🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BxKDox.DFM@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:

>1.  How can I properly describe the coat of arms for the Irvine Clan?
>	In non-heraldic terms it is:
>
>	A white field, with a wide red stripe horizontally in the middle
>	with clusters of Holly (2 equally spaced apart above the red, 
>	and one centered below the red stripe).

  This is described heraldically ("blazoned") as 

	Argent, a fess gules between three sprigs of holly proper (?).

  "Argent" is silver or white, the color of the field.  A horizontal stripe in
the middle of the field is a "fess," and "gules" is the heraldic term for red.
The position of the holly clusters is standard for three objects on a field.
  I would need a little more detail to be sure that the holly is properly 
described.  If there are green leaves and red berries, the description is
accurate.  If there are just clusters of berries, it would be better to
describe them as "clusters of holly berries" (or an equivalent term) "gules."

  From what I know of the rules of Scots heraldry, these are not the arms of 
the "Irvine clan" but the arms of an individual named Irvine (presumably the
nearest male-line descendant of the first person to bear these arms.)  Arms 
belong to individuals, not families, and it is presumptuous for anyone to 
bear arms that are not personally theirs.  In the US it is merely rude, but 
Scotland is the only nation that actually takes legal action against people
who wear arms they do not have.

Alan Terlep				        "Please don't shoot us--
Oakland University, Rochester, MI	         we're trying to help."
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu		     --Real public service announcement
Rushing in where angels fear to tread.		    for the Serbian Red Cross
	

[I'll say this up front:  I have no idea how 'valid' the 'Clan' Irvine is.
 I *do* know it didn't exist before 1746 (and therefore 1782), so make of that
  what you will.  This fact does not, however, affect anything that follows.]

In article <BxKDox.DFM@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>2.  If there are any persons of Clan Irvine on the net, I can get access to 
>	a detailed Clan history published around 1890 (details who's who in the
>	clan pre-1890, relations with Douglas, Stewart (and why we can 
>	'rightfully' wear either tartan, but have none of our own, yet are a
>	'real' clan and not a sept.)  Its kind of old, but if there is anyone
>	that doesn't know, I may be able to look it up over the Holidays.
>	If anyone knows of a more up-to-date family history, I would like to
>	know, and where I can find it...

  BE VERY CAREFUL.

  Just because your last name is Irvine doesn't mean you're realated to Scots
  Irvines.  If you are, that doesn't necessarily mean you're part of a Clan.
  You may very well be, but find out first.

  Most of the "Clan" and "Sept" lists are pure and utter hog-swill, invented
  in 1822 by a lot of greedy weavers who saw an opportunity in King George IV's
  visit to Scotland to sell lots and lots of "official tartans" (which had
  been proscribed from 1746 to ~1782, with much of the real info lost during
  that time) to as many people as possible.  They drew up these lists to 
  prove to the suddely eager buyers that if your last name was "White," you
  were "entitled" to wear "MacLean" (or whatever), despite the fact that both
  England and France had families named "White" with no connections to the 
  Highlands what-so-ever.

  And then, of course, there's the erroneous perception that just because you
  have Scottish ancestry, you are part of a Clan.  Wrong:  The Lowlands Scots
  had nothing to do with the Clan structure (until it became fashionable, of
  course).  Besides which:  The Clans were *FAMILIES*, a distinction that has
  been muddied in the centuries since.  I am 1/4 Danish, with the blood of
  Danish Kings in my veins.  That does NOT mean I'm part of a Danish Royal
  Family.  Same difference.

  If you can personally document direct descent, Great!  Otherwise:  Caveat
  Emptor.  There's an official Clan structure still in existence (it did *not*
  die at Culloden) and it has offices in Scotland.  Any decent library ought
  to be able to point you their direction;  Get real information from them.
  There are laws in Great Britian about bearing arms you're not entitled to.
  The Clan structure is not just a toy or "som'thin' pretty";  it is a legal
  structure.  I'm not certain to what extent the laws apply outside Great
  Britain, but it's best to be warned anyway.

  And now, just to make this article more Heraldry relevant:  I have an ex-
  ceedingly simple question, but one I have yet to find answered in any book I
  have access to:  When a charge is defined as "proper," does this mean you
  may use colours that are not included in the standard tinctures (ie: brown)?
  I expect so, but the books I have don't say and are all in black and white.

  Thanks,
  -Iain Odlin (who *is* Clan descended through two of the oldest: Grant and
  MacKinnon.  This does not, however, mean he is a part of either clan; just
  that he is descended from them.)
-- 
 --------------------------------- Iain Odlin ---------------------------------
                  10 Crosby Street, Level 3, Portland ME 04103
                                 odlin@reed.edu
 ----- For every action, there is an equal and opposite critical analysis -----

Iain asks about "proper".

There are actually two kinds of "proper". The first is as you describe: an
object in its natural colors. A deer proper is brown, for example.

The second type of proper means "in specifically defined tinctures". A 
rose proper isn't pinkish, like a "real" rose; it's gules, barbed (sepaled)
vert, and seeded Or. A Cornish chough proper has a black body, red beak and
red legs. A sword proper is argent hilted Or. All use only heraldic tinctures,
but in a set pattern. 

Andrea Habura

In article <g4r1n2m@rpi.edu>, habura@vccnorthb.its.rpi.edu (Andrea Marie Habura) writes:
|> There are actually two kinds of "proper". The first is as you describe: an
|> object in its natural colors. A deer proper is brown, for example.
|> 
|> The second type of proper means "in specifically defined tinctures". A 
|> rose proper isn't pinkish, like a "real" rose; it's gules, barbed (sepaled)
|> vert, and seeded Or. A Cornish chough proper has a black body, red beak and
|> red legs. A sword proper is argent hilted Or. All use only heraldic tinctures,
|> but in a set pattern. 

