Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Authentic_SCA] Heraldry question (can somebody check my blazon)

Expand Messages
  • Katherine Throckmorton
    ... From: Elizabeth Walpole To: Authentic SCA Subject: [Authentic_SCA] Heraldry question (can
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 10, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Elizabeth Walpole" <ewalpole@...>
      To: "Authentic SCA" <Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: [Authentic_SCA] Heraldry question (can somebody check my blazon)
      Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:44:41 +1000

      >
      > Hi everyone,
      > I've been working on my arms (you can see my picture of them here
      > http://au.geocities.com/e_walpole/myarms.gif )

      Red and white, I must compliment your good taste in colors :)
      I would blazon this:
      Gules, A chevron between two roses in chief and in base a latin cross Argent

      There is, unfortunately a big problem with this device. You have three types of primary charges: The roses, the cross and the chevron in the same group, that is, directly on the field. This isn't allowed under the SCA's Rules for Submission, see:
      http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/rfs.html#8
      under Part VIII "Compatible Armorial Style" for details.
      There are several ways that you can alter the design that will preserve much of your origional concept and will still be registerable. I will be glad to discuss them with you on or off list.



      > Also I wasn't sure if I should specify what sort of cross, I really don't
      > care what sort of cross it is but are you supposed to specify one type, and
      > if it's blazoned a cross can I use, for example, a Maltese cross when I draw
      > it?).

      You need to pick a type of cross and blazon it specifically. There are about twenty types of crosses used in period armory, and they all look different. What you have is a Latin cross. If you need clipart of a different cross let me know and I can email it to you.

      > Also I have a
      > vague recollection of a website that lists all the names and devices
      > registered in the SCA so you can do a preliminary conflict check

      There are lots of websites that allow you to acess the SCA's Ordinary and Armorial. One of the most user-friendly can be found here:
      http://atensubmissions.nexiliscom.com/oanda.shtml

      I will be glad to offer any assistance I can on the conflict checking. I'll say up front that conflict checking isn't my strongest suit, but I can certainly take a look and see if I spot anything.

      -Katherine
      Every weekend, we gather hundreds of people together, none of whom have had enough sleep.
      -Robin's Unified Theory of SCA Dynamics


      --
      _______________________________________________

      Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages

      http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10
    • Elizabeth Walpole
      ... From: Katherine Throckmorton To: Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 11:13 AM Subject: Re:
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 10, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Katherine Throckmorton" <kthrockmorton@...>
        To: <Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 11:13 AM
        Subject: Re: [Authentic_SCA] Heraldry question (can somebody check my
        blazon)


        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "Elizabeth Walpole" <ewalpole@...>
        > To: "Authentic SCA" <Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com>
        > Subject: [Authentic_SCA] Heraldry question (can somebody check my blazon)
        > Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:44:41 +1000
        >
        > >
        > > Hi everyone,
        > > I've been working on my arms (you can see my picture of them here
        > > http://au.geocities.com/e_walpole/myarms.gif )
        >
        > Red and white, I must compliment your good taste in colors :)
        > I would blazon this:
        > Gules, A chevron between two roses in chief and in base a latin cross
        Argent
        >
        > There is, unfortunately a big problem with this device. You have three
        types of primary charges: The roses, the cross and the chevron in the same
        group, that is, directly on the field. This isn't allowed under the SCA's
        Rules for Submission, see:
        > http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/rfs.html#8
        > under Part VIII "Compatible Armorial Style" for details.
        > There are several ways that you can alter the design that will preserve
        much of your original concept and will still be registerable. I will be
        glad to discuss them with you on or off list.
        >
        Ah OK thanks for that info I thought the chevron counted as a field division
        not a charge, I suppose I could just ditch the chevron or maybe have a cross
        overall with roses grouped around or on it. Basically what I want is a cross
        (or possibly crosses) and roses in red and white (I'm not hugely concerned
        about whether it's white on red or vice versa) I've come up with a few
        designs http://au.geocities.com/e_walpole/allarms.gif . Can you (or anybody
        else) see problems with these designs, or give me opinions on which is most
        likely to pass?
        Thanks
        Elizabeth
        --------------------------------------------------------------------
        Elizabeth Beaumont | Elizabeth Walpole
        Politarchopolis, Lochac | Canberra, Australia
        ewalpole[at]tpg.com.au
        http://au.geocities.com/e_walpole/
      • Katherine Throckmorton
        ... Just to make things confusing, there is a thingy called chevron which is a charge and there is also a field division called per chevron , you are using
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 10, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          > >
          > Ah OK thanks for that info I thought the chevron counted as a field division
          > not a charge.

