I have a question for our experts on heraldry.

I have an acquaintance who made known to me this evening that he wishes to utilize this Clan Donald image in a tattoo design:

http://i684.photobucket.com/albums/v...nald-tat-1.jpg

however, due to areas already covered in ink, he wishes to place the design on his right bicep, but wants the image "facing forward", thus he plans to flop the image like this (though with the words "Fraoch Eilean" reading the correct way of course :wink:):

http://i684.photobucket.com/albums/v...nald-tat-2.jpg

This got me to wondering, and thus my question for the 'experts':
is it permissible in heraldry to flop such an image, or is this considered a no-no? Would it be considered okay if the galley & eagle on the shield were facing to the left (as in the previous image)?

(..there must be something in the air, first I start a thread about regimental leg tattoos, and then this situation pops up!)

If it were me, I would encourage him to use the clansman's badge out of respect to the customs of Scottish heraldry, and you don't need to flip it. :wink:

T.

The answer would be - no and no.

Firstly the shield. It is designed to be seen from one direction only - from the front. The blazon (heraldic description) dictates what is on the shield, but there are some default positions. In the Royal arms for Scotland the lion faces the left because it is a lion rampant - that is the default position. If you flop the shield, what is then depicted is not what is in the blazon and is NOT the original shield. If the shield were to be depicted canted over to the right (to fit the bicep), but keeping the orientation of all the components the same - that would be OK.

Secondly, the crest (the bit above the helm) A well designed crest is able to be seen in all directions, a full 360 degrees. (This was not always the case and there is some very bad heraldry out there, that would be impossible to make in real life.) On the face of it, you could flop the crest - BUT - it would be the wrong hand. The first image depicts the right hand; the second image depicts the left. The image would have to be redrawn to show the back of the hand, rather than the fingers and palm. If it was done like that (the right hand being rotated), there is no reason why it should not be done.

With the proper amendment this could look very impressive.

There is another question about using another man's arms. These are the arms of a person and his possession, not the clan.

Regards

Chas

Todd beat me to what I was about to write. That coat of arms does not belong to your friend.

As for the question of "flipping"--no, it would no longer be correct. It is a given that charges on the shield face to the dexter side, unless the blazon says otherwise. A galley/lymphad, then would be sailing from sinister to dexter...left to right.

For completeness, there are another few points that should be mentioned.

'Flopping' the shield was very popular on Continental Europe to depict a marriage or alliance of some sort. One of the shields (usually the one on the left) would be turned to 'respect' the other. Rather like a picture of a loving couple looking deeply into each other's eyes. BUT. This idea never found favour with Heralds in either England or Scotland. Their opinion was then, and still is, that the 'turned' shield was totally different to the original and could in some instances be identical to someone else's shield.

In this case, if the shield was flopped then it would no longer be the shield of Donald. It might be somebody else's or it might be nobody's, I really don't know, but the possibility is there.

So, if it is not the shield of Donald, would your friend want the shield of some total stranger tattooed on his arm?

Next point. This is a list of the Armigerous clans, that is to say, clans with no Chief or no known Chief. Where the Chiefly line has died out.

Abercromby · Abernethy · Adair · Adam · Aikenhead · Ainslie · Aiton · Allardice · Anderson · Armstrong · Arnott · Auchinleck · Baillie · Baird · Balfour · Bannatyne · Baxter · Bell · Belshes · Bethune · Beveridge · Binning · Bissett · Blackadder · Blackstock · Blair · Blane · Blyth · Boswell · Brisbane · Buchanan · Butter · Byres · Cairns · Calder · Caldwell · Callender · Campbell of Breadalbane · Campbell of Cawdor · Carruthers · Cheyne · Chalmers · Clelland · Clephane · Cockburn · Congilton · Craig · Crawford · Crosbie · Cunningham · Dalmahoy · Dalrymple · Dalzell · Dennistoun · Don · Douglas · Duncan · Dunlop · Edmonstone · Fairlie · Falconer · Fenton · Fleming · Fletcher · Forrester · Fotheringham · Fullarton · Galbraith · Galloway · Garden · Gartshore · Ged · Gibsone · Gladstains · Glas · Glen · Glendinning · Gray · Gunn · Haliburton · Halkerston · Halket · Hepburn · Heron · Herries · Hogg · Hopkirk · Horsburgh · Houston · Hutton · Inglis · Innes · Kelly · Kinloch · Kinnaird · Kinnear · Kinninmont · Kirkcaldy · Kirkpatrick · Laing · Lammie · Langlands · Learmonth · Little · Logan · Logie · Lundin · Lyle · MacAulay · Macbrayne · MacDuff · MacEwen · MacFarlane · Macfie · Macgillivray · MacInnes · MacIver · Mackie · MacLellan · Macquarrie · Macqueen · Macrae · Masterton · Maule · Maxton · Maxwell · McCorquodale · McCulloch · McGhee · McKerrell · Meldrum · Melville · Mercer · Middleton · Moncur · Monteith · Monypenny · Mouat · Moubray · Mow · Muir · Murray of Atholl · Nairn · Nevoy · Newlands · Newton · Norvel · Ochterlony · Orrock · Paisley · Paterson · Pennycook · Pentland · Peter · Pitblado · Pitcairn · Pollock · Polwarth · Porterfield · Preston · Pringle · Purves · Rait · Ralston · Renton · Roberton · Rossie · Russel · Rutherford · Schaw · Seton · Skirving · Somerville · Spalding · Spottiswood · Stewart · Stewart of Appin · Strachan · Straiton · Strange · Sydserf · Symmers · Tailyour · Tait · Tennant · Troup · Turnbull · Tweedie · Udny · Vans · Walkinshaw · Wardlaw · Watson · Wauchope · Weir · Whitefoord · Whitelaw · Wishart · Wood · Young

