[ANSTHRLD] Radei Drchevich appeal

[Tim McDaniel]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Eirik <eirik at hot.rr.com> wrote:
> If you wish something similar, change the lozenge throughout to a
> simple lozenge. This would clear the conflict

I'm afraid not.  There's a precedent
     Excepting ordinaries, there is no difference for drawing a charge
     throughout, or not. (Griffith Dragonlake, August, 1992, pg. 32)
     <http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/precedents/bruce/difference-armory-type.html>
(found via a Google search for
     site:sca.org inurl:precedents throughout
)

That's why the Da'ud prec. says
     "There is no heraldic difference between vetu and a LOZENGE OR
     LOZENGE THROUGHOUT." (LoAR 2/91 p.17).
emphasis added.

I believe that one of the vetu/lozenge precedents said that, since
vetu can't have its corners charged, that charging them forced an
interpretation of "lozenge" for conflict purposes, but I'd have to
recheck to be sure, so please don't go haring off on hours of work
before checking.  There's an explicit Elsbeth prec. that that trick
*doesn't* work for v{e^}tu ploy{e'}.

Daniel de Lindo Colonia
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com