[ANSTHRLD] Zelda and a Badge.

[Tim McDaniel]

I'll address the proposals as given, but then I want to step back and
ask "why are you thinking about this?".


On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, D. Vandever <hlannes at ev1.net> wrote:
> Fieldless, In Chief, an dexter hand, sable, maintaining a Besant, In
> Base, a sinister hand, gules, maintaining a wooden bowl, proper.

The only words that are Capitalized in an SCA blazon are
- "(Fieldless)" or "(Tinctureless)".
  They're usually paren'd like that because they're not part of a
  blazon.  They're just an indication that you intentionally left off
  a field -- the equivalent of "This page intentionally left blank".
  (No, you can't have tinctureless.  For the last 15 years or so, it's
  been reserved for seals of the kingdom principal heralds.)
- The first word of the blazon proper
- The tincture "Or"
- Proper names, as in "a Bowen knot".
The current Wreath Queen of Arms really wants to use commas only after
the field tincture.  Others use more, but there's still too many
above -- you don't set off tinctures with commas.

"An" has to be followed by a vowel or vowel sound (or consonant "h" in
certain dialects of English).  "An dexter" is misspledd.

The default hand is a dexter hand.  "Maintaining" is used in SCA
blazon for a charge that is small in relation to the thing holding
it.  I could see that for a coin, but not the bowl.  "Sustaining" is
for objects that are of comparable visual weight.  (The SCA makes the
distinction so that we can count differences for sustained charges but
not maintained charges.)

Normally we try to avoid "in chief ... in base" by use of such phrases
as "in pale".  However, with the complicated things above and below, I
don't see a way to avoid it.

> I believe that besants/coins are default OR and so I didn't add the
> tincture to the above.

A "bezant" (note spelling) was in origin not just any coin, but a gold
coin.  Indeed, "bezant" is short for "roundel Or" and so it includes
its tincture.

So, in toto:
    (Fieldless) In chief a hand sable maintaining a bezant and in base
    a sinister hand gules sustaining a wooden bowl proper.

If submitted, it would be immediately returned.  Rules for Submission
VIII.5:

    5.  Fieldless Style - Fieldless armory must form a self-contained
        design.

        A fieldless design must have all its elements conjoined, like
        the three feathers issuing from a crown used by the Heir
        Apparent to the throne of England.

"Conjoined" means touching.  In this design, the things in chief
aren't touching the things in base.  Boing!

Also, there's a rule-of-thumb of complexity: the number of types of
charge plus the number of different tinctures should not exceed eight.
This design is at seven, or perhaps eight.  (It depends on whether a
hand is a different type than a sinister hand.  Since crescents/
increscents/decrescents/crescents pendant don't count as different
types for slot-machine purposes, I suppose hands don't either, so the
count is seven.)  A high count tends to be associated with non-period
style, and thus it often ought to be reconsidered even if it's
technically legal.

> 2. Fieldless, A maiden maintaining a dexter wooden staff proper and
> a sinister wooden bowl proper.

"Dexter" means "right" and "sinister" means "left".  "A dexter hand"
and "a sinister hand" mean "a right hand" and "a left hand",
respectively, and that makes sense.  "A right staff" and "a left bowl"
do not.  I assume you mean "in her dexter hand" and "in her sinister
hand".  If we just say "maintaining this and that", I would assume
that her dexter hand is named first and her sinister hand second.

Since you did not give a tincture after the maiden, the tincture
applied is the next tincture specified, "proper".  "Human flesh
proper" is deemed in the SCA to be a light color.  You don't have to
specify her clothes or hair, but you can.

> A maiden is normally or default facing to the front...am I correct?

Recent registrations listed under "HUMAN FIGURE" don't bother with a
posture, so I think so.

> I would really like to use a Hag instead of a Maiden but I don't
> know if Hags were used in period for devices and badges.  If the
> Maiden is better, would it be artistic license to show her as a Hag?

Looking at my little dic, "hag" has as its first definitions "female
demon" and "hobgoblin".  This would not produce the intended
depiction, I think.  I would suggest "woman" and leave it at that.

    (Fieldless) A woman maintaining a wooden staff and a wooden bowl
    proper.

With two types of proper (Caucasian and wood), it might fall afoul of
Pictorial Design or Natural Depiction, though I would tend to doubt
it.  I don't see any clear rules violations here.


But we should step back a minute.  Why do you suggest a badge?  What
attribute or use of a badge did you have in mind?  In period, badges
eo nomine were used to mark important property or retainers.  By
definition, a beggar has almost no chance of having either.  In the
SCA, "badge" means any ensigns armorial that aren't a primary device:
badges proper but also household banners, alternate arms, seals, and
such.  It's true that in Normandy even peasants are recorded as having
seals and arms, but what legal documents will a beggar need to affix a
seal to, and how will she display alternate arms?  If you're looking
at a beggar persona, I don't see how it could be justified.

Daniel de Lincolia
--
Tim McDaniel (home); Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com; work is tmcd at us.ibm.com.