[antir-heralds] Rejection Clarification - Gules, a pile Or vs....

[Caitrina Lions Blood]

I've been asked as to why I sent a response to the list stating that I
replied off list.  This was mainly due to the official notification not
having time to get to the client yet and I have been in consultation with
him privately for some time already.  

The main reason for the return was for style problems (the pile should not
extend to the corners of the shield).  The conflict that was believed to
have been a problem but perhaps is not is irrelevant when the style problems
are taken into account.  Unfortunately it is still return but better it be
done now than at Laurel.

I'm asking everyone that any future questions as to why any submission has
been returned be directed to Lions Blood as the office has all the necessary
answers and it makes it easier all round.  However I'm extremely pleased to
see so many ready to help a submitter with any problems.

Yours in Service,

Caitrina Lions Blood

-----Original Message-----
From: antir-heralds-bounces at antir.sca.org
[mailto:antir-heralds-bounces at antir.sca.org] On Behalf Of Ursula Whitcher
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 9:18 PM
To: Aaron Rogers
Cc: antir-heralds at antir.sca.org
Subject: Re: [antir-heralds] Rejection Clarification - Gules, a pile Or
vs....

> A client here in Dragon's Laire had a rejection of a device recently
> and we're a little unclear as to the exact reasoning why. Not
> disputing it per se, just making sure that we understand why so that
> we can make proper changes to what he wants for resubmission.
> 
> His device was 'Gules, on a pile azure, fimbriated Or, a trident Or'.
>  This conflicted with 'Gules a pile Or'.

I believe the conflict call was actually in error.  As I understand it,
the argument was that a pile azure fimbriated Or is identical to a pile
azure on a pile Or.  However, a trident Or on a pile azure on a pile Or
would not be registrable in the SCA, because it has too many layers.
There's a precedent (recently discussed on SCAHRLDS) which says that if 
a submitted device can be interpreted in two ways, only one of which is 
legal under SCA rules, you only have to check it under the legal 
interpretation.  Let me quote the precedent in full (from the June 2004 
cover letter):

> From Wreath: Alternate Blazons and Conflicts
> 
> This month we registered ...on a pale argent fimbriated vert, a
> peacock feather proper despite a possible conflict with ...on a pale
> vert three fangs palewise Or. The argument was made that both pieces
> of armory could be considered as ...a pale vert charged with <stuff>.
> However, in order for the new submission to fit this interpretation,
> it would be blazoned as ...on a pale vert a pale argent charged with
> a peacock feather proper. That would be four layers, which is
> unregisterable. Since the unregisterable blazon is the only blazon
> under which the conflict exists, this is not a conflict.
> 
> However, there are other circumstances do exist where there is a
> conflict with already registered armory due to reblazoning the
> registered armory. Last month, for example, we returned ...on a
> compass star argent a Maltese cross azure...for conflict with
> ...within a sun throughout argent, eclipsed azure, a goshawk
> displayed argent, giving no CD between the two excerpted parts. In
> this case the already registered armory would today be blazoned as
> ...on a sun throughout argent, a roundel azure charged with a goshawk
> displayed argent, emphasizing that the goshawk can be considered a
> quaternary charge and thus ignored completely when checking for
> conflict.
> 
> The main difference between these two cases is that in the "no
> conflict" example it was the new armory to which the problematic
> reblazon applied, while in the "yes conflict" example it was the old
> armory that had the unregisterable reblazon.

Therefore, the submitted 'Gules, on a pile azure, fimbriated Or, a 
trident Or' does NOT conflict with 'Gules a pile Or': there's one CD for 
changing the tincture of the primary charge, and one for adding the 
tertiary trident.

Ursula Georges.


_______________________________________________
antir-heralds mailing list
antir-heralds at antir.sca.org
http://missives.antir.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/antir-heralds