[ANSTHRLD] Radei Drchevich appeal

[kevinkeary at aol.com]

Of course, I read this AFTER my previous post, and I find myself convinced, mostly.

I think I'd still prefer a position of "A field vetu is ALWAYS translated to the equivalent blazon of a lozenge throughout and NEVER considered a field treatment, but I don't see that happening.  Flies in the face of mundane (and probably period) usage, for one thing.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: doug bell <magnus77840 at hotmail.com>
To: heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
Sent: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:40 pm
Subject: [ANSTHRLD] Radei Drchevich appeal


 
The main precedent an appeal has to address is this one: 
November 2002 LoAR Trimaris 
Isabel Margarita de Sotomayor y Pérez de Gerena. Device. Argent vêtu ployé quarterly sable and gules, a cat passant guardant sable. 
Conflict with William the Silent, Or, a natural panther passant guardant sable. There is only one CD for changing the tincture of the field. There is no type difference between a cat and a natural panther. 
This also conflicts with Amber Lang, Vert, on a lozenge argent, a cat sejant guardant sable. When comparing armory using a vêtu field with armory using a lozenge, the comparison must be made in two ways: as if both pieces of armory used a vêtu field, and as if both pieces of armory used a lozenge. If we consider Isabel's armory as the equivalent blazon Quarterly sable and gules, on a lozenge ployé througout argent a cat passant guardant sable, there is one CD from Amber's armory for changing the field, but no difference by RfS X.4.j for changing only the posture of the tertiary charge. There is no difference between a lozenge and a lozenge ployé, nor is there difference between a lozenge and a lozenge throughout. 
 
This states no objection to a vetu quarterly field and we have registered: 
Cedric MacShannachan 
The following device associated with this name was registered in May of 1992 (via the East): Azure, vetu checky sable and argent, two torcs interlaced in fess open to the flanks Or. 
Vincent of Winterpeak 
The following badge associated with this name was registered in December of 1982 (via the West): 
Per pale vert and sable, vêtu ployé Or, a bordure of the field. 
 
A properly drawn lozenge throughout and a vêtu are visually identical and that is the central problem. 
 
You cannot blazon your way out of a conflict. 
June 2005 LoAR Margarita de la Carrera. Name and device. Sable, a bear sejant erect within an orle within an orle of mullets argent. 
Nice name! 
Several commenters suggested that this device could be blazoned Argent, on an escutcheon sable a bear sejant erect argent and a bordure sable mullety argent and, as such, would violate RfS XI.4, which forbids the use of a charged inescutcheon. However, as has been noted many times in precedent, it is possible to blazon your way out of a style problem, and the blazon presented on the Letter of Intent is a legitimate one. In a similar situation, returning Argent, an eagle displayed within an orle within an orle of lozenges orlewise sable, Laurel wrote, "As this could equally well be blazoned (as Papworth has done with similar designs), Sable an inescutcheon argent charged with an eagle sable all within a bordure argent semy of lozenges sable, it conflicts with Fylkyn (Papworth, p. 687), Sable an escutcheon argent within a bordure of the last charged with billets of the first" [Brian the Blackhawk, 01/94, R-East]. In that case, the device was returned because you cannot blazon your way out of a conflict, but no mention was made of problems with presumption under RfS XI.4. Since no conflicts were found for this device, we feel that it is registerable using the submitted blazon. 
 
So, do these blazons produce the same emblazon? Are both blazons correct? 
"Quarterly gules and argent, on a lozenge throughout sable a mullet of four points Or." 
"Sable vêtu quarterly gules and argent, a mullet of four points Or." 
 
I will do a search of the LoARs using vêtu and lozenge throughout and see what turns up. 
That will take a while but may reveal something not in the precedents. 
 
There is also 
X.5. Visual Test. - If the tinctures, shapes, or arrangement of the charges in a submission create an overwhelming visual resemblance to a piece of protected armory, the submission may be held to conflict even if sufficient theoretical difference can be counted between them. 
A piece of armory is registered and protected, not the verbal description used to record that armory. The use of different terminology to describe two designs that are visually similar does not affect any potential for conflict that may exist. Thus, Or, a fess vert is not different from Vert, a chief and a base Or even though one could theoretically count sufficient difference between them from these blazons. 
 
Magnus 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
Messenger Café — open for fun 24/7. Hot games, cool activities served daily. Visit now. http://cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_AugHMtagline 
 



_______________________________________________
eralds mailing list
eralds at lists.ansteorra.org
ttp://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org


________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com