[ANSTHRLD] Badge Suggestions?

[Teceangl]

> >(Fieldless) A delf per pale gules and sable?
>
> I see no conflicts but will have to check precedents
> for fieldless items and presumption.  At one time this
> was considered a display of the independent arms,
> "Per pale gules and sable".  It will take some looking
> to find the precedent.

Allow me.

   [(Fieldless) A lozenge Or.] We do not register fieldless badges which
   appear to be independent forms of armorial display. Charges such as
   lozenges, billets, and roundels are all both standard heraldic charges
   and "shield shapes" for armorial display. The SCA has never protected
   armory consisting of plain tinctures, except for two examples that are
   particularly famous: the (important non-SCA) arms of Brittany, Ermine,
   and the (important non-SCA) flag of Libya, Vert. If we do not protect,
   and have never protected, the arms Or, we should not be concerned about
   the possible appearance of a display of Or by using a single lozenge Or
   as a fieldless badge. This is parallel to our practices concerning
   inescutcheons of pretense. To quote RfS XI.4, Arms of Pretense and
   Augmentations of Honor, "Similarly, an augmentation of honor often, though
   not necessarily, takes the form of an independent coat placed on an
   escutcheon or canton. Generally, therefore, a canton or a single escutcheon
   may only be used if it is both uncharged and of a single tincture." This
   rule demonstrates that an uncharged escutcheon shape in a single plain
   tincture does not appear to be a display of an independent coat of arms.

   Therefore, a "shield shape" which is also a standard heraldic charge will
   be acceptable as as a fieldless badge in a plain tincture, as long as the
   tincture is not one of the plain tinctures that is protected armory in the
   SCA. This explicitly overturns the precedent "We do not normally register
   fieldless badges consisting only of forms of armorial display, such as
   roundels, lozenges and delfs in plain tinctures, since in use the shape
   does not appear to be a charge, but rather the field itself" (LoAR January
   1998).

   Note that this does not change our long-standing policy about such "shield
   shape" charges used in fieldless badges if the tincture is not plain (thus,
   divided or with a field treatment), or if the charge is itself charged. Such
   armory will continue to be returned for the appearance of an independent
   form of armorial display. [Solveig Thronardottir, 04/02, A-Aethelmearc]

So either gules or sable is fine, but not divided.

- Teceangl
--
     The sun, moon, and stars are for the birds -- a big naught.
                   Flora rose cross and ate flour.