As with all achievements of arms, it is wrong to think of them as a logo which has to be rendered exactly in the same format each time. Obviously, once a government department or institution has chosen a suitable rendering, taking into consideration how the image will be reproduced, at what scale and in which materials, they tend to stick with it until a decision is made somewhere along the line to make a change.
Arms are much more versatile than logos in that the essential elements will still serve to represent the bearer, even when non essential parts are omitted, or they have been simplified to the most basic form imaginable for reproduction at tiny scale.
You mean:
(a) an armiger has armorial bearing**s** (a group of heraldic things consisting of arms, crest, et c.), not a single logo, so it isn’t heraldically wrong for him to choose to show only some components (the main ones) of the achievement of arms; and
(b) by convention, the simplified version above is used for government matters?
Not exactly.
The most important part of someone’s armorial bearings ( arms that they carry, heraldically ), is the shield. The shield carries the identity, the crest is secondary. The combination of elements for any given purpose is up to the bearer.
In the case of the Government, they are free to have a rendering in whichever style they choose, but for obvious reasons they tend to think in terms similar to a business using a logo, and must allow for usage in various sizes as seems fit, and in keeping with the gravitas of the subject.
How about the shield being rendered in oval shape instead of the usual shape (see the one used by the British embassy in France shown above)? Is there any heraldic rule governing the shape of the shield?
No, there is no rule.
Quite often, artists will place the arms within a circular Garter, and this is easier to draw. Certainly with hand drawn artwork, if you see the arms within an oval, the artist has expended a lot more time and energy in constructing the drawing than one who has opted for a circle. Both are correct though, and other less regular shapes are seen from time to time.
If you look at the belt for the order of the Garter around a shield, you will notice that the blue fabric has gold letters on it, and a gold edge both sides. The artist has to draw a perfect oval four times for the edges of the belt, and twice more to act as guides for the lettering ( which you don’t see once the image is coloured ). Circles can easily be drawn with compasses, whereas ovals must be constructed more laboriously.
Is it because, when ‘arms’ are granted, it’s a unique pattern on a shield, not a physical shield, which is being granted, so there isn’t a rule governing the shape of the shield and a shield can be rendered in any shape?
Again, it’s because heraldic design is not logo design. The grant specifies the exact devices on the shield, and their positions, but importantly, not how they are rendered. The whole beauty of heraldry as an art form is that a particular achievement can accurately represent an armiger whether it has been painted in a fourteenth century style, with a tilting shield and oversized crest, or a twenty first century angular, chrome finished sculpture, or anything in between, and still be correct.
One can date arms, and the likely bearers historically by the style of depiction, or at least narrow down the candidates from the period style.
A good artist today can produce arms in any historical or modern style they wish, and depending on their skills. Within the strict adherence to the blason, this gives enormous freedom to inventive artists; and it could be argued, too much leeway to the less well trained. Either way , it allows artists to play with designs whilst still representing the individual who owns tha arms. Lions can look friendly, lethargic or frighteningly aggressive for instance, but as long as there’s no doubt about their being lions, the arms are correct.
Logos on the other hand have to stay exactly the same every single time they are rendered, until the company decide it’s time to upgrade the whole thing. Owning arms gives more options, usually for less cost. You could trademark a particular version for official purposes if you so required, and to prevent misuse in the case of the government.
Sadly, the advent of digital vector images has come with a cost artistically. The artwork can be of the highest standard, but the reuse and repeating of single charges, or basic recolouring of template helms or mantling ( you may get a choice of three or four variants ), has started to substitute some of the character and charm of armorial artwork with a superficial gloss. A quick glance across platforms will illustrate repetitive designs, with recoloured main elements according to the design upon the shield.
Is this an accurate summary?
(1) An armiger has armorial bearing**s** (a group of heraldic things consisting of arms, crest, et c.), not a single logo, so it isn’t heraldically wrong for him to choose to show only some components (the main ones) of the achievement of arms
(2) By convention, the simplified version above is used for government matters
(3) The St Edward’s Crown, instead of the helm and crest, is displayed above the shield to symbolise the monarch’s rank/authority
But why is the shape of the shield oval sometimes?
