[ANSTHRLD] Conflict Check - Purpure Dragon

[Kevinkeary]

I know it's moot, because Tostig is correct about the first conflict and Daniel is correct about the third.



But as to the second, I had understood that one primary in a group of three is 'half' the primary group. So we have

Addition of a second dragon AND an arrow, a new TYPE of charge.

A change in posture of the second dragon (reversed). This change in posture is not dictated by the field.

A change in tincture of the arrow (vert). This change in tincture is also not dictated by the field.

Seriously, under current precedents that is only one difference where I see four, three at a minimum?

Are you saying that "Argent, two dragons combattant purpure sustaining between them an arrow inverted vert" conflicts with BOTH "Argent, a dragon purpure" AND "Argent, an arrow inverted vert"?

If so, this is the strongest argument against slot-machine heraldry I've ever seen -- one could lock up a whole series of nice simple one-charge armory by registering a row of unrelated charges. If one were of a jerkish mindset.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com>
To: Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA,Inc. <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org>
Sent: Tue, Jun 28, 2011 10:12 pm
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] Conflict Check - Purpure Dragon


On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Bob Wade <logiosophia at yahoo.com> wrote: 
>> Can anyone find a conflict with "Argent, a dragon rampant 
>> maintaining a sheaf of arrows purpure."? It looks clear to me, 
>> but there are a lot of dragons out there. 
> 
> Consider versus "(Fieldless) A dragon sejant erect purpure." (Leo 
> Bertrand de Benton, Badge, Nov 2005). I see only 1 CD for the 
> feildless difference. No CD for change of posture between sejant 
> erect versus rampant 
 
Francois I prec., "... nothing for changing the posture to segreant 
from sejant erect, and nothing for changing the type of 
charge. [Lecelina O'Brien of Mountshannon, 12/01, R-Artemisia]" 
 
> and no CD for the maintained charge. 
> 
> Consider also versus "Argent, two dragons combattant purpure 
> sustaining between them an arrow inverted vert." (Deirdre McLair, 
> Device, Dec 2003). The CoA only sees 1 CD for change of number of 
> the primary charge group. Again nothng for the maintained charge. 
Specifically, quoth the LoAR: 
  Deirdre McLair. Device reblazon. Argent, two dragons combattant 
  purpure sustaining between them an arrow inverted vert. 
 
  The previous blazon, Argent, two dragons combattant purpure, 
  maintaining an arrow inverted vert, did not clearly reflect 
  the size of the arrow. The arrow is co-primary with the 
  dragons. 
One CD for adding one dragon + one arrow to the single primary group. 
 
Possibly also 
Merewyn of Ynys Taltraeth 
May 2007 (via the West): 
"(Fieldless) A bat-winged amphisbaena purpure." 
But probably not. A possible conflict against a wyvern was mentioned 
on the LoI and in commentary; the CD was needed to avoid conflict. It 
was registered without comment, which is not supposed to be precedent, 
but I think it gives a hint, a weight on the scales, suggesting that 
there's a CD. 
 
Conflict with 
Erik of Flamewood 
October of 1982 (via Ansteorra): 
"Argent, a wyvern erect vert maintaining an oak leaf and a fireball 
gules." 
One CD for tincture of the dragon. No CD for maintained charges. 
 
I'll be stopping there without checking the other 150 candidates. 
 
Danel Lincoln 
-- Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com 
_______________________________________________ 
Heralds mailing list 
Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org 
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org