[ANSTHRLD] Looking for help on badge conflict

Britt tierna.britt at gmail.com
Sat Jun 9 03:58:02 PDT 2007


> Alright, I am game.  Lets have a discussion. ;-)  I will grant that roses and cinquefoils do not get a CD, BUT they are not the same charge.  Bear with me, this becomes relevant soon.

But they are!  :)  Discussion entered.

> >From The Tenure of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane (September 1986 - June 1990)
>
> Cinquefoil
>
> While we appreciate the comments of [commenters] on the interchangeability of the cinquefoil and the heraldic rose in the early period..., it is a fact that the Society has for lang and lang distinguished between them, as a glance at the Armorial or even the Pictorial Dictionary ... will reveal. (Now fraises and cinquefoils, on the other hand.) (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 10)
>
> Now I have not been able to find any other precedent since then that changes this.

Alisoun was wrong.  The Society also allowed you to void a lion and
fimbriate a dragon and use flame as fimbriation and for awile
considered all furs neutral regardless of their background tincture
and don't even get me started on the 'chased' charges...

Roses and cinquefoils were interchanged in early period armory.  I've
seen examples of the same coat with roses in one depiction,
cinquefoils in the other.  That's the very reason roses an cinquefoils
get no difference in the SCA, because in period, at least early on,
they weren't considered different by heralds.  Praise Baldwin, Da'ud,
Bruce and others for bringing us more in line with period practice
when tenable.

Did you see this one:

[fraises vs. roses] As a fraise is essentially a cinquefoil, by
precedent there is also not a CD for type of primary charge. [Colin
Tyndall de ffrayser, 09/00, R-Artemisia]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Now back to X.4.j.ii that you mentioned.  "to benefit from this clause. A charge is suitable for the purposes of this rule if (a) it is simple enough in outline to be voided, and (b) it is correctly drawn with an interior substantial enough to display easily recognizable charges."  Now i am wondering if the cinquefoil fits this criteria or not
>
> 1.  Is it simple enough to void?
>
> i could not find a precedent on this.  I believe that mullets are considered simple enough to void, so i would argue that if they are then so is a cinquefoil.
>
> 2.  Is the interior substantial enough to display easilly recognizabele charges.
>
> Two points here really.  Is the  shakefok an easilly recognizable charge?  i say yes.  Is the cinquefoil interior substantial enough to display it? This is where I am unsure.  I have not been able to find any precedents to go either way.
>
> If it is substantial enough to void then I would say the badge gets the X.4.j.ii difference.

Here's a precedent that'll be relevant here:

   "A shamrock is too complex a charge to fimbriate." (LoAR 11/91 p.16).

A shamrock is a slipped trefoil.  A trefoil, therefore, is too complex
to fimbriate.  If a trefoil is, a cinquefoil certainly is.  A compass
star is too complex to fimbriate and it's just straight lines.
Another too complex to fimbriate charge is an estoile.

I don't know if you've seen where the initial discussion of what's
simple enough to void and fimbriate was illustrated, Aha, here it is:
file:///Users/tierna/Desktop/Heraldry/Precedents/bruce.html#fimbriation

I did that with a cinquefoil.  It doesn't meet the requirements.  Image at
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Alienplayer/Heraldry/cinq.jpg

I'm not trying to destroy someone's chances at having the armory they
want, please realize.  I'm simply stating why it cannot be registered
and giving the client the chance to get something in process that can
instead of waiting for a formal return.

0 Teceangl



More information about the Heralds mailing list