Non-landed Heraldry

[kgauck]

I've created a lot of heraldry for the provinces and domains, but for wizards, guilds, druids I've been thinking of doing something different.

http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/images/0/01/Mhistecai_mark.jpg
This would be the wizard's mark of Mhistecai, for instance. Like something burned onto parchment by arcane forces. Since this is a prototype, I'm looking for feedback.

Also, at some point there need to be guidelines for making these things. Rules of heraldry already exist. So what principles would be behind the marks that wizards use? Just as there is a language of heraldry, we should think about a language of wizard's marks.

[ThatSeanGuy]

I think a wizard's "mark" should definatley be a reflection of the wizard's magical style; a "Storm Mage" who favors weather affecting evocations would probably have a sifferent set of mystic sigils than someone who specializes in illusion or diviniation, or even just fire based spells.

Of course, you want it to be simple, too. Maybe start with a list of arcane symbols for schools, and then have different lines, swishes, and so on to denote territory, who taught the wizard, and personal accomplishments?

[Thorogood Roele]

I agree that wizards marks are a fantastic replacement for arms, for the most part, though some of the wizards that have been named as counts, barons, lords, would obviously have heraldry also, maybe incorporating their wizard mark.

Guilds would likely not have arms obviously, unless given royal charters, and the last one of those officially would have been the old guilds of the Empire. (though I would like to see them with them, and maybe some new ones, given by Dukes to their "officially sanctioned guilds" perhaps)

Btw, noting that you have been doing many of the arms for here (good job, and my thanks) check out my newest thread that I started, seperation of heraldry between family/countries.

[The Swordgaunt]

Guilds would likely not have arms obviously, unless given royal charters, and the last one of those officially would have been the old guilds of the Empire. (though I would like to see them with them, and maybe some new ones, given by Dukes to their "officially sanctioned guilds" perhaps)

I beg to differ.

The following image is the heraldry of the city of Bremerhaven, with the Hanseatic cross in a prominent position:

http://www.ngw.nl/int/dld/b/images/bremerh2.jpg

[ThatSeanGuy]

Yeah...isn't that where "trademark" came from, anyway? A literal mark showing which craftsman made the item, which guild he was paid up in, and so on.

I mean, I'd probably use "seal" or something because, even if the name is that old, "trademark" sounds a little too modern for the setting, but the logic is the same. I mean, there are guilds and temples that are larger than landed domains-especially those Rjurik temples-so some kind of insignia makes sense.

[Rowan]

I'd just separate the compound words (i.e., "trade mark") to signify the guild seal. Didn't individual artisans have their own "master's mark?" Hence, excellent jewelry, arms and armor, etc. would bear a brand from its maker--as a knight is to a peasant or yeoman, so is a master tradesman to a laborer, and each has his mark.

As for temples, there is precedent for temples to have individual heraldry apart from the basic holy symbols of the particular god. Some may use ikons predominantly, or just collections of symbols of particular religious import. If Anuire, anyway, is modeled after greater Western Europe, then much of the clergy actually consists of the nobility, so each would have his own familial heraldry to associate with the church--as well as the freedom that knights have to assume new symbols upon ordination.

In the Catholic Church, the pope and I believe all of his peer bishops have their own heraldic symbols. Or maybe it's just the various dioceses...I'm not sure whether it's the people or the places/titles that these are associated with.

[Vicente]

I think the AD&D Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting Boxed Set had some color sheets with wizard marks, maybe they can help as inspiration.

Regards

[The Swordgaunt]

Didn't individual artisans have their own "master's mark?" Hence, excellent jewelry, arms and armor, etc. would bear a brand from its maker--as a knight is to a peasant or yeoman, so is a master tradesman to a laborer, and each has his mark.

You are absolutely right. Each Master would have his individual mark

As for guilds, I could supply several heraldic patterns, but the line between information and spamming is thin...



In the Catholic Church, the pope and I believe all of his peer bishops have their own heraldic symbols. Or maybe it's just the various dioceses...I'm not sure whether it's the people or the places/titles that these are associated with.