          Just to make things confusing, there is a thingy called chevron which is a charge and there is also a field division called "per chevron", you are using the former. There are pictures of both on at:
          www.sca.org/heraldry/primer
          in the Heraldic Primer section.

          > I've come up with a few
          > designs http://au.geocities.com/e_walpole/allarms.gif. Can you (or anybody
          > else) see problems with these designs, or give me opinions on which is most
          > likely to pass?

          All of them solve the three primary charge problem. The top two look the most like period armory, the bottom two are a bit unbalanced. You could also solve the problem by taking the basic design of the one in the lower right hand corner and switching to a per chevron field division. A picture can be found here:
          http://www.sca.org/heraldry/primer/fielddivisions.html
          Put the cross in base (at the bottom) and put the two roses on either side of the point of the chevron.
          With the possible exception of the one in the lower left hand corner, all of these devices would probobly be registerable in the SCA, from a style standpoint.

          Registerability also has to do with wether or not there is a conflict. I haven't conflict checked any of the suggestions, so I can't say anything concrete there. I will say that conflicts are likely to be an issue, as crosses and roses are both insanely popular in SCA heraldry. But if you remain flexible, it should be possible to get a design with roses and a cross.

          Although I do have to make a unsolicited comment. Your name is Beaumont, and there are a couple of different charges that can be blazoned as a "mont" the potential for canting arms is really huge. Or you might consider using a "cross of calvary" which is a latin cross on top of three steps, which would evoke the "mont" idea. Just a random suggestion.

          -Katherine
          Per saltaire gules and argent, two Catherine wheels gules.





          > Thanks
          > Elizabeth
          > --------------------------------------------------------------------
          > Elizabeth Beaumont | Elizabeth Walpole
          > Politarchopolis, Lochac | Canberra, Australia
          > ewalpole[at]tpg.com.au
          > http://au.geocities.com/e_walpole/



          Every weekend, we gather hundreds of people together, none of whom have had enough sleep.
          -Robin's Unified Theory of SCA Dynamics


          --
          _______________________________________________

          Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages

          http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10
        • Lyle H. Gray
          ... No, this device has _one_ type of primary charge: the chevron. It has two types of secondary charges: The roses and the crosses. Just because all of the
          Message 4 of 12 , Sep 11, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Katherine Throckmorton wrote:

            > > Hi everyone,
            > > I've been working on my arms (you can see my picture of them here
            > > http://au.geocities.com/e_walpole/myarms.gif )
            >
            > Red and white, I must compliment your good taste in colors :)
            > I would blazon this: Gules, A chevron between two roses in
            > chief and in base a latin cross Argent
            >
            > There is, unfortunately a big problem with this device. You
            > have three types of primary charges: The roses, the cross and
            > the chevron in the same group, that is, directly on the
            > field.


            No, this device has _one_ type of primary charge: the chevron.
            It has two types of secondary charges: The roses and the
            crosses.

            Just because all of the charges are directly on the field does
            not make them part of the same group.

            Regards,
            Lyle FitzWilliam
            Elmet Herald, East Kingdom

            --
            Lyle H. Gray
            gray@... -- text only, please
            http://members.verizon.net/~vze3wwx7
            --
            Shared knowledge is preserved knowledge.
          • Katherine Throckmorton
            ... Why is the chevron the sole primary? Ok, it is in the center of the shield, but at least to my eyes the cross and roses have equal visual weight. I m not
            Message 5 of 12 , Sep 11, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Lyle wrote:
              >
              >
              > No, this device has _one_ type of primary charge: the chevron.
              > It has two types of secondary charges: The roses and the
              > crosses.

              Why is the chevron the sole primary? Ok, it is in the center of the shield, but at least to my eyes the cross and roses have equal visual weight.
              I'm not saying that you are wrong, I will quite cheerfully defer to your superior knowledge on the topic of armory, I'm just curious about your reasoning.

