ANSTHRLD - Conflict checks please

[tmcd at jump.net]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Lord Aidan MacAlpin / becky demonja
<wyrdling at email.msn.com> wrote:
> HI all a quick check if you would please.
>
> Fieldless a raven to sinister argent.

It would usually be written
    [Fieldless] A raven contourny argent.
"To statant" is also valid, and Laurel will register either.
Ansteorra tends towards "contourny".

"Well", says Daniel.  "It's fieldless, so there's 1 CD for the field,
so I only have to check the Ordinary for 'Bird-Whole-1-Close to
sinister'.  It'll be fast", he continues, "so I'll just drain a few
drops of gumption and probably find a clear conflict in seconds."

Erm.  Heh.  I haven't been so doomed by my own statement since I sat
in the Rice dorm cafeteria at KWHS and said, "I'll get a banana.  What
could they possibly do to a banana?".  (Answer: as Robin put it on
seeing my selection of the *best* of the bunch, "I hope they got the
information they were trying to beat out of it.".)

Unfortunately, by previous precedent it'd be returned post haste.
However, the current Laurel is showing signs of loosening up on bird
difference, so it's arguable if the submitter is willing to chance
it.

Here, after four hours of research and writing, is a first draft of
text I would suggest sending up with it.  Anyone willing to proofread
it and suggest changes?  I also suggest that the submitter get *the*
*most* *expert* heraldic artist possible, to make it look as far from
a raptor as possible, such as by doing some seriously hairy feathers
and making the body look more horizontal.  I don't know how period the
depiction of Raneke is (Carl-Alexanger von Volborth, _Heraldry:
Customs, Rules and Styles_, p. 96).  It looks like a raven that's just
had an unfortunate encounter with an electric suppository.  If the
client would accept that, I think it would maximize his chances of
clearing it; in the text below, I assume it's used.  I'm serious about
the expertise of the artist: previous returns were based on visual
grounds, so he needs all the help he can get.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Elaine d'Hibou, 7/80 (West): "Per bend vert and Or, a screech owl
counter-close proper. [Otus asio]" is not a problem.  
    http://www.ai-design.com/stargig/raptor/global/content/report/EasternScreechOwlLarge.html
shows that it's mostly grey/brown.  [Note to Lord Aidan MacAlpin: send
up at least two color printouts of that, preferably one for each
armorial submission form if it's not expensive to do that.]

Consider
    1. Rannveigr Haakonardottir, 11/79 (East): "Per chevron argent and
    azure, in base a falcon counter-close argent."

    2. Rannveigr Haakonardottir, for House Utfara, 12/83 (East):
    "Azure, a falcon counter-close argent."

As Parker puts it "Counter, (fr. contre), simply means opposite ... If
but one animal is spoken of, it means that it faces the sinister, as a
lion counter-rampant, that is in an opposite direction to that which
is usual.".  So these are simply "close contourny".
    
There is one CD for fieldlessness.  By RfS X.4.g (arrangement) there's
no CD for the forced move to base of the argent bird in #1.  The only
possible CD is for type.

As with a lot of birds, precedent for type difference varies, but
precedent generally doesn't grant a CD for type for ravens versus
raptors (falcons, hawks, eagles; long-standing precedent is that
"raptors is raptors").

* Da'ud, year 1 prec., s.v. Bird, did not give a CD for type between a
  falcon and a raven.  (LoAR 9/90, p. 13, Ansteorra, badge for Award
  of the Sable Falcons, Ansteorra ret.)

* Da'ud, year 1 prec., "[Azure, a raven and a <peripheral charge>
  argent] "Conflict with...Azure, a goshawk argent.  There is one CVD
  for the addition of the <peripheral charge>, but we could not see a
  second for the difference between a raven and a goshawk in an
  identical posture.  Regarding the statement made in the return of [a
  submission in November 1990], it would have been clearer (and more
  accurate) had I said that there is no difference between two types
  of birds of similar shape or silhouette in identical
  postures. ... (LoAR 1/91 p.23)." (Bran Gwyn ap Caw ap Maelgwn,
  Calontir ret.)

