Monthly Archives: March 2026

Another Great Example of What NOT To Do!

2 Replies

It never ceases to amaze me how people use and abuse heraldry especially when they usually begin almost any discussion of the topic by saying, “Well, I really don’t know much about heraldry, BUT…”. In particular, it is those who are frequently charged with displaying, disseminating, or publishing a particular coat of arms who decide to make the biggest mistakes in the interest of “making it look better”.

Now, I should pause here and state, categorically, that once I have designed and prepared a coat of arms the armiger is absolutely free to do with it as he/she pleases. There is no rule about taking the coat of arms they commissioned me to prepare and displaying it exclusively in the manner in which I gave it to them. To be frank, there are far better heraldic artists out there than me. I have never claimed to be an accomplished artist. My stated area of expertise is in devising a good and sound heraldic design; one that is in accord with good heraldic practices and accepted heraldic customs and conventions. That’s actually harder than most people think it is. You can’t just slap a bunch of symbols randomly onto a shield and call it a coat of arms!

I first began preparing artwork merely in the form of sketches to illustrate my design ideas for clients. In fact, when I originally started designing coats of arms for others I used to collaborate with a local artist to do the finished product. It was he who encouraged me to start doing the artwork myself. To this day I frequently prepare the design of a coat of arms but it is a different person who prepares the final artwork. Indeed, I have long said that the idea of slavishly copying one original, so-called “official” version of a coat of arms is antithetical to the whole concept of heraldic art. There isn’t only one way to depict a coat of arms, least of all in the manner it was originally rendered when first put into use. In addition, there is a vast difference between the work of a heraldic designer (the herald) and the work of preparing the artwork (the heraldic artist). The very concept of one person doing it all, like the “singer/song writer” is, and should be, rare. Most of the world’s greatest experts in the science of heraldry can’t draw to save their lives and the world’s foremost heraldic artists are frequently not well-versed in the concepts of heraldic design.

So, it’s really not unusual for a client of mine to have their coat of arms rendered again by a different artist. This is especially true because, these days, everyone wants digital art and I am still “old school” and actually draw the coats of arms I prepare. But, printing has moved into a new era, and the usual medium of communicating now is the internet. Having a vector image of a coat of arms allows it to be used on different platforms, or even in varying kinds of media at different sizes without the loss of resolution. So, dinosaurs like me may soon be out of a job.

I’ve grown accustomed to the idea that a client may, upon further reflection decide that they like the artistic style of another artist better (although, they do have ample opportunity to see examples of my work before commissioning me so they can’t claim to be surprised at how my artwork turns out!). In addition, as already stated, sometimes it is the desire to have the coat of arms in a digital format that causes clients to seek out the assistance of another (digital) artist.

However, there is also the person who decides that they’ll just do a hatchet job and cobble together an achievement from various sources. This offender is the worst kind. Take, for example, a recent commission of mine for a bishop in the United States. After commissioning me and receiving the finished coat of arms he decided that there was a slight error in the spelling of one of the words in his motto and he wanted that corrected. Fair enough, however, he didn’t ask me to do the correction. Instead he must have relied on someone in the diocese to which he was going which was, no doubt, preparing all sorts of materials surrounding his upcoming installation. But the motto wasn’t the only thing that got changed.

At some point a decision was made—I don’t know by whom, but it doesn’t really matter— not to use the artwork I had prepared. Apparently someone decided they liked the artwork of the coat of arms of the previous bishop which had been done by a heraldist who is now deceased. So what they decided to do, in addition to correcting the spelling in the motto, was to use the artwork of the previous bishop’s coat of arms and “cut and paste” my artwork of the sinister impalement containing the new bishop’s coat of arms onto this new achievement!

Now, as I have said, if it was desired to use a different artist’s work that’s fine. If it was desired to prepare a digital version of the coat of arms that’s fine too. But to simply lift my artwork and impose it onto another artist’s work to create some kind of Frankenstein’s monster of a final achievement is an example of what NOT to do! It’s insulting to me and to the deceased artist who did the previous bishop’s coat of arms and to the whole concept of good heraldic practice. This is to say nothing of the ethical questions involved with using someone else’s intellectual property and/or possible violations of copyright issues. In other words; it’s absolutely the wrong and stupid thing to do!