Again, spot on.

[ThatSeanGuy]

In the Catholic Church, the pope and I believe all of his peer bishops have their own heraldic symbols. Or maybe it's just the various dioceses...I'm not sure whether it's the people or the places/titles that these are associated with.

I think that's a Cardinal thing, but would have to look it up to be sure. It'd fir as a symbol to show the difference between Cardinals and Bishops without invalidating the importance of the ring, staff and miter.

[kgauck]

I have an idea for guilds based on what a sign would look like over a guild door. What's not so clear is what would be on them. Doing the full domain guild is easy enough, but what would the symbols of sub units look like?

[Rowan]

Symbols of the reigning master, geographical origin or location of the guild, the primary trades? That kind of thing?

[kgauck]

Doing a trade mark for the main guild isn't so bad, there are only a few of them and a lot of historical trade marks exist from the middle ages to get ideas from.

But in a feudal society, you can have arms for the king, his magnates, minor nobles, and the lowliest night. Everyone has arms based on the same original approach. My guess is that guilds work differently, but how so? The tradition for ecclessiastical arms was that the arms of the see was marshalled to the arms of the current bishop. Using this as a starting point, ecclesiastical arms might be a marshalling of the place the office represents marhsalled to the temple in question.

So the Prelate of the WIT bears the arms of the WIT.
If he has four sub-prelates for Alamie, Tournen, Taeghas, and Avanil. Each might marshal the arms of that realm and WIT. Then local deacons might have the arms of their province marshaled to WIT. This makes a lot of sense for Haelyn.

I think Sera's temples might use something more like the guilds, though it should still be possible to create arms for them in Anuire, for CJS and NRTS. I already have created arms for NRTS. Based on Sera's Vert, Scales Sable, I gave NRTS, Vert, a Wheel Sable, with tools for crafts and other symbols of wealth or luck being used to difference each temple.

Erik's druids and skalds might have emblems on penndents.

But getting back to the guilds. how would one show a trade mark from Upper Anuire Traders, which almost certainly has lieutenants or officials who look after Boeruine and Mhoried. So Gaelin Thuried might use the trade mark of UAT, but would UAT B have its own mark, and UAT M, and UAT Winoene, UAT Toreien's Watch, UAT Dhalase?

Herladry has five ways to solve this problem.
Difference
Marshalling
Quartering
Escutcheon
and using elements from one coat of arms in a second coat, such as cities that got royal charters in France would often put a chief of France over the arms of the city, but there are other examples and other ways to do it.

Guilds might use still other methods.

The system I have used for temples has been to difference arms with additional charges, borders, and so on. So that Haelyn is Gules, a Sun in Spendor Or, and OIT uses that. IHH has an embattled chief (impregnable!), NIT has a border, WIT has the sword, and so on.

Sub-divisions of temples should not use differencing so that differencing clearly identifies a seperate temple domain. As I mentioned above, there is a precedent in the real world for using marshalling.

[AhemEbanAvani]

im currently playing a dual class paladin retired/wizard of avani. We work for a local Monarch and the heraldry my character uses is a combination or my family symbol, <my cousins branch is a minor nobles>, my religous orders symbol being was a seeker, and off course the symbol of avani. its a sun, a scimitar , the symbol of my order and the heraldry of the noble we work for. of course i dont use a shield so i have the mark on my wizards robes and i wear a holy symbol of avani and have a family style symbol of avani in the hilt of my family sword. ( i don't use it much anymore i have a +3 sword we took off the corpse of one of the vampires generals)



i normally just describe things to my DM cause i cant draw, but we have a couple artists in our gaming group and normally i bribe one of them with nachos and moon mist to give me a drawing if its real important. DAM you people now this thread has made me want to get my heraldry drawn.

[Thorogood Roele]

[QUOTE=The Swordgaunt;44676]I beg to differ.

