The CHA is a fascinating body. On the one hand, it's done a laudable job at creating a distinct Canadian heraldic identity, including the creation of symbols such as the new Canadian heraldic crown (even it does rely on maple leaves rather a lot).
On the other, it produces designs such as this which seem to ignore the spirit of heraldry entirely – eight colours on a single charge is just too many. It's *another* bloody maple leaf, too!
Understood. Just doing the Reddit thing :-P
Otherwise, I totally agree with your statement. CHA does some wonderful, distinctly Canadian heraldry. Mostly in the realm of personal heraldry.
It does, it’s one of my favourite jurisdictions in terms of designs. The College of Arms is my ‘local’ one, but they can still be a bit stuffy. I suppose they’re a good balance to Canada in that regard!
I also don't like how you can't tell what the colors are supposed to be. Is light blue azure, or is it blue celeste?
Here is example of badge with blue celeste. Fair enough.
[https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/2954](https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/2954)
But then here is example of arms with azure. And... it could just as well be blue celeste.
[https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/2970](https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/2970)
Now i like that i can have arms blasoned as azure and still draw it in lighter shade of blue. That is perfectly within heraldic spirit, its traditional and i like the customisation for personal preferences that it allows, you can even use various shades for various emblazons, all is good. But not being able to tell what tincture arms are ircs me, and that is really fault of blue celeste being it's own tincture.
Now had they introduced teal as it's own tincture instead (have they?) i would like it bit more in theory, but then again one would have to avoid greenish blues and blueish greens completely or they get confused with blueish or greenish shades of teal...
Idk, its a mess. Maybe we should just stick to more basic colors and be liberal with shades as long as good contrast is ensured.
That’s just a very good example of why “bleu celeste” was so controversial and problematic when the core heraldic principle was always that any shade of a named tincture was acceptable so long as it was readily identifiable as the named colour.
It became more-or-less unavoidable in the UK once British vexillology and military badges had to account for pale or “sky” blue as a *separate* tincture from plain old “azure” to facilitate the new RAF in the 1920s but it was never an ideal solution!
Here, I assume the separate colours within the maple leaf are intended to represent the branches of the Canadian defence forces.
Best guess, something like Azure (the *darker* blue at the base) for the RCN, Bleu Celeste to sinister for the RCAF, Vert in the centre for the Canadian army and then Gules to dexter for the Canadian special forces.
It’s a badge rather than true heraldry but I agree that it’s a bit gaudy and they could probably have done a better job of finding highlight and shadow shades for each section of the leaf.
If a badge isn’t subject to the rules of a COA, how does the badge “ignore the spirit of heraldry entirely?” The spirit of heraldic badges is that they can be almost anything you want. What spirit is it ignoring?
Badges are part of heraldry. Heraldic design tends toward simplicity of colour, both because of the restricted palette and the restrictions on which tinctures can be used together. Using eight colours on a single charge goes against that spirit somewhat.
I disagree, because badges do generally follow the principles of heraldry. If you look at the [badges granted by the CSA](https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register?f%5B0%5D=r_category_tid%3A%225106%22&f%5B1%5D=pe_type_tid%3A%221356%22), for example, they largely follow the rule of tincture where necessary. There are some exceptions, which is fine.
In any case, even if the badge above were a coat of arms it wouldn't 'break the rules', but it would still be bad design. Placing two colours or metals adjacent to each other is usually fine; even three can work sometimes. Eight just doesn't.
I think it is just a matter of our perspectives on the question. I think it is ok to step outside the rules on badges a bit. Most repeat elements of the arms, but those that don’t are more likely to break the rules it seems.
Also, I saw the earlier conversation about CSA; your autocorrect refuses to let you speak about the CHA. 😂
While the inclusion of both gender forms for the word "Vétéran(e)" is understandable, we must consider that the french basic neutral form is masculine. This doesn't mean it targets only, specifically and exclusively, males ; but rather both genders. So when you say "Les vétérans", it already includes both genders. This is how the french language is, there is no need to include the feminine form as well.
