[antir-heralds] CC: Vert, a bend cotised Or between a barnacle and a hawk's bell argent

[chrisact at qwickconnect.net]

Cathy Silver wrote:
> "Um, why does the subject say your proposal is "Vert, a bend cotised Or 
> between a barnacle and a hawk's bell argent" when the text says "Vert, a 
> bend cotised Or between a feather and a lamb passant argent"? Which 
> would you like conflict checked? :-)"
>
>
> ~~Basil Dragonstrike
>
> Sorry for the confusion - I wish to CC the one appearing in the subject line:
> Vert, a bend cotised Or between a barnacle and a hawk's bell argent
>
> I was only listing my old one as a matter of interest :)
>
> Thank you
> Cynewyn on Wealingforda
>   

One thing you should be made aware of (if you don't already know): in 
heraldry, a "barnacle" (always called "a pair of barnacles") is not a 
shellfish. It looks like this:
http://badger.cx/heraldry/roll/display.php?id=1341

Checking around, I don't see any barnacles (shellfish) registered. That 
may be a problem. :-(


A few precedents of importance about cotises. First, cotises can not be 
found alone, there must always be an ordinary for them to surround:
You cannot have an endorse or a cotise standing alone. WVS [48] [LoAR 29 
Jul 81], p. 10
LoAR Date: July 29, 1981

Second, cotises are not co-primaries with the ordinary; they are in a 
secondary charge group:
The device has an entire sable cotise on the gules field. As cotises are 
treated as a secondary charge group, this violates RfS VIII.2, Armorial 
Contrast. [*Seamus McDaid*, 07/00, R-Atenveldt]
LoAR Date: July 1, 2000

Third, they are in a different secondary charge group from any other 
charges:
[/Argent, on a fess cotised embattled on the outer edges between three 
leopard's faces sable three crescents argent/] This is clear of the flag 
of Meridies, /Argent, on a fess sable, a crown of three points between 
two mullets argent/, with one CD for the removal of the cotises and a 
second for the removal of the leopard's faces as they are two different 
charge groups. [*Avery Westfall*, 03/01, A-An Tir]
LoAR Date: March 1, 2001


A couple of conclusions: X.1 cannot apply to any device compared to 
this, as the cotises cannot be left behind when the primary charge group 
is removed. The situation re X.1 when a secondary charge group is added 
as well as a primary charge group is not clear to me. Also, RfS VIII.1.a 
isn't a problem, as the cotises are in a different charge group from the 
barnacle and bell.

Oh, another nice precedent to know:
[/a charged bend sinister cotised/] "Versus [a charged bend cotised] 
there is a CVD for the orientation of the primary and another for the 
orientation of the secondaries (the cotises)." (LoAR 10/90 p.6).
LoAR Date: October 1, 1990

So, we don't need to check bends sinister cotised, fesses cotised, etc., 
as there will be two CD's right there.


OK, I've checked, not using the "barnacle" in any way. No conflicts, 
nothing close I think worth discussing. I think it's clear; we'll see 
what other checkers find. :-)


~~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

Hero’s Rule #62: When beaming into a hostile territory, I will instruct my transporter chief to beam me into a defensible position, with the landing party facing outwards in a circle. I will have my weapon in my hand before I beam down.