[ANSTHRLD] ... "Gyronny sable and Or, a wolf rampant holding a key azure" Question... terms

Wed Apr 18 14:34:55 PDT 2007

The best heralds in the SCA always have the RfS at hand while conflict checking

  For those of newbies... the RfS is???

  YIS,

Viviana

Britt <tierna.britt at gmail.com> wrote:
  > I went home yesterday, feeling really good about this, only to find an email
> waiting for me. It would appear that the submittor has decided on the key in
> red (which is good) and the wolf rampant in argent (which meant conflict
> checking the whole dratted thing again)

Red key good, very good (see Daniel's occasional comment on red having
the best contrast with other colors, the fact that if three tinctures
were used one was almost invariably red, etc.). White wolf bad, and
you know why. This is going to be a pain to clear.

> I believe that the blazon would read "Gyronny of sable and Or, a wolf
> rampant argent maintaining a key gules"

No 'of'.

> Specifically, this would be RFS.X.4.ii.b *"If the fields of two pieces of
> field-primary armory have no tinctures in common, they are considered
> completely different and do not conflict, irrespective of any other
> similarities between them." *I also found RFS X.4.ii.a, which says: "*If two
> pieces of field-primary armory have substantially different partitions, they
> are considered sufficiently different and do not conflict, irrespective of
> any other similarities between them." *
>
> These seem to me to say that if there is absolutely no common color in the
> field, or if the divisions of the fields do not match at all, then there is
> no conflict, even if there are wolves of the same tincture and position in
> the devices' blazons.
>
> Have I correctly interpreted this?

Nope. You went deep into the rule and missed the first line:

X.4.aii. Field-Primary Armory - If neither of two pieces of armory
being compared has charges, or if each has the same uncharged
peripheral ordinary, they may derive greater difference from changes
to the field. Such armory will be called field-primary armory.

Armory with charges other than uncharged peripheral ordinaries does
not qualify as being field-primary, so you cannot apply this rule.

> Wolfangus MhicMarighdhin
> Azure, a wolf sejant erect affronty, forepaws spread in fess, argent,
> maintaining a basket-hilted broadsword and a targe Or.
> 1 CD for the background,
X.4.a.i. - one CD for changing one or more of tinctures,
direction of partition lines, style of partition lines, or number of
pieces in a partition.

> 1 CD for the position of the wolf?
No, the position is the same - in the middle of the field. :)
X.4.h. Posture Changes - Significantly changing the posture
or individual orientation of charges in any group placed directly on
the field, including strewn charges or charges overall, is one clear
difference.
The CD is for posture.
It's clear.

> Johnathan Crusadene Whitewolf
> Gules, ermined argent, a wolf rampant argent.
> 1 CD for the background
X.4.a.i. for changing the field (not background, field). :)

> Would RFS.X.4.ii.a &/or RFS.X.4.ii.b make this clear automatically because
> of the backgroud?
> *not sure*

See above. This one is totally a conflict.
You've noticed I cite date and kingdom of registration? That helps
with things lie figuring out if permission to conflict is even
possible. Where that information usually goes in a registration, this
one says, "The following device associated with this name was
registered at some point:"
Oog. That means either before 1975 or the records disappeared, but
almost surely the former. Which means getting permission to conflict
is unlikely.

> Aidan of Stelton Wald
> Per saltire sable and gules, a wolf rampant argent charged on the shoulder
> with a Celtic cross sable.
> 1 CD for the background,
X.4.a.i. Field. Field, field, field. :)

> 1 CD for the charge on the wolf?

Why not?
X.4.i. Addition of Charges on Charges - Adding or removing any group
of charges placed entirely on other charges is one clear difference.

You are running your conflict checks with the RfS in another window or
paper copy at hand, right? The best heralds in the SCA always have the
RfS at hand while conflict checking. Emulating them, I do as well,
though I've been known to recite one from the back seat of a carpool
going to a commentary meeting (don't do this often, you might end up
stranded at a rest stop).