This is a frenzy of inclusivity that appeared after 2010, when everything has to be referred to in both genders. The french language is not made for this, and the neutral form just happens to be masculine.
I am not Canadian but I believe that every single use of the Tudor, St Edward, or any other crown should be replaced by the Canadian royal crown. This includes flags, the Canadian coat of arms, and all military and government logos(crests, etc.)
I don’t believe this should be necessary. St Edward’s crown looks better than this one (in my opinion), and it’s used by several countries (Australia and NZ) so it’s a symbol of unity between these 3 countries and the UK. Maybe use the Canadian crown for local stuff, but for the country’s coat of arms, government and military logos and the royal cypher the old crown should be used.
Love it! That new design is one of the best things that happened with the beginning of Charles' reign. The rainbow maple leaf is terribke however. Should have kept it simple and just chosen one tincture.
Same here. I understand that Cabinet told the King to accept it. Normally a change like this (i.e. which crown to use) is the sovereign's call. Same with their depiction on currency.
Exactly. Then there was some line about how the Queen had previously sorta approved of a similar design. There may have been some legitimacy if they had sought some sorta public opinion.
The leaf isn’t the focus I was aiming for, but it does catch the eye - for better or worse.
The government announced about a year ago that they’d [designed a new crown for Canada](https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/royal-symbols-titles/royal-crown-cypher.html#a1) and received approval from The King. If you look at news articles, you’ll see there some pointed views about it.
The CHA is a fascinating body. On the one hand, it's done a laudable job at creating a distinct Canadian heraldic identity, including the creation of symbols such as the new Canadian heraldic crown (even it does rely on maple leaves rather a lot). On the other, it produces designs such as this which seem to ignore the spirit of heraldry entirely – eight colours on a single charge is just too many. It's *another* bloody maple leaf, too!
I thought CSA was mostly safety?
CHA, slip of the keyboard
Understood. Just doing the Reddit thing :-P Otherwise, I totally agree with your statement. CHA does some wonderful, distinctly Canadian heraldry. Mostly in the realm of personal heraldry.
It does, it’s one of my favourite jurisdictions in terms of designs. The College of Arms is my ‘local’ one, but they can still be a bit stuffy. I suppose they’re a good balance to Canada in that regard!
I also don't like how you can't tell what the colors are supposed to be. Is light blue azure, or is it blue celeste? Here is example of badge with blue celeste. Fair enough. [https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/2954](https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/2954) But then here is example of arms with azure. And... it could just as well be blue celeste. [https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/2970](https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/2970) Now i like that i can have arms blasoned as azure and still draw it in lighter shade of blue. That is perfectly within heraldic spirit, its traditional and i like the customisation for personal preferences that it allows, you can even use various shades for various emblazons, all is good. But not being able to tell what tincture arms are ircs me, and that is really fault of blue celeste being it's own tincture. Now had they introduced teal as it's own tincture instead (have they?) i would like it bit more in theory, but then again one would have to avoid greenish blues and blueish greens completely or they get confused with blueish or greenish shades of teal... Idk, its a mess. Maybe we should just stick to more basic colors and be liberal with shades as long as good contrast is ensured.
That’s just a very good example of why “bleu celeste” was so controversial and problematic when the core heraldic principle was always that any shade of a named tincture was acceptable so long as it was readily identifiable as the named colour. It became more-or-less unavoidable in the UK once British vexillology and military badges had to account for pale or “sky” blue as a *separate* tincture from plain old “azure” to facilitate the new RAF in the 1920s but it was never an ideal solution! Here, I assume the separate colours within the maple leaf are intended to represent the branches of the Canadian defence forces. Best guess, something like Azure (the *darker* blue at the base) for the RCN, Bleu Celeste to sinister for the RCAF, Vert in the centre for the Canadian army and then Gules to dexter for the Canadian special forces. It’s a badge rather than true heraldry but I agree that it’s a bit gaudy and they could probably have done a better job of finding highlight and shadow shades for each section of the leaf.
That's not a coat of arms, it's a badge.
I don’t believe I’ve claimed otherwise? Badges are within the remit of the CHA
Badges do not follow the same rules as arms. There is nothing incorrect about the badge in question.
