[ANSTHRLD] Wherein Snorri Bangs his Head Against a Wall ...

[Sara L Friedemann]

Quoth "Jay Rudin":
> RoG> You can have it; it's just not blazoned that way.  It has been
> RoG> established since at least the 1980s that "paly of three X, Y
> RoG> and Z" is reblazoned as "Per pale X and Z, a pale Y".
> 
> > Except that "Tierced in fess X Y Z" can't be reblazoned as "Per
> > fess X and Z, a fess Y" or "Y, a chief X and a base Z", because
> > those are both drawn (slightly) differently).
> 
> I admit that I'm just getting back involved with College, and am unsure of
> current practice.  If the convention I cited has changed, could you please
> give me a citation or precedent or example of arms registered as "Tierced in
> fess X Y Z" or "Y, a chief X and a base Z"?  

That's just it: There are no examples of the former, but the only
precedent I could find against it was the same one that Teceangl
found.

> I had assumed that the SCA
> College of Arms still registers such things as "Per fess X and Z, a fess Y"

Certainly it does.  But if it's not clearly drawn as "Per fess X and
Z, a fess Y" and it's not clearly drawn "Y, a chief X and a base Z",
you can't get around the problem by reblazoning it "Tierced in
fess X Y Z."

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.

-Aryanhwy




 
-- 
vita sine literis mors est
http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/