Your College at Work: Debate on Arms for Women

[Cjara B]

Hum, good thought, (Respectfully pointing out that the ‘lozenge’ though called something else is a 'diamond', and the ‘cartouche’ is commonly how opals are cut.).
Though I don't mind them being different,

www.mwart.com/images/p/Shields_Knights_Templar_Shield_C6024_1583.jpg
www.khukriwala.com/pcat-gifs/categories/shields1.jpg
www.unisub.com/site/designs/Streamline_free/SA_Preview_Shield.jpg

I think what I dislike about the Cartouche is it doesn’t have edges, and as posted the Lozenge is smaller. Though and I so don’t know if this is sexist of me and contradicting what I’ve said before, But I kinda like them being a different shape, and I don’t want to take the escutcheon and just flip it over or some dumb thing like that, but this being said, I, (though if it is decided to make them all the same shape I’m not going to put up a stink or anything) I would like some clear definition between the arms of the male vs. the female.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

I respectfully offer this example of a previous Coat of Arms being awarded to a female:

Azure a sword per pale argent hilted or between a crown in chief and two fleurs-de-lys of the last.


but what do I know, I'm new here...

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

clemente said:

In Talossa, what is the legal and traditional definition of "heir"?
* Oldest Child?
* Oldest Son?
* Defaults to one of the above, but can be changed by a will?
* Or does it default to the State unless specifically outlined in a will?

Good question. Our statutes do not define the term, so we would default to the common law. The common law as Colonial America inherited it from England generally provided for male primogeniture (oldest son inherits) of real property and equal division among all children of personal property. That's not getting into rights of surviving spouses. Primogeniture was dropped even from real property inheritance at some point after independence. So "heir" does not, as a rule, refer to a single individual. Of course, descent of arms does not have to follow the same rules as descent of other kinds of property. We could allow undifferenced arms to be inherited by one individual or many.

[Hooligan]

The suggestion (from the freshly-minted Talossan version of Miss Claire) has been made that the shape of an emerald be considered for female arms.

A proposal now being kicked around by collegians (and ex-collegians) is to allow women to exercise the female prerogative, permitting them to choose their own shape for arms.

Thoughts?

Columcille

[Cjara B]

Hey so Yeah I can apply for mine now, have we decided?

[Hooligan]

You may most certainly apply for arms. The specific procedure to do so is extremely important, and someone as familiar as you seem to be with Monty Python will have no cause for delay in properly answering The Three Questions.

Columcille

[Cjara B]

I just wondered if the choice of a shape of said arms had come to a point where it would be judicious for my application to be presented.

[Hooligan]

Only one way to find out. Press the College to action!

Columcille

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

The cartouche is not exclusively feminine. It is also widely used in ecclesiastical heraldry, as men of the cloth historically sought to disassociate themselves from the martial implications of the heater shield. And according to the SCA, in the early days of heraldry, on those rare occasions on which ladies were granted arms, their arms were displayed on a standard shield. The lozenge and cartouche were later innovations. So I would support allowing a choice of shapes, and even making the choice universal (not limited to ladies). This would allow male clergy or other gentlemen scrupulous of bearing (deadly) arms to elect to bear (heraldic) arms on a cartouche instead of a standard escutcheon. The emerald is a nice shape and would be a lot easier to design arms for than a lozenge, but the fact that it has never (to my knowledge) been used for that purpose before gives me a bit of a squicky feeling.

[Cjara B]

I have no objection to what ever the collage decides.
I happen to like the shape that’s why I put the idea forward.
If something else is deemed better I have no comment. I just don’t like the idea of the (as I have stated) two ‘female’ shapes before proposed. But by all means limited squicky feelings. And I put my request forward.

[Nic Casálmac'h]

When I think coat of arms, I think escutcheon.

I still haven't gotten over the fact that a diamond is called a lozenge, which should be a sort of oval shape. Thus I like the idea of everyone using escutcheons, but I also think the idea of people being allowed to choose the shape is an interesting one.

There're my two bence.

[Cjara B]

Not to change my mind again or anything, but the arms I have in mind would look better on an escutcheon, and maybe the idea of Everyone having a choice is a good one. I'm not really sure I kinda just want them.

[Trotxâ]

mick said:

I respectfully offer this example of a previous Coat of Arms being awarded to a female:

This debate isn't about if women can display arms, but instead about what shape the achievement should take.

mick said:

Azure a sword per pale argent hilted or between a crown in chief and two fleurs-de-lys of the last.

Good eye! Actually, those arms were awarded to her family after her death in 1429. But, you are right - they would not have received them if not for her efforts. A few more details about this award can be found on Heraldica.org.

Thank you for pointing this out!

-- Jaune Sabre Herald,
Squirrel King at Arms

NB: Correct 10/25 with updated information on the grant of arms to Joan's family.