[antir-heralds] need advice

[chrisact at qwickconnect.net]

Britt wrote:
>> Question
>> does a  (device) sable an apple argent, conflict with (a Badge) on a lozenge
>> sable a apple or .
>> there is also a badge that is a apple or.
>>     
>
> All armory is the same for purposes of conflict, so whether it's a
> badge or device doesn't matter.
>
> So you're asking if 'Sable, an apple argent' conflicts with the
> various other pieces of armory?
>
> I'm confused as to what specific design you want, but I found the
> following registered piece of armory: Adelicia Tagliaferro - May of
> 1980 (via Ansteorra): Sable, an apple argent.  And her badge:
> (Fieldless) An apple Or.
>
> The presence of these two pieces of armory mean that any combination
> of '<field>, an apple Or' or '<field>, an apple argent' or any
> fieldless badge of simply an apply Or or argent has conflict.  RfS
> X.4.a. covers that, giving only one CD for changes to the field, or
> fieldlessness.
> (RfS at http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/regs.html)
>
> Now, charging a lozenge can only be done if the lozenge is itself a
> charge on a field. Here's a recent Laurel precedent that explains why:
> --------------------------------------------------------
>   
{snip}
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In other words, since a lozenge is a 'shield' of sorts, usually used
> for a woman's arms in late period, you can't use it as a fieldless
> badge with a charge on it because then it's simply '<field>, a
> <charge>'.
>
> Now, put the lozenge on a field and the lozenge is now the primary
> charge and the rule X.2. applies, meaning 'Argent, on a lozenge sable
> an apple argent' can in no way conflict with 'Sable, an apple argent'.
>  Unfortunately, there are charged sable lozenges on argent and Or
> fields, so there'd be conflict with those because charges on other
> charges can never get more than one CD by RfS X.4.j.
>
> To help you properly, blazons of what you want would be helpful so we
> know precisely what designs you're wanting. Then we can assist you
> with figuring out where conflict exists and how to clear it.
>
> As for 'simple' armory rules, there's X.2. which says that armory with
> no more than two types of charge on the field doesn't conflict with
> other armory with no more than two types of charge on the fields if
> all the primary charges are of a different type.
>
> Then there's 'Teceangl's Collorary' which says, "It is much, much
> easier to clear conflict in simple designs than complex ones".  :)
> That draws on X.2. and the other 'simple' rule, X.4.j.  The less going
> on, the more weight changes will have to gain you difference.
>
> Send out some blazon ideas and let's get this thing done.
>
> - Teceangl
>
>   
>> I think that it does and if i am wanting to use this i should put a border
>> onto it.  to give it the 2 conflicts that i need.  But i am sorta reminded
>> about a simple device rule or something but i couldn't wrap my mind about
>> it.
>>
>> Thank you all
>> Rose
>> Frozen Mountain
>>     

Teceangl has, in her typically brilliant fashion, covered almost 
everything worth saying. I can only add another conflicting item:

# Da'ud ibn Auda
* The following badge associated with this name was registered in 
October of 1995 (via Ansteorra):
(Fieldless) An apple gules slipped and leaved proper.

This means that any submission of "<field> an apple gules" will 
conflict. Due to (current) precedent, the "slipped and leaved" does not 
generate a CD:
[/Sable on a pale between two rapiers argent a rose gules barbed and 
seeded argent/]. Conflict with ..., /Sable, on a pale between two wolves 
combattant argent a rose slipped and leaved sable/. ... there is a CD 
for the change of type of secondary charges, but nothing for adding the 
slip, and nothing for changing the tincture only of the tertiary charge. 
[*Meridies, Kingdom of*, 03/00, R-Meridies]
LoAR Date: March 1, 2000

[/Vert, a pomegranate argent/] Conflict with Katherine Lynten of 
CaerLeon, /Per bend sinister rompu argent and gules, in sinister base a 
pomegranate slipped and leaved argent, seeded gules/. As Katherine's 
pomegranate is forced to base there is not a CD for position on the 
field, and neither the slipping and leaving nor the tincture of the 
seeds generate difference. Therefore, there is a single CD for the 
field. [*Gwenhwyvar verch Gwillim ap Peeter*, 03/00, R-West]
LoAR Date: March 1, 2000

Thus, Da'ud and Adelicia between them have cleared out all 
"(<field>/fieldless) an apple (Or/argent/gules)" and all 
"(sable/fieldless) an apple (any tincture)."

Adding a bordure Or or argent to "Sable an apple argent," will avoid all 
conflict as far as I can see. However...

The following precedent is rather chilling:

We don't grant Substantial Difference between an /apple/ and a /pear/ 
--- there's at best a CD between the two fruits, and one could argue 
negligible difference. (Dévora Risée de Apors, July, 1993, pg. 11)
LoAR Date: July 1, 1993

However, that is 14 years old, and may no longer be enforced. Still, I 
see no precedent specifically overturning it...


~~Basil Dragonstrike

-- 
Check out my Squidoo page---- http://www.squidoo.com/HEROSystem

Check out my friend's e-shop: t-shirts, books, and more fun stuff!----
http://www.cafepress.com/rowanchisholm

Benevolent Ruler’s Rule #50: The three impossible tasks I set for my daughter's suitors will actually have something to do with qualities necessary in a future Benevolent Ruler. (Though admittedly the ability to do the impossible is a potent qualification all by itself.)