanding is lacking.
>
> C'mon Martin, cut it out. How does mark Dennis figure into this?
Read what I said ... it is obvious. I simply used him as an example.
> If
> somebody - anywhere - lifts a cutomized image (done by one's own
> hand), this excludes clip-art ( with that you're just rearranging
> someone else's work) and attempts to market that image as thier own.
Sorry, but it does not exclude a created graphic whether or not it
used clip art. And I do not *attempt* to market that image as my own.
I do not "market" my images you simply can't grasp the fact that once
a unique graphic has been created it is owned by its creator.
I can't believe that you have the nerve to come on a heraldry forum
and hold the work of anyone who creates a website including their own
images in contempt and of no value. I really believe that you have
absolutely no idea of how much work goes into creating such images.
Your own arguments are misleading and quite frankly tiresome.
What do you really contribute to this forum Greg? What do you actually
contribute to the wide world of heraldry?
Take a look at anyone of the threads you have participated in
recently.
I can see why the forum considers you to be a troll. I certainly do.
Martin Goldstraw
>
> PS: It ocurred to me to check your International registrer site, and
> in a random sampling of twleve, only two artists were listed: even on
> a Canadian grant there was no mention of the artist. A simple
> question of each entry would have solved that proplem. So, as you can
>
> - Show quoted text -
Greg,
If you had applied for a grant or even taken the time to speak to
those who have a grant of arms you would know that many (if not the
majority) of armigers simply have no idea of the identity of the
artist who painted the arms on their letters patent. The armorial
Register lists the information where they have it - and no, there is
no copyright issue involved as the image is issued to the armiger as
his property to do with as he wishes; if he gives the register
permission to use it they use it. You have quite rightly identified
instances where the creator of the image - be it graphic of painting -
be it created with clip art or paint brush - has requested
acknowledgement and it has been given by the register.
I am presently writing an article on how certain people just can't
grasp the copyright issues and I shall be using an image of your own
arms created especially for the article by me. You will not have
permission to use that image for your own use.
Martin
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog
Martin Goldstraw
wrote:
> On Sep 9, 8:06 am, Martin Goldstraw <heraldryad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Patrick,
> > I have not received a reply to my email regarding your use of the
> > Leigh image I created especially for use in my article. I do hope that
> > the email address you give on your website is still active. Perhaps
> > you have not yet seen the post above nor had a chance to open your
> > emails. I look forward to the courtesy of a reply.
>
> > Regards,
>
> Here is something else that I am not an expert in. However, is this
> an example of intellectual property theft?
>
> BGH
Patrick has given me the courtesy of a reply - as I thought he would.
It seems that he is presently on holiday and although I do not wish to
reproduce his letter to me as it was sent privately, I feel it
appropriate to reproduce publicly my reply which I hope will suffice.
[quote]Patrick,
Many thanks for your reply. I suspected that you might have received
the image from xxxxxxx and it is unfortunate that he may have given
you the impression that the graphic was created by him.
I have assisted him now on two occasions both originating from
requests to provide new images for Burke's Peerage and Gentry. The
first being the record for Leigh and the second being the Booth
baronet. I had supplied line drawings for Burke's but upon request (as
I understood it from the respective families) I had also supplied full
colour images. It had been my understanding that these images were for
the private amusement of the families but perhaps I should have been
more robust in how the images should and should not be used, I usually
am. I can not think that it was his intention to deceive and must put
it down to a naive enthusiasm on his part.
Clearly you had not breached any copyright intentionally and had
accepted the images in good faith in the belief that they were the
property of the provider. In light of this, I am content that the
image remains in situ but if it is at all possible, I would appreciate
it if the correct credit for its creation could be given. Perhaps you
would also be kind enough to provide me with a copy of the article as
I have no access to your site. I am sure that I will find it of
interest.
Regards,
Martin [End Qoute]
As far as I am concerned the matter is at an end.
