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

[Britt]

On Dec 9, 2007 4:21 PM,  <chrisact at qwickconnect.net> wrote:
> >

> I was reading through precedents on enflaming. It seems to me, and I
> could well be wrong, that it's important in conflict checking to
> distinguish between (A) small enflaming, which is (effectively) a
> Maintained charge, and not used in conflict checking, and (B) large
> enflaming, which is (effectively) a Sustained charge, and *is* used in
> conflict checking.
>
> To me, therefore, either Benedict Lamberton's device is (A) a torch on
> Or within a bordure, and thus that device and the proposal qualify for
> X.2, or (B) a torch and a flame on Or within a bordure, and the proposal
> is clear with a CD for the number of objects in the Primary Group
> (X.4.f), a CD for the type of (at least half of) the charges in the
> Primary Group (X.4.e), and a third for the tincture of (at least half
> of) the charges in the Primary Group (X.4.d).

Ah, but you cannot, even under the new and better conflict checking
rules, get a CD for adding a charge and another for changing the type
or tincture of the added charge.  Conversely, you cannot get the same
CDs.

You're going from one charge in the primary group to another type of
charge in the primary group - torch to flame.  There's no doubt
there's a type CD between them under X.4.e.  The whole crux of this
conflict depends on whether that difference is more than significant,
whether it's substantial for the purposes of X.2.

Now, that X.4.e. CD is solid.  But your analysis constitutes somehow
breaking the torch in half and counting its flame separate from its
handle.  A torch not enflamed is unlikely to get any difference from a
torch enflamed (and probably is NPS) so it's unlikely that the flame
is considered anything more than an intrinsic part of the torch.  Not
a separate charge, particularly not after Loyall found torches as
period charges.  And you can't get difference for adding something
that wasn't there before and changing it, nor for removing attributes
of charges separately - you simply get an X.4.f. CD for changing the
number of charges to fewer than are in the registered armory.

There's a Laurel precedent, of course. :)

[Quarterly argent and azure, two lymphads sails unfurled azure]
Conflict with ... Quarterly argent and azure, four dhows reversed
counterchanged. As noted in the LoAR of July 2001, "There is ...
nothing for the change in the type of ship, [or] for reversing a
ship." There is one CD for removing the two argent ships, but no other
difference may be obtained from this change. One cannot argue, as was
done on the Letter of Intent, that "there is a CD for the number of
charges, and a CD for changing color of half the primary charges."
That is equivalent to saying that there is a CD for removing two of
the charges, and another CD for the changing the tincture of the
charges that have just been removed. The rules have been interpreted
consistently for years, and the following discussion from the LoAR of
July 1992 still applies:
     One cannot get a CD for adding charges, then another CD for
changing the charges just
     added. This has been an underlying principle of the last three
sets of Rules: see the LoAR
     of 25 Aug 85, p.14, for a full discussion. The difference
obtained for adding, say, a bordure
     engrailed ermine, is exactly the same as for adding a bordure Or.
(One does not get a CD
     for adding the bordure, then a CD for changing its tincture, then
another CD for making it
     engrailed.....)
[Jan van Antwerpen, 10/03, R-East]


Now, back to the conflict question.  I think 'Or, a flame gules within
a bordure sable' has a pretty good chance of being registered,
provided something else isn't registered between now and when it's
considered by Laurel.
Symmone, here's my opinion.  Suggest that your client go with the
depiction with the sable bordure, because the one with the azure
bordure is an absolute conflict with Andre la Flamme. Then go to the
URL Ursula provided and grab both the Saint Gabriel blurb about it and
the page the torch is on (it's #447).  Print these, they're your
documentation.  One copy per colored form, but you knew that.

> There's a torch in the Zurich roll: Argent, a torch Or flaming gules,
> Fackelstein, Strip III back page 6.  I used the Zurich roll analysis
> that Gunnvor silfraharr put together.  It's in the Medieval Heraldry
> Archive:

> http://www.s-gabriel.org/heraldry/german.shtml

Submit as documentation that a torch was considered an independent
charge in period heraldry.  Also cite the PicDic (it's Appendix H)
about flames:

'A Pictorial Dictionary of Heraldry' by Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme
and Akagawa Yoshio states s.n. flame, "Flames are found in late-period
armory, as in the arms of Hooper, c.1550."

That documents each type of charge as period and possibly considered
different.  With that documentation, I'd make the submission and let
Wreath and the College of Arms analyze the situation and conclude
whether a torch and a flame are substantially different. I think
there's a very good chance they will be so considered, and will
continue my research so as to help support the submission when it gets
out of kingdom (there's too much reasonable doubt, IMO, to not send it
through and let Wreath decide and I'll speculate that it will not get
returned by kingdom for that reason - if it does I'll be pleased to
help write a polite appeal).

- Teceangl