For many of these, there is an identifiable coat of arms, just no man to own them. Should someone wish to display any of these arms, there would not be anyone to complain.

In one or two cases, the procedure has started to obtain a new Chief. The case closest to home is Clan Duncan. Our own Duncan of Sketraw is is going through the procedure to become the Chief of the Clan. The thing is, when this happens, he will use his own coat of arms, not the one from 700 years ago. So the original 700 year old arms will go unused.

Last point. As Todd has pointed out, if a man wants to show his allegiance by getting a tattoo then the absolutely correct thing for him to do would be to use the Clansman's Badge in one colour. Then no one could take him to task.

Regards

Chas

Hi, BH – Chas has given you some good advice, as has Cajunscot, but there is more to say on the matter.
I agree that it would be wrong to display anyone else’s coat of arms — in or outside your house, on your vehicle, your clothing or your skin.
It would be acceptable to show a clan crest in monocolour — in that format, it is an acknowledgement of the clan chief as your chief.
However there is a place for flipping an armorial device, and the right shoulder is an appropriate place for it.
In the South African Army, each unit has a coat of arms (shield only) which is impressed in plastic on a pair of shoulder tabs (tabs that hang down the sleeve, that is, not along the shoulder). In some instances, enamelled versions are worn.
Note I said a pair of shoulder tabs: if any charge in the device faces to the dexter side (the right-hand side as seen from behind the shield, so the left as seen from in front), it must face forward on the shoulders.
So where the charge faces the dexter, that shield is worn on the left shoulder. The shield with a charge facing the sinister (left as seen from behind) is placed on the right shoulder, so that the charge is still facing forward.
In many unit arms there is no left/right differentiation.
But nowadays many unit arms are also displayed on the shoulder with the national flag. Again there is a left and right to that. The flag flies from the hoist to the fly, and on the left shoulder the fly is on the left (or dexter) side. But on the badge made for the right shoulder, the fly is on the right side, because the fly is on the left (sinister).
So the soldier who puts his shoulder tabs must make sure that the black and yellow part of the flag (the fly of the South African flag) faces the front, and the point of the green pall faces the rear.
The same principle applies to any other device worn on the right shoulder, be it a flag, a shield of arms or a crest.
If you wear the US flag on the right shoulder, the stars are on the front side, and the stripes are on the rear.
If you wear it any other way, it is back to front.
The crest that BH wants to use would need to be redrawn, because it would be necessary for the correct hand (the right hand) to be shown, but with the cross facing forward (the viewer would need to see the back of the grieve, or metal “glove”).
When knights wore their arms on their surcoats, this principle applied there, too.
Where a lion faces to the dexter, he must face to the dexter on both front and back. So he faces the right shoulder on the front of the surcoat, and he still faces the right shoulder on the back – that is, he has been flipped around to face the correct way.
Regards,
Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike_Oettle

When knights wore their arms on their surcoats, this principle applied there, too.
Where a lion faces to the dexter, he must face to the dexter on both front and back. So he faces the right shoulder on the front of the surcoat, and he still faces the right shoulder on the back – that is, he has been flipped around to face the correct way.
Regards,
Mike

---

Sorry Mike. I've got to disagree. This did not happen in UK usage.