[The following image is the heraldry of the city of Bremerhaven, with the Hanseatic cross in a prominent position:]

As you stated Swordguant the heraldry you are talking about is a heraldry of a city, that city very likely was given royal charter, this is not like a guild as I was talking about. Heraldry (at least in the real world) was only granted by the Ruler, in most cases, only the king, or in some countries by decree of the king it was automatically inherited along with title from another family member, or ancestor that was granted that right by the king. There was a distinct difference between a master's mark and heraldry. In a feudal society anyone actually bearing arms---a heraldic symbol placed on a shield, worn on a talbred in a manner looking like heraldic arms, that wasn't issued that right by the king would be squished. period. (although alot of folly was placed in the movie the truths behind having to be of "noble blood" to bear arms was truthly (mostly) portrayed in "a knights tale". It was a very serious matter to display arms. It was, in many cases the only real benefit given to alot of "nobility" especially the poor knights.... the right to title and (heraldic) arms.

Yes guilds and craftsmen did have symbols, but they would never be displayed on a shield, (note distinction between shield and sign hung outside place of business) unless granted royal charter to do so. East India Trading Co. for example had a guild mark, but they didn't go around displaying it on their talbreds or shields.

I am less clear about the Catholic church, because 1. it depends on what era you are talking about (due to different periods of medieval history, the church held vastly different levels of power, at some points, the pope and the catholic church were nearly nothing in politics, and at other times, the political power of the church over-shadowed England, France and Spains power combined). So if Birthright's heraldry is to follow our real world feudal example it is likely that officially sanctioned religions (see book of regency or priestcraft, can't remember, for the definition of officially sanctioned) or even officially accepted religions of the states would be granted rights to bear arms... the higher ranking clergy, paladins and so on. And as kgauck stated, they would likely be the symbol of their church, with some sort of designation of their own rank or county or state being marshalled with the appropriate added symbol.

see also the following discussion.... http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?p=44747#post44747

[The Swordgaunt]

The Hanseatic League was an economic and political organisation of trading houses in Northern Europe. Their Cross, together with the heraldry of their many Houses, were used in all the same manners as the more commonly known noble counterparts - most often at sea. In several cities, Tallin in Estonia, for instance, guilds were an important part on the local political scene (this warrants a short paragraph of its own, so I will return to it later in this post).

My post was intended to point out that guilds did in fact use heraldry, and they were often operating without the express leave of a a single monarch. The reason for this was that they were in many extents above and beyond the law. In Norwegian history, we have examples of violent acts of Contesting, and in many occasions, the regent were forced to back down. As mentioned in another topic, the last royal levy-fleet was sunk by a mercenary fleet hired by the Hanseatic League. I mention this here to illustrate that guilds, if powerful enough, need not be confined to a single city, or even a kingdom.

Now back to Tallin - the web has plenty of sites giving the interested information about the history of the city, so I will just shed some light on the situation of the guilds.

After the Danish crusade, the city was divided in two parts. The Upper City, was ruled by the Knights (militant temple holding the Land and part of the Law in the realm), while the Lower City was ruled by the guilds (guilds holding part of the Law, and all of the trade). The situation was so tense that an inner city wall was erected, and the gates were kept locked after dark, to prevent murders and the occasional fire from disturbing the delicate balance.

http://www.einst.ee/publications/crafts_and_arts/img/29_2-1.jpg
Seal of the Cooper's Guild of Tallin


http://www.utlib.ee/fonoteek/IAML2003/black_files/mustpead160.jpeg
Door to guild-house of the Brotherhood of the Blackheads, Tallin

See also this wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanseatic_flags).

[kgauck]

Heraldry (at least in the real world) was only granted by the Ruler, in most cases, only the king, or in some countries by decree of the king it was automatically inherited along with title from another family member, or ancestor that was granted that right by the king.

