[ANSTHRLD] A little more help if you please...
darin.herndon at chk.com
Tue Apr 21 07:33:12 PDT 2009
If the winged wheel within the annulet is not a primary charge group and the annulet is a secondary... Then what are the mullets on the periphery? They are on the field are they not? So, they are not tertiaries. Is this an attempt at two secondaries? Is that valid?
Could the submitter possibly use: "Vert, a winged wagon wheel within and conjoined to an annulet Or, between three mullets of five greater and five lesser points argent." That would make the annulet part of a primary charge group. Which would re-raise the question of slot machine heraldry; but, I thought winged items counted as a single item and not as two items in counting for slot machine heraldry. Is that incorrect?
On a separate note, for the submitting herald's benefit, the proposed device has three tinctures (vert, Or, and argent) and ether three or four "things", depending on whether the wings count separately (winged wheel, annulet, group of mullets, and possibly the wings themselves). That gives a rule of thumb complexity count of either six (generally OK) or seven (generally starting to push but not quite over the line of the complexity level into non-medieval or non-period style). When working with submitters, remind them that we strive to reproduce medieval, not renaissance, heraldry and it was generally simpler in style. (There were a lot of "generally"s in those statements because there are always exceptions. That's why we research.)
From: heralds-bounces+darin.herndon=chk.com at lists.ansteorra.org [mailto:heralds-bounces+darin.herndon=chk.com at lists.ansteorra.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Smith
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:11 AM
To: 'Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc.'
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] A little more help if you please...
Yes, replying to myself:
> Daniel wrote:
> >Emma wrote:
> > > The next problem that would be introduced then is that,
> as I see it,
> > > you have a wagon wheel, pair of wings, and an annulet all in the
> > > same charge group. This is cause for return under the "no
> > > slot-machine" rule: RfS VIII.1.a says:
> > Thing is, I don't think that they are "in the same group".
> "A charge
> > within a circular charge" is not a standard arrangement in the same
> > way that "two and one" or "in saltire" are.
> True, but... Hm. Okay - time for me to go precedent digging.
> I have this
> hazy memory that says "a charge within a annulet" has been treated
> alternately as a group primary and as a sole primary within a
> secondary, and
> I don't know which is right (or more current, more precisely).
Yay for precedents. The more recent stuff, at least, that I find all says
that a framing charge (annulet or mascle, say) is treated as a secondary.
Learn something new every day!
Heralds mailing list
Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any).
More information about the Heralds