[antir-heralds] Help with a new submission.. one more try

[Britt]

The Bowen cross link is fatal to my dialup connection.
A Bowen cross according to the PicDic is squared-off and interlaced.
And ascii art is failing me...  But Aine is correct in that it looks
like five mascles in cross, but with the lines continuous and
interlaced.
Ah! Here's one:
http://op.atlantia.sca.org/images/devices/courtney_of_houghton.gif

> A Bowen cross is a Bowen knot rotated 45 degrees to be in cross, with the loops straightened into straight lines and right angle bends. It looks like five mascles conjoined in cross. WVS [23] [LoAR 27 Aug 80], p. 3 [http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/precedents/wilhelm/atoc.html]

My brain clicked on a Bowen cross being somehow unregisterable, so I
dove into precedents. The Bowen cross is, the mascle knot is not.
I found this precedent, as well:

     [Per saltire vert and sable, a Bowen knot crosswise within an
orle Or] Conflict with
     Francesca Lucia Sammicheli: Purpure, a Bowen cross within a
tressure Or. There is
     one CD for the field, but no CD for type between a Bowen knot
crosswise and a Bowen
     cross. Likewise a single tressure is functionally identical to an
orle, so there is no
     difference between them. [Gwynaeth Angharad of Glamorgan, 04/04,
R-Ansteorra]

Something else to check.

> So, we have to go conflict checking for "five mascles conjoined in cross" and perhaps also "Bowen knot". Looking through other precedents, the Bowen cross does not conflict with a fret or with a cross formy. Okay. The Ordinary index for "Cross -As Charge - Primary - Sable" includes Bowen knots, so this makes it easier.

By George, I think she's got it! :)
Now, there's also the matter of a cross throughout versus a
cross-as-charge. I'd argue vehemently for X.2. substantial difference
between a Bowen cross and a cross throughout, however Laurel has never
ruled on such, so we cannot assume anything. I'll check crosses
throughout as well, but after I see what Aine's got here.

Oh, and I found these precedents:

     [a fret vs a Bowen cross] A visual comparison of the emblazons
demonstrated that X.2. is
     reasonably applied between a fret and a Bowen cross.  (Cynon Mac
an Choill, 12/95 p. 5)

     [a cross formy vs a Bowen cross] ... Thus this is clear by
application of X.2 for significant
     change of type of the primary charges. [editor's note: Laurel
apparently meant that there
     is a substantial difference between these charges] (Grimbaldus
Bacon, 5/95 p. 7)

Nice to know.

> Proposed device: Argent, a bowen cross within a double tressure sable.
>
> Checking the category "Cross - As charge - Sole primary - Sable":
>
> *Darcy Graham (February 1981 via Ansteorra)
> Argent, a bowen knot in cross sable
>
> CD1: Adding the double tressure (RfS X.4.b)
> CD2: Since there is no difference between "Bowen cross" and "Bowen knot in cross", and both charges are sable, there is not a second CD from this device, and it conflicts.

Yes.

> Checking the category "Cross - As charge - Group primary - Sable":
>
> * Oengus Ó Flannagáin (June 1998 via Atenveldt):
> Argent, a sword gules fretted with a Bowen cross sable
>
> CD1: Removal of the sword from the primary charge group (RfS X.1)
Nope.  It's X.4.f. for changing the number of charges in the primary
group from two to one. X.1. only applies if one of the armories has a
primary charge group and the other does not. Also, X.1. is an
auto-clear, not a CD count. CDs don't start until section X.4. Since
the RfS are a checklist, so you begin at the top and work your way
down, you are either clear or not clear by X.1. and X.2. X.3. modifies
X.1. and X.2. for auto-clearing armory. CDs get counted if those three
sections cannot clear, at which point you get into X.4. and start
counting differences. Since they're different levels of difference
(substantial versus significant) there's never a need to combine X.1.
or X.2. with X.4. difference counts.

> I found no conflicts among devices containing "five mascles conjoined in cross" (Ordinary catagory "mascle"); there were only three:
>
> * Liadaine of Cul Mor (January 1987 via Ansteorra):
> (Fieldless) Five mascles conjoined in cross between four sewing needles in saltire, points outward, argent.
>
> CD1: Fieldless is automatically one CD (RfS X.4.a.iii)
> CD2: Removing the sewing needles (RfS X.4.b)
> CD3: Changing the tincture of the primary charge from argent to sable (RfS X.4.d)
> CD4: Adding the double tressure (RfS X.4.b)

You didn't remove one set of secondaries and add another, you changed
the charges in the secondary group. Each armory has one group of
primary charges and one group of secondary charges.
Primaries: mascles - Bowen knot
Secondaries: sewing needles - double tressure
The count is as follows:
> CD1: Fieldless is automatically one CD (RfS X.4.a.iii)
> CD3: Changing the tincture of the primary charge from argent to sable (RfS X.4.d)
Yup, those two are correct.
There's a CD for changing the tincture of the secondary charges from
argent to sable (X.4.d.).
Then there's a CD for changing the _type_ of secondary charges from
sewing needles to a double tressure (X.4.e.).
And finally there is a CD for changing the number of secondaries from
four to two (X.4.f.)