I am unaware of any place where this was so. In every country with which I am familiar, France, England, the Empire, no kings issued heraldry or established limits to who could bear arms. Instead, because bearing arms suggested that one was noble, using a coat of arms could put you in the position of impersonating a noble, which was a legal status, and so unlawful. It would be like dressing like a policeman today. The same thing is true about clothing in general, and sometimes sumptuary laws were used to keep one class from dressing too much like the class in front of them. The issue here is impersonating your betters, not who can use heraldry. We know that kings did from time to time grant the right to heraldry (not the heraldry itself) but this accounts for perhaps 1% of extant arms. Most were simply adopted and then accepted.

This leads to interesting problems, such as adopting arms that are already in use. For instance:
http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/Scrope2.bmp
Was used by Richard Scrope, William Carminow, and Robert Grosvenor. Carminow sued Scrope and Scrope sued Grosvenor over the use of these identical arms. This is not a well organized business. People adopt arms and then find out that someone has adopted the same arms. England had a Court of Chivalry and France handled such matters in its court called the Parlement of Paris, but these bodies were better at establishing who had proof of documented use earlier, and little else. I have found three arms used by multiple persons at the time of the Hundred Years War in England alone. The Scrope/Carminow/Grosvenor is but one set of arms. If we leave England how many more examples of Azure a bend Or will we find?

But in any respect, kings did not regulate the use of arms. Sometimes they intervened in disputes to keep their nobles happy, but because they did this in every aspect of life, its no more a claim that kings regulated heraldry than it is that kings were matchmakers.

[The Swordgaunt]

Thorogood Roele, I would appreciate it if you didn't rewrite your post - especially after it has been replied to. Bad form, and all that.

Now, your reference to the East Indies Company is correct in your context, but an anachronism in the context of this discussion, I would say. The various Royal Companies (Dutch East Indies, Royal African, Hudson's Bay Company, et. al.) were mostly Enlightenment Era phenomenons, and several countries issued such charters during the 17th and 18th Centuries. These companies were set up as a way of outsourcing the administration of a colony or area of interest.

The guilds of late Medieval and early Renaissance Europe (more relevant for the setting) were, not to my knowledge, dependent on charters from the crown. A notable example here is Venice who was in all respects a sovereign body, with a Doge elected by the local merchant houses. They operated on the contemporary international scene as a major power, with armies, navies, allies and enemies drawn from both Law, Guild, and Temple.

[Thorogood Roele]

First to address the editing of my post.... I was in editing it 1 minute after I posted it, got drawn into a RL situation, and then submitted it, as it sat open on my computer for an hour or so, it was certainly not intentional, nor to change any statement made in response to it. I apologize for any bad feelings it may have caused.

None of my comments are made with the intention of flaring tempers or any such thing. And all of my following statements are of course about real world history, so obviously don't have to be official doctrine for Birthright. That being said I would like to point out that various sources both official and otherwise have put a fair amount of emphasis that in Anuire, at least, nobility still to this day, hold their place as above the commoners very serious, that indeed most nobility won't even involve themselves in trade, as it is above a true noble to do so. Which in point would also imply they would be very unlikely to allow one of the main symbols of their "elitism" to be used by such organizations.

To reply to your response, Swordgaunt, the Hanseatic League started, according to my data, in the 1200's, so to refer to the cross, on the top of the heraldry device you posted as "theirs" is a very large generalization, considering it is in fact better known as the maltese cross and was used by many other, much more well known organizations, such as the knights of malta..... and it was used several hundred years before they existed. Reguardless of that, of course as history is not entirely known as it really happened, all things said about that time frame can indeed be debated, by even the most learned scholars of the time. The Hanseatic league were, in fact, given a grant of priveledges, issuing them the right to officially operate. This grant was given by The King of Novgorod, supporting what I stated early, that for a guild to display there mark as a coat of arms, it would, generally, only be done if given a grant by their sovereign.

To reply to Kgauks post.... every book I have ever read on heraldry states that only those granted the right by the sovereign of the land had the right to bear heraldry. Why do you think that impersonating a noble was illegal? Because the laws of the land made it illegal, who wrote those laws? The king, in the places that had kings as sovereigns, Princes, or whatever their sovereign was. Prior to parliments being established, all laws were written by the kings/sovereigns of the lands.

