ANSTHRLD - Will this fly?

Teceangl tierna at
Sun Feb 25 04:05:09 PST 2001

> > > On a white background, a green winged hart (deer)
> > > carrying a woman chivalric fighter with a lance
> > Are the woman, the hart and the spear all green? 
> Yes
> > 
> > By "chivalric
> > fighter" may we assume she is armoured?  Does she
> > wear a helmet?
> Yes, on both counts
> > How many of the hart's hooves are on the ground:
> > one, two, three
> > or all of them?  Are the hart's wings raised up and
> > over its back
> > and rider, or in another position?
> She wants the hart to be "salient" or "springing", two
> hooves on the ground and the other two in front of it,
> with the wings spread in a "striking"-type posture. 
> The rider and lance, she wants almost parallel to the
> base.  She specifically said "lance," by which I
> believe she means a jousting-type lance.

Right.  It still must NOT be large enough to rate being sustained.
That would be an insta-boing return for slot machine.

> The only tinctures are the argent field and the vert
> charge(s).  If the hart, rider, and lance are all
> conjoined in silhouette-ish, does that count as one
> charge, or three?

Three, and NO SILHOUETTES!  Charges must be identifiable.  The more
complicated the design, the more important it is to give internal
detailing defining the hart, rider, lance, armor, wings, etc.  Without
internal detailing you might as well blazon this "Argent, a blob vert."
(You hit a nerve.  I'm getting really tired of charges with no internal
detailing, and just counseled return for a flower in outline only, as it
was totally indistinguishable from a mullet, sun, or Rohrschach blot.)

Here's a blazon, which ought to be accurate:
Argent, a woman armed cap-a-pie and maintaining a lance fesswise mounted upon
a winged hart salient vert.

The wings, as you describe them, are in default position.  "cap-a-pie"
means head-to-foot and refers to full armor including helmet.  Style of
armor is up to the artist.  Unless the lance is as long as the hart, or
as tall as the rider, you're fine with it being maintained.  Just make sure
it doesn't dominate the design.

The hart and the rider are considered co-primary charges, meaning each
holds the same visual weight.  Therefore conflict might be called against
a winged hart slient unridden, or an armed human figure without a mount.

Yeah, I thought so...  There is a conflict:
Embrys of Rhyll - April of 1981 (via the Middle): Argent, a winged deer salient
vert, attired Or.
There is one CD for adding the rider.  All deer/harts/stags are heraldically
identical, and attires are too minor a design feature to get a CD.

Your client can turn the hart and rider around, or add secondary charges.
A chief, three somethings around the main charges, a base, a bordure, or
any other added charge group would clear this design.  No complex lines are
needed.  The most elegant fix would be a plain, uncharged vert chief, in my
opinion, and that would make this design clear.

- Teceangl
        The (Fieldless) is a convention which says "no, we didn't 
	forget a field tincture here, there isn't any, so sod off".
Go to to perform mailing list tasks.

More information about the Heralds mailing list