[ANSTHRLD] Conflict Question

[tmcd at panix.com]

"Scott Ozment" <roguegrog at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Gules, a three-tailed wolf rampant contourney argent within a bordure
> argent.
>
> Thomas Wakefield
> The following device associated with this name was registered in
> August of 1984 (via Atlantia):
> Azure, a winged wolf rampant to sinister, wings addorsed, argent,
> the head environed of a nimbus Or, within a bordure argent.
>
> It would get one CD for the field.

Yup.  None for three tails versus one.  "contourny" (note spelling) ==
"to sinister".  Both rampant.  Both wolves.  Both aregent.  Both
within a bordure argent.

> Would the omission of the nimbus be a CD?

I really doubt it, but you can check precedents.  (search, search) But
I find no compiled precedent.  What I did find was from 6/00 with an
unambiguous "no" in this very case:

    Brighid Wolfshead. Device. Azure, a winged wolf segreant within a
    bordure argent.

          Conflict with Thomas Wakefield, Azure, a winged wolf rampant
          to sinister, wings addorsed, argent, the head environed of a
          nimbus Or, within a bordure argent. There is not a CD for
          the removal of the nimbus, thus there is only a single CD
          for the orientation of the primary charge.

> I'm not sure on the size of the wings.

They're large enough for the second CD you need.  If it were a really
old blazon (1973, say), there'd be a chance that it would come out of
left field and bite you on the butt with little cherub wings.  (Gad,
that was an abominable mixed metaphor.)  But by 1984, I would expect a
winged wolf to have sizable wings.

Further, see the ruling above.  Brighid's wings had to have been large
enough or there would have been some Laurel comment.  So Laurel gave
no CD for modern large wings versus whatever Thomas's wings were, so
there is a CD for ripping them off.

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