[ANSTHRLD] New to SCA Name and Device Help

[tmcd at panix.com]

Top-posting -- putting cause before effect -- and quoting to the
minimum needed to establish context, are of great help.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, Mike C. Baker / Kihe Blackeagle
<kihebard at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Tricia Dyer wrote:
>>
>>   the device is simple
>>   Vert, a Bowen cross and a chief potenty argent.
...
> Consider ...
>   a.. Marcello li Donnici|9902R|d|Vert, on a cross formy quadrate
>       argent a compass star gules.
> 1 for addition of chief, 1/2 for tertiary (star on cross).  Depends
> on "formy quadrate" vs. "Bowen" (memory sez clear, I don't have the
> cross vs. cross conflict table memorized or at immediate hand)

Since the New Rules took full effect in May 1990, there are no half
CDs: either there's a CD or there isn't.

(Tangental note: the closest you can come is that, in certain cases,
you need two changes to a group of charges on charges to get a CD.
But that's not 1/2 CD: you can't get 1/2 CD in one charge group, 1/2
CD in another charge group, add them, and get a CD.  In that example,
there's no CD in the first, no CD in the second, and <grin> ... 0 + 0
= ... I was a math major, so I'll have to use a calculator
... 0. </grin>  Indeed, there's either a CD or not.)

I find that for instructing new people (and as a sanity check), it's
useful to specify which of the Rules for Submission give the CD.  (The
RfS can be found under <http://sca.org/heraldry/>.)

1 CD for addition of the chief:
    RfS X.4.b.  Addition of Charges on the Field - Adding or removing
    any group of charges placed directly on the field, including
    strewn charges, is one clear difference.

+ 1 CD for removal of the compass star:
    RfS X.4.i.  Addition of Charges on Charges - Adding or removing
    any group of charges placed entirely on other charges is one clear
    difference.

With 2 CDs, they're clear without considering Celtic cross versus
Bowen.

If I was dialed in at the moment and had a browser handy, then for
instructional purposes I should look at the cross-conflict summary
table, which I think is at
<http://heralds.artemisia.sca.org/articles/crosstable.html>.  But for
quick work, like conflict-checking in a category in the Ordinary, you
need to process as fast as possible -- find the easiest 2 CDs you can
and move on.

>   a.. Margaret Malise de Kyrkyntolaghe|9102M|d|Vert, on a Celtic
>       cross argent a marguerite blossom azure seeded Or.
> 1 for addition of chief, 1/2 for tertiary (flower on cross).
> Depends on "Celtic" vs. "Bowen" (memory sez clear, I don't have the
> cross vs. cross conflict table memorized or at immediate hand)

Same two CDs.  Clear.

>   a.. Muirgel Camshron|9506E|d|Vert, a Celtic cross and on a chief
>       dovetailed argent a harp azure.
> 1 for charged chief with differing line of division, probable 1 for
> "Celtic" vs. "Bowen".

1 CD for change of type of the chief (chief dovetailed -> chief
potenty):
    RfS X.4.e.  Type Changes - Significantly changing the type of any
    group of charges placed directly on the field, including strewn
    charges or charges overall, is one clear difference.

    ... Since the edge partition line of a charge is part of its type,
    the change from "a pale wavy" to "a pale embattled" is one clear
    difference.  Changing from "a pale wavy" to "a fess embattled" is
    also one change of type, not a change of type plus a change of
    edge partition.

+ 1 CD for removal of the harp by RfS X.4.i as aforesaid.

Clear.

> (Noting also that there are many other existing registrations with
> charged chiefs that have only a simple line of division and other
> types of cross -- certainly hope someone besides me will also review
> same!)

You don't have to check those that have a chief that's charged and
with a plain line of division:
    that's the same CD count as the last case:
    1 CD for the type (chief plain -> chief potenty)
    + 1 CD for the removal of the charge on the charge.

Danihel Lindum Colonia
-- 
"Me, I love the USA; I never miss an episode." -- Paul "Fruitbat" Sleigh
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com