[ANSTHRLD] Conflict Questions

[Tim McDaniel]

On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Padraig Ruad O'Maolagain <padraig_ruad at mail.com> wrote:
> I have a client who wants:
> Per pale azure and argent, a terrier and a cat sejant erect
> respectant within a bordure counterchanged.

Instaboing for appearance of marshalling.  For example, from the July
2000 LoAR, Outlands returns:

  Daniel Archer the Bear. Device. Per pale Or and vert, a bear sable and a
  lion Or combatant within a bordure embattled counterchanged.

     The addition of a bordure does not remove the appearance of
     marshalling, as required in RfS XI.3. Because the bordure is
     counterchanged the coat is a legitimate impalement of Or, a bear
     rampant contourny sable within a bordure embattled vert and Vert,
     a lion rampant within a bordure embattled Or. The embattling does
     somewhat reduce this appearance, but, as complex bordures were
     used for cadency on quartered arms, we believe that embattling the
     bordure is insufficient to remove the appearce of marshalling for
     impaled arms as well.

> Does this clear the following:
>
> "Caitlin Innes
> The following device associated with this name was registered in
> February of 1991 (via the Middle):
> Per pale azure and argent, two cats sejant respectant counterchanged."
>
> with one beast being different, the position being sejant erect vs
> sejant, and the addition of the bordure?

You might want to look at the Rules for Submission if you want to
clarify to yourself what causes CDs.

RfS X.4.e: Type of a charge entirely on the field is one CD.
           Half the group counts.
           Ergo, terrier<->cat counts.
RfS X.4.b: Addition/removal of a charge entirely on the field is one
           CD.
           Ergo, second CD.

For those details of posture CDs, one would have to check precedents.
One of the critical precedents is
    By SCA precedent, there's no difference between rampant and sejant
    erect.  The only real change is the placement of a hind leg.
    (Killian Nc Iain VcFarland, June, 1992, pg. 4)
confirmed up to 10/01.  I would similarly expect no CD between sejant
and sejant erect (two legs move), though I can find no precedent back
to Bruce.  However, since there are two CDs without this, it's fine,
except for the fact that the original submission went down in flames
before getting this far.

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