* "In the device submission <field, in fess two falcons close sable>,
  the LoI counted difference versus...Or, two ravens in fess proper,
  for type of charge on the grounds that period heralds saw them as
  different charges.  (Both devices have the birds in their default
  position, close.)  However, in the SCA, we have to take into
  account, as Lady Dolphin noted, not only 'Clear Historical
  Differences', but 'Clear VISUAL Differences'.  This issue is the
  flip-side, if you will, of the Estoile/Mullet question [also in CL
  7/16/91].  Should we allow difference for two charges which look
  alike but which period heralds considered to be different (falcons
  and ravens, both sable), while not allowing difference for two
  charges which clearly look different but which period heralds did
  not treat as different (estoiles and mullets)?  I would have a
  harder time explaining to a submitter that two birds which look
  almost exactly alike are really considered to be different
  heraldically than I would explaining to that same submitter that
  estoiles and mullets are really alike heraldically.  Thank you, no."
  (CL 7/16/91 p.2)."  (LoAR 6/91's CL)

* Da'ud, year 4 "bootleg" prec., under Complete Difference of Charge,
  DID give separate CDs for type and orientation for an owl contourny
  versus a raven.  (LoAR 10/94, p. 4, Alasdair of Glastonbury,
  Drachenwald acc.)  The SCA classes owls as raptors like eagles and
  falcons.

* Jaelle, "bootleg" prec., s.v. Bird, did not give a CD between a
  falcon close and a raven speaking.  (LoAR 10/96, p. 10, Calontir,
  badge for Order of the Falcon's Heart, Calontir ret.)

As for the visual note, the 10/91 Ansteorran Gazette (p. 2) says that
Baron Marten Br{o"}ker, Palimpsest Herald, had circulated a letter
pointing out that the term "Clear Visual Difference" "is technically
defined as 'the smallest difference acceptable in Period for cadency
purposes'; it does not necessarily mean 'the smallest change that a
viewer can dsitinguish visually'.  Many aspects of an armorial design
are visually distinctive but would not have been considered in Period
to be adequate to signify cadency."  Laurel apparently took it to
heart: Laurel used "CVD" exclusively thru 10/91, and all Laurels since
11/91 have used "CD" except when quoting pre-10/91 precedents.  Thus,
we argue that the 6/91 Cover Letter text, based on "Clear VISUAL
Difference", is based on a false and obsolete reading (rather like the
people who use "it's the Society for CREATIVE Anachronism" to justify
anything they like).

Elsbeth, the current Laurel, adjusted the philosophy of bird
difference in the Cover Letter with the 1/2000 LoAR.  She pointed out
RfS X.4.e, "Types of charges considered to be separate in period, for
example a lion and an heraldic tyger, will be considered different.  A
charge not used in period armory will be considered different in type
if its shape in normal depiction is significantly different.".  She
granted a difference between an owl close and eagles/falcons/hawks
close.  The precedent she set was

* Only eagles (with vanishingly few exceptions) were displayed in
  period.  Thus, any other bird displayed is a "weirdness".

* Any other bird displayed will be deemed a non-period charge.  It
  will thus fall under the second quoted sentence of X.4.e and be
  compared visually.  (Hence, due to visual appearance only, an owl
  displayed will conflict with an eagle displayed but an owl displayed
  is clear of a penguin displayed.)

* "Henceforth owls, being distinct charges in period, are generally
  considered significantly different from other birds", except for the
  visual check above.  Thus, under the "separate in period" sentence
  of X.4.e, "there now is a difference for type between owls close
  guardant and eagles/falcons/hawks close.".

* "In the future I will be more likely to grant difference between
  different types of birds when they are (a) different in period, (b)
  in a period posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is some
  visual difference.  This also means that in the future I will be
  stricter about requiring that a bird be drawn with its defining
  attributes (i.e., a dove should have a tuft). Without the defining
  attributes, the bird may just be blazoned as 'a bird.'"  (By
  long-standing precedent, a generic "bird" gets no CD for type
  against any other bird, even an unusual one like a swan, an ostrich,
  or a roc.)

Laurel said in the 6/91 CL that falcons and ravens were different in
period, and that the default postures for both are "close".  The Pict
Dict agrees, citing (s.v. Crow) a "corbie" in 1312, and (s.v. Falcon)
a falcon in 1295.  Legh's _The Accedens of Armory_, 1568,
distinguishes ravens (fol. 61) and eagles (fol. 60), but doesn't
mention falcons and hawks.

The Pict Dict says crows have hairy feathers.  Legh isn't as extreme
with the hairiness.  Carl-Alexanger von Volborth, _Heraldry: Customs,
Rules and Styles_, p. 96, s.n. Raneke, gives this style of corvid.

Therefore, we ask Laurel to enforce RfS X.4.e as written, and grant a
CD for type (based on period distinctiveness) for corvids versus
raptors.

============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.