[ANSTHRLD] Blazon emblazon Help

[tmcd at panix.com]

"Kathleen O'Brien" <kobrien at bmc.com> wrote:
> >" Ermine, a red fox couchant between two tiger lilies, slipped and
> >leaved, conjoined in annulo proper."
>
> Is the fox completely gules?  Or is it natural looking?

As I mentioned in my exegesis, tinctures follow the charge, so it's a
"red fox" (the charge type) "proper" (tincture), which means that the
red fox is not all red.  Yes, it confused me at first too -- I thought
it was an all-red fox at first.

> Because I seem to recall a precedent against having two
> natural/proper items.  Does this precedent ring a bell with anyone?

RfS VIII.4.c.

    c.  Natural Depiction - Excessively naturalistic use of otherwise
        acceptable charges may not be registered.

        Excessively natural designs include those that depict animate
        objects in unheraldic postures, use several charges in their
        natural forms when heraldic equivalents exist, or overuse
        proper.  Proper is allowed for natural flora and fauna when
        there is a widely understood default coloration for the charge
        so specified.  It is not allowed if many people would have to
        look up the correct coloration, or if the Linnaean genus and
        species (or some other elaborate description) would be
        required to get it right.  An elephant, a brown bear, or a
        tree could each be proper; a female American kestrel, a garden
        rose, or an Arctic fox in winter phase, could not.

Todya, the tiger lily alone could be a problem.  If most people don't
know what tiger lilies look like, that design wouldn't be registered
today, just because there would be no "a widely understood default
coloration".

With two "proper", you're right that there could be concern about
"overuse proper".  Good catch.  We'll make you an armory herald yet.

Daniel Lincolino
--
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com; tmcd at us.ibm.com is my work address