The whole reason that heraldic arms were started was so that a noble could be distinguished from commoners, for anyone to display a coat of arms that wasn't a noble was falsifying official documents of the kingdom-basically, treason. The only way to become a noble was to be granted that right by the king or to inherit it from your parents. The only way to get legal, official arms even to this day, in England is to be granted them by the college of arms in England.

The following is taken directly from their official website.... http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/

"Coats of arms have been and still are granted by Letters Patent from the senior heralds, the Kings of Arms. A right to arms can only be established by the registration in the official records of the College of Arms of a pedigree showing direct male line descent from an ancestor already appearing therein as entitled to arms, or by making application through the College of Arms for a grant of arms. Grants are made to corporations as well as to individuals."

Grants are made to corporations now, (read guild) but they are still, in fact not official until signed by the Queen (since there is no King at this time). Of course this is only England, but many of the European countries followed very similar laws. In America there are no legal true coat of arms, just devices trademarked for legal business use.


Taken from http://www.hereditary.us/

"Up till the 13th century, heraldry was a matter for a minuscule percentage of the population: almost exclusively royal and noble families. But in the 14th and 15th centuries Europe experienced massive social changes. Feudalism, the foundation of medieval society and government, became obsolete as monarchs strove to increase their authority over powerful nobles and professionalize their armies. However, the demise of chivalry in no way led to a decrease in demand for heraldry. Growth in commerce and the professions led to a new class of wealthy merchants, administrators and educated persons who naturally aspired to improve their social status.

The manner of granting arms evolved in Europe as well. In most kingdoms, the power to grant arms was retained by the sovereign, since nobility was granted with arms. A different system was developed in England. Richard III founded the College of Arms (which is not a school and has neither professors nor students) in 1483 and delegated to it the authority, under the Earl Marshal, to grant arms. The English crown retains to this day the power to confer peerages. From where does nobility originate? A peerage or a grant of arms? The question (occasionally debated today) mattered little since the English peerage never enjoyed fiscal privileges similar to those enjoyed by the Continental nobilities. Now, of course, noble status, however acquired, confers no legal rights or benefits.

[Thorogood Roele]

So it appears that granting the right to use heraldry upto about the 13th century was entirely the province of the king, and in many cases even after that, or as in England, heralds issued the heraldic devices, to people or entities granted the right to bear them under the law. I would imagine that in Brecture, it would be much more along the lines of the Hanseatic league, since guilds are more important than the nobility, mostly, but I believe in Anuire, the nobility would cry havoc to new arms being granted by anything short of the return of the Emperor to those other than nobility or officially sanctioned churches of the land.

[kgauck]

Every book I have ever read on heraldry states that only those granted the right by the sovereign of the land had the right to bear heraldry.
Sometimes the difference between the theory of law and the practice is so huge that statements like this are more wrong then right. In theory it is the king who makes nobles, and being thus noble one can bear arms, however when we examine how people actually achieved claims of nobility, we find that many of them did so entirely without the consent or even knowledge of the king.

In theory, a king controlled who his vassals married, both as a means of controlling them and as a way of making sure they aligned themselves with his friends and supporters. In practice kings almost never were able to excercise this power, and sometimes could not excercise it in their own families. Some nobles would marry the enemies of the king, form alliances against their king, and generally produce noble offspring without the consent of their king.

Kings in theory controlled who their vassals subinfeudated to, but in practice kings found it much more politique to let the magnates handle these matters on their own, rather than antagonize the great nobles. As for smaller nobles, without controlling the subinfeudation of the greater houses, who really cares when smaller nobles grant a small parcel to some knight or other.

In theory a king determines who inherits titles and lands, and requires the payment of feudal dues upon these transfers. In practice many a time the king was hard pressed to collect his dues, let alone veto inheritance or transfers of land and title. Sometimes the nobles themselves would use the writ of the king without the consent of the king to confiscate the lands of their enemies and re-distribute them to their followers. This was done using royal offices as well as the legislated councils of the great lords.

