[ANSTHRLD] Wherein Snorri Bangs his Head Against a Wall ...
tmcd at panix.com
tmcd at panix.com
Tue Feb 3 15:28:58 PST 2004
4/98 LoAR:
Brynhildr uppsaling Grimkelsdottir. Device. Argent, two drakkars
sable between two scarpes azure.
This is clear of Vladimir of Wroclaw, *Argent, three eagles in
bend sinister between two scarpes azure.* The arrangement of
charges in bend between bendlets is period, as in the arms of
Hacket, *Argent, three fleurs-de-lis in bend between two cotises
gules.* (Papworth p. 854).
There are three possible interpretations: that the interior
charges are primaries and the bendlets secondaries, that the
bendlets are primaries and the interior charges are secondaries,
or that this is a charged bend and the "interior" charges
are actually tertiaries. The last is the only interpretation
which results in conflict, and it is the least likely of the
three. Mundane heraldry texts consistently blazon this
arrangement as [interior charges] between two bendlets or
cotises. It is clear that all the charges are considered as
being on the field. Whichever charges are primary or secondary,
this results in this submission being clear.
There is a well-established rule that one cannot blazon one"s
way out of a conflict. As a general rule this is true, but it
should not be taken to overrule period interpretation. For
example, "Argent, a fess sable" could also be blazoned as
"Sable, a chief and a base argent". We would not infer
therefore that "Argent, on a fess sable three eagles argent"
conflicts with "Sable, in fess three eagles argent" with only
one CD for the removal of the peripheral charges. Not all
possible blazons are equally plausible, and implausible blazons
don't necessarily result in a conflict.
Sara L Friedemann <liana at ellipsis.cx> wrote:
> RfS VII.7.a says that "Elements must be recognizable solely from
> their appearance." Something drawn as "Tierced in fess X Y Z" in my
> mind blurs the line between "Per fess X and Z, a fess Y" and "Y, a
> chief X and a base Z", and thus cannot be accurately reblazoned as
> either.
First, "Y, a chief X and a base Z" is implausible unless there's some
other reason to drive one towards that interpretation (e.g., Erica
Poitevin, 2/00: you can blazon your way out of a style problem).
> "Tierced in fess X Y Z" in my mind blurs the line between "Per fess
> X and Z, a fess Y"
Second, "blurs the line" is a problem for horses versus unicornate horses
versus unicorns ONLY because we grant a CD between the two end points.
If we grant no CD, as in "Tierced in fess X Y Z" versus "Per fess X
and Z, a fess Y", there's no line-blurring problems.
They are simply alternate blazons to consider (as with certain pairs
in the chausse / chape / pile / per chevron family). I suspect that
"Tierced in fess X Y Z" would get treated as an implausible blazon too
(only registered once since 1990, for example) and "Per fess X and Z,
a fess Y" would be the only blazon considered.
Daniel de Lincolia
--
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com; tmcd at us.ibm.com is my work address
More information about the Heralds
mailing list