Greg
Your emotionalizing reveals you again, and it's sad that you can't
hold an argument to reach a logical conclusion. You resort to name
calling when you get stuck. Copyright on your register isn't the
issue: credit to the artist is. If armigers truly wanted to know who
painted their LP they could find out. You lost again Martin. Making
some crack about using my arms only iterates my point. (I can lift 'em
and use 'em anyway, so could anyone. So what's your point other than
to be snide?). Someone spooned your work and you got offended:
copyright is again not the issue: you're using somebody elses work for
display anyway, permission or not. You don't seem to grasp and hold
logic, and that's how these discussions degrade.
Like most, I'm a student of heraldry. These are free floating
dicussions, and I reasonably participate. Asking questions is
participating - discussing is particpating: if I lived in Scotland,
I'd be at the society all the time, but I don't, so, that's that.
Think before you write, and don't take things so personally and we'll
get along fine.
Martin Goldstraw
>
> - Show quoted text -
Greg,
I was not offended by the use of the arms - I simply asked a question
and, in time, a reply which was perfectrly acceptable to me arrived.
That is how one deals with such matters in a civilised world.
I did however take offence at your own intervention which was, as
usual misinformed and frankly insulting to anyone who creates any sort
of heraldic image.
As promised, I have added a note of your own contributions for
permanent record on my web site.
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/armorial-protection.pdf
You may find it informative.
Regards,
Martin
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
So?
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Martin Goldstraw wrote:
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog
Your assertions are aboslutely wrong, and I challenge you to prove
them.
You have no idea what you're talking about. And, nobody asked me, so
you're whistling in the wind. On top of that, the rush-job you did on
the graphic is horrible, and it's wrong to boot. At the very least
use a decent copy: shall I send you one? You fight like a girl
Martin: this will be on permanent display as well. So, do what you
want.
Martin Goldstraw
>
> Your assertions are aboslutely wrong, and I challenge you to prove
> them.
The evidence is all in the thread above, it is all in your own words
set down forever for all to see.
>And, nobody asked me, so
> you're whistling in the wind.
You're right, nobody did ask you.
> the graphic is horrible, and it's wrong to boot. At the very least
> use a decent copy: shall I send you one?
I care not what you think of the graphic but I question your assertion
that it is wrong as I took the blazon from known records and the image
made for you by Don copyrighted to you is here for all to see (shame
about the pink background):
http://freepages.family.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~heraldry/h_mcgiboney_g1.gif
Are you now saying that you have renounced these arms?
If you have renounced these arms and adopted new ones, I am curious to
know what process of renunciation you adopted.
> Martin: this will be on permanent display as well. So, do what you
> want.-
Yes, it will be won't it. I seem to remember someone else pointing out
to you that your trollish outbursts will remain on display forever
archived in google's rec.heraldry. I am perfectly happy for my family
to see all of the posts I have made; are you?
Regards,
Martin
Greg
> On Sep 12, 4:01 pm, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Your assertions are aboslutely wrong, and I challenge you to prove
> > them.
>
> The evidence is all in the thread above, it is all in your own words
> set down forever for all to see.
>
> >And, nobody asked me, so
> > you're whistling in the wind.
>
> You're right, nobody did ask you.
>
> > the graphic is horrible, and it's wrong to boot. At the very least
> > use a decent copy: shall I send you one?
>
> I care not what you think of the graphic but I question your assertion
> that it is wrong as I took the blazon from known records and the image
> made for you by Don copyrighted to you is here for all to see (shame
> about the pink background):
>
>
> Are you now saying that you have renounced these arms?
>
> If you have renounced these arms and adopted new ones, I am curious to
> know what process of renunciation you adopted.
>
> > Martin: this will be on permanent display as well. So, do what you
> > want.-
>
> Yes, it will be won't it. I seem to remember someone else pointing out
> to you that your trollish outbursts will remain on display forever
> archived in google's rec.heraldry. I am perfectly happy for my family
> to see all of the posts I have made; are you?
>
> Regards,
> Martin
Dribble; and you should have done a spell-check before you published.
The graphic is wrong , your assertions are wrong - your motives are
wrong and you fight like a girl: if you can't argue successfully
Martin then don't attempt to defend a weak position.
You go way over the top with emotion and you trip all over your own
practices.
