[ANSTHRLD] Wisdom and comments desired

[francis.schalles at ttuhsc.edu]

Yes, the swords are in an X and yes the dragon is on all fours. 

-----Original Message-----
From: heralds-bounces+francis.schalles=ttuhsc.edu at ansteorra.org
[mailto:heralds-bounces+francis.schalles=ttuhsc.edu at ansteorra.org] On Behalf
Of tmcd at panix.com
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 2:16 PM
To: Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc.
Subject: RE: [ANSTHRLD] Wisdom and comments desired

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Tom Johnson <tdj_ent at hotmail.com> wrote:
> [someone else wrote:]
> >The existing:
> >
> >*
> >
{http://heraldry.ansteorra.org:80/cgi-bin/oanda_name.cgi?p=Gryffri%20de%20Ne
> > wmarch} Gryffri de Newmarch
> >   {http://heraldry.ansteorra.org:80/cgi-bin/glossary.cgi?p=per+fess} Per
> > fess
> > {http://heraldry.ansteorra.org:80/cgi-bin/glossary.cgi?p=embattled}
> > embattled
{http://heraldry.ansteorra.org:80/cgi-bin/glossary.cgi?p=argent}
> > argent and
{http://heraldry.ansteorra.org:80/cgi-bin/glossary.cgi?p=azure}
> > azure, a griffin segreant
> > {http://heraldry.ansteorra.org:80/cgi-bin/glossary.cgi?p=sable} sable
and a
> > {http://heraldry.ansteorra.org:80/cgi-bin/glossary.cgi?p=cross} cross
> > moline
> > {http://heraldry.ansteorra.org:80/cgi-bin/glossary.cgi?p=argent} argent.

Angle brackets replaced with {...} above so you see what I saw.
I suggest turning off HTML in outgoing e-mail.  You can also use
oanda.sca.org as your Ordinary and Armorial source.  That site not
only has the most current software, but also turns off glossary links
by default.

> >Proposed: Per fess argent and azure, a dragon statant sable and a
> >two swords in saltire argent.
> >
> >Shield divided in two (per fess) top is silver, bottom is blue. Top
> >charge is a dragon normal stance black in color.
> >
> >Bottom charge is 2 swords crossed, silver in color.

Thank you for the plain English description.  Just to confirm: the
swords are points upward and they're crossed in a X pattern, and
the dragon is standing on all four legs?

I suggest that heralds go to
<http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/regs.html> and download the Rules
for Submission, the CoA Admin Handbook, and the CoA Glossary of Terms.
The Admin Handbook is not often useful for the herald in the trenches,
but you can at least read it once to see what sorts of things are
covered.

Thank you for expressly saying that the dragon is statant.  The
College of Arms Glossary of Terms, Table 4, "Conventional
S.C.A. Default Postures", says that the default posture of the dragon
is segreant.  When you're not certain of the default orientation of
charge, if there even is one, it's always safer to blazon it.  Then
the worst that can happen is that someone up the chain deletes it for
brevity.  Leave it out by accident and someone could end up
conflict-checking the wrong design.

Other than the extra "a" that crept in somehow, I think yours is a
sufficient blazon.  When you have "Per LINE, A and B", it's assumed
that A is on one side of the line and B is on the other.

So
    Gryffri de Newmarch, Per fess embattled argent and azure, a
    griffin segreant sable and a cross moline argent.
versus
    Per fess argent and azure, a dragon statant sable and two swords
    in saltire argent.

(I need a bit of "group theory", because you can't count CDs for a
group until you know what the groups are.  Each design has co-equal
charges, all in standard arrangements and of equal visual weight.
So each device has one (1) charge group, which is the primary charge
group, containing 3 or 2 charges respectively.)

There are three ways to clear conflict:

- Rules for Submission X.1, Addition of Primary Charges - "Armory does
  not conflict with any protected armory that adds or removes the
  primary charge group."

- RfS X.2: "Simple armory does not conflict with other simple armory
  if the type of every primary charge is substantially changed."

- RfS X.4: "Two pieces of armory will not be considered to conflict if
  two clear ... differences exist between them."

If you can clear the designs by ANY ONE of those methods, they're
clear -- because each of them says "does not conflict if" its
conditions are met.

RfS X.2 says
    For purposes of this rule, simple armory is defined as armory that
    has no more than two types of charge directly on the field and has
    no overall charges.
Both arms are "simple", so X.2 can be used.

So the easy way to see that these two designs do not conflict is
   Gryffri: griffin, cross moline
   New: dragon, sword
and see that the types are all substantially different, and they're
both simple, so RfS X.2 says they're clear.

These are some examples of substantial difference from Francois's
tenure:
    NOT: a lion vs. a Continental panther
    yes: a chess rook versus a tower (a period chess rook had two
         large curled points on top)
    yes: feather versus feather fan
    NOT: couping an ordinary
    yes: cross formy (couped, splayed ends) versus bretessed (not
         couped, embattled)
    NOT: sun versus demi-sun
    NOT: cross barby (non-period) versus cross formy
    NOT: cross formy versus Maltese cross
    yes: tau cross versus regular cross
    yes: rose versus fleur-de-lys
    yes: thistle versus shamrock
    yes: thistle versus rose
    yes: conquefoil versus dandelion
    yes: lily versus daisy
    yes: goutte versus roundel
    yes: dandelion versus pompernel
    yes: dandelion plant versus bulrush
    yes: birds, in many cases

 From Elsbeth's tenture:

    yes: zebras versus stags
    yes: beacon versus scaling ladder
    yes: pear versus pinecone
    yes: triquetra versus pretzel
    yes: patriarchal cross (couped) versus a plain cross throughout
    NOT: dragon versus python

... Ah ha!

