[antir-heralds] Arms and name CC: Osogorow the Dredful

[Britt]

I'll only be addressing the armory here.

> Her proposed device/arms is:
> Or, flames gules within a bordure (sable? azure? :-)
> She's open to the border color, with a slight preference to a sable bordure.
>
> I checked for Fire on an Or field and think it's okay.
> I also checked for an Argent field, in case there should be a flame gules
> there that might conflict (and was surprised to, ironically, find my own arms,
> but no conflict at _all_ with that! ;-)
>
> Is that as deep as I need to burrow?

Nope.  Flames used to be fimbriatable which allowed them on any field,
plus you missed all the divided fields and furs and tinctureless (I've
never found a fieldless conflict versus armory with a bordure, but
tincturess is said to have a field and so may have a peripheral
ordinary).  Always check all tinctures and permutations of field.
http://oanda.sca.org/ordinary/index.html has all flames under Fire, so
it's easy to find.  There are also some enflamed charges which might
be only one CD versus a flame - these are cross-referenced under the
category name.

There's also the nasty reality that the old-style SCA flame 'proper'
was either gules fimbriated Or or Or fimbriated gules, which the
correct and current style is alternating tongues of Or and gules.
This means that a flame 'proper' on, say, a sable field registered in
the 1980s might well be a flame gules. This is one case where a
bordure is a very good idea in the basic design because it'll help
deal with such conflicts as might arise from old-style flames 'proper'
on color fields.  I'd also not be sure that 'Or, a phoenix <any
tincture> rising from flames gules within a bordure sable' is clear,
as Laurel has stated numerous times that the flames are half the
charge. It'd probably be one CD difference.

Andre la Flamme - September of 2002 (via Atlantia): Per chevron Or and
chevronelly gules and Or, a flame gules within a bordure azure.
There goes the azure bordure.  Only one CD for changing the field.

Benedict Lamberton - May of 1994 (via the West): Or, a wooden torch
proper enflamed gules, a bordure sable.
Torches are cross-referenced from Flame in the index.  The PicDic
states that flames are a period charge, it does not say if torches
are. The PidDic images of torches show a lot of torch and a little
flame, but I'm going to check Laurel precedent and see.  I think this
is a conflict with one CD between the two types of charge.
Laurel has not ruled on how much difference there is between a torch
and a flame.  Now, if we can prove that a torch is a period charge, we
can make a good argument toward substantial (X.2.) difference and
there's no conflict. If we're lucky then Black Stag, Electrum or Green
Anchor are reading this thread and can offer some opinion or better
facts on the subject.

> She also has an initial report that her flame design implies movement.
> I, personally, don't see it that way:
> http://www.inlandregion.org/heraldry/rolls/mno/osorgarow_the_dredful.html
>
> But, if she needs to use standard fire for submission, that's useful to know
> _before_ the papers go in.

The one on the left, with the blue bordure, is the proper flame to
use.  It's right out of the PicDic.  The one on the right is stylized
enough it might not be clear that it's intended to be flames and be a
problem to registration. I recognize it as an easter motif, but it's
not heraldic.  Go with the depiction on the left.

- Teceangl