[antir-heralds] Assistance needed - traheaern01

[Britt]

> >> Note that chiefs are never covered by throughout charges (nor are
> >> bordures), but everything else is (at least, according to works of
> >> mundane heraldry I've read, I assume a base would be). For greater
> >> precision, one could change to "...vert, surmounted by a sea dragon
> >> rampant throughout..."
> >>
> >
> > I do not htink we allow peripheral ordinaries to be surmounted by any
> > charges other than ordinaries and peripheral ordinaries.  I'll have to
> > go find that/those precedent(s), though.
> >
>
> Would you, please? I'm in the middle of a windstorm, and may lose power
> any moment, or I'd take a look myself.
>
> Frankly, to my eyes this looks fine; a charge overlapping a base is
> something I've seen before, so I have no objections. That, however, is
> my opinion, and worth what you paid for it. ;-)

Perhaps in ancient SCA armory or modern real-word, but not for some
time in the SCA.  In other words, I don't doubt you've seen it. The
more heraldry you look at, the less you can trust your memory as to
what you have seen being period or acceptable. The hazard of peering
at ancient SCA and modern real-world stuff. :)

This was embedded within a 2001 Francois precedent declaring a tierce
a peripheral charge:

[a wolf statant gules atop a mount vert] The wolf appears to be
neither on nor atop the mount; a blazon which more accurately
reproduces the emblazon is Argent, a mount vert, overall a wolf
statant gules. However, we do not register charges that overlap
peripheral ordinaries. [Bastian Wolfhart, 11/99, R-Middle]

Then I found these:

Overall charges may not surmount peripheral charges such as chiefs.
"The orle overlying the point violates the rule prohibiting overall
charges over peripheral charges." (LoAR October 1999, p. 22). [Miles
de Colwell, 12/01, R-Lochac]
------------------------------------------------------
[... a chief vert and for augmentation, on a canton Or a tower and
overall a sword sable] This emblazon does not appear to depict a
correct way of combining a canton with a chief. The canton as drawn in
this emblazon takes up a bit less than the dexter third of the chief
in its horizontal extent and extends exactly to the bottom of the
chief in its vertical extent. This seems neither the correct way to
charge a chief with a canton, nor the correct way to place a canton so
that it surmounts the entire device.

Parker, in A Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry, states that a canton,
when combined with a chief, will overlie the chief. This implies that
the canton will extend onto the field. In this armory, since the
canton and the field are of the same tincture, this might result in
problems with our rules for contrast (RfS VIII.2). Franklyn and
Tanner, An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Heraldry, p. 59, indicate that
a canton can be charged on a chief but they also state that "A canton
on a chief ought to be slightly smaller than the chief's width in
order not to appear like a chief party per 'side'."

We suggest that, if the submitter resubmits, she include documentation
that the form of augmentation that she plans to use is found in period
armory. Note that if she attempts to resubmit with the canton lying
entirely on the chief, or to otherwise submit with a charged charge on
the chief, she should specifically address how such a violation of the
"layer limit" (RfS VIII.1.c.ii) would be compatible with period styles
of augmentation. [Rachel Wallace, 09/02, R-Atlantia]
------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters asked whether it was necessary to blazon the saltire
as "within and conjoined to" the orle. "It is standard SCA practice
for an ordinary within an orle or double tressure to stop at the
inside of the surrounding charge" (LoAR August 2001). See that LoAR
for further details of period practices for orles combined with
ordinaries. [Roesia de Blakehall, 11/02, A-Atlantia]
------------------------------------------------------
[on a pale ... within a triple tressure] The pale is within and
conjoined to the inside of the triple tressure. This is the SCA
default for an ordinary within an orle or tressure... [Caroline Marie
de Fontenailles, 08/03, A-Caid]
------------------------------------------------------
Please note that the design of counterchanging a bordure over a pile
is considered "a weirdness" in the SCA - a single step from period
practice (per the LoAR of July 2001). One such step in armory is
acceptable, but more than one such step is considered too far from
period practice and reason for return. [Clef of Cividale, 03/03,
R-Calontir]

(Tec note: Ordinaries, and only ordinaries (in this case a pile is an
honorary ordinary), may be counterchanged over one another and if it
was not done in period is classified as a SFPP.)
------------------------------------------------------
Overall charges may not surmount peripheral charges such as chiefs.
"The orle overlying the point violates the rule prohibiting overall
charges over peripheral charges." (LoAR October 1999, p. 22). [Miles
de Colwell, 12/01, R-Lochac]
------------------------------------------------------
[... a tierce sable, overall a winged rabbit ...] There is long
standing precedent against having charges overlie a peripheral charge.
"It was ruled some five years ago that flaunches should not be
surmounted by charges (Wilhelm von Schlüssel, April, 1983) and we see
no reason to reverse that ruling." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR
23 April 1988, p. 16). Barring evidence that such was done in period,
we see no reason to overturn this precedent. We also see no reason to
classify a tierce as a field division barring solid evidence that
period heralds considered them as such. [Andrés Miguel Rodriguez de la
Rosa, 07/99, R-Caid]
------------------------------------------------------
[registering a chief...within a bordure] While, as Parker notes, the
usual form is for a chief to overlie a bordure, sufficient period
examples of the contrary were presented to support the bordure
overlying the chief here.  (Ambrosius MacDaibhidh, 12/95 p. 3)
------------------------------------------------------
[Returning Argent, on a cross between in chief two estoiles azure in
base an estoile argent, a bordure counterchanged.] No documentation
has been found for counterchanging a bordure over an ordinary. That,
combined with the unusual arrangement of the estoiles, is sufficient
grounds for return. [3/94, p.20]
------------------------------------------------------
There are a few period examples of overall charges counterchanged:
e.g. Alwell, c.1586, Argent, a pile sable, overall a chevron
counterchanged. These examples all seem to use ordinaries surmounting
ordinaries. I am perfectly willing to permit overall charges in the
SCA to be counterchanged, so long as they too are ordinaries (or
charges of similar simplicity, such as roundels). [see also Aaron de
Hameldene, July, 1992 LoAR, pg. 20] (Kendric of Black Water., July,
1992, pg. 13)


I only went back to Bruce, but I think I answered your question. :)

- Teceangl