[tirrigh-heralds] My Name, Device and Badge: My thoughts and findings so far - PART 2 - DEVICE
Judy Harcus
jdharcus at telus.net
Wed May 12 11:17:04 PDT 2010
My original attempt to post this got bounced by the list as being too
big, so I'm reposting it with separate messages for name, device and badge.
PART 2 - Device
Wulfstan Hrafnsson wrote:
>
> Device: Per chevron azure and argent, two wolf's heads erased to
> sinister argent and a Celtic harp vert.
Pull out your Rules for Submission http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/rfs.html.
First thing is to check for Style issues (parts VIII and IX). This
looks okay.
>
> Potential conflicts:
>
> * Bleyddyn ap Rhys
> <http://oanda.sca.org/oanda_name.cgi?p=Bleyddyn%20ap%20Rhys>
> o The following device associated with this name was
> registered in March of 1992 (via Caid)
> <http://oanda.sca.org/oanda_date.cgi?y1=1992&m1=March&y2=1992&m2=March&kC=checked>:
> Per chevron
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=per+chevron> azure
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=azure> and argent
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=argent>, two wolf's
> heads erased <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=erased>
> argent <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=argent> and a
> drakkar <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=drakkar>
> sable <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=sable>.
>
> As far as I can tell, I'd have only 1 CD from this. Unless I get
> points for both the form and the colour of the secondary charge? Does
> the facing of the wolf's heads make any difference? Suggestions? I'd
> be really good with adding a chief or a bordure or something
> ridiculously easy like that. Alternately I guess I could try to track
> the guy down and ask for permission to conflict....
For this we go to Part X of the Rules for Submission (hereafter referred
to as RfS)
Both devices have primary charges so we can skip X.1.
Both devices have similar primary charges (the wolf's heads) so X.2
doesn't apply, so skip it.
X.3 only applies to branch devices, etc. so skip it.
Now we're down to X.4. We need two CDs from here to clear this.
X.4.a - Field difference - same field, nothing here.
X.4.b - Addition/deletion of charges of the field - both have two on the
top and one on the bottom, nothing here.
X.4.c - Addition/deletion of charges overall - doesn't apply to either.
X.4.d - Tincture changes - okay, let's check this out: "Changing the
tinctures or division of any group of charges placed directly on the
field, including strewn charges or charges overall is one clear difference."
- Questions: 1) Are the heads and the harp one charge group or two? 2)
Your comment indicates you believe the harp and drakkar are secondary
charges - why?
- Check the Glossary of Terms: http://heraldry.sca.org/coagloss.html.
"Charge Group.
A set of charges used together in a design as a single unit. The charges
in groups in heraldry usually fall into standard arrangements depending
on their number and what other items are involved in the design. A
collection of charges that are arranged in such a standard arrangement
are considered a single group, even if they are of different types
and/or tinctures. For example, Per fess argent and gules, two towers
sable and a roundel argent contains a single group of primary charges in
the standard charge arrangement of two and one. See also Peripheral
Charge Group, Primary Charge Group, Secondary Charge Group, Slot Machine
Heraldry, and Tertiary Charge Group."
"Primary Charge Group.
The most important group of charges in a piece of armory. In blazons,
the primary charge group is usually mentioned immediately after the
field (though a strewn charge group is not primary when it is blazoned
before a central charge group). If there is a central ordinary lying
entirely on the field, it is the primary charge. If there is no such
central ordinary, then the primary charge group is the set of charges of
the same size that lie in the center of the design and directly on the
field. An overall charge can never be the primary charge. In any piece
of armory with charges there will always be a primary charge group,
unless the only charges are peripheral. There cannot be more than one
primary charge group in any given design. In Gules, a pale between two
mullets argent, the pale is the primary charge. In Or, a maunche between
three roundels azure the maunche is the primary charge. In Per chevron
argent and sable, two roses and a fleur-de-lys counterchanged and on a
chief purpure three hearts argent, the roses and fleur-de-lys are the
primary charge group, because they are all of about the same size and in
a standard arrangement. In Azure semy of mullets and a chief argent the
strewn mullets are the primary charge group; in Azure semy of mullets,
an eagle and a chief argent the eagle is the primary charge. In Sable, a
lion Or, overall a bend argent, the lion is the primary charge. In
Azure, a chief Or there is no primary charge group. See also Overall
Charge Group, Peripheral Charge Group, Secondary Charge Group, Semy,
Tertiary Charge Group."
"Secondary Charge Group.
