Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:43:13 +0000 From: Zenobia Subject: Re: [ATH] RoS Interp request > Greetings past and present Heralds of An Tir from Sveyn! > > The device prompting this search is William Geoffrey the Rogue's (returned > May 98LoAR) for conflict with a personal badge registered via Drachenwald in > 9/96. > > LoAR> William Geoffrey the Rogue. Device. Ermine, a wingless griffin > LoAR>segreant contourny a bordure sable. > > LoAR>This conflicts with Helmut zu JŸlich Quarterly gules and Or, a lion > LoAR>rampant contourny within a bordure sable., As drawn there is no > LoAR>visual difference between the wingless griffin and the lion. The kind of rules that apply (for purposes of conflict) to this submission are as follows. I'm starting from the very beginning because I think it will help the analysis in this case a lot. Basic philosophy (rule I.3 and specifically section a) excerpted here: 3. Inappropriate Claims - No name or armory will be registered which claims for the submitter powers, status or relationships that do not exist. No submission will be registered that could confuse or offend members of the Society or the general population because it expresses or implies some claim that is not true. [snippity] a.Conflicting Claims - A name or piece of armory that creates a false impression of the identity of the submitter will not be registered. Someone may not claim to be another, either directly by using a name or armory that is identical to another's, or by unmistakably claiming close relationship to an individual who is in fact unrelated. See Part V, Conflicting Names, and Part X, Conflicting Armory. Okeydokey, this means... you can't look just like, or directly related to, someone else. Now, obviously due to the visually quite different fields this doesn't look "just like" someone else. But, can it look "directly related to" someone else? [ignore here the badge/arms thing. This is an ugliness that doesn't quite work but there is logical consistency in the rest of it, if you wade through and pretend every armory is arms and can look like it therefore might be related to other arms.] Now, going down to rule section X (because this IS armory) we get the general policy statement here: PART X - CONFLICTING ARMORY A piece of armory may not be too similar to other pieces of armory, as is required by General Principle 3a of these rules. Period armory frequently distinguished between immediate relatives, like a father and his son, by making a single change to the arms in a process called "cadency". The changes made in such circumstances can be considered the smallest change that period heralds would recognize. This section defines ways in which submitted armory must be changed to be sufficiently different from protected armory. Now, what does THIS say? This says that a father/son immediate relative type change is something called a "cadency change" and is the smallest change period heralds would recognize. So we have to figure that if we want to avoid looking related, we can either (1) make more than one "cadency change" (since one "cadency change" shows immediate relatedness), OR (2) make some kind of change that period heralds would recognize, but is "bigger" than a cadency change (which is the "smallest") so that such a big change would never have been used between father and son to show relatedness. Now, both these armories we are discussing have a background field (complex colors), a primary charge of an animal, and a bordure. The first rule is X.1, addition of primary charges. well that doesn't apply. Both these have the same kind of composition. Addition of primary charges is used to clear (say) Argent three mullets sable vs. argent a chevron between three mullets sable: you added the chevron/primary charge, which is one of those "single changes so big it would never have happened in period heraldry to show relatedness" (note: this isn't quite true but it is predominantly true :-) The next rule is X.2. Difference of Primary Charges -- Simple armory does not conflict with other simple armory if the type of every primary charge is substantially changed. This type of change was normally seen between complete strangers in blood, and wasn't usually used to indicate any form of cadency. For the purposes of this Rule, simple armory is defined by the following clauses. The word charge refers to both charged and uncharged charges unless it is specifically qualified; a group of charges may contain one or more charges. OK, we have changed the type of primary from a lion to a wingless griffin, but is it SUBSTANTIALLY changed? and is this "simple armory for purposes of rule X.2?" The short answer to the second part via subclause c (look it up yourself if you're curious) is "yes", we have an identical primary charge group (it is a beast/monster, there's one charge, all charges in the group (the one of it) are alike) and an identical secondary group (one bordure, one charge in the group, they are all alike.) However as for "SUBSTANTIALLY changed", perhaps not. A wingless griffin isn't a standard period monster but a variant of a standard period monster, and also (therefore) kind of a variant of a lion since it's half lion. That may be enough for a cadency change but not for X.2 to clear it just on the type of the critter. Rule X.3 has to do with required charges (like laurel wreathes on branch arms) which doesn't apply so we get to: X.4: Significant Armorial Differences- Two pieces of armory will not be considered to conflict if two clear visual differences exist between them. OK, here are these two cadency changes we need. the first clause has to do with the field. Since we have fields here, it applies, which is X.4.a and its subsections. As Sveyn has pointed out, in the case where there are charges on the