[ANSTHRLD] Offensive Armoury

[Teceangl]

> The blazon reads as follows "a border argent, sanguine, an eagle displayed
> argent beaked and membered or, holding in each claw an infant natural ripped
> assunder"
>
> The emblazon is a red field with a white eagle (displayed) yellow beak and
> feet, an infant (caucasion) severed in two (half in each claw) a border
> white.

Gules, an eagle maintaining in each claw one half of a human infant sundered,
a bordure argent.

I gather all charges are argent, then?  We don't bother to blazon beaks and
feet tinctures, that's up to the whimsy of the device owner.

> Is it offensive ?

I think the vulgarity call is a good one, however in my experiences as both
a kingdom submissions herald and a CoA commenter I've come to believe that
calls like that ought to be made at Laurel where the returns can come down
the pipe with some real solid rules, regs, precedents, and period examples
to back them up.  Visconti, among other period examples, have disturbing
images in their armory, so a case can be made for an appeal against a
ruling in kingdom.  Once the CoA is through with it, though, it'll be
researched up one side and down the other.

That aside, there's conflict.  Two, actually.

Poland - December of 1994 (via Laurel): Gules, an eagle displayed argent
crowned Or.
Nothing for the crown (it's maintained), nothing for tincture of beak &
feet), so there's only one CD for the addition of the bordure.

Miles Blackmoor - July of 2001 (via Calontir): Checky azure and Or, an eagle
displayed within a bordure argent.
Nothing for the crown (it's maintained), nothing for tincture of beak &
feet), so there's only one CD for the tincture change of the field.

- Teceangl
--
  Sable, seven mascles conjoined three, three and one argent.