[tirrigh-heralds] My Name, Device and Badge: My thoughts and findings so far - PART 2 - DEVICE

[Teceangl]

Reminder, muchly for myself, that the design in question is:
> Device: Per chevron azure and argent, two wolf's heads erased to sinister
> argent and a Celtic harp vert.

> 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, 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.

Fields divided in two parts have a special rule.  Let's see if *I* can
find it...

"While commentary was somewhat split on this issue, the general
feeling was that to modify the Rules to define half a group by line of
division or as those charges on either side of an ordinary would only
serve to encourage unbalanced armory. On the other hand, there are
times when the visual impact of changes to charges which amount to
'less than half the group' should be granted more difference. As a
consequence, 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." (CL 12/21/91 pps. 1-2).

Finding this led me on a merry chase to see if it had ever been
applied, or if only the one you found (still in force, by the way) had
been.

I'd suggested in the [August, 1992] LoAR that we might consider the
line of division to divide the group into "halves", regardless of the
numbers involved. The College in general disapproved of my proposal,
saying it would encourage poor style; and after reading the arguments,
I'm inclined to agree. (Ríognhach MacLeod, October, 1992, pg. 34)

Upheld, or at least not more liberally applied.

That was it.  The rest I find all arrange the charges 2 and 1, so they
don't specifically apply and can rely on the more common ruling.

- Teceangl
-- 
KWHSS website: http://kwhss.sca.org