[ANSTHRLD] Comment: Pukhta Lovtsevich

[Tim McDaniel]

Someone locked the October ILoI while I was doing last-minute
commentary!  Grrrrr.

So in case anyone wants to care, here are some comments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://ace.heraldry.ansteorra.org/letter/view/51#3

3. Pukhta Lovtsevich (Namron, Barony of) New Device.
Or, semy of hearts, two suns in their splendour gules, and a
pomegranate inverted gules slipped and leaved vert seeded Or.

Ignoring the fact that we were later told he's the same person as
Swetelove Twyssoday,
Or semy of hearts, two pomegranates and a sun in his splendor gules.
and

I believe that there would be a CD for changing the types of each
separate charge in the group.

"[Per chevron argent and sable, two towers and a horse rampant
counterchanged vs Argent, upon a pile inverted throughout between two
ravens sable a tower argent] Clear ... because the type of each charge
in the group has been substantially changed, even though each group
contains a tower.  RfS X.2 states that: "Simple armory does not
conflict with other simple armory if the type of every primary charge
is substantially changed."  Laurel takes this to mean that the type of
each charge must be substantially changed from its corresponding
charge in the armory being compared, not that the type of every charge
must be substantially changed from the type of every charge in the
other armory.  (There is no CD for the field, since we treat per
chevron and a pile inverted as equivalent for purposes of difference.)
(Tangwystl Tyriau Gleision, 12/95 p. 13)"

This was used for RfS X.2, substantial change of type, not RfS X.4,
CD-counting.  But since RfS X.2 is stricter, I expect that it would be
applied to CD counting too.

Unless, of course, the precedent has been superceded in the
intervening 16 years.

But there is no CD for arrangement.  An arrangement CD is pretty
orthogonal with a type CD.  (I think I could write 'never depends',
but I could easily be forgetting some edge case where it happened, so
please let me weasel this.) Both armories are two-and-one, so no CD
for arrangement.  So there still would have been a conflict, just with
a difference CD count.

(Note: last time I saw it, this argument did <em>not</em> apply for
tinctures.  You can't argue Complete Change of Tincture for "Per pale
argent and azure" versus "Per pale azure and argent", even though
every pixel changed.)


As an aside that wouldn't be relevant:

Eirik was confused about whether changing one out of three is a CD,
noting precedents calling conflict between Lucia da Silva in the April
2003 LoAR via Caid, "Device. Or, three piles in point gules surmounted
by a galleon under sail sable", versus Cyneric Dracaheorte, "Or, three
piles two from chief and one from base gules overall a reremouse
sable" (no CD for inversion), where Eirik wrote "This precedent rules
that changing one in a group of three does not grant a CD."  But then
he noted that Ho Chi got a CD for "Sable, three suns and a bordure Or"
versus "Sable, two compass stars elongated to base and a hawk striking
all within a bordure Or".

Alasdair replied "The Lucia da Silva precedent says that inverting one
of the 3 does not give a CD ... The Ho Chi one says changing the lower
of charges 2 and 1 counts as changing half the group."

I'm astonished that nobody cleared this up, because it's one of the
most cited precedents in armory.  It's in the CoA Glossary of Terms:

      (i) The bottommost of three charges arranged two and one, either
      alone on the field or surrounding a central ordinary such as a
      fess or chevron, is defined as half of that charge
      group. However, no more than one difference may be obtained by
      making changes to that bottommost charge.

(It was reaffirmed as late as 12/10, Elizabeth Beaumont of Worcester,
Lochac acceptances.)

Note that it's for charges arranged two and one.  That's why Lucia got
no CD: the piles were not two and one.

Note also that it applies to any change.  Inverting the bottommost in
two-and-one would have gotten a CD.

Note also that they must be "alone on the field or surrounding a
central ordinary".  That part is often forgotten.  Ho's bordure should
have prevented even that CD.  And because of the hearts, these two
devices would not have gotten the benefit of this.

There's the Lesser Precedent on "half", from the 11/91 LoAR Cover
Letter:

     ... we are adopting Lady Dolphin's (now Lady Crescent) suggestion
     of allowing two changes to the minority of a group (i.e., the
     "lesser" half of a group of charges lying on either side of a line
     of field division or an ordinary) being sufficient for a Clear
     Difference.  For example, "Per bend sinister sable and Or, a
     decrescent moon Or and three fir trees proper" would be allowed
     two CDs from "Per bend sinister azure and argent, a bear's head
     argent and three fir trees vert" with one CD for the field and
     another for the two changes to the charge in dexter chief.

That doesn't have the restriction on "alone on the field".  But it does
require TWO changes to the lesser "half", which does not obtain here.

Danielis de Lindonio
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com