[antir-heralds] gyronny escutcheon

[chrisact at qwickconnect.net]

Ursula Georges wrote:
> A client is interested in a device incorporating an inescutcheon with 
> "Gyronny Or and gules a bordure sable".  The Glossary says that a 
> "Multiply charged single inescutcheon" is reserved for augmentations or 
> arms of pretense.  But this inescutcheon isn't multiply charged; it has 
> a single charge, the bordure, and a divided field.  May it therefore be 
> used without implying an augmentation?  If so, is it a colour for 
> purposes of contrast?
>
> Ursula Georges.

Judging by how you phrased this, I will assume your client isn't 
entitled to an Augmentation of Honor. If s/he is, the following does not 
apply, and s/he can have that inescutcheon w/o trouble (unless it 
conflicts; I'm not going to check for that now).


And.... It seems to me there's a bit of a problem here. The RfS (XI.4) says:
"4. Arms of Pretense and Augmentations of Honor -Armory that uses 
charges in such a way as to appear to be arms of pretense or an unearned 
augmentation of honor is considered presumptuous.
"Period and modern heraldic practice asserts a claim to land or property 
by surmounting an individuals usual armory with a display of armory 
associated with that claim. Such arms of pretense are placed on an 
escutcheon. Similarly, an augmentation of honor often, though not 
necessarily, takes the form of an independent coat placed on an 
escutcheon or canton. Generally, therefore, a canton or a single 
escutcheon may only be used if it is both uncharged and of a single 
tincture. For example, /Argent, a fess gules surmounted by an escutcheon 
sable charged with a roundel argent/ has the appearance of being arms of 
pretense or an augmentation. /Or, in saltire five escutcheons sable each 
charged with three roundels argent/ does not have this appearance, as it 
has multiple escutcheons, as so is acceptable. The exception to the 
restrictions of this rule is when the submitter is entitled to an 
augmentation as described in RfS VIII. 7. Augmentations of Honor."

Yet, the Glossary, under "Reserved Charges" says:
Multiply charged single inescutcheon Augmentation or arms of pretense

Hmph. :-/


Checking precedents, I believe I have found the source of the 
disagreement between these two sources. The precedent is:
[/on a plate a Celtic cross conjoined to a Thor's hammer/] The device 
technically violates rule XI.4, Arms of Pretense: "Armory that uses 
charges which themselves are charged in such a way as to appear to be 
arms of pretense is considered presumptuous. Period and modern heraldic 
practice asserts a claim to land or property by surmounting an 
individual's usual armory with a display of armory associated with that 
claim. Such arms of pretense are most commonly placed on an inescutcheon 
or lozenge, but may also appear on other geometric charges such as 
roundels, cartouches, etc. For this reason, such charges may not be 
charged in such a way as to suggest independent arms. Such charges may 
not contain an ordinary that terminates at the edge, or more than one 
charge." The device contains two charges on a roundel. [*Dougal 
O'Sirideain*, 07/00, R-Atenveldt]
Laurel Sovereign of Arms: Elsbeth Anne Roth
LoAR Date: July 1, 2000

You will note that this quotes (apparently unaltered and in its 
entirety) a significantly different form of RfS XI.4; one in use up to 
(and possibly beyond) mid 2000. I am guessing that the Glossary as it 
now (online at least) has not been changed since the change in the RfS 
was instituted.

Specifically, the version quoted in the precedent set a number of 
allowable (and hence not allowable) charges, while the current version 
of the RfS says "Generally, ... uncharged and of a single tincture." 
Under the circumstances, I would guess your client's submission would 
not pass, or would require extensive persuading of the College.

~~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 #45: If, through skill or luck, I defeat a better-armed opponent, I will at least try to get his/her/its weapons.