[ANSTHRLD] Quick check if I may

[Tim McDaniel]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Jay Rudin <rudin at ev1.net> wrote:
> Masamune wrote:
>> 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.

To repeat: the SCA standard style would be
     (Fieldless) A plate.

>> Perhaps there's some other rule or precedence I'm missing.
>
> First of all, since we don't protect "argent", there's no conflict
> to blazon your way out of.

I quoted the precedent from the Solveig badge in the April 2002 LoAR.
That ruling can be found at
<http://heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/loar/2002/04/02-04lar.html#30>.
The operative statements are

     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.

So to summarize it as I see it: it's true that "Argent." isn't
protected, but that's not the basic reason.  It's that
"(Fieldless) A roundel argent" is deemed not to be a display of
"Argent.".

Back to
> First of all, since we don't protect "argent", there's no conflict
> to blazon your way out of.

Yes, but that would not help the submitter if "(Fieldless) A plate."
were judged under the older precedent that said it was a display of
armory: in that case, it wouldn't be returned for conflict either, but
it would be returned for attempting to register an independent form of
armorial display, as the precedent continues:

     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.

Danett de Lyncoln
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com