And as far as posterity goes: anybody with any common sense at all
will read these pages and see that I am one of if not THEE most
tempered and objective participants involved. Nobody has been able to
refute my points of argument with regard to the issues. Any "discern"
on my comments has in fact been primarily emotional outbursts as some
sort attempt to scare me off, when in fact a great percentage of the
opposing comments have run off good people and shown why the heraldic
community is so small. I will be very happy to print out any number
of the pages here and elsewhere for my grandson to read. People who
know me, will imediately see how ridiculous those like you are. All
guys like do is remind people that WITH ONE SQUARE FOOT OF LAND AND
YOU TOO CAN BE LORD.
And you think [ I ] should embarrassed !!??
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
And by the way; I took my arms down for my own reasons and everybody
else has respected that. I would NEVER do what you have - your
motives are bad and you are a malicious person - you too often tip
your hand as well.
I'm too good a person to be bothered by these sorts of ridiclous
threats: in that case, my arms speak for themselves.
You're anathema Martin Goldstraw. A true weakling.
Brian G. Hamilton.
> I care not what you think of the graphic but I question your assertion
> that it is wrong as I took the blazon from known records and the image
> made for you by Don copyrighted to you is here for all to see (shame
> about the pink background):
Do you think maybe he is a pinko (1960's political slang)?
BGH
Brian G. Hamilton.
Dribble; and you should have done a spell-check before you
published.
OK, show us the spelling mistake; I knew you had to be an expert at
something.
BGH
Greg
wrote:
Enter the flys. Apparently Brian you think people are too stupid to
know what a communist pejorative is.
"bzzz - bzzzz"
Brian G. Hamilton.
> Enter the flys. Apparently Brian you think people are too stupid to
> know what a communist pejorative is.
> "bzzz - bzzzz"
Most people are not stupid but it is a fact that most people are
younger than I am.
Now how about identifying the spelling mistake?
BGH
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can't be the most objective person on this newsgroup because I am.
Graham
Greg
wrote:
You'll have to keep reading Brian - there are in fact two mistakes.
Anybody who knows anything will see them.
Joseph McMillan
>
> I care not what you think of the graphic but I question your assertion
> that it is wrong as I took the blazon from known records and the image
> made for you by Don copyrighted to you is here for all to see (shame
> about the pink background):
>
>
Which, BTW, is not right-click protected, whatever Greg might think.
(Not that that would prevent anyone who knew how to take a screen-shot
from lifting the image anyway. Not to mention other ways around right-
click protection.)
Joseph McMillan
Greg
Joseph, I never said that that particular image was right click
protected: when Don was alive, all of his work was right click
protected. In fact, he was one of the first artists to use it. So, I
don't think you're reading right, nor does your link work.
And BTW Brian, since Martin's - "rendition" is wrong ( it reminds me
of the Disco version of "Thus Spake Zarthustra") that makes - three
mistakes. I guess they'll have to stay up there indefenitely as well.
Joseph McMillan
>
> Joseph, I never said that that particular image was right click
> protected: when Don was alive, all of his work was right click
> protected. In fact, he was one of the first artists to use it. So, I
> don't think you're reading right,
Apparently not. Maybe I had a mini-stroke some time today and am no
longer seeing all the letters correctly. Because when I read the
words from your previous post, "You can, as I have done; set your web
pages to block right clicking," I have a hard time understanding it as
"You can, as Donald Suttie Smith did, set your web pages to block
right clicking."
You still haven't told us what's wrong with Martin's emblazonment, or
what word he spelled wrong. Are we going to have to wait
"indefenitely"?
Joseph McMillan
Martin Goldstraw
> "Thus Spake Zarthustra")
I think you will find that the word is spelt Zarathustra (there is an
"a" after the first letter "r" and before the first letter "t").
Martin Goldstraw
Greg
I think you did Joseph. The image that Martin used in his post is not
right-click blocked. Nor is it from my web-site. And yes, it looks
better to leave Martin's perceived perfection of opinion to swing. If
Martin knew what he was doing, his (rendition) would reflect reality.