Myself a student of birds rather than heraldry, I can assure you that a
Chough (Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax), which formerly occurred in Cornwall, but
in more recent times is confined to Wales, does have a red beak and red legs,
so here the first definition of "proper" applies.

Daan Sandee                                           sandee@think.com
Thinking Machines Corporation
Cambridge, Mass 02142                                 (617) 234-5044

In article <1992Nov13.033908.8355@reed.edu> odlin@reed.edu (Iain Odlin) writes:
>[I'll say this up front:  I have no idea how 'valid' the 'Clan' Irvine is.
> I *do* know it didn't exist before 1746 (and therefore 1782), so make of that
>  what you will.  This fact does not, however, affect anything that follows.]


>
>In article <BxKDox.DFM@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>>2.  If there are any persons of Clan Irvine on the net, I can get access to 
>>	a detailed Clan history published around 1890 (details who's who in the
>>	clan pre-1890, relations with Douglas, Stewart (and why we can 
>>	'rightfully' wear either tartan, but have none of our own, yet are a
>>	'real' clan and not a sept.)  Its kind of old, but if there is anyone
>>	that doesn't know, I may be able to look it up over the Holidays.
>>	If anyone knows of a more up-to-date family history, I would like to
>>	know, and where I can find it...
>
>  BE VERY CAREFUL.
>
>  Just because your last name is Irvine doesn't mean you're realated to Scots
>  Irvines.  If you are, that doesn't necessarily mean you're part of a Clan.
>  You may very well be, but find out first.

My family has record tracing the current generation (mine) back to Kentucky and
from there to the crossing in 1821 from Scotlan (1st source -- from a diary
kept of the trip, slightly before and after), then other documentation tracing
family back to the 1100's.  The 'clan book' is recently found (last 5 years), 
and duplicates much.  Aside from that, I don't know if I am of a clan, and
really don't care too much, except in the case where my family is concerned.
I posted the previous as 'bait' for anyone that may know something more that
I do not.  I don't really want to know if I am 'associated' with some people
I don't know personally - it does not matter to me that much.


>
>  Most of the "Clan" and "Sept" lists are pure and utter hog-swill, invented
>  in 1822 by a lot of greedy weavers who saw an opportunity in King George IV's
>  visit to Scotland to sell lots and lots of "official tartans" (which had
>  been proscribed from 1746 to ~1782, with much of the real info lost during
>  that time) to as many people as possible.  They drew up these lists to 
>  prove to the suddely eager buyers that if your last name was "White," you
>  were "entitled" to wear "MacLean" (or whatever), despite the fact that both
>  England and France had families named "White" with no connections to the 
>  Highlands what-so-ever.

Yes, it is, but according to my family history, the Irvine family did a lot
of guard-work and other sundry tasks for the DOuglases and Stewarts.  I know
the arms were granted in reward for successfully hiding Robert the Bruce from
English raiders that took him by suprise.  I do not know when, subsequently they
became an official 'clan.'  It would be nice to find out, but by no means 
absolutely necessary for my task at hand (family history - I am trying to fill
in the gaps and details not in the documents).

>  And then, of course, there's the erroneous perception that just because you
>  have Scottish ancestry, you are part of a Clan.  Wrong:  The Lowlands Scots
>  had nothing to do with the Clan structure (until it became fashionable, of
>  course).  Besides which:  The Clans were *FAMILIES*, a distinction that has
>  been muddied in the centuries since.  I am 1/4 Danish, with the blood of
>  Danish Kings in my veins.  That does NOT mean I'm part of a Danish Royal
>  Family.  Same difference.

So what.  I never claimed to be of it.  the only 'clan' I personally know or
care about is the one in America made up of my relatives.  

I do not appreciate your condescending tone of the post towards my simple
request.  I also would ask you to refrain second-guessing my motives and
placing words in my mouth.  If you have questions about my motives, ask, don't
assume.  I do not appreciate it.
(Especially when you ASSUME I know nothing about my family history, and that
I am some sort of 'dewey eyed tourist type' with hope in heart, a vaguely 
Scottish name, and a high degree of gullibility.)

-- 
+-------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Brent L. Irvine         |These opinions are the opinions of the majority of |
| irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu | space aliens currently in residence in the USA.   |
+-------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+

In article <BxKDox.DFM@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>1.  How can I properly describe the coat of arms for the Irvine Clan?
>	In non-heraldic terms it is:
>
>		A white field, with a wide red stripe horizontally in the middle
>		with clusters of Holly (2 equally spaced apart above the red, 
>		and one centered below the red stripe).

I think you'll find that's a cadet branch.  The stem coat is "Argent, three
bunches of 3 holly leaves vert," according to the Moncreiffe-Pottinger "Clan
Map".  (I trust both Moncreiffe and Pottinger to be careful.)  I can't tell
whether the leaves have red berries or are just tied with red cord.

Because a coat of arms is unique, a cadet (younger son) makes some
difference to the ancestral coat, usually an addition -- in this case, of a
red fess.

This could be good news.  Someone selling "Family Crests" would probably
give you the stem coat; the red fess narrows it down to a particular branch,
making it more likely (in my eyes) to have an actual connection with Brent
Irvine.
-- 
Anton Sherwood                                          dasher@well.sf.ca.us
*\\*        Opinions mine, but available for lease at easy terms        *\\*
+1 415 267 0685                 1800 Market St #207, San Francisco 94102 USA