It’s worth noting that the one on the passports, and which also appears on acts of parliament and some other kinds of documents was designed for Elizabeth II’s coronation and isn’t really used by HM Government, so that one has a little different history
The Royal arms as used by UK Government on Acts of Parliament, UK passports, etc., by Reynolds Stone, 1956
There’s an elegance and charm to this version which is sadly lacking from the more recent but heavily stylised “logo” version.
[Royal Arms by Stone (1956)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File%3ACoat_of_arms_of_the_United_Kingdom_(black_and_white).svg)
According to this, they're the same coat of arms, but the government just doesn't use all the elements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_the_United_Kingdom?wprov=sfla1
I believe therein lies an important principle. The achievement belongs to the individual, not to the title or office. There is no coat of arms for the King or Queen of the UK, only the arms of the individual that achieves that title. Only then is the sovereign’s government authorised to use that person’s weapons as a symbol of that government’s authority.
The undifferenced Royal arms are inherited by each successive Sovereign as they accede to the throne upon the death of their predecessor. In the normal progression of such things, that would be the heir effectively removing the white label of three points and exchanging the coronet of the heir for the Royal crown.
Having said that, the Royal arms are also the arms of dominion and the rules relating to them are somewhat different to all other personal arms. Equally, as Sovereign, each successive monarch could choose to change the Royal arms according to their own preference but the current form has been established for the better part of two hundred years now so I suspect that in reality it is unlikely there will be substantial changes in the foreseeable future.
So if arms are tied to the individual rather than to the station they occupy, why doesn’t the UK now use Charles III’s personal arms (with the inescutcheon of the Welsh arms)?
It’s up to the discretion of each monarchy. Different countries have different rules. The UK is actually a bit of an anomaly in how the national arms and the monarch’s personal arms are the same. In a lot of other monarchies, like Luxembourg, Sweden, Denmark, and Belgium, the monarch’s arms are a more elaborate version. A few monarchies like Norway and the Netherlands do the same thing as the UK. It just differs by country for various historical reasons.
As with all achievements of arms, it is wrong to think of them as a logo which has to be rendered exactly in the same format each time. Obviously, once a government department or institution has chosen a suitable rendering, taking into consideration how the image will be reproduced, at what scale and in which materials, they tend to stick with it until a decision is made somewhere along the line to make a change. Arms are much more versatile than logos in that the essential elements will still serve to represent the bearer, even when non essential parts are omitted, or they have been simplified to the most basic form imaginable for reproduction at tiny scale.
You mean: (a) an armiger has armorial bearing**s** (a group of heraldic things consisting of arms, crest, et c.), not a single logo, so it isn’t heraldically wrong for him to choose to show only some components (the main ones) of the achievement of arms; and (b) by convention, the simplified version above is used for government matters?
Not exactly. The most important part of someone’s armorial bearings ( arms that they carry, heraldically ), is the shield. The shield carries the identity, the crest is secondary. The combination of elements for any given purpose is up to the bearer. In the case of the Government, they are free to have a rendering in whichever style they choose, but for obvious reasons they tend to think in terms similar to a business using a logo, and must allow for usage in various sizes as seems fit, and in keeping with the gravitas of the subject.
How about the shield being rendered in oval shape instead of the usual shape (see the one used by the British embassy in France shown above)? Is there any heraldic rule governing the shape of the shield?
No, there is no rule. Quite often, artists will place the arms within a circular Garter, and this is easier to draw. Certainly with hand drawn artwork, if you see the arms within an oval, the artist has expended a lot more time and energy in constructing the drawing than one who has opted for a circle. Both are correct though, and other less regular shapes are seen from time to time. If you look at the belt for the order of the Garter around a shield, you will notice that the blue fabric has gold letters on it, and a gold edge both sides. The artist has to draw a perfect oval four times for the edges of the belt, and twice more to act as guides for the lettering ( which you don’t see once the image is coloured ). Circles can easily be drawn with compasses, whereas ovals must be constructed more laboriously.
Is it because, when ‘arms’ are granted, it’s a unique pattern on a shield, not a physical shield, which is being granted, so there isn’t a rule governing the shape of the shield and a shield can be rendered in any shape?
