[ANSTHRLD] layers and ermine spots

[tmcd at panix.com]

On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Coblaith Muimnech <Coblaith at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> My impression is that we treat ermined fields as though they are
> "flat" in some respects and as though the spots are semys of charges
> in others.

I can't think of any times when the CoA treats ermined fields as plain
fields with strewn charges.  An ermined tincture is treated as a
*tincture*.

Ermine spots can occur as charges, but only when it's abundantly clear
that you're not using strewn ermine spots -- that is, they are few in
number or are arranged to not cover the field..  E.g.

    Serena Lascelles|9111X-9607X|b|(Fieldless) An ermine spot
    azure.|(-changed/released)

    Siobhán níg Fhloinn uí Donnabháin|0007X|b|(Fieldless) A cross of
    ermine spots azure.

    Iago Benitez|0007H|b|Or, a popinjay rising wings displayed gules
    within an orle of ermine spots sable.

> But I would also expect "Argent, a lion pean," to have only a
> blazonable difference from "Argent, a lion sable billety Or", since
> changing the type of a group of charges on a charge

(in a case like this one, where RfS X.4.j.ii doesn't apply)

> is only half enough to give a CD.

No, despite all appearances, there's two CDs: one for change of
tincture (sable<->pean), and one for addition/removal of tertiary
charges (billets).  The only way they'd conflict was if Laurel made an
RfS X.5 visual conflict call; that's rare and I wouldn't expect it in
this case.

> Earlier today, Antonia asked for a conflict check on the devices pictured at
> <http://picasaweb.google.com/jimcouch/Heraldry?feat=directlink>.
>
> Denyel Lincoln recommended for one of these the blazon:
> > Sable ermined Or, a cartouche within an orle counterchanged.
>
> offering this explanation:
> > . . .the ermine spots straddle the boundaries of the charges --
> > aggressively so in the case of the orle.  So you can't blazon the
> > tincture of each charge separately -- you have to call it
> > "counterchanged". . .
>
> In December of 1998 Laurel stated, "The only time we permit a charge
> to be counterchanged over another is when they are both ordinaries,"
> <http://heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/loar/1998/12/lar.html>.  No
> mention was made of an exception for charges in a semy.

It was often said, I think by Gawain, that "semy" is an adjective, so
it cannot have an article.  While English can be more flexible ("Give
me a large -- I'm taking it out to the green"), and "semy of lions" is
as bad or good grammatically as "furious of lions", I do make an
effort to use "strewn charges", and so does the RfS.

Anyway.  Good thing for her that the ermine spots are not charges.

Danihel de Lincolnia
-- 
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com