> Lothar der Grauwolf
> Quarterly gules and pean, a wolf sejant erect reguardant argent, maintaining
> in the dexter paw a torch and in the sinister a sword Or.
> 1 CD for field,
See? I knew you knew. I'm nagging because the more accurate
you describe stuff the easier it is to get your point across. It's
also easier to explain stuff like why the semy are charges to
non-heralds if you do the 'heraldry hand-jive' explaining "Bottom
layer is field, this layer is charges on the field, the semy is on the
field". It keeps people from thinking of 'giftwrap backgrounds', I've
discovered.

> 1 CD for wolf's position?
Posture. This one I repeat because posture and position are
different and CDs can be gained for each.

> *seems clear*
Yup.

> Robert Strongbow
> Vert, a wolf rampant argent, grasping in its erect sinister forepaw a bow
> gules, held fesswise, and in its dexter forepaw a sheaf of three clothyard
> shafts Or, armed and flighted argent.

And the other reason for citing the date is figuring out whether or
not the more codified blazon conventions were used, or the looser,
often ambiguous, earlier ones. Robert's note: "Either the name or the
following device associated it (or both) were registered in June of
1973:" Oog. All lauds to those who started the CoA but they barely
blazoned back then.
There's no telling if the bow and arrows are4 maintained and sustained
unless conflict has been called since against this armory and it was
mentioned in Laurel precedents and codified. Usually (but absolutely
not for certain) 'grasping' meant 'maintaining'. You can never count
on that, however.
I'll check precedents.
Nope, it's never come up.

> 1 CD for field, 1 CD for the bow and arrows?
No idea on the held charges. Probably a conflict - would
have to go to Laurel to be certain.

There are other conflicts, as well:

Lothar der Grauwolf - August of 1988 (via Ansteorra): Quarterly gules
and pean, a wolf sejant erect reguardant argent, maintaining in the
dexter paw a torch and in the sinister a sword Or.

There's the CD for changing the field but the postures are not
heraldically different:

This distinction between rampant and sejant erect is an issue of
correctly re-creating the
emblazon, not of difference. No evidence has yet been presented
that the rampant and
sejant erect postures would have been considered distinct in
period: in fact, it does not
appear that the sejant erect posture was described in period
blazon (as discussed further
in the 1994 article cited above). Thus, period practice appears
to agree with the visually-
based precedent in the LoAR of June 1992 (symposium), which
stated: "By SCA precedent,
there's no difference between rampant and sejant erect. The only
real change is the
placement of a hind leg." [Caoilfhionn inghean Amhlaoibh, 08/03, A-Caid]

Dorcas Dorcadas - September of 1973: Sable, a three-headed hound
rampant, one head reguardant, argent, langued gules.

One CD for the field, nothing for the heads.

[a raven displayed vs. a double-headed eagle displayed] There is
no type difference given
between a raven displayed and a double-headed eagle displayed:
"[a raven displayed vs.
an eagle displayed] Even though ravens and eagles were different
birds in period, only
eagles were ever displayed. Therefore there is not a CD for type"
(LoAR November 1999;
see also the extensive discussion in the Cover Letter for the
January 2000 LoAR). There is
also no difference for the number of heads: "...(not too
dissimilarly to not granting a CVD for
the difference between an eagle and a double-headed eagle)" (LoAR
October 1990 p.14).
[Njall Randvesson, 04/03, R-East]

And yes, all these armories conflict with each other. The Rules
changed circa 1990 to better reflect period practice and to make
conflict something you didn't need a law degree to understand (my
opinion - I started heraldry under the old rules) and so you'll find
plenty of pre-1990 registrations which currently would be called in
conflict.

I checked for the usual peripheral ordinaries, though on a field
gyronny you honestly don't want anything too complicated. All the
argent stuff is taken and you can't have an Or charge on a partially
Or field. The good news? A plain, uncharged bordure azure will clear
this armory.

- Teceangl
_______________________________________________
Heralds mailing list
Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org

  YIS,

  Viviana Rowntree
  Oakenwald Pursuivant

  "To dream anything that you want to dream, that is the beauty of the human mind. To do anything that you want to do, that is the strength of the human will. To trust yourself, to test your limits, that is the courage to succeed." Bernard Edmonds

---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.