> * Caecelia di Battista (August 1995 via the East):
> Argent, five mascles conjoined in cross and a chief dovetailed vert.
>
> CD1: Changing the tincture of the primary charge from vert to sable (RfS X.4.d)

Yep.

> CD2: Removing the chief (RfS X.4.b)
> CD3: Adding the double tressure (RfS X.4.b)

Nope.
One CD, by X.4.e. for changing the type of secondary charges from
chief to tressure. Another CD by X.4.f. for changing the number of
secondaries from one to two.
And another CD for changing the tincture of the secondaries from vert
to sable, too (X.4.d.).

> * Ellesbeth Donofrey (June 1986 via the East):
> Azure, five mascles conjoined in cross argent and a gore sinister ermine.
>
> CD1: Changing the tincture of the field from azure to argent (RfS X.4.a)
> CD2: Changing the tincture of the primary charge from argent to sable (RfS X.4.d)
> CD3: Removing the gore sinister (RfS X.4.b)
> CD4: Adding the double tressure (RfS X.4.b)

X.4.d., X.4.e., and X.4.f.
Tincture change of secondaries from ermine to sable, type change from
gore to tressure, number change from one to two.

>
> I believe this device, therefore, to only have one conflict (Darcy Graham: Argent, a bowen knot in cross sable). The submitter could possibly get a letter with permission to conflict or otherwise modify the current device to achieve another CD, however, changing the device again would require a new check. If I am wrong, I hope for another awesome learning experience like Teceangl gave me on the last check. :)

There's a reason we cite date and kingdom of registration. Darcy
registered in 1981. I was a junior in high school back then and
finding a registrant from that year is likely difficult to impossible.
So permission to conflict is unlikely.

Other things to check:
Cross - As charge - Sole primary : all tinctures on argent fields
Mascle : if five mascles conjoined in cross is equivalent to a Bowen
cross there is only a theoretical one CD between a Bowen cross and any
number of mascles in a horizontal, vertical, or semy arrangement.

Keina ferch Siôn - January of 2001 (via the Middle): Argent, a Bowen
cross, on a chief azure three lozenges argent.
Tincture change of primary - X.4.d.
Tincture change of secondary - X.4.d.
Type change of secondary - X.4.e.
Number change of secondaries - X.4.f.
Removal of tertiary charges - X.4.i.
Way clear, but definitely worth looking for.

Teutonic Order - December of 1994 (via Laurel): Argent, a cross sable.
One CD for adding a group of secondary charges via X.4.b.
One CD for changing the type of cross via X.4.e.

Thomas Sinclair - August of 2002 (via An Tir): Argent, on a cross
engrailed sable a cross argent.
(Waves to Hazel Leaf Pursuivant - Hi, Thomas!)
One CD for adding the group of secondaries by X.4.b.
One CD for changing type of primary by X.4.e.
One CD for removing tertiary by X.4.i.

Cynthia Tregeare - August of 1992 (via Caid): Argent, a mascle-knot
gules, a bordure embattled sable.
Well, I just discovered that some Laurel references have the hyphen
and others do not. But none chose to rule on whether there is
difference between a Bowen cross and a mascle knot, though Bruce
called them 'conceptually similar'. So we have no idea whether there's
even a CD. Luckily, we don't need one.
One CD for change of tincture of the primary charge by X.4.d.
One CD for change of type of secondary charge by X.4.e.
One CD for change of number of secondary charges by X.4.f.
Clear without worrying about primary charge type at all.

Sheen of Ire - January of 1973: Argent, fretty vert, a mascle sable.
The fretty is the primary charge, however since the mascle is an
overall charge this armory is not qualified for X.2.
So there's one CD by X.4.b. for adding a charge group of secondaries
(double tressure).
There's a CD by X.4.c. for removing an overall charge (mascle).
There's a CD by X.4.d. for changing tincture of primary charge from
vert to sable.
And there's a CD by X.4.e. for changing type of primary charge (which
would have accounted for X.2. clearance had it not been for the whole
overall charge thing).

Unfortunately, Darcy Graham is fatal to the proposal, but the rest of
the check was a nice exercise.

- Teceangl