[ANSTHRLD] SCA vs Mundane heraldry

[Tim McDaniel]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Alasdair MacEogan <alasdair at bmhanson.net> wrote:
> Childers, Jeff <Jeff.Childers at ttuhsc.edu> wrote:
>>  Purpure point dexter parted raguly argent.
>>
>>  http://ganglia.ttuhsc.edu/~jchilder/corner_dancetty.gif
>
> For what it is worth, I would blazon the image
>     Purpure, a dexter point raguly argent.

That's the blazon.  Given that the proposed blazon is not close to the
final one, I would suggest an article on how to blazon.  A question
for people who have tried learning from
<http://heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/primer/>: do you think it was useful
in learning how to blazon?  Can you recommend a good article?

> If i recall what I read correctly there was a discussion about
> whether or not the point dexter or sinister were registerable.
> There was mention that the point dexter is mentioned as an abatement
> in several heraldic books, but no one had any evidence of them
> actually being used in period.

You remember correctly.  Any design with a dexter point and/or a
sinister point are not registerable.  If you want the grungy details,
they are here.



The technique I'm about to mention works well only if the words being
searched for are relatively uncommon in LoARs AND if you know exactly
what words to search for.  For other cases, or more generally,
check compiled precedents in various pages under
<http://heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/precedents.html>

A useful way to search LoARs is to go to <http://www.morsulus.org/>
and append the search terms to the end of the text box (leaving the
existing terms in there).  This works better the more infrequently the
words are used: "scruff" works, "cross" not so much.  Searching for
     points abatements
works nicely, which is why I tried LoARs first (it was faster than
going thru 10-20 precedents files).

Going to the most recent LoAR listed,
<http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2005/12/05-12lar.html>, it's actually a
name return quoting a previous name return in
<http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2005/04/05-04lar.html>.
>From its use in the 12/05 ruling, that precedent is still extant as of
2005, and I have not heard of it being overturned since.

The April 2005 ruling:

     West, Kingdom of. Heraldic title Point Dexter Pursuivant.

         No documentation was submitted for this title beyond the
         assertion that "A dexter point is a heraldic charge." This
         lack of documentation is, in itself, sufficient reason for
         return. Furthermore, the dexter point, which John Guillim, A
         DISPLAY OF HERALDRIE, calls a point dexter, is not a
         registerable charge:

             Although all three `points' are mentioned in heraldic
             tracts, in practice only the base one appears to have been
             used; and even in the tracts, the dexter and sinister
             points are described as abatements of honor, to be used
             separately, and not in conjunction." [Katherine Sunhair,
             April, 1992]

         It seems illogical to allow the registration of a heraldic
         title based on a heraldic charge that cannot be registered.

(Oddly enough, the base armory precedent, [Katherine Sunhair, April,
1992], doesn't actually _say_ that the dexter and sinister points are
not registerable.  To me, it looks like the Margaret Makafee, Pelican
Queen of Arms, made an armory precedent.)

Danel Lincoln
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com