Under these conditions it is impossible to say that nobility and heraldry flowed from the king, because about half the time the king was of little consequence in these affairs, and the other half of the time, the king chose not to antagonize his nobles by interfearing in their actions.


The only way to get legal, official arms even to this day, in England is to be granted them by the college of arms in England.
The emphasis in this is backwards. Getting official arms granted today requires official aprroval, but it was not always so. Indeed "even to this day" impies that it always was and still is, when in fact offical involvement in arms is only a few centuries old. The English crown only began regulating arms in the 15th century, and for the first two hundred or so years, the college of arms was only a record keeping body, not a liscencing burreau.

Further, such regulation is particularly English. As Micheal Pastoureau writes in his pleasant handbook, Heraldry, "On the continent of Europe, the use of armorial bearings has never been resricted to a particular social class at any time between the 12th and 20th centuries. Every individual, every family, every group and community has been free to adopt the arms of their choice and to put them to any private use they please, provided they have not wrongly adopted the arms of another." By public, Pastoureau means "official" as in the differnce between the public park and a private park. For example, one of the common uses of arms was in sport.

By the way, a college is any community assembled for a common purpose, and is related to the word colleague. The modern, exclusive, sense of the word only dates to the 19th century.

[The Swordgaunt]

Few points are left for me to make after Kgauc's post, other than a short comment on your statements about the cross and the League.


To reply to your response, Swordgaunt, the Hanseatic League started, according to my data, in the 1200's, so to refer to the cross, on the top of the heraldry device you posted as "theirs" is a very large generalization, considering it is in fact better known as the maltese cross and was used by many other, much more well known organizations, such as the knights of malta..... and it was used several hundred years before they existed. Reguardless of that, of course as history is not entirely known as it really happened, all things said about that time frame can indeed be debated, by even the most learned scholars of the time. The Hanseatic league were, in fact, given a grant of priveledges, issuing them the right to officially operate. This grant was given by The King of Novgorod, supporting what I stated early, that for a guild to display there mark as a coat of arms, it would, generally, only be done if given a grant by their sovereign.

The cross was among the more common heraldic motives, and the simple base-design, as well as the limited heraldic palette, led to many similar shapes and colorations being in use throughout the relevant ages. The cross seen in many Hanseatic heraldic patterns have more in common with what has become known as the German Cross (featuring in both German military flags, insignia and medals up to modern times).

The League operated in most of Northern Europe, from Novgorod, through Scandinavia, to London. They operated with impunity on both the political and the economical scene of its time, as well as on the seas. You are right in that they were based in German cities, and in that they held certain royal charters. But they did not in any way function as an extension of royal policy. They were, in their heyday, more akin to a state upon themselves than dependent on the blessings of one king. However, they were not powerful enough to dictate the terms in all their areas of interest, and as such, they payed homage to some rulers, and allied with others.

For an overview of some different, yet similar, crosses, check this wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross).

[kgauck]

If one is looking for a cross from a knightly order, why go to Malta when the Teutonic Knights are available? Begininig in the crusade to Christianize the Baltic in 1230, the TK occupied Prussia wared on Lithuania. During the reformation the state abandoned its Crusader identity and became the Duchy of Prussia, employing the same symbols and retaining its martial charatcer, albeit as a secular duchy. The choice of the Emperor to reward the Elector of Brandenburg with the title of king outside the Empire as King in Prussia made it nearly inevitable that it would be the Prussian heraldry and symbols that the Hohenzollerens adopted in place of their own Brandenburger heraldry and symbols. So the emblem of the Teutonic Knights, the cross pattée in black on a field of white, is later adopted as the Iron Cross. Their heraldry was often Argent a Latin Cross Sable.

