Re: Change in Heraldic Rules

[Lance Harrop <lharrop@mrj.com>]

My Lords and Ladies I ask that you forgive me if this message really 
screws up the bandwidth.

I yanked this article off the rec.heraldry newsgroup, because recently 
I've been in coversations about the appropriate use of cadency for 
females (particularly Princesses) in Royal and personal arms.  As there was
no use of cadency in period for females, any use of labels or other 
charges would be by definition anachronistic.  Since that's the case, 
why not be reasonably anachronistic and adopt Canada's system of cadency 
for females?  Canada, after all, is probably the country with the largest 
Scadian population which also has a College of Arms and Heraldic Laws.

Replies cheerfully accepted:

Leifr Johansson
Shire of Stierbach, Atlantia,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <3pe17l$t6a@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> you write:
>In <3pcim1$4qi@hydrogen.smallworld.co.uk>
>simon.kershaw@smallworld.co.uk (Simon Kershaw) writes: 
>>
>>Can someone remind us what marks of cadency Canada recently adopted?
>>One might hope that any system adopted in England would be the same,
>>otherwise major confusion is going to result.
>>
>
>    Here is what was published in the _Heraldry Gazette_, and I believe
>to be correct:
>
>    Cadency Marks for Women
>    
>    1:  Heart
>    2:  Ermine Spot
>    3:  Snowflake
>    4:  Fir Twig
>    5:  Chess Rook
>    6:  Escallop
>    7:  Harp
>    8:  Buckle
>    9:  Claricorde
LJ <what the heck is a Claricorde anyway?>
>
>    I agree, if Britain adopts something different (which, of course,
>the College is perfectly at liberty to do), it will cause a great deal
>of confusion.  And while I might have altered the order a bit the list
>looks quite workable.
>
>    - Jim Terzian
>      JRT@ix.netcom.com