field, you can get a maximum of one CD for changing the field, even if it's a drastic change. Why, you ask? Well if you do look at heraldry, particularly early heraldry, relatedness is often shown by changing a field color. So you had the Scots (but anglo-Norman origin) family of the Comyns whose main branch bore Azure three garbs Or, but they developed a "cadet" branch (one of the sons, who would not inherit the main arms, developed his own arms) which were Gules three garbs Or. I forget the dates here but this is probably ca. 13th c. Now, can you visually miss the change of the entire background from blue to red? Of course not! But did the change of the entire background mean "one relatedness step"? Yes, it did. Thus the SCA says, if you change a field, even drastically, when there are charges on it, it may still only be one of those relatedness steps. You need two. So where might we find the other change? X4b is addition of charges on the field. Doesn't apply here, both have a critter and a bordure, no added charge group on field. X4c has to do with overall charges. Also doesn't apply for same reason, no added charge group overall either X4d has to do with tincture changes to groups of charges on the field All the charges on the field are black; doesn't apply. X4e has to do with type of charges on the field. This applies! But does it give difference? e. Type Changes - Significantly changing the type of any group of charges placed directly on the field, including strewn charges or charges overall, is one clear difference. Changing the type of at least half of the charges in a group is one clear difference. [well, only one charge, we've changed the whole group... that sounds good...] Types of charges considered to be separate in period, for example a lion and an heraldic tyger, will be considered different. [so... would a wnigless griffin be seperate in period from a lion? Hmm.] A charge not used in period armory will be considered different in type if its shape in normal depiction is significantly different. This means a lion would not be clearly different from a puma. [was a wingless griffin used in period armory? Is its "normal depiction significantly different" from a lion?] >Separate differences may be obtained from changing the types of charges in different charge groups. [OK we don't need to worry about this here, examples omitted] Looking at the rest of the rule X4 we find no other clauses apply. X4f is number of charges on the field (the same in both arms), X4g is posture (the same), X4h is arrangement (the same), X4i and X4j have to do with charges on charges and we don't have any. OK these are the questions for X.4, we have one definite CD for field and need another CD for type, and to get it we need to answer those questions. but before that let us also note X.5: 5. Visual Test - If the tinctures, shapes, or arrangement of the charges in a submission create an overwhelming visual resemblance to a piece of protected armory, the submission may be held to conflict even if sufficient theoretical difference can be counted between them. A piece of armory is registered and protected, not the verbal description used to record that armory... Unusual cases may occur where contrast is weak and unusual arrangements of charges are employed, and in such circumstances the cumulative similarities between two pieces of armory may outweigh any specific differences. As an example, the cumulative effect of the similarities between Vert, ermined Or, on a mullet argent a lion rampant azure within a bordure embattled ermine and Vert, ermined Or, on an estoile argent a lion rampant azure within a bordure embattled erminois creates a strong possibility of confusion. So here, if due to the drawing of the charge, this really really looks like just a field change, maybe X.5 might say "these conflict, they still look related even though there may be technical difference." So since there is that clear CD by rule X.4.a, the conflict must come from one of two places: 1) no technical CD for type of critter by X4e OR 2) visual similarity by X.5. What has Laurel said? > LoAR>This conflicts with Helmut zu JŸlich Quarterly gules and Or, a lion > LoAR>rampant contourny within a bordure sable., As drawn there is no > LoAR>visual difference between the wingless griffin and the lion. This can be taken either way. It can be taken via X.5 ("as drawn" implies an art problem, and X.5 has to do with depictions/"overwhelming visual resemblence.") The complex field may make a difference too. It could also be taken via X4e. If a wingless griffin isn't considered a charge that can be found in period, we fall back on whether it looks a lot like a period charge. If "as drawn" this looks like a lion, and it isn't a period charge, then it gets no difference from a lion. Laurel hasn't told us which, her words imply either. So, how to solve the problem? 1) It seems pretty clear that redrawing so that the wingless griffin was more clearly bird-ish than lion-ish in the top half of the body will help a lot, both for X.5 and X.4.e. If you redraw, you will be resubmitting not appealing (because you will have changed something.) 2) Put together arguments to attack both X.5 and X.4.e. If you can find a wingless griffin in period heraldry and show that it really isn't just a bad drawing of a lion but blazoned as a wingless griffin you will be doing well. Or, you can show a general pattern of use of winged monsters with/without wings (like wingless wyverns, I can think of one of those in Scotland) and argue that wingless variants are period heraldry compatible as distinct critters, thus a wingless griffin should be a CD from a lion by X.4.e. (Hint: if looking for weird monster variants start in late period Germany, best bet.) Make sense? Everyone asleep now? Zenobia Couronne Rouge