[antir-heralds] gyronny escutcheon

[Britt]

Electrum said:

> However, if you look to the Rules for Submission (and not just the glossary), you find in RfS XI.4. the rules for arms of pretense and augmentations.  In the commentary for that paragraph occurs the following language: "Generally, therefore, a canton or a single escutcheon may only be used if it is both uncharged and of a single tincture."  Your client's proposal violates all the provisions of this comment, and would most likely be disallowed.

Hmm, divided tincture. Yes, that part has NOT been superceded by
Laurel ruling. The part about a single charge on an inescutcheon has:

An inescutcheon charged with a single charge also avoids the
appearance of an inescutcheon of pretense.  [Gwineth Llynllwyd, 10/03,
A-East]


Aha!  I found some precedents (okay, I heard that mass groan) about
the conflict issue.
-----------------------------------------------
[a gryphon ... maintaining a flag per fess gules and sable] This
armory uses a flag that appears to be a display of Per fess gules and
sable. According to precedent,

    "[... sustaining a banner quarterly sable and gules, seme
    of fraises Or] ... we do not allow a depiction of heraldic
    display which conflicts with registered armory..." (LoAR
    September 2000).

The flag maintained by this griffin (Per fess gules and sable)
conflicts with the real-world flags of Monaco and Indonesia (important
non-SCA flags), Per fess gules and argent. There is only one CD by RfS
X.4.a for changing the tincture of half the field of the flag.

Some members of the College noted that another piece of armory with
similar design was accepted without comment, and asked if the
September 2000 precedent had been overturned due to that acceptance.
Please note that registrations without comment do not establish
precedent. [Magdelena Drucker, 02/03, R-Æthelmearc]
-------------------------------------------------
[A drakkar under sail gules its sail charged with a phoenix Or] This
submission raised the question about whether it was possible to charge
the sail of a ship in SCA armory. The submitter quoted extensive past
precedent which indicated that charged sails on ships in period
heraldry appeared to be displays of independent coats of arms. The
precedents then stated that a charged sail, as a display of an
independent coat of arms, appeared to be an inescutcheon of pretense,
and thus was not registerable under the rules for that forbid use of
inescutcheons of pretense (now RfS XI.4). The submitter indicates
that, due to the most recent change to RfS XI.4, a charged sail would
no longer appear to be an inescutcheon of pretense and should thus be
acceptable.

The submitter is correct that under the current version of RfS XI.4, a
charged sail would not appear to be an inescutcheon of pretense.
However, this does not negate the research in the previous precedents
(and supported by the College of Arms when they commented on this
submission) which showed that charged sails appear to be independent
displays of armory.

Because a charged sail appears to be an independent display of armory,
it should be treated analogously to other armorial elements which
might appear to include an independent display of armory. The most
obvious analogous case is that of a flag or banner used as an armorial
element. Precedent states: "Charged banners [even if only maintained]
are checked for conflict against already registered armory" (LoAR May
1999, p. 12). Therefore, it seems appropriate to rule that a charged
sail must be checked for conflict against already registered armory.

The armory on this sail appears to be Gules, a phoenix Or. This
conflicts with .... Gules, a phoenix within a double tressure Or, with
one CD for removing the double tressure. [Eiríkr Mj{o,}ksiglandi
Sigurðarson, 06/03, R-Caid]
---------------------------------------

- Teceangl