A group of charges on the field around the primary charge group. A
design may have more than one secondary charge group. Each group may
confer difference independently. In Gules, a pale between two mullets
argent, the mullets are the secondary charge group. The secondary
charges in Or, a maunche between three roundels azure are the roundels.
In Sable, a chevron cotised argent between three millrinds Or there are
two secondary charge groups, the cotises and the millrinds. In Per
chevron argent and sable, two roses and a fleur-de-lys counterchanged
and on a chief purpure thee hearts argent, the chief is the secondary
charge group. A peripheral charge group is a type of secondary charge
group. See also Charge Group, Peripheral Charge Group, Primary Charge
Group, Semy, Tertiary Charge Group."
The example under Primary Charge Group gives us that information: "Per
chevron argent and sable, two roses and a fleur-de-lys counterchanged
and on a chief purpure three hearts argent, the roses and fleur-de-lys
are the primary charge group, because they are all of about the same
size and in a standard arrangement.". So your device has one primary
charge group consisting of three charges - two heads and a harp.
However, there is one other thing to check out - does the harp, being in
the lower part of the field, count as one third or one half of the group
when calculating difference in tincture?
Let's check the precedents: http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents.html
Starting at the most recent (reign of Elizabeth de Rossignol), I found
(under the heading CHARGE GROUP):
"[Per bend sable and argent, two fox's heads erased argent and another
sable.] This is returned for conflict with Batu Chinua, Per chevron
sable and argent, two wolf's heads erased and a rose counterchanged.
There is a CD for changes to the field. There is no difference between a
wolf's head and a fox's head. Nor is there a CD for changing one of the
charges (the rose) to a fox's head. As the charges are not arranged two
and one, the precedent allowing a CD for changing the base-most charge
does not apply. Nor does the precedent granting a CD for two changes to
the charges on one side of a line of division apply - as explained under
the heading Group Theory in the November 1995 Cover Letter - as only the
type has changed (from an argent rose to an argent fox's head). [Renard
le Fox de Berwyk, 10/05
<http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2005/10/05-10lar.html>, R-An Tir]"
This doesn't state exactly what we're looking for but suggests looking
at the November 1995 Cover Letter would be a good idea.
The Cover Letters are part of the Laurel Letters:
http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/. Selecting November 1995, I selected the
cover letter. Hmm, that's odd - I don't see anything here.
Oh well, back to looking at the precedents.
Under the precedents of Francois la Flamme 2nd tenure, I found a similar
precedent but again not explicit so looked further.
Nothing under Shauna's tenure.
Aha! Under the precedents of Francois' first tenure I found:
"There is a second CD for changing the tincture of the charge in base,
as the basemost of a group of charges two and one is considered to be
half the group:
After much thought and discussion, it has been decided, for purposes
of X.4.d, e and h of the Rules for Submission, that the bottommost
of three charges, either on the field alone or around an ordinary,
is defined as one-half of the group...multiple changes to the
basemost of three charges under this definition will be granted a
maximum of one CVD. (CL 9/6/90 p.2)
[Letia Thistelthueyt, 12/01
<http://sca.org/heraldry/loar/2001/12/01-12lar.html>, A-Atlantia]"
This time I did locate the original cover letter
http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/1990/08/1990-08cl.html which states in full:
"After much thought and discussion, it has been decided, for purposes of
X.4.d, e and h of the Rules for Submission, that the bottommost of three
charges, either on the field alone or around an ordinary, is defined as
one-half of the group. While I do not regard this definition as
necessarily the ideal fix, it will solve most of the problems which have
led to the return of a number of pieces of armory recently which most
commenters seem to agree ought to be sufficiently clear. I am not
certain in my own mind but that the total amount of difference which can
be obtained for changes to one of three charges should be limited to one
CVD - that is to say, changing the type and tincture of the bottommost
of three charges, either alone on the field or around an ordinary, would
not be worth two CVDs. I would appreciate your commentary on this. For
now, however, multiple changes to the basemost of three charges under
this definition will be granted a maximum of one CVD."
I have the feeling there may be another precedent around this that I'm
not locating right now.
However, this does tell us that there is a CD for changing the tincture
and type of the bottom charge, though possibly only one.
So let's continue with the RfS.
X.d.e - Type changes - nothing here in regards to the top charges
X.d.f - Number changes - nothing here
X.d.g - Arrangement changes - two and one vs two and one - nothing here
X.d.h - Posture changes - aha! "Significantly changing the posture or
individual orientation of charges in any group placed directly on the
field, including strewn charges or charges overall is one clear
difference". Orientation includes the change from facing to dexter or
facing to sinister (the latter also called contourny).