On the left we can see the version of the coat of arms as designed and rendered by me. This is what the client received. On the right we can see what ended up being used by the client. It contains the galero, cross and dexter impalement of the arms of the See done by the deceased artist as well as my artwork of the sinister impalement of the personal arms and the motto scroll with the word “Liberabit” spelled with a “b” instead of a “v” as originally requested by the client.

First off, it’s incredibly obvious that the arms of the See and the personal arms were drawn by two different people! In addition (and I understand I am prejudiced here) the overall appearance looks like it has been combined from different sources. The scroll is hugely and disproportionately outsized in comparison to the shield. The artwork of the personal arms looks to have a bad resolution and has also been distorted to fit a shield shape for which it was not intended. Yeah…even something like the shape of the shield goes into the design decisions made by me so that the charges aren’t just “crammed in” to a space on the shield.

Now, obviously, I prefer that my artwork be contained in an achievement that has been entirely prepared by me. But I will repeat that once I have delivered a coat of arms to a client they are perfectly free to have it rendered by a different artist. However, I feel quite comfortable in saying that the solution in this instance would have been to have a different artist render the entire coat of arms in his/her own style. One of the unfortunate consequences of the coming of the internet, online communication, the manipulation of images, etc. is the commonly accepted idea that simply “copy and paste” is an acceptable practice.

Well…it ISN’T. It’s ethically questionable, it’s insulting to the person who created the original, it creates substandard results and it looks cheap and ridiculous. By all means if you don’t like one artist’s work then go out and hire a different artist to give you what you want. But, to have the temerity and the presumption to slice up the work of various artists and then combine them is a textbook example of what NOT to do!

Bishop Bonnici of Rochester, NY, USA

1 Reply

The Solemnity of St. Joseph, patron saint of the Universal Church on March 19 will see the installation of the 10th Bishop of the Diocese of Rochester, New York. On that day the Most Rev. John Bonnici (61) a priest and, since 2022, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of New York will become the successor to the great Bishop Joseph McQuaid, to Edward Mooney, later the Cardinal-Archbishop of Detroit and of the Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, soon to be Beatified on the way to sainthood who served as Bishop of Rochester from 1966-1969.

The coat of arms assumed by Bishop Bonnici in 2022 has now been marshaled to the arms of the See of Rochester.

BLAZON:  Arms impaled; in the dexter: Or, on a saltire quadrate Gules a crescent Argent (Rochester). In the sinister; Tierced in pall reversed Gules, Azure and Or; in dexter chief a Maltese Cross Argent; in sinister chief a block letter “M” Or; in base the eagle of St. John displayed Sable, armed Or, nimbused Argent and standing on an open book Argent, bound Gules. Overall at the fess point a mullet of eight points Argent. (Bonnici). Shield ensigned with an episcopal cross Or behind the shield and a bishop’s galero Vert cords and twelve tassels disposed in three rows of one, two and three all Vert. On a scroll below the shield the motto: “To Jesus Through Mary”.

EXPLANATION: The shield is described (blazoned) in terms that are archaic to modern language, and this description is presented as if given by the bearer with the shield being worn on the arm. Thus, where it applies, the terms dexter (right) and sinister (left) are reversed as the device is viewed from the front.

It is customary in heraldry that the arms of a Diocesan Bishop, or Ordinary, are joined side by side on the same shield with the arms of his See. In this case, these are the arms of the Diocese of Rochester. Such marshaling is called impalement and employs the same method used when joining the coats of arms of two people who are married. In this way, the coat of arms, like the episcopal ring, is symbolic of the bishop being “married” to his diocese.