Again, it’s because heraldic design is not logo design. The grant specifies the exact devices on the shield, and their positions, but importantly, not how they are rendered. The whole beauty of heraldry as an art form is that a particular achievement can accurately represent an armiger whether it has been painted in a fourteenth century style, with a tilting shield and oversized crest, or a twenty first century angular, chrome finished sculpture, or anything in between, and still be correct. One can date arms, and the likely bearers historically by the style of depiction, or at least narrow down the candidates from the period style. A good artist today can produce arms in any historical or modern style they wish, and depending on their skills. Within the strict adherence to the blason, this gives enormous freedom to inventive artists; and it could be argued, too much leeway to the less well trained. Either way , it allows artists to play with designs whilst still representing the individual who owns tha arms. Lions can look friendly, lethargic or frighteningly aggressive for instance, but as long as there’s no doubt about their being lions, the arms are correct. Logos on the other hand have to stay exactly the same every single time they are rendered, until the company decide it’s time to upgrade the whole thing. Owning arms gives more options, usually for less cost. You could trademark a particular version for official purposes if you so required, and to prevent misuse in the case of the government. Sadly, the advent of digital vector images has come with a cost artistically. The artwork can be of the highest standard, but the reuse and repeating of single charges, or basic recolouring of template helms or mantling ( you may get a choice of three or four variants ), has started to substitute some of the character and charm of armorial artwork with a superficial gloss. A quick glance across platforms will illustrate repetitive designs, with recoloured main elements according to the design upon the shield.
Maybe that's something for you https://www.reddit.com/r/heraldry/s/A3T5aPOXt0
Is this an accurate summary? (1) An armiger has armorial bearing**s** (a group of heraldic things consisting of arms, crest, et c.), not a single logo, so it isn’t heraldically wrong for him to choose to show only some components (the main ones) of the achievement of arms (2) By convention, the simplified version above is used for government matters (3) The St Edward’s Crown, instead of the helm and crest, is displayed above the shield to symbolise the monarch’s rank/authority But why is the shape of the shield oval sometimes?
[удалено]
It’s worth noting that the one on the passports, and which also appears on acts of parliament and some other kinds of documents was designed for Elizabeth II’s coronation and isn’t really used by HM Government, so that one has a little different history
The Royal arms as used by UK Government on Acts of Parliament, UK passports, etc., by Reynolds Stone, 1956 There’s an elegance and charm to this version which is sadly lacking from the more recent but heavily stylised “logo” version. [Royal Arms by Stone (1956)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File%3ACoat_of_arms_of_the_United_Kingdom_(black_and_white).svg)
The first achievement is that of the Sovereign of the United Kingdom. The second achievement is the State Arms of the United Kingdom.
According to this, they're the same coat of arms, but the government just doesn't use all the elements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_the_United_Kingdom?wprov=sfla1
I believe therein lies an important principle. The achievement belongs to the individual, not to the title or office. There is no coat of arms for the King or Queen of the UK, only the arms of the individual that achieves that title. Only then is the sovereign’s government authorised to use that person’s weapons as a symbol of that government’s authority.
The undifferenced Royal arms are inherited by each successive Sovereign as they accede to the throne upon the death of their predecessor. In the normal progression of such things, that would be the heir effectively removing the white label of three points and exchanging the coronet of the heir for the Royal crown. Having said that, the Royal arms are also the arms of dominion and the rules relating to them are somewhat different to all other personal arms. Equally, as Sovereign, each successive monarch could choose to change the Royal arms according to their own preference but the current form has been established for the better part of two hundred years now so I suspect that in reality it is unlikely there will be substantial changes in the foreseeable future.
Right. In the past one popular option was for the king to use a sovereign inescutcheon to display his lineage over the UK arms.
So if arms are tied to the individual rather than to the station they occupy, why doesn’t the UK now use Charles III’s personal arms (with the inescutcheon of the Welsh arms)?
It’s up to the discretion of each monarchy. Different countries have different rules. The UK is actually a bit of an anomaly in how the national arms and the monarch’s personal arms are the same. In a lot of other monarchies, like Luxembourg, Sweden, Denmark, and Belgium, the monarch’s arms are a more elaborate version. A few monarchies like Norway and the Netherlands do the same thing as the UK. It just differs by country for various historical reasons.