[ANSTHRLD] fimbration question

[Teceangl]

> It still leaves unanswered whether the precedent on
> charged plain line roundels on a fieldless badge
> is overturned by the new rule on presumption.
> Since it only mentions escutcheons I can argue that
> this rule change does away with that precedent by
> removing roundels as a medium of heraldic display.
>
> Magnus,
>
> I remember when the rules changes were first published for comment and
> I do remember that the rules effect and intent was to removed other
> geometric shapes, save only the escutcheon, from creating presumption
> issues.  In effect, the honor point in the center would have to be an
> escutcheon or there would be no question of presumption.

Not just honor point.  Note that an escutcheon on a chief is mentioned in the
text.

But the intent of the ruling is *only* for purposes of pretense.  For all
other purposes, lozenges, cartouches and roundels are still considered
shapes of armorial display and if submitted as fieldless badges will
be reblazoned as "<field>, whatever" and disallowed in single tinctures.

There is still plenty of period armory on roundels, lozenges, etc. which
prove that they are shapes of armorial display.  The rules change comes
from only the escutcheon having been used for pretense.

- Teceangl
--
 When you are told something that doesn't make sense -- challenge it!
				      - Shayk Da'ud ibn Auda