ANSTHRLD - Robert Michael McPharlan - device conflict check

[Timothy A. McDaniel]

Usually I agree with the removal of punctuation and removal of default
postures, but in this case I'll disagree mildly with Teceangl and
suggest the original
    Or, a bend sinister between two eagles, wings inverted, sable.
or
    Or, a bend sinister between two eagles displayed wings inverted sable.

Reason:  The following two look too similar (especially after a bad
photocopy, or to people unclear on the concept of apostrophe's):
    Or, a bend sinister between two eagles  wings inverted sable.
    Or, a bend sinister between two eagle's wings inverted sable.
but they're entirely different emblazons.

"Brent Ryder" <bryder at compucom.com> wrote:
> >Unfortunately, there is a conflict:
> 
> OK, time to educate the SPH

"Silly Person Herald"?  Oh.  Right.  Never mind.

> >Ulric von Ravensway - May of 1983 (via Atlantia): 'Or, a bend sinister >bet\
ween a drakkar under sail and a raven close to sinister sable'. There is >only\
one CD for change of type of secondary charges.

Borek, that's about what it looked like on my screen.  Your mailer
somehow ate line breaks.  If you can poke around in its
e/n/t/r/a/i/l/s/ options and keep that from happening, it would be a
kindness.  I'll reformat.

> >Ulric von Ravensway - May of 1983 (via Atlantia): 'Or, a bend
> >sinister between a drakkar under sail and a raven close to sinister
> >sable'. There is only one CD for change of type of secondary
> >charges.
>
> According to RFS X.2.C 'Or, a bend sinister between two eagles wings
> inverted sable' is simple armory.  Would not then the changes to the
> secondary group be enough for 'X.2' difference?

The title of X.2 is "Difference of Primary Charges", not "Difference
of Any Charges on the Field".  Since there is no difference at all in
primary charge type, X.2 doesn't help.

> the example above would not be considered simple armory because the
> secondary charges are not identical.

X.2 starts "Simple armory does not conflict with other simple armory
...".  Both pieces of armory have to be simple, so there's another
reason why X.2 doesn't apply in this case.


Mind you, that's the situation *now*.  There's discussion of X.2 going
on in the College of Arms, with several rule changes suggested.  The
"both must be simple" rule is likely to fall within the next year:
from the commentary so far, it's likely to be changed to match
X.4.j.ii (the "simple for tertiary rule") to say that only the new
armory must be simple.

Giving X.2 difference for substantial change of type of *secondaries*
in certain cases (like around a central ordinary, as here) has also
been proposed, but commentary is tending to be against it.

Daniel "The 'Those Pesky Apostrophe's' page is at
    <http://www.spinnwebe.com/tpa/>
" de Lincolia
-- 
Tim McDaniel is tmcd at jump.net; if that fail,
    tmcd at us.ibm.com is my work account.
"To join the Clueless Club, send a followup to this message quoting everything
up to and including this sig!" -- Jukka.Korpela at hut.fi (Jukka Korpela)
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.