[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Re: coat of arms necessary vs required (fwd)
Poster: firstname.lastname@example.org (Craig Levin)
> Actually, the clan crests are almost all feildless. Most are displayed
> with the clan tartan in the background though, for obvious reasons. But
> it is not necessary. And this would not date back to the Celto-Nordic
> period in Scotland, either. I for one have no idea what kind of heraldic
> devices, if any, were used by the Celts or Norse in Scotland.
Depends upon when, of course. Heraldry's as much a product of the
"12th Century Renaissance" as courtly love and the tourney are.
Before then, heraldry didn't exist. Emblems and banners, sure.
But coats of arms, strictly speaking? No.
Generally, when I'm asked about "a Viking coat of arms," I try to
make it clear that Vikings didn't have coats of arms. They did,
of course, paint or varnish or stain their shields. So, if the
person persists, I'll try to make as simple a coat of arms as
possible-since most early coats of arms are _very_ simple. It's
possible to do this-and it will pass, too: I know that a coat of
arms with just one charge-an annulet-made it up to Jae's desk the
other day, and as far as I know, it met with her approval. <Note:
this is _not_ official notice that it passed! She does change her
mind, ya know.>
Pedro de Alcazar, AoA
Barony of Storvik, Atlantia
Pursuivant Extraordinary and Junior Minion
Or, six Castles Vert within a Bordure Gules semy of Roundels Or
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
Admin. requests: email@example.com