And there are indeed two other mistakes - it's a puzzle I'm sure - but
they're there.
Zar -A -thustra: I make no claim to right all of the time: You say
"tamahhto", don't you Martin.
Peter Constantine
> You can, as I have done; set your web pages to block right clicking. That
> is the best way to protect yourself.
This offers almost no protection at all. Any image that can be displayed
in a web browser can be saved to a computer's hard drive with very
little effort.
x
Peter Constantine
> That depends on the date at which you deem "historical practice" to
> have begun.
I would say in this case it would be when crests first began to be
included in English grants of arms... late 16th century?
The principle that every crest should be unique may pre-date that.
x
Nathaniel Taylor
const...@xsublime.demon.co.uk (Peter Constantine) wrote:
> Joseph McMillan wrote:
>
> > That depends on the date at which you deem "historical practice" to
> > have begun.
>
> I would say in this case it would be when crests first began to be
> included in English grants of arms... late 16th century?
Weren't crests included in grants long before that? I have the text of
a grant from 1404 in front of me, which includes a crest:
http://nltaylor.net/sketchbook/archives/146
Someone here suggested that this text may be anachronistic and therefore
the grant may be suspect, but it appears from external evidence to be
perfectly consistent with the rise and other patronage of the patronage
of the recipients (the Mackworth brothers, and there is contemporary
evidence of the use of the granted arms by Thomas Mackworth (an
impression of his own seal survives).
At any rate, Joseph's point is that 'historical practice' concerning
crests antedates any such texts containing grants of arms: it goes back
to the documented use of three-dimensional crests in tournament and
display in the 14th c. & earlier.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
Greg
wrote:
Yes, I agree with you Peter; but it's at least an attempt that does
stop some: it's something anyway. Your point is exactly what I was
trying to say to Martin; it's either some professional courtesy or
nothing, but he didn't want to get that - so...
Greg
> In article <1in7j6c.1401jau6yuyo8N%constant...@xsublime.demon.co.uk>,
That's very interesting Nat. Do we find then that there appeared to
be a rule on the facing of the helm relative to the crest? I believe
the new affronty style to a modern addition of esthetics.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<herald...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 9, 7:44 am, barrassie <mckerrellofhillho...@btinternet.com>
>wrote:
>> On Sep 5, 4:41 pm, Joseph McMillan <mcmillan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 5, 10:02 am, constant...@xsublime.demon.co.uk (Peter
>>
>> > Constantine) wrote:
>> > > Joseph McMillan wrote:
>> > > > In addition to the examples mentioned by Martin, here's another, to an
>> > > > American professor who is clearly not a knight (his degree in the
>> > > > MVOStJ is stated in the LP), with an unambiguously affronty closed
>> > > > helm:
>>
>> > >http://www.siue.edu/~bragen/BARPatent.jpg
>>
>> > > I think it's noteworthy that most (all?) of the examples of front facing
>> > > helmets are those where the crest is a beast/being blazoned as affronty
>> > > and/or with wings/arms outspread. Crests like these are the ones that
>> > > look the most incongruous when depicted with the usual angled/sideways
>> > > helmet.
>>
>> > > I would suggest that the direction the helmet faces is a heraldic
>> > > convention rather than an inviolable rule and is therefore open to a
>> > > certain degree of artistic licence.
>>
>> > I think that's the point Martin and I are trying to make. At one
>> > time, the College of Arms would have emblazoned these crests exactly
>> > the same way, but on crests placed in profile, so that Prof. Ragan's
>> > bear would be facing to the left of someone wearing the helm.
>> > Conversely, if someone with a crest that looked normal on a helm in
>> > profile had been granted a knighthood, the College would exemplify his
>> > arms with the new affronty helm of a knight but with the same
>> > depiction of the crest as per the original blazon. So if the crest
>> > was "a lion's head erased," it would face in the same direction as the
>> > helm before the knighthood, but toward the wearer's right shoulder
>> > when placed on an affronty knight's helm.