This is the tabard of a Pursuivant of the College of Heralds:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ant_tabard.jpg

Note that on both arm pieces the CoA faces the viewer correctly, that is to say in accordance with the blazon, not flipped. Note also in the lower right we can see what is the back of the tabard. Again the Arms are in accordance with the blazon and not flipped.

It might have happened in Continental usage, but not in the UK and not sanctioned by either Garter or Lord Lyon.

Regards

Chas

Okay, I'll wade in on this:

Setting aside the obvious question of ownership, the only way the arms will heraldically/aesthetically work on your friend's right shoulder is if he:

1) tips the shield to the viewers right, leaving the bow of the ship pointing upward;

2) reverses the direction the helmet faces (it should face toward his front);

3) redraws the crest showing the back of the armoured gauntlet (don't show thumb and fingers);

4) places the motto in the scroll, as shown.

As others have suggested he would be better off using just the badge of a clansman, in which case he would not reverse the direction the crest faces. This is because while a crest is intended to be seen in all three dimensions, a badge is only ever seen "flat"-- to change the attitude of the charge within the strap and buckle would require a separate grant describing the direction the charge would have to face--

and as a badge, within a strap gules, buckled and frimbriated or, thereon the motto "Aim High" argent, a cannon aimed dexter proper, upon a wreath of the colours argent and gules--

The idea that the badge of a clansman should only be rendered in monochrome really has to do with paper heraldry, where the use of coloured inks is often regarded as "vulgar". On letters patent the stap and buckle is usually depicted as "proper", ie: leather coloured (or sometimes derived from the livery colours of the armiger) with the edge of the strap and the "furniture" (buckle, etc.) yellow (gold), and the lettering in either gold or silver -- as in the above example.

Now a chief may instruct his clansmen as to his pleasure in how he wishes his badge to be displayed, and the Lord Lyon my provide guidance in this matter in accordance with the expressed wishes of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs, but heraldry being both a legal science and an art, an especially colourful art at that, there is no reason that membership in a clan can not be celebrated in glorious technicolor!

Indeed, one may purchase a "clan crest plaque" at any tartan shop with the clansman's badge depicted in full colour-- and these are fully approved by the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs.

Thank you gentlemen for the great advice, I greatly appreciate it & will pass it along to my friend. :D

MacMillan of Rathdown wrote: “The idea that the badge of a clansman should only be rendered in monochrome really has to do with paper heraldry, where the use of coloured inks is often regarded as ‘vulgar’.”
Actually, my impression is not that it has to do with printing, but rather with the metal used for the bonnet badge.
It is not generally regarded as proper to wear an enamelled crest-badge on the balmoral, glengarry or tam o’shanter.
Of course, if one is dealing with one’s own crest, one can do whatever one wishes, but if you are wearing a clan chief’s crest it is regarded as laying claim to it if it is in colour.
Paintings and other illustrations are another matter. One can even display the chief’s full armorial bearings, if one wishes – as long as the display does not suggest that the person displaying the arms is the owner.
But I would say that wearing a tattoo is more akin to wearing a bonnet badge than to what you might display on the wall.
Regards,
Mike

I guess I misunderstood the original question. I thought BH meant that the shield only would be tilted in the other direction with all other elements to remain essentially the same. (After a more careful reading, I believe that I was remiss in that interpretation.) But for the sake of argument, and my own illumination, consider this:

Questions of ownership not withstanding, it is quite proper to lean the shield in any direction since that is not really part of the standard charge, is it? In fact, I had understood that the leaning shield was something of a modern asthetic emandation depending on the artist's rendering, and that older representations usually had the shield standing straight up. Although I cannot for the life of me remember seeing a shield tilt to the right.

I would like to hear from the more knowledgeable folks about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thescot

I guess I misunderstood the original question. I thought BH meant that the shield only would be tilted in the other direction with all other elements to remain essentially the same. (After a more careful reading, I believe that I was remiss in that interpretation.) But for the sake of argument, and my own illumination, consider this:

Questions of ownership not withstanding, it is quite proper to lean the shield in any direction since that is not really part of the standard charge, is it? In fact, I had understood that the leaning shield was something of a modern asthetic emandation depending on the artist's rendering, and that older representations usually had the shield standing straight up. Although I cannot for the life of me remember seeing a shield tilt to the right.

I would like to hear from the more knowledgeable folks about that.

---

A "simple" achievement of arms is comprised of three elements: the shield, the crest, and the helmet. The shield can be described as having three "points" or "corners"; A & B at the top and C at the bottom.