              -Katherine


              --
              _______________________________________________

              Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages

              http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10
            • Lyle H. Gray
              ... A chevron is one of the so-called ordinaries , most of which are automatically the primary charge when they re present (the notable exceptions are the
              Message 6 of 12 , Sep 11, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Katherine Throckmorton wrote:

                > Lyle wrote:
                > >
                > > No, this device has _one_ type of primary charge: the chevron.
                > > It has two types of secondary charges: The roses and the
                > > crosses.
                >
                > Why is the chevron the sole primary? Ok, it is in the center
                > of the shield, but at least to my eyes the cross and roses
                > have equal visual weight. I'm not saying that you are wrong,
                > I will quite cheerfully defer to your superior knowledge on
                > the topic of armory, I'm just curious about your reasoning.

                A chevron is one of the so-called "ordinaries", most of which are
                automatically the primary charge when they're present (the
                notable exceptions are the bordure and the chief, the
                "peripheral" ordinaries). With these types of charges, the visual
                weight is less of a factor than the central location of the
                ordinary.

                When you have any three things around a chevron, the chevron is
                usually the primary charge, and the three things become secondary
                charges. If there were no chevron, then the three things _would_
                be the primary charges, but they [sort of] get demoted by the
                inclusion of the chevron.

                Exceptions to this sort of thing are rare enough that I can't
                come up with any off-hand. ;-)

                Note: This usually also holds true with any one thing between
                three other things. I _can_ think of exceptions to this, but I
                think they'd be more confusing than helpful.

                Regards,
                Lyle Elmet

                --
                Lyle H. Gray
                gray@... -- text only, please
                http://members.verizon.net/~vze3wwx7
                --
                Shared knowledge is preserved knowledge.
              • Katherine Throckmorton
                ... Ah! Yet another way that ordinaries are special. Thanks, this is good to know. -Katherine Every weekend, we gather hundreds of people together, none of
                Message 7 of 12 , Sep 11, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Lyle wrote:
                  >
                  > A chevron is one of the so-called "ordinaries", most of which are
                  > automatically the primary charge when they're present (the
                  > notable exceptions are the bordure and the chief, the
                  > "peripheral" ordinaries). With these types of charges, the visual
                  > weight is less of a factor than the central location of the
                  > ordinary.

                  Ah! Yet another way that ordinaries are special. Thanks, this is good to know.

                  -Katherine
                  Every weekend, we gather hundreds of people together, none of whom have had enough sleep.
                  -Robin's Unified Theory of SCA Dynamics


                  --
                  _______________________________________________

                  Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages

                  http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10
                • borderlands15213
                  Elizabeth; First, the obligatory disclaimer: I am not a herald, so can t offer an opinion as to conflicts. Then: You *could* consider dividing your field per
                  Message 8 of 12 , Sep 12, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Elizabeth;
                    First, the obligatory disclaimer: I am not a herald, so can't offer
                    an opinion as to conflicts.
                    Then: You *could* consider dividing your field "per chevron," and
                    have white charges on the red portion and red charges on the white.
                    Just a thought, if the chevron lines appeal to you strongly enough.
                    I know you said you suppose you "could just ditch the chevron."

                    Yseult the Gentle


                    --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Walpole"
                    <ewalpole@t...> wrote:
                    <<<SNIPPAGE>>>
                    > Ah OK thanks for that info I thought the chevron counted as a field
                    division
                    > not a charge, I suppose I could just ditch the chevron or maybe
                    have a cross
                    > overall with roses grouped around or on it. Basically what I want
                    is a cross
                    > (or possibly crosses) and roses in red and white (I'm not hugely
                    concerned
                    > about whether it's white on red or vice versa) I've come up with a
                    few
                    > designs http://au.geocities.com/e_walpole/allarms.gif . Can you (or
                    anybody
                    > else) see problems with these designs, or give me opinions on which
                    is most
                    > likely to pass?
                    > Thanks
                    > Elizabeth
                    > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > Elizabeth Beaumont | Elizabeth Walpole
                    > Politarchopolis, Lochac | Canberra, Australia
                    > ewalpole[at]tpg.com.au
                    > http://au.geocities.com/e_walpole/
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.