[ANSTHRLD] conjoined within annulets (was: Eldwin's Submission II)

[Coblaith Muimnech]

Eldwin Nightowl wrote:
> Purpure, a mermaid in her vanity proper, in chief a mullet of five  
> points voided and interlaced within and conjoined to an annulet Or.
>
> You can see it at http://eldwin.loveshade.org/images/ms_device.jpg

Kevin the Irritated mentioned Wreath's statement in the cover letter  
to the March, 2009 LoAR <http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/ 
2009/03/09-03cl.html>:

> A widget within an annulet will continue to be considered a primary  
> widget and a secondary annulet, or a primary annulet and secondary  
> widget, when those charges are the only charges on the field. Which  
> of the two charges is primary depends, as always, on the emblazon.
>
> When both are present in a design as part of a primary charge  
> group, or where they would be expected to be a secondary charge,  
> the widget and annulet will both be considered part of the same group.
>
> These answers do not depend on the types of charges in question.

and then commented:
> Can period examples of pentacles being considered single, whole  
> charges and not a charge group be produced? If so, Lauel may be  
> convinced to overturn this ruling for the specific case of voided  
> and interlaced five-pointed mullets conjoined to a surrounding  
> annulet.

I've been keeping my eye out for voided-and-interlaced stars in  
period heraldry for several months now, and have looked at a *lot* of  
emblazons in that time.  I've found exactly one <http:// 
daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00018706/image_526>.  There's no  
annulet involved.

I've also been looking for charges within and conjoined to annulets,  
and have found none of those (though I've seen a number of examples  
of charges within single or concentric annulets that weren't  
conjoined to them).


Coblaith Muimnech
<mailto:Coblaith at sbcglobal.net>
<http://coblaith.net>