>>
>> > It's a good thing that the College now exemplifies such crests in a
>> > sensible way; my question is whether there was a formal decision of
>> > the chapter to change the old practice, or if the old "rule" was never
>> > more than something made up by heraldic writers with too much time on
>> > their hands.
>>
>> > Joseph McMillan- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Martin,
>> The photocopy of the Arms with affronte helm seem to look as though
>> they have been reduced, they are crossed out, the cross appears white,
>> I see also that the copy has the Lyon Court rubber stamp to show that
>> it is a notarised? copy. I am puzzled by the crossing out, what
>> happened?
>> Charles- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Charles,
>Thank you for checking with me. I can assure you that the arms have
>not been "reduced". I scanned the copy into my computer and then
>doctored the image to erase as much of the personal information of the
>armiger as I could (address, genealogy, etc.) in an attempt to
>protect, a part at least, of his personal details. I also erased a
>portion in the form of a crossing out without giving any thought that
>this "crossing out" may lead anyone to believe that this was a
>reducing action.
>
>The copy I have in my possession is, as you rightly identified, a
>notarised copy from Lyon Court but it is otherwise unmolested.
>
>Patrick,
>I have not received a reply to my email regarding your use of the
>Leigh image I created especially for use in my article. I do hope that
>the email address you give on your website is still active. Perhaps
>you have not yet seen the post above nor had a chance to open your
>emails. I look forward to the courtesy of a reply.
>
>Regards,
>Martin
>http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk
Martin
As you are now aware, I have been on holiday in South Carolina. We
have subsequently emailed each other provately about this matter.
Regards
Patrick
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<herald...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 10, 10:02 pm, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> For your edification Brain,
>>
>> [ Intellectual Property is, any - original creative work that can be
>> protected by law. All original works, whether they are artistic
>> creations, commercial designs, or scientific inventions, are
>> considered intellectual property. ]
>>
>> Did Martin design the arms? or did he render them as I see on his web-
>> site?
>
>Greg,
>It is unfortunate that you are not conversant with what is and what is
>not an original creative work. I am extremely disappointed that you
>appear to be one of the myriad of people who seem to think that it is
>perfectly alright to allow another to work hard to create a piece of
>work and then think that it is perfectly alright to use that piece of
>work without permission; this is an attitude which regrettably is all
>too prevalent on the web.
>
>The legal definition you quote and which you clearly do not understand
>has nothing to do with who did or did not design the armorial bearings
>but everything to do with who created the work in question (the image
>or graphic). I did not design you, nor did I create you but if I took
>a photograph of you or I painted you, that photograph or painting
>would be my artistic creation and therefore would be the subject of
>copyright. If I painted the Queens ceremonial robes, I would not have
>created those robes, nor would I have designed them, but I would have
>created the painting and therefore the painting would be my artistic
>creation. If I painted the Royal Arms, that painting would be my
>creation and therefore my intellectual property; an electronic graphic
>is, for the purposes of copyright and from the perspective of being a
>piece of work or a labour, no different to a painting.
>
>I did not design the arms in question (it is not relevant that I did)
>but I did labour long and hard to create the image you see; it is in
>its own way unique and it is therefore an original work created by me
>and I own the intellectual copyright to that particular image (or in
>your parlance "rendition"). Anyone may create or use their own version
>of those arms but they may not use my version (rendition) of those
>arms without my permission.
>
>I am often given the courtesy of being asked if images I have created
>can be used on other web sites and where they are to be used on non
>commercial web sites I usually grant permission as long as it is made
>clear that I created the image (as indeed I did). However, in the
>circumstances which gave birth to this conversation the image I
>created, and which is therefore my intellectual property, has been
>used in a commercial website without my permission (or knowledge until
>recently) and therefore that use is particularly vexatious to me.
>
>I really had no initial intention of making such an issue over the
>misuse of an image I spent many hours creating however, I do however
>remain disappointed that I have not had the courtesy of a reply from
>Patrick. Perhaps he is unavoidably detained and may yet contact me. I
>remain hopeful that I will be afforded at least the courtesy of a
>reply.
>
>Martin
>http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog
The images were supplied to me by a third party in all good faith.
Martin and I have discussed this privately.