[ANSTHRLD] Lion question

[Tim McDaniel]

On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Will Manning <eirineach at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I have a client who asked me about this device for himself, Or, a
> celtic lion sable.

You didn't mention a posture for the lion.  Is it supposed to be the
default posture for lions, "rampant"?

What is a "celtic lion"?  Lions are not notable for being native to
modern Celtic lands.  (The Irish economy in the 1990s was called the
"Celtic tiger".)  The only heraldic charge I've ever heard with the
adjective "Celtic" is "Celtic cross", a cross with a ring (annulet)
centered on the crossing.  Such crosses were made in period (e.g., on
graves), but it was not known in period heraldry, but they are
SCA-registerable.

Is it perhaps knotwork?  If so, it's not registerable.  Knots, except
for a limited set of named period knots (Wake knot, Bowen knot,
Stafford knot), and recognizable conjunctions of them, are not
registerable.  From a recent ruling (two Wake knots conjoined):

    A pertinent precedent on the topic is in the LoAR of November
    1994, for the Middle Kingdom's Order of the Cavendish Knot,
    <i>[Fieldless] Four Cavendish knots conjoined in cross vert</i>:

        There was much commentary on the issue of whether the charge
        runs afoul of our long-standing ban on knotwork ...

There are similar precedents banning "twistie-beasts", interesting
Norse artistic elements.

Is it perhaps an artistic style -- extra detailing, odd mouth shape,
stuff like that?  Style of depiction does not contribute difference.
If you have a man armored cap-a-pied mounted on a horse, you can
depict it as a Norman with chain and helm and a kite shield on a
generic horse, or a man in 16th C. parade armor on a Clydesdale, or a
Egyptian mameluke on an Arabian, and they're all valid depictions of
the same blazon.  If this is the case, the attempt is
    Or, a lion sable.
Direct conflict with each of
    An Tir, Kingdom of: Checky Or and argent, a lion rampant tail
        forked and nowed sable, crowned gules, grasping in dexter forepaw
        a laurel wreath bendwise vert.
    Buchanan of that Ilk: Or, a lion rampant sable.|(Important non-SCA
        arms)
    Flanders: Or, a lion rampant sable.|(Important non-SCA arms)
    Thorin Njalsson||b|Or, a lion rampant guardant sable maintaining a
        claymore proper.
and one CD from each of
    Hapsburg: Or, a lion rampant gules crowned azure.|(Important
        non-SCA arms)
    Holland, Counts of: Or, a lion rampant gules.|(Important non-SCA
        arms)
    Percy, Earl of Northumberland: Or, a lion rampant
        azure.|(Important non-SCA arms)
Possibly more, but those are the ones I found with a simple search.

The one CD difference in each case comes from the tincture of the
lion, except An Tir where it comes from the field.  The crowns
contribute no difference: we've found that in period heraldry such
details sometimes were omitted and sometimes included for the same
person's arms.  Similarly for the maintained sword for Thorin and
maintained laurel wreath for An Tir.  Similarly for the tail details
for An Tir.

> How do you blazon a sable charge that is outlined in argent?

Well, there isn't one in this case.

Two words apply in this case:
(1) fimbriation
(2) unregisterable

"Fimbriation" is to outline a charge in another tincture.  The
fimbriation must have good contrast with whatever it is placed on, and
the charge being fimbriated usually does not.  E.g.,
    Sable, a chevron gules fimbriated argent.
The red chevron could not be placed on the black field -- "color on
color".  The white stripes outlining the chevron prevent the contrast
return.
    Or, a lion sable fimbriated argent.
would be unregisterable on three grounds.  One is discussed next.  One
is conflict.  The third would be contrast: the white fimbriation has
bad contrast with the gold field -- "metal on metal".

"Unregisterable". Rules for Submission VIII.3 is

    3.  Armorial Identifiability - Elements must be used in a design
    so as to preserve their individual identifiability.

    Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by
    significant reduction in size, marginal contrast, excessive
    counterchanging, voiding, or fimbriation, or by being obscured by
    other elements of the design.  For instance, a complex line of
    partition could be difficult to recognize between two parts of the
    field that do not have good contrast if most of the line is also
    covered by charges.  A complex divided field could obscure the
    identity of charges counterchanged.  Voiding and fimbriation may
    only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of
    the design.

Note the last sentence.  The lion is in "the center of the design",
but it is not geometric.  The most complicated shape that can be
fimbriated is a mullet (star).

In fact, a fimbriated lion in particular is implied as being
unregisterable in the rules.  In RfS VII.8 is the "grandfather
clause":

    8.  Registered Armorial Elements - Once an armorial element has
    been registered to an individual or group, the College of Arms may
    permit that particular individual or group to register that
    element again, even if it is no longer permissible under the rules
    in effect at the time the later submission is made.  This
    permission may be extended to close relatives of the submitter if
    the College of Arms deems it appropriate.

    Only the actual armorial element from the originally registered
    submission may be covered by this permission.  For example, if an
    individual had registered armory containing a fimbriated lion many
    years ago, only that fimbriated lion would be covered under this
    rule, not fimbriated wolves, eagles, or lions in other postures.
    The College of Arms might also agree to register this lion to the
    original submitter's children.  This allowance will not be granted
    for submitters other than the original owner under any other
    circumstances.