[ANSTHRLD] Inheriting augmented arms or reserved charges?

[Tim McDaniel]

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Jay Rudin <rudin at peoplepc.com> wrote:
> The kicker in the deck is that these arms could pass as unaugmented
> arms.

That's not the "kicker"; that's the whole point.

We register the emblazon, not the blazon.

Fitz Galen (is his name Alexander?  I'm afraid I don't recall) can
perfectly well bear the arms "Gules, on a bend wavy between two
double-bitted battle axes Or, a mullet of five greater and five lesser
points sable", and that is indeed what is registered to his father,
along with "Gules, a bend wavy between two double-bitted battle axes
Or".

> I suspect that the commentary would focus on the twin issues of
> complexity and presumptuousness.  "It sure looks awfully close to a
> previously registered augmentation."

That and four dollars &c.  I can register a design that contains four
crescents points outward conjoined in saltire (the usual Caidan
augmentation) without let or hindrance.  I just have to hope Known
World Heraldic Symposium never goes back to southern California.
And complexity rule-of-thumb 6.

> And he couldn't just drop the label after the death of his father.
> On Galen's arms, that is an augmentation.

I don't understand.  There is no label on Galen's arms.

> Until then, he can't use it in the SCA

"Under this decision, consorts in kingdoms or principalities without
consort's arms may use the undifferenced kingdom arms, and kingdoms
may elect to allow both heirs to the throne to display the kingdom
arms differenced by a label or other standard mark of cadency." (12/03
LoAR Cover Letter) Yet the laurel wreath is restricted in registration
to SCA branches [1], and by heraldic metonymy their ceremonial heads
may display them freely as their arms of dominion.

Denyel Lincoln

[1] "I returned the original arms of the Crown Prince (Calontir
differenced by a label) with a certain amount of regret.  If there
were to be any exception to the rule that a laurel wreath may be used
only in the arms of an SCA branch, that would be it. ... I do not,
however, consider it inappropriate for a Crown Prince to bear the arms
of the King differenced by a label.  This seems to me a valid form of
display of the royal arms, and it appears to be consistent with our
existing policies.  ('The heir of an armiger may bear the armiger's
arms with a label or other such mark of cadency ... These cadenced
versions of the arms need not be registered to be borne.'  Rules
XIV.D) [BoE, 10 Mar 85, p.4]"

-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com