So there is your second CD - for the orientation of the heads.
Your device is clear of Bleyddyn's.
> With a chief I'd need to be sure to avoid conflicting with:
>
> * Seamus MacOwen of Kirkhill
> <http://oanda.sca.org/oanda_name.cgi?p=Seamus%20MacOwen%20of%20Kirkhill>
>
> o The following device associated with this name was
> registered in January of 1984 (via the Middle)
> <http://oanda.sca.org/oanda_date.cgi?y1=1984&m1=January&y2=1984&m2=January&kM=checked>:
> Per chevron
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=per+chevron> sable
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=sable> and Or
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=Or>, two wolf's heads
> erased <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=erased>
> addorsed <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=addorsed>
> argent <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=argent> and a
> mullet <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=mullet> azure
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=azure>, and on
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=on> a chief
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=chief> Or
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=Or> three lozenges
> azure <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=azure>.
>
> But it looks clear to me (1 CD for field colours, 1 CD for mullet vs
> harp, 1 CD for lozenges on the chief). Yes?
Yes. X.4.a gives you the field difference, X.4.d/e (as above) for
changing the bottom charge, and X.4.j adding charges to charges. There
might also be one for the tincture of the chief, depending on whether
yours is argent or Or.
>
> I'm also okay making the field division nebuly or wavy or some such,
> or going per saltire and adding a harp, having the harps in pale and
> the wolf's heads in fess, which I think is still 2 CD from:
>
> * Anne Kent <http://oanda.sca.org/oanda_name.cgi?p=Anne%20Kent>
> o The following device associated with this name was
> registered in March of 1985 (via the Middle)
> <http://oanda.sca.org/oanda_date.cgi?y1=1985&m1=March&y2=1985&m2=March&kM=checked>:
> Per saltire
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=per+saltire> azure
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=azure> and argent
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=argent>, in pale
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=in+pale> two foxes'
> masks and in fess
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=in+fess> two roses
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=rose> counterchanged
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=counterchanged>.
>
> (1 CD for placement of canine crania, 1 CD for harps instead of
> roses... oh and 1 CD for reversing the field division colours I
> suppose... I guess that blazon would be: "Per saltire argent and
> azure, in pale two harps vert and in fess two wolf's heads to sinister"?)
>
> Actually the per saltire arrangement is more or less my second choice,
> and if clear where the per chevron is not, probably what I'll go with.
Add the tincture for the wolf's heads and the blazon looks okay to me.
Going back the RfS X.4.a (field difference), it states: "There is a
clear difference for reversing the tinctures of a field evently divided
into two parts, per saltire, or quarterly, but not for reversing the
tinctures of a field divided any other way; Per pale nebuly ermine and
gules has one clear difference from Per pale nebuly gules and ermine...".
So yes, there is a CD for change to the field. There is a CD by X.4.d
for changing the tincture of half the primary charge group (azure to
vert), there is a CD by X.4.e for changing half the type of the primary
charge group (roses to harps), and another CD by X.4.h for changing the
position of the heads (a mask is a head looking forward).
So no conflict here.
>
> I *think* I've also got 2+ CD's with:
>
> * Oriel y Cwn <http://oanda.sca.org/oanda_name.cgi?p=Oriel%20y%20Cwn>
> o The following device associated with this name was
> registered in December of 1995 (via Trimaris)
> <http://oanda.sca.org/oanda_date.cgi?y1=1995&m1=December&y2=1995&m2=December&kT=checked>:
> Per chevron
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=per+chevron> purpure
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=purpure> and vert
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=vert>, a chevron
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=chevron> between two
> dog's heads erased
> <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=erased> and an oak
> leaf argent <http://oanda.sca.org/glossary.cgi?p=argent>.
>
> (1 CD for field colours, 1 CD for that chevron, 1 CD for the oak leaf)
No conflict by X.1. "Addition of primary charges - Armory does not
conflict with any protected armory that adds or removes the primary
charge group... For example, Argent, two mullets gules does not conflict
with Argent, a pale between two mullets gules..." The primary charge in
Oriel's device is the chevron. You don't need to go any further than that.
Overall, harps look pretty clear, and if I never have to conflict check
something with dogs in it again, I'll be okay with that. I think I
looked at about 500 devices and badges on that charge type alone.
I don't have time to do a full double check at the moment to see if
you've missed anything.
Alicia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tirrigh.org/pipermail/collegeofheralds_tirrigh.org/attachments/20100512/7ef49102/attachment.htm>
More information about the Collegeofheralds
mailing list