By the way, like many military orders, the Teutonic Knights refesed to acknowledge royal soveriegnty because as knights of God they owed allegence to no secular power. They were kicked out of Hungary before arriving in Prussia, and even there the Emperor Frederich made sure their territory was beyond the Empire, since he didn't want them defying him. It was the Poles who ended up seeing a whole swath of territory removed from their power. So much for the power of kings to decide things. When it came to these powerful crusading orders, when kings couldn't set them up outside their territory, on Cyprus, or Malta, or Prussia, they often ended up having to supress them, such as famously with the Knights Templar.

Its certainly possible to ignore these cases and focus on the knightly orders that the kings set up themselves, where they did indeed establish the heraldry and symbols, such as the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Golden Fleece, or the Order of St Michel.

Ignoring organizations which recognized no soveriegn, defied kings, and invented their own heraldry and symbols, whether various knightly orders or trading organizations, because the Hanseatic League is not alone in this distinction, is to overlook a very important set of situations.

[The Swordgaunt]

Ignoring organizations which recognized no soveriegn, defied kings, and invented their own heraldry and symbols, whether various knightly orders or trading organizations, because the Hanseatic League is not alone in this distinction, is to overlook a very important set of situations.

Most true, sir, and thank you for bringing up my favourite order of all time, the Teutonics. Peasant hunting, anyone? For those of you who are partial to militant orders, I recommend looking into this one. This is a good example of a temple controlling law, land, guild and temple in a realm - and they didn't mess around either.

[ploesch]

It seems to me that the granting of arms is more a martial concern than a concern for Wizards or businesses. that's not to say that certain individuals would seek to make their station seem higher by adopting arms of some sort. However, in an era where arms were strictly regulated, then this could be dangerous.

However, since in Cerilia Guilds and Wizards are nobility of sorts in their own right, it wouldn't be innappropriate for them to claim arms of their own. Really, anyone blooded would have a right to claim arms, since anyone blooded has the potential to be a landed regent.

As for Guilds, I would think they would follow the same rules as nobility in selecting their arms. Perhaps instead of a Helm they would have a cap, and they might use devices a Noble or Military leader would find base, such as Scales, coins or a compass. They might also use a platter instead of a shield to show they are not military.

Wizards, would also follow the heraldric rules of nobility. They might have a different shape for the "Shield" to designate that they are not a soldier. I'm thinking a Starburst for a true Wizard, and a flare for magicians.

I also see churches adopting arms in Cerilia. They're patrons symbol would of course be the most prominant, and depending on the faith, and the gods spheres of influence. They might use a shield (Military), a Platter (Merchant), or a starburst (magic). There also could be some "shield" shapes that are specific to religions.

[Thorogood Roele]

In response to your statement about how alot of the kings decided to allow peasants to say they were nobles even though they weren't granted that, because the king didn't want to upset his more powerful nobles... let's assume that for a moment the more powerful nobles had no problem with these dogs daring to say they are as good as the nobile ranks (dogs was used because I believe that is the way history has portrayed the way nobles felt about peasants), in the birthright world, would the power players feel the same way? Let's keep in mind that there have been several articles written on here, and I believe it to be the general spirit of Birthright (in Anuire at least) that all of the existing landed regents are sometimes up in arms over a noble elevating themselves above their inherited rank... ie, if say Duke Diem started calling himself Arch-duke or king, the very least response he would get for those nobles that weren't his close allies would be to continue to address him as Duke Diem, and in some cases, the history of the world has implied that even less an offense has been cause for war. I have a hard time believing that Darien Avan, or Boeruine would say, yeah, it's fine for these pig farmers to say they are on the same footing as I am.

Alright so, I say, why don't we just poll and let the people decide wether or not non-nobility be allowed to use coats of arms. I propose the following questions.

In Anuire:
Should non-nobles that are blooded but have no holdings be allowed the right to display heraldic arms?
Should non-nobles that are regents withouth the approval of the sovereign of the land be allowed the right to display heraldic arms?
Should non-nobles that are regents with the approval of the sovereign, but haven't been given a grant of permission, have the right to bear arms?
Should non-nobles be allowed to display heraldic arms with a grant from the landed regent of their land, even if they are not regents?
Should their be a minimum nobility rank (ie only dukes or above) required in order to have the right to grant arms?