On a gold (yellow) background we see a red saltire, a cross in the shape of an “X” the center of which also has a lozenge, or diamond shape superimposed on it. There is a silver (white) crescent placed in the center.  The diocesan shield was designed in the 1930’s by Mr. Pierre de Chaignon la Rose. The saltire was taken from the coat of arms of the Diocese of Rochester, England, of which Saint Andrew was the principal Patron. The X-shaped cross is known heraldically as a “Cross of St. Andrew” because according to tradition the saint was crucified on a cross of this shape. La Rose distinguished or “differenced” the new coat of arms from the original by replacing a scallop shell in the center with the crescent, a symbol of the Blessed Virgin Mary, patroness of the United States of America, under her title of the Immaculate Conception.

The color red alludes to the Martyrdom of Saint Andrew, the first-called of the Apostles, and of Saint John Fisher, who was the Bishop of Rochester, England, both of whom heroically held to the truth and authentically handed on the Catholic and Apostolic Faith as preachers, pastors, and intercessors before the throne of God. 

Bishop Bonnici’s personal arms were assumed at the time he became Auxiliary Bishop of New York in 2022. The arms are divided into three sections. The upper left shows a red background with the single charge of a silver (white) Maltese Cross which symbolizes the Bishop’s Maltese ethnicity. The upper right section shows a blue background on which there is a large, gold (yellow) and slightly skewed letter “M”. This is borrowed from the armorial bearings of St. John Paul II. Bishop Bonnici studied in Rome at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute and was ordained both a deacon and priest during the saintly pope’s pontificate. The “M” Honors Mary, the Mother of Priests and of the Church. The lower section has a gold (yellow) background showing the eagle which is a symbol of St. John the Evangelist, the Bishop’s baptismal patron. The black eagle is depicted with its wings spread and standing on the pages of an open book which is bound in red alluding to the Gospel written by St. John which has continuously been an inspiration to the Bishop in his life and ministry. Superimposed over all of this at the center is a silver (white) eight-pointed star. This is the “Stella Matutina” (Morning Star) which is a symbol of Mary. This charge is taken from the coat of arms of Pope Francis who had appointed the Bishop as a bishop and Auxiliary of New York.

The motto below the shield is, “To Jesus Through Mary”. The phrase emphasizes the role of the Virgin Mary in the Christian faith. It suggests that devotion to Mary can lead believers closer to Jesus Christ. This concept is rooted in the teachings of St. Louis de Montfort, who articulated that Mary serves as a bridge to Jesus, guiding the faithful in their spiritual journey. He popularized the phrase in his work “True Devotion to Mary,” where he described Mary as the most effective means of consecration to Jesus. The phrase is also personally meaningful to the Bishop because it was written in his own breviary by Mother Teresa when he was a seminarian and attended morning Mass at the Missionaries of Charity mission in Rome.

The shield is also ensigned with those external ornaments that indicate the bearer is a bishop. The gold (yellow) cross is placed vertically behind and extending above and below the shield. This is often mistakenly thought to be a processional cross like those used in liturgical processions, which is usually a crucifix bearing the corpus of Jesus. But that idea is not entirely right. In former times archbishops, and later all bishops, had an additional cross mounted on a staff carried immediately in front of them while in procession or on solemn occasions. This cross was a symbol of their rank as bishop. While such an episcopal cross is no longer used practically it has been retained heraldically. In fact, there are other clerics who make use of the ecclesiastical hat with its many tassels but the one true heraldic emblem of a bishop, and the only essential one, is the episcopal cross placed behind the shield.

Above the shield is the ecclesiastical hat, called a galero which, in heraldry, replaces the martial helmet, mantling and crest. “The hat with six pendant tassels (green, purple or black) on each side is universally considered in heraldry as the sign of prelacy. It, therefore, pertains to all who are actually prelates.” (Heim, Bruno B., Heraldry in the Catholic Church 1978, page 114) The galero is green with green cords pendant from it and twelve green tassels arranged in a pyramid shape on either side of the shield. At one time in history bishops and archbishops wore green before adopting the more Roman purple we see today. In heraldry the green hat and tassels was retained for prelates with the rank of bishop according to the Instruction of the Holy See’s Secretariat of State, “Ut Sive” of March, 1969.

It was my great pleasure to assist Bishop Bonnici with marshaling and emblazoning his coat of arms.