[ANSTHRLD] Armory-Fieldless Question

Jennifer Smith jds at randomgang.com
Sun Nov 10 22:01:21 PST 2002


On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 11:09:57PM -0600, Tim McDaniel wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Jennifer Smith <jds at randomgang.com> wrote:
> >    [Argent, on a pile between two catamounts combattant sable a sword
> >    inverted proper transfixing a skull argent.]  Note: this is not four
> >    layers since we do not count overall charges as adding another
> >    layer." (LoAR 8/96 p.9).
> >
> > [What's the overall charge in that blazon?? - Emma]
>
> Skull or sword.

Mumble mumble.  There's a Da'ud precedent that states:

   [Two <charges> in saltire surmounted by a column entwined by a snake]
   "Laurel does not, however, buy the argument made that this is four
   layers  field, <charges>, column, snake.  We do not believe such an
   argument to be reasonable.  A charge entwined about another is more
   like a held charge than it is an tertiary." (LoAR 2/92 p.21).

...which seems to me to be more applicable to a sword transfixing a
skull, but I haven't seen the emblazon.

> > Older, but...
> >
> >    [A gurges... overall on a sinister gore a <charge>] "This is four
> >    layers (field, gurges, gore <charge>). ..." (LoAR 2/92 p.18).
> >
> > I found several other older precedents that also seem to indicate
> > that overall charges ARE counted as a separate layer.  In which case
> > your proprosed badge does indeed run afoul of the layer limit.
>
> Huh.  On the other hand, those are older.  I could easily be wrong,
> then, or perhaps precedent has changed.

However, (and I don't know how I missed this one originally), a later
Da'ud precedent:

   [A pegasus segreant surmounted by a chevron charged with three
   cinquefoils] Though at first blush this appears to be four layers,
   which is forbidden by the rules, RfS VIII.1.c.ii. notes that
   "All charges should be placed either directly on the field or
   entirely on other charges that lie on the field."  During the
   tenure of Mistress Alisoun this was interpreted to mean that
   overall charges may be charged (especially when they are ordinaries,
   for which period precedent exists), as they are considered to lie
   "on the field". (Da'ud ibn Auda , LoAR November 1994, p. 10)

Well yes, she did rule that (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 12), but I find many of
her precedents in which she still counted an overall charge as a layer
in the limit count.

Mind you, I agree with what is *apparently* current precedent -- you can
charge an overall charge, and the overall charge doesn't count towards
the layer limit. Some consistency is nice.

-Emma

--
Jennifer Smith
jds at randomgang.com



More information about the Heralds mailing list