Jump to content

Talk:Cadency

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

England and Scotland

[edit]

I disagree with the sentence about relative rigidity. When I wrote that a difference mark may be derived from the bearer's profession, I had in mind a Scottish example (cited by Volborth): a master printer made part of his bordure goutty sable (I've forgotten the nonsystematic word, unless it's goutty de poix) representing ink. —Tamfang 03:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could find more details about the Stodart system. —Tamfang 20:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I even read Gayre's book Cadency, but it told me little that isn't in the cadency chapter of every other book. —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Arms

[edit]

"At birth, members of the Royal Family have no arms." Is this strictly true. The law of arms would suggest they have the same rights to their father's arms with due differences unless or until they are granted personal arms or succeed their father. Alci12 13:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is possible to have a right to the Royal Arms by descent, because they are arms of dominion and not personal arms. However, arms based on the Royal Arms (i.e. granted with differences) are personal arms and descend in the usual way (I think). Chelseaboy 18:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And on yet another hand, the children of the Duke of Edinburgh have arms available which are not arms of dominion. For that matter, the Windsors could in principle derive arms from Prince Albert. But such is not the practice. —Tamfang 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of the DofE - as to Albert I doubt it. At most it would only be a quartering due to EII being a heraldic heiress all sssuming his arms can be quartered via a morganatic marriage under his house rules. Alci12 10:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the male-line Windsors. —Tamfang 17:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know the Duke of Cambridge has had two arms. http://www.baronage.co.uk/bphtm-01/william1.html Only one set was granted and registered. As I understand it, minors don't need to register their arms, and just use their parents arms. Neither his current arms or his previous one is hereditary, Although for him it doesn't matter. His brother Prince Harry arms are also non-hereditary, Prince Harry's son will use a label of five points. I am unsure if that is hereditary. Tinynanorobots (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-Correction. Per a 1975 Royal Warrant, ALL arms granted to ALL male-line grandchildren of British monarchs, apart from the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, are hereditary. Thus, if Prince Charles dies before the Queen, Prince Harry's arms will not change to one of three points, and he will pass these arms on to any issue he may have, with the suitable differences. -as shown, incidentally, in the arms granted to the brothers and sisters of King George III, whose father had predeceased his own father, the King. Should the more likely scenario happen and the Queen predecease Prince Charles, Prince Harry will of course be granted a new grant with three points on his label.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Commonwealth cadency

[edit]

Like many heraldry articles, this article has something of a bias towards British (and British-descended, i.e. Canadian) heraldry. Can anyone provide any information about cadency systems in other traditions? There are some examples from Portugal but no description of whether there is a general system or the given examples were created ad hoc for the royal family. Even information about the lack of cadency systems in other heraldic traditions would be useful. For example, I understand that in Polish heraldry there was a tendency for everyone in the same family to bear the same arms, without difference. PubliusFL 19:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good point, it is hard to find information about it. also there is too much focus on the brisure system and the royal family. The brisure system was used briefly, and the royal family follows its own rules. Anyway cadency is usually not as systematic as this suggests, really any form of differencing can be used. also, in Scotland quartering can be used for differencing. the best would be to find an example normal family from each country. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's harder to find such information in English, and we don't have a lot of folks from other language communities who are willing to navigate the horror which is English-language heraldry, with its odd atavistic Norman French terminology and crown-centered POV. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
actually, I could very easily find examples of matriculated arms among Scottish families, some examples are even on wikipedia. I can even find some english arms, although I am not sure about fair-use with those. Also, I recently found a German example using supporters for differencing. The real difficulty is finding out if there is any rules followed in these countries. although it appears France and Savoy had similar system to Britain, where every shield is required to be unique. although I did find a site on [cadency] Tinynanorobots (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can find examples, perhaps; but extrapolating from those examples to generate rules is original research and has no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it evidence contradicts the information here, that means something. anyway, I think the main issue is that even in England where one man one shield is the rule, it is not always followed. Tinynanorobots (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking world-wide, cadency on a personal basis seems confined to commonwealth countries amd the royal families of the world. In fact, there are only two heraldic authorities (Scotland and Canada) where such marks of difference are compulsory, in England, Wales and Notthern Ireland (and also in theory the 16 commonwealth realms, as they are under the heraldic authority of the College of Arms in London) They appear to have been in use in France pre-revolution (but NOT in napoleonic heraldry-see www.heraldica.org) and also in the low countries, but they seem to have

The heraldry of Germany (and also, it seems, Scandinavia as well, as their heraldry was influenced very much by that of Germany) is notoriously devoid of cadency on the actual shield: any differencing is via the crest and not on the shield. Polish heraldry, as it uses clan arms, several non-related but 'allied' families bear the same, undifferenced, identical arms. According to Robert Gayre, Hungarian heraldry-which is also tribal, also seems to be similarly undifferenced, but as 'tribe' is analogous to 'family' there, the concept is similar to the german one, albeit without the added differencing on the crest.

