[ANSTHRLD] Quick check if I may
ravenrux at cox.net
ravenrux at cox.net
Thu Aug 21 07:21:26 PDT 2008
I wouldn't think you could do that with just a plate. Look at the other examples, they all have complex edges.
I don't see how '(fieldless) a plate' as a badge differs from 'argent.' This seems suspiciously like blazoning out of a conflict to me.
Perhaps there's some other rule or precedence I'm missing.
---- Crandall <crandalltwo-scalists at yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks Daniel, I knew I had remembered something
of this, but was foggy, as usual.
--- tmcd at panix.com wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, kevinkeary at aol.com
> <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org> wrote:
> > I'd be surprised if "fieldless, a plate"
> wasn't clear.
> Nit: the standard wording in LoARs would be
> "(Fieldless) A plate".
> > One CD for fieldless, one for "You can't just
> register a plate all
> > by itself." But I haven't checked.
> I find the Solveig precedent in April 2002,
> upheld in May 2007.
> Solveig Throndardottir. Badge. (Fieldless) A
> lozenge Or.
> The lozenge was originally blazoned as
> fesswise, but, as noted in
> the February 2002 LoAR, "Because lozenges
> could be drawn with
> various proportions in period, including a
> square set on its
> corner (which can be neither fesswise nor
> palewise), it does not
> make sense to distinguish different
> proportions of lozenge in
> We do not register fieldless badges which
> appear to be independent
> forms of armorial display. Charges such as
> lozenges, billets, and
> roundels are all both standard heraldic
> charges and "shield
> shapes" for armorial display. The SCA has
> never protected armory
> consisting of plain tinctures, except for
> two examples that are
> particularly famous: the (important
> non-SCA) arms of Brittany,
> Ermine, and the (important non-SCA) flag of
> Libya, Vert. If we do
> not protect, and have never protected, the
> arms Or, we should not
> be concerned about the possible appearance
> of a display of Or by
> using a single lozenge Or as a fieldless
> badge. This is parallel
> to our practices concerning inescutcheons
> of pretense. To quote
> RfS XI.4, Arms of Pretense and
> Augmentations of Honor, "Similarly,
> an augmentation of honor often, though not
> necessarily, takes the
> form of an independent coat placed on an
> escutcheon or
> canton. Generally, therefore, a canton or a
> single escutcheon may
> only be used if it is both uncharged and of
> a single tincture."
> This rule demonstrates that an uncharged
> escutcheon shape in a
> single plain tincture does not appear to be
> a display of an
> independent coat of arms.
> Therefore, a "shield shape" which is also a
> standard heraldic
> charge will be acceptable as as a fieldless
> badge in a plain
> tincture, as long as the tincture is not
> one of the plain
> tinctures that is protected armory in the
> SCA. This explicitly
> overturns the precedent "We do not normally
> register fieldless
> badges consisting only of forms of armorial
> display, such as
> roundels, lozenges and delfs in plain
> tinctures, since in use the
> shape does not appear to be a charge, but
> rather the field itself"
> (LoAR January 1998).
> Note that this does not change our
> long-standing policy about such
> "shield shape" charges used in fieldless
> badges if the tincture is
> not plain (thus, divided or with a field
> treatment), or if the
> charge is itself charged. Such armory will
> continue to be returned
> for the appearance of an independent form
> of armorial display.
> Her badge, (Fieldless) On a sun azure a
> hammer argent, is
> But conflict with
> Erryk Blackwolf|7306|B|Per bend sinister
> sable and gules, a plate.
> The May 2007 confirmation has
> Isabeau de Valle. Badge. (Fieldless) On a
> plate fimbriated gules a
> hare courant sable.
> As noted on the LoI:
> The SCA considers simple-edged
> roundels to be a medium
> for heraldic display, and does not
> register badges
> that start "(Fieldless) On a
> roundel..." ...
> This is sufficient grounds for return.
> The "simple-edged" part is not in the original
> ruling but at least was
> not contradicted in May 2007, though that's a
> weak argument.
> "(Fieldless) A plate nebuly", maybe?!
> Dannet "tasteless^W tacky^W disreputable spooge
> joke omitted" Lincoln
> Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com
> Heralds mailing list
> Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
Heralds mailing list
Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
More information about the Heralds