[ANSTHRLD] Blazon emblazon Help
tmcd at panix.com
tmcd at panix.com
Thu Apr 17 09:52:15 PDT 2003
"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
More information about the Heralds
mailing list