Once these questions are answered we can then determine how to handle the rest of the continent, after all I do agree that in Brechtur things would be alot different, as guilds are viewed with even more reguard in most cases than nobility is.

[Sorontar]

If you are thinking of surveys, how about just considering what the bare minimum is to be able to use heraldic arms.


Do you have to be blooded? (I suspect so)
Do you have to be born/married into an existing noble family?

Checking the first is simple. You are either blooded or not. Checking the second is the job of a herald, whose job is to define what "noble" means in a way that keeps the important people happy.

From those questions we should be able to determine if we have one or two base requirements for any person to claim a heraldic right in Anuire.

Then, once those questions are answered, you can look at the sub-questions. These may decide how each claim is dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Do you have to have a Noble class? (I suspect not)
Do you have to have a holding of some sort?
Do you have be allied to/not the enemy of the regent of the province or their superior?


I say it this way because we don't seem to have worked out yet which is more important in Anuirean heraldry - being blooded or being noble or are they both vital components. If the nobility aspect isn't important, then the same rules should apply to all people, regardless of their nobility (or lack thereof). If the nobility aspect is important, then non-nobles will need to first be "promoted" by the landed regent to a noble rank. A side-effect of this promotion is the right to display arms.

At any time, a law regent can issue notices that a particular individual's nobility is not recognised, and this would also affect their right to display arms in the province/realm. If nobility wasn't important in herladry, then the notice would have to be directly about "those showing their support of the rebel" by way of showing his arms or symbol.

And as you said Thorogood and I have pointed out before, different rules could apply in other regions like Khinasi.

Sorontar

[kgauck]

We know there are many non-blooded lords, so being blooded can't be a requirement. Lower ranking figures like knights are bound to be mostly unblooded and historically had heraldry aplenty.

Either blooded or noble to bear arms, and no good way to prove you're not either, so in practice anyone wealthy enough can fake it if they are willing to move far enough away from their purported home.

[Thorogood Roele]

I would have to agree with Kgauk on his last post, that being blooded may entitle you to arms, but not be a requirement, exactly like he said, many of the noble lords are not blooded. But woe to the family that draws the wrong attention to themselves, and has one of the power players hire a herald to investigate their claims to arms....

[kgauck]

True, but typically people who assume a higher station do so to to impress those below them, and try and keep out of the way of those above them. Trouble rolls downhill, and even well established nobles can receive trouble from those of higher station. Someone who attempts social climbing knows they are more precarious at status x+1 then they were at x+0 because many will judge that they should not imagine themselves anything other than x. This is as true for those barons who avoid claiming the ducal title their vast lands might suggest, as well as the mercenary captain who considers claiming a knightly status. People do it because they are ambitious, but most are absolutely obsequious before their betters.

[Thorogood Roele]

I found an absolutely fabulous coat of arms for one of the churches. of course it would have to be modified but it would be much to do so.

Image:Bishop_arms.jpg

you can also find the image under my wiki page. What do you guys think? I was thinking.... replace the ram and rods with the symbol of the church (ie put the churches individual arms there, like WIT) then on the other side would be the arms of the country... (ie Avanil) This would then be the arms of the bishop (or whatever title), head of the church WIT in Avanil. and so on.... obviously the blue would need to be changed to red and the motto below something to reflect the churches belief.

[kgauck]

I made a bunch of these for the Hundred Year War.

http://home.mchsi.com/~gauck/Papal02.bmp
Popes put their family arms on papal supporters

http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/Canterbury.bmp
Bishops marshaled their family arms with the arms of their see.

I particularly like those arms for Canterbury because I like the arms I marshalled

http://home.mchsi.com/~gauck/Craon.bmp

I don't much like using these kinds of arms for Birthright because I don't want to give temple arms a very Catholic look. Religion in BR is not just Catholic with a costume change, so I wouldn't use medieval church heraldry.