Generally speaking the shield is depicted on letters patent granting the arms with the top (that is the line between A and B) horizontal. This is done to clearly illustrate the charges on the shield. The helmet (which may or may not be indicative of status or rank) rests on top of the shield and is surmounted by the crest. (The motto, although mentioned in the grant, is not part of the achievement and may be displayed on a scroll either above the crest or below the shield.)

In every day usage the armiger may choose to display his arms in the manner mentioned above, or he may alter the attitude of the shield for pragmatic or artistic reasons. The most common change in attitude is to change the AB line from horizontal to diagonal. This is achieved by lowering point A until the AB line is at roughly a 45* angle. To keep the helmet from sliding off it now sits over point B, and in some instances may slightly obscure the charge or charges on the shield. As with the horizontal placement of the shield the helmet faces to the viewers left, which is heraldic right (or dexter as heralds call it).

Occasionally it may be desirable to tilt the shield in the opposite direction (that is with point A raised above point B, again placing the AB line at a roughly 45* angle). This is most often done when two different shields are placed side by side for social purposes-- an example of which might be a wedding invitation where the arms of the groom's parents and the arms of the bride's parents would appear at the top of the invitation. In this instance the arms are said to be "respecting each other", and the groom's arms (on the viewer's left) would raise its point A while the bride's father' arms would raise its point B above the horizontal.

The helmet and crest of the bride's father would assume the normal position on the B point, while that of the groom's father, now sitting on point A, would turn to face that of his son's soon to be father-in-law. Because the crest is assumed to be fixed to the helmet, it too would turn to show the other side.

The practice of depicting shields in other than AB horizontal is probably as old as heraldry itself. And when you think about, if you were to hang a shield on the wall by its straps it would probably be as apt to hang in a diagonal attitude as vertically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike_Oettle

MacMillan of Rathdown wrote: “The idea that the badge of a clansman should only be rendered in monochrome really has to do with paper heraldry, where the use of coloured inks is often regarded as ‘vulgar’.”
Actually, my impression is not that it has to do with printing, but rather with the metal used for the bonnet badge.
It is not generally regarded as proper to wear an enamelled crest-badge on the balmoral, glengarry or tam o’shanter.
Of course, if one is dealing with one’s own crest, one can do whatever one wishes, but if you are wearing a clan chief’s crest it is regarded as laying claim to it if it is in colour.
Paintings and other illustrations are another matter. One can even display the chief’s full armorial bearings, if one wishes – as long as the display does not suggest that the person displaying the arms is the owner.
But I would say that wearing a tattoo is more akin to wearing a bonnet badge than to what you might display on the wall.
Regards,
Mike

---

Mike,

I generally agree with what you are saying-- especially when it comes to the clansman's badge as worn on a hat. That said, if a lady should choose to have the badge of her clan rendered in precious stones in their correct colours, well there would be nothing wrong with that (although if she has that much money to spend on a brooch she should consider petitioning for a grant of arms in her own name!).

A tattoo, like the above mentioned brooch, really falls into the category of personal adornment, and there would be no heraldic reason that I can think of that would prevent it from being rendered in full colour.

Regards,

Scott

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thescot

I guess I misunderstood the original question. I thought BH meant that the shield only would be tilted in the other direction with all other elements to remain essentially the same. (After a more careful reading, I believe that I was remiss in that interpretation.)

---

To tell you the truth Jim, I really don't know if my acquaintance meant to change all the other elements or not, however I must say I have found the discussion & the information put forth most interesting.

Thank you everyone :D

Greetings gents,

I have a rather large tattoo of the Clan Macpherson clansman's badge in black ink only, on my left shoulder, and the badge of "Na Dionadairean Clann Mhuirich", The Guardians of the Clan Macpherson , of which I am, and is approved for wear by my Chief, Sir William Alan Macpherson of Cluny and Blairgowrie, TD (see the two links below for more information) on my right shoulder in black ink only. Both tattoos are the same size, simple and correct to the lawful standard setforth by the Court of the Lord Lyon and my Chief. Both tattoos are in the same position (symmetrical to one another) on my shoulders.