    There is a substantial difference between a dragon and a griffin
    ... [Antonio da Collaureo, 07/01, A-Atlantia]

Substantial difference is not equivalent to a type CD.  All the "NOT"
cases above got one CD for type anyway, just not X.2 difference.  The
example in the RfS: a pine tree (pointy) gets a CD from an oak tree
(rounded) but not substantial difference.

You can see that "substantial difference" is not all that high a
barrier, when (per the November 2003 LoAR Cover Letter) you get
substantial difference between a swan close ("Swan-shaped birds"), a
crane close ("Crane-shaped birds"), a chicken close ("Poultry-shaped
birds"), and a raven close ("'Regular-shaped' birds").  Or different
types of crosses.  Or different types of bushes.  Or zebras versus
stags.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I noted above that any one of the three methods can clear two designs.
So if you can prove them clear by CDs, you don't have to worry about
whether there's substantial difference, or vice versa.  So, just as an
academic exercize, I'll do the CD count too.

> >My reading, 1 CD for the different charge in the upper
>
> Griffin or Dragon / a beast is a beast

That happens not to be the case (even leaving aside the express ruling
above).  Rules for Submission X.4 has the CD-counting rules.  RfS
X.4.e:

    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.

     Changing the type of at least half of the charges in a group is
     one clear difference.  Types of charges considered to be separate
     in period, for example a lion and an heraldic tyger, will be
     considered different.  A charge not used in period armory will be
     considered different in type if its shape in normal depiction is
     significantly different.  This means a lion would not be clearly
     different from a puma.  Separate differences may be obtained from
     changing the types of charges in different charge groups. ...

Note the two criteria:

- If two period charges:
      Types of charges considered to be separate in period, for
      example a lion and an heraldic tyger, will be considered
      different.
- Else:
      A charge not used in period armory will be considered different
      in type if its shape in normal depiction is significantly
      different.  This means a lion would not be clearly

The rule even has an example of beasts granted a CD for type.
Griffins and dragons are both period charges, and they were distinct
in period, so they get a CD.

> >1 CD for different posture (Rfs. X4h),
>
> YES

I'm not completely sure.  The problem is that, yes, the griffin and
dragon are in different postures, but "Changing the posture of at
least half of the charges in a group is one clear difference.", and
the dragon is only one-third of its charge group (dragon, sword,
sword).  If you compare two swords to the cross ... swords can be
palewise and fesswise, but those terms don't really apply to a cross.
I'd have to do a precedents dive first before trying to be definite.

> > 1 CD for different charge on bottom.
>
> Are the swords in an "x" pattern or "t"?

He wrote "in saltire", so X pattern.

> If "x" then yes, if "t" then a cross is a cross.

Swords that happens to be crossed are not a cross.

And even for crosses, that happens not to be the case.  There were a
number of different types of cross known in period.  Some of them
weren't even inventions of heraldic tract authors.  So some crosses
get CDs.  Mind you, some don't: the best-known example is cross
bottony versus cross crosslet, as it turns out that in period they
were artistic variations of each other.
    Cross Conflict Table
    Compiled by Athenais Bryennissa, Golden Pillar Herald
at <http://heralds.artemisia.sca.org/articles/crosstable.html> lists
precedents on crosses.  You can even get substantial (X.2) differences
between crosses, as noted in the precedents dive above.

> > No CD for embattled fess division.

There is a CD.  The CDs for the field are under RfS X.4.a.

    a.  Field Difference - Significantly changing the tinctures,
        direction of partition lines, style of partition lines, or
        number of pieces in a partition of the field is one clear
        difference.

There's even an example of embattling in particular in the rule:

    "Per pale azure and Or" has one clear difference from "Per bend
    azure and Or" and from "Per pale embattled azure and Or."


So, in short, for
    Gryffri de Newmarch, Per fess embattled argent and azure, a
    griffin segreant sable and a cross moline argent.
versus
    Per fess argent and azure, a dragon statant sable and two swords
    in saltire argent.

Unredoubted CDs for RfS

- X.4.a: the field (per fess embattled versus per fess)

- X.4.e: "Type Changes - Significantly changing the type of any group
  of charges placed directly on the field ... is one clear
  difference."  Griffin+cross moline versus dragon+sword.

- X.4.f: "Significantly changing the number of charges in any group
  placed directly on the field ... is one clear difference."
  griffin + cross moline == 2
  dragon + two swords == 3

About orientation, X.4.h ... since we already have 3 CDs, I won't
worry any more about that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I lied.  There's one more way to clear a conflict -- letter of
permission.  Gryffri is Pennon Herald, external submissions for
Meridies, so he's easy to find.  If there had been a potential
conflict, I or someone could have asked him for permission.

Daniel de Lincolnia
-- 
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com
_______________________________________________
Heralds mailing list
Heralds at ansteorra.org
http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/heralds
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ansteorra.org/pipermail/heralds-ansteorra.org/attachments/20060323/ded2a0c1/attachment-0002.htm>