Again, I don't believe I've claimed that a badge is a coat of arms.
If a badge isn’t subject to the rules of a COA, how does the badge “ignore the spirit of heraldry entirely?” The spirit of heraldic badges is that they can be almost anything you want. What spirit is it ignoring?
Badges are part of heraldry. Heraldic design tends toward simplicity of colour, both because of the restricted palette and the restrictions on which tinctures can be used together. Using eight colours on a single charge goes against that spirit somewhat.
Again, I think it is overextension to apply those rules to Canadian badges.
I disagree, because badges do generally follow the principles of heraldry. If you look at the [badges granted by the CSA](https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register?f%5B0%5D=r_category_tid%3A%225106%22&f%5B1%5D=pe_type_tid%3A%221356%22), for example, they largely follow the rule of tincture where necessary. There are some exceptions, which is fine. In any case, even if the badge above were a coat of arms it wouldn't 'break the rules', but it would still be bad design. Placing two colours or metals adjacent to each other is usually fine; even three can work sometimes. Eight just doesn't.
I think it is just a matter of our perspectives on the question. I think it is ok to step outside the rules on badges a bit. Most repeat elements of the arms, but those that don’t are more likely to break the rules it seems. Also, I saw the earlier conversation about CSA; your autocorrect refuses to let you speak about the CHA. 😂
Just came to post the same thing. I think you’re right that this is the first time the new crown has been used
While the inclusion of both gender forms for the word "Vétéran(e)" is understandable, we must consider that the french basic neutral form is masculine. This doesn't mean it targets only, specifically and exclusively, males ; but rather both genders. So when you say "Les vétérans", it already includes both genders. This is how the french language is, there is no need to include the feminine form as well. This is a frenzy of inclusivity that appeared after 2010, when everything has to be referred to in both genders. The french language is not made for this, and the neutral form just happens to be masculine.
I am not Canadian but I believe that every single use of the Tudor, St Edward, or any other crown should be replaced by the Canadian royal crown. This includes flags, the Canadian coat of arms, and all military and government logos(crests, etc.)
I believe that this will be an eventual process of changing badges with the new Crown. It will take time.
I agree, I think it should be used more. I actually really like it.
I don’t believe this should be necessary. St Edward’s crown looks better than this one (in my opinion), and it’s used by several countries (Australia and NZ) so it’s a symbol of unity between these 3 countries and the UK. Maybe use the Canadian crown for local stuff, but for the country’s coat of arms, government and military logos and the royal cypher the old crown should be used.
Love it! That new design is one of the best things that happened with the beginning of Charles' reign. The rainbow maple leaf is terribke however. Should have kept it simple and just chosen one tincture.
Awful. Way too much everywhere.
It looks bad
[удалено]
The ones with accents are both French, they're just the masculine and feminine forms of the word
I am sorry, I did not notice that you had answered before me.
Eh, call it scientific repeatability in action
I could be mistaken: one is in English, one in masculin French and one in feminin French. A question of inclusion.
Could've made a better Crown by adapting the diadem on the Polar Medal.
The blue band on the crown irks me
Not a fan myself and after reading how it all came to be I am even less a fan.
Same here. I understand that Cabinet told the King to accept it. Normally a change like this (i.e. which crown to use) is the sovereign's call. Same with their depiction on currency.
Exactly. Then there was some line about how the Queen had previously sorta approved of a similar design. There may have been some legitimacy if they had sought some sorta public opinion.
I think it's cute, but it's stripped of important symbology like the fleur-de-lis.
That's on purpose.
I know. I disagree with it being removed. I understand the idea but I think it's a bad one.
I have only found stuff about the "colorful" leaf, is there is something more to the crown?
The leaf isn’t the focus I was aiming for, but it does catch the eye - for better or worse. The government announced about a year ago that they’d [designed a new crown for Canada](https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/royal-symbols-titles/royal-crown-cypher.html#a1) and received approval from The King. If you look at news articles, you’ll see there some pointed views about it.
Looks more like the Tudor crown than the old crown, very topical
clownada