I do not have photos of my tattoos at this time, however I will post an image of the Macpherson clansman's badge and The Guardians of the Clan Macpherson badge-imagine both of them in only black ink and shaded conservatively in the appropriate places for aesthetic purposes. I would never have a tattoo done of my Chief's arms (see example below), his standard (see example below), or his banner (see example below)...and that pertains to anyone elses for that matter. To do so, is simply bad taste, ignorant, basically identity theft, and against the law in Scotland-it would be extremely disgraceful and dishonourable for anyone to do such a thing.

http://www.sonasmor.net/H04c.dionadaireanbadge.html
http://www.sonasmor.net/Panel102.html

Correct color example of The Guardians of the Clan Macpherson badge.
http://i987.photobucket.com/albums/a...dhubh81/12.jpg

Sterling Silver Macpherson Guardian badge.
http://i987.photobucket.com/albums/a...hubh81/6-3.jpg

Correct color example of the Macpherson clansman's badge.
http://i987.photobucket.com/albums/a...dhubh81/13.gif

Sterling Silver Macpherson clansman's badge.
http://i987.photobucket.com/albums/a...cpherson-2.gif

Cluny's Arms.
http://i987.photobucket.com/albums/a...ubh81/11-1.jpg

Cluny's Banner.
http://i987.photobucket.com/albums/a...hubh81/9-3.jpg

Cluny's full matriculation.
http://i987.photobucket.com/albums/a...hubh81/8-2.jpg

Cluny's Standard.
http://i987.photobucket.com/albums/a...hubh81/7-3.jpg


Kind regards,

That does cause me to wonder, as I did in another thread, what would the Lord Lyon have done with someone who had a tattoo of heraldry belonging to someone else, if the inked one were hauled before the court?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bugbear

That does cause me to wonder, as I did in another thread, what would the Lord Lyon have done with someone who had a tattoo of heraldry belonging to someone else, if the inked one were hauled before the court?

---

I don't think in terms of someone necessarily being "hauled before the court", rather viewing the practice as a matter of personal honour, integrity, and doing the right thing. I would never have someone elses arms, or any type of legitimate heraldric device tattooed anywhere on my body just because it looks interesting, or because I had an indirect connection to it in some form or another. Just doesn't seem correct to me. Now if one is indeed an Armiger, that is a different story completely.:)

Thanks Kyle.
I for one look forward to the photos. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoldHighlander

Thanks Kyle.
I for one look forward to the photos. :D

---

Cheers Terry! I shall have photos up shortly-I've had the two tattoos for a few years now.:)

I'm sorry, creagdhubh, "hauled before the court" was a poor choice of words. :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bugbear

I'm sorry, creagdhubh, "hauled before the court" was a poor choice of words. :oops:

---

No worries mate, and please call me Kyle.:)

Aye,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bugbear

That does cause me to wonder, as I did in another thread, what would the Lord Lyon have done with someone who had a tattoo of heraldry belonging to someone else, if the inked one were hauled before the court?

---

It is said that a carriage with bogus arms once drove into the courtyard at Dublin Castle, and was spotted with great displeasure by the eagle eye of Ulster, King of Arms. While the owner was in his meeting with the Viceroy, Ulster quietly sent a workman over with some sand paper and had the arms erased. Needless to say the poseur was howling mad, but could do nothing about it.

I can only imagine the howls of some unfortunate inked up individual if Lyon exercised a similar prerogative!

Hi, Kyle – while I am not a man for tattoos, I admire your sense of armorial rectitude.
Regards,
Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike_Oettle

Hi, Kyle – while I am not a man for tattoos, I admire your sense of armorial rectitude.
Regards,
Mike

---

Cheers Mike, I appreciate your comment.:)

Yours aye,

As promised gents! I will be uploading the photo of my right deltoid, featuring the badge of "Na Dionadairean Clann Mhuirich", The Guardians of the Clan Macpherson, of which I am and entitled to wear in the form of a bonnet badge in white metal, or in this case...also as a tattoo. Enjoy.

http://i987.photobucket.com/albums/a...hubh81/112.jpg

Very nice Kyle, I like!!! :cool:

Although I am not a great fan of Body Art, I must say that your tattooist has done a very good job. Any chance of your own crest in a circlet on the other arm?

Regards

Chas

Thanks mates. I'm very conservative when it comes to body art-I only have two tattoos (both on my right and left and shoulders) and more than likely, that is it. I don't like to have any body art is visible areas whilst wearing clothing. Chas, the tattoo on my other arm, not the one featured in the photo, is the badge of The Guardians of the Clan Macpherson, which has nothing to do with being an armiger-it is a separate honour for clan members setforth by Cluny-the chief.

I do not have a tattoo of my own personal crest (in a circlet, naturally), because I was not granted arms until after both of my shoulders were already inked! There really isn't any other place on my body where I would like to have another tattoo. I don't know. If I decided to get another one, it would definitely be my own crest, and probably placed over my heart, on my pectoral muscle. Thanks again for the compliments!:D

Slainte,