Both the Republic of Ireland and South Africa seem to use cadency systems for their arms: the Irish system is identical to the English System, but whereas the English system is only used for sons, the Irish system is applied to all children irrespective of gender. The South African 'system' uses a variety of marks taken from both the English and Scottish systems and is not compulsory.

Apparently, according to Carl Alexander von Volborth, a system of differencing is used in Portuguese heraldry, where, as in Portuguese heraldry one can choose whatever arms from any of his armigerous ancestors he so wishes, the arms are differenced with a label/mark that shows exactly what parent/grandparent the arms come from.


For royal cadency, look here:

it seems that cadency is presently used in the royal arms of the following royal houses:

-uses a system of labels and bordures

  • Netherlands (differencing by quartering, although prior to the Twentieth century labels and quarterings were used to difference the arms of cadets of the Royal House.)
  • Spain (differencing by labels, although this is a comparitively new practice, prior to the 1976 restoration of the Monarchy, labels were not used at all by the Spoanish Royal House prior to the Restortation.)
  • Portugal (differencing by labels)
  • Savoy/Italy (differencing by labels and bordures)
  • Greece (a white label was used for the Crown Prince)


several royal houses used a system where the Arms of Dominion were used by the Monarch/Head of the House, and a different coat was used by all the other members of the House. This was the case in the following Houses:

  • Austria-Hungary before 1918
  • Montenegro
  • Russia (after the heraldic reform of 1857, before this, the arms were not differenced. after, cadets of the Romanov house used to use abordure sable of lions' heads.)

and marks of difference are NOT used in those of following:

  • Norway (as shown in the stall plates of HM King Harald V and his son, HRH Prince Haakon Magnus, as Knights of the Orders of the Seraphim and of the Elephant, their arms are identical)
  • Denmark (as shown in the stall plates of the Princes of Denmark as Knights of the Order of the Elephant-although HRH Prince Joachim does use an inescutcheon on his arms of divided per pale Oldenburg and Monzepat, all other Princes have historically borne identical arms to the King )
  • all German royal/sovereign houses
  • Romania
  • all the other pre-Risorgimento Italian Royal/Ducal Houses
  • Liechtenstein
  • Monaco

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spain

[edit]

I'm skeptical of the table showing that Spanish cadency uses the English series shifted by one place. —Tamfang (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Yep; completely made up. No sources for this whatsoever.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French Royal Arms

[edit]

Perhaps we should talk about historical usage rather than focusing only on the Orléanist claims to the French throne?! 99.246.103.2 (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-Yes; that's a good idea actually. I'll start on it ASAIC.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks :) 99.246.103.2 (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bastardised martlet

[edit]

Could someone with the necessary expertise on inkscape please remove the "de-beaked duck" masquerading as a martlet from the images. It should look like a house-marten or swallow, in English heraldry at least. I don't know where this bastardised version has come from, but it has infected the whole of wikipedia commons. Can any one clarify? (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I made the image. I don't recall where the current version of that brisure came from. If you can find a better martlet anywhere on Wikimedia Commons and let me know, I'll be glad to replace it. Marnanel (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cadency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong-Jones illustration

[edit]

The cadency example illustrated in respect of David Armstrong-Jones (repeated here, for ease of reference)

Arms of David Armstrong-Jones after (on the left) and before (on the right) succeeding his father as Earl of Snowdon. During his time as heir apparent, his quartered arms incorporated a label vert on his Armstrong-Jones quarterings, denoting an armiger's first son, while the quarterings derived from his mother, Princess Margaret, are permanently differentiated with a royal cadency label.

seems to be incorrect for two reasons. (1) a label should be applied across the whole shield of arms and not only to particular quarterings, when it is a mark of cadency. Thus, the illustration is correct in showing the royal label in the 2nd and 3rd quarterings (because royal labels are integral to the coat and are not temporary marks of cadency) but incorrect in showing the green cadency label in the 1st and 4th quarters rather than overall. (2) no cadency mark is necessary when, as here, the quartered arms of the son already distinguish them from the arms of his father, who was not entitled to the quartering from Princess Margaret. Therefore, I suggest that this box is deleted because (1) it puts the cadency mark in the wrong place (on particular quarterings rather than overall) and (2) the person concerned never did and never would use cadency on his quarterly arms anyway, because he had a quartered coat which already distinguished him from his father.

placement

[edit]
They are typically placed on the fess point ....

I added typically but it's still too strong. Not one of our illustrations has a brisure in fess point! —Tamfang (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cadency&oldid=1199608014"