[ANSTHRLD] badge help

[Jennifer Smith]

On 14 Feb 2002 at 17:53, Teceangl wrote:
> Blazon in question: Per fess embattled argent and azure, a mountain issuant
> from the line of division gules.
>
>[...]
>
> >From the September 2001 LoAR:
>
>   Charles le Grey. Name and device. Argent, a tierce gules.
>
>   This device is in conflict with the Barony of the Eldern Hills,
>   Argent, a mountain of three peaks issuant from base gules. The SCA
>   currently considers a mountain to be a variant of a mount, which is
>   a peripheral ordinary, as per the following precedents:
>
>   Mountains, as variants of mounts, should be emblazoned to occupy no
>   more than the lower portion of the field. (Barony of Blackstone
>   Mountain, September, 1993, pg. 10)
>
>   [a wolf statant gules atop a mount vert] The wolf appears to be
>   neither on nor atop the mount; a blazon which more accurately
>   reproduces the emblazon is Argent, a mount vert, overall a wolf
>   statant gules. However, we do not register charges that overlap
>   peripheral ordinaries. [Bastian Wolfhart, 11/99, R-Middle]
>
>   A tierce is also a peripheral ordinary. Rule X.2 does not apply
>   between these devices, as neither device has a primary charge.
>   Therefore, there is only one CD for difference of type of charge
>   group on the field. We encourage the College to research whether,
>   under some circumstances, mountains and mounts may be considered a
>   primary charge in their own right. After all, unlike a bordure,
>   chief or base, a mount and its variants may be couped and centrally
>   placed on the field.
>
> At *this* time, a mountain cannot be a primary charge.  However, in the
> proposal neither is it a peripheral, so you cannot get more than a CD
> for changes to the field.  Hence, it probably conflicts with only the
> difference to the field for a single CD.
> Convoluted, I know.  I do not like the conclusions drawn in the precedent
> I cited, but unfortunately, neither have I the refuting documentation to
> challenge it.  (I tried, trust me.)

As I read the above return, a mount *is* considered a peripheral
ordinary (whether or not it should be is the debate).  So far I've
managed to come up with the following precedents:

	This was submitted based on an 11/93 Laurel precedent permitting
vert trimounts
	on azure fields. However, a trimount couped is sufficiently
different from a reg
	ular trimount that it is not automatically included under that
precedent. (Jaelle
	of Armida, LoAR October 1997, p. 14)

Does "sufficiently different" equal a CD?  In any case, this applies
only to trimounts versus other trimounts, not plain mounts/mountains.

	A trimount is equivalent to a base enarched to chief... (Jaelle of
	Armida, LoAR May 1997, p. 8)

...but not to a plain base? Implying (but not stating outright) that
a trimount is essentially a type of complex line base.

Therefore I *believe* that there should be two CDs by X.4.e (change
of type and change of partition line) between a trimount and a plain
tierce.  But, well, I'm still feeling kinda rocky (ha ha) on this
one.

As to whether a mount/base conflicts with a mount couped, I could
find no clear precedent, but I did find this very interesting
discussion regarding whether or not flaunches were a peripheral
ordinary:

	[Per pale argent and sable, a pair of flaunches sable] This
conflicts,
	alas, with [Per pale argent and sable].  Flaunches do not appear to
be
	primary charges, so Rule X.1 does not apply here; there is a single
CD for
	their addition.
	This was a *very* tough decision; evidence was available supporting
	either side of the question.  The main issue boiled down to whether
	flaunches can ever be primary charges.  If they can't, then the
conflict is
	valid (as discussed in the LoAR of July 92, pp.23-24).  Like the
bordure,
	our prime example of a peripheral charge that can never be primary,
the
	addition of flaunches need not disturb the placement of other
charges on
	the field (July 92, p.6).  On the other hand, unlike the bordure,
flaunches
	can legitimately extend quite a ways into the field, increasing
their
	visual dominance over a design.
	 In the end, the fact that flaunches are usually considered
ordinaries (or
	sub-ordinaries, depending on the text) proved decisive.  Ordinaries
may be
	classed either as central ordinaries (e.g., the pale, fess, cross,
etc.)
	or as peripheral ordinaries (e.g., the bordure, chief, base, etc.).
No
	matter how they intrude into the field, flaunches do not cross its
center,
	as central ordinaries would; therefore, they must be peripheral
ordinaries.
	(Another peripheral ordinary, the chief, can legitimately extend
into an
	unoccupied field quite as much as can flaunches.)
	 In the case of Eleonora Vittoria Alberti di Calabria (LoAR of Dec
92), it
	was decided that Rule X.4.j.ii applies to charged flaunches alone on
the
	field.  Since flaunches aren't in the center of the field, the only
	examples of the Rule that support the decision are those of X.4.j.ii
(d),
	the examples involving peripheral charges.  This confirms the
general
	impression among the College that flaunches are peripheral --- and
	therefore cannot be primary, and cannot invoke Rule X.1.  (Ceidyrch
ap
	Llywelyn, June, 1993, pg. 19)

...and since a mountain couped *does* sit in the middle of the
field...

-Emma de Fetherstan
--
Jennifer Smith
jds at randomgang.com