Guardant Key Dumper 0.3 C Infern
Cherrie Patete
While the English default for panthers is guardant, the German default is not. As it's easier to specify guardant than not-guardant (facing forwards, whatever), the SCA hasnot adopted the English default. (Russell Jervis, September, 1993, pg. 4)
[Per bend sinister, a demi-panther guardant and a demi-panther inverted guardant, both issuant from the line of division] The style of this device has been registered before (Dairine MorÓ hUigin, April 89). Similar designs are found in late-period German armory, as in the arms of Burgkmair, 1516 (Per bend sinister Or and sable, the line in the form of two bear's headsinterlocked, the one in base inverted); see von Volborth's Art of Heraldry, p.55. So long as there are no other complexities (e.g. other charges), the motif is acceptablefor Society use. (Michael David of Aran Island, September, 1992, pg. 29)
[An owl affronty guardant vs. an owl statant guardant] The "blobbiness" of the owl's body, and the fact that the owl is guardant in all cases, leads me to conclude that there is novisual difference for turning the owl's body affronty. [See also Gundric Fawkes, October 1992 LoAR, pg. 29] (Stanwulf the Stern, August, 1992, pg. 26)
[A cat-a-mountain couchant guardant, tail "reflexed to base"] The submitter wishes her device's blazon to specify the exact placement of the cat's tail. (She's also added the tincture ofthe eyes, which isn't in the current blazon, registered 31 Oct 82.) While I sympathize with the submitter's wish to have her emblazon rendered as she prefers, this can't be done at the expense ofcorrect blazonry. The posture of the tail is heraldically insignificant; moreover, the proposed reblazon doesn't use standard heraldic terms. Reflexed to base is not to be found in Franklyn & Tanner, Woodward, or any of our normal texts; nor is it found in the OED. As Lord Crescent noted, it seems pointless to "clarify" ablazon with an ambiguous phrase. This seems to be a problem more easily solved by communication with the artists than by torturous reblazon. (Leah Kasmira of Natterhelm, March, 1993, pg. 26)
In fact, period blazonry provides the best model for our own. I may blazon items worth no heraldic difference, depending on whether they're large enough to be immediately noticeable, or whetherthey were included in period blazons. An example of the first criterion might be head posture: though we'd grant no difference between, e.g., lion rampant vs. lion rampant guardant,it's a large visual change, and deserves mention in the blazon. (And who knows? If someone uncovers evidence to support it, we might someday grant difference for head posture -- and onthat day, we'd be glad we blazoned it.) An example of the second criterion might be tail posture: though we'd grant no difference between, e.g., lion rampant vs. lion rampant coward, itwas blazoned in period and should probably be blazoned in the Society as well.
[In the doorway of a tower, a lion couchant guardant] The lion in the doorway is effectively a tertiary [in terms of calling conflict]. (Seeker's Keep (Aelfric se Droflic), September, 1992,pg. 1)
[An owl affronty guardant vs. an owl statant guardant] The "blobbiness" of the owl's body, and the fact that the owl is guardant in all cases, leads me to conclude that there is novisual difference for turning the owl's body affronty. [See also Gundric Fawkes, October 1992 LoAR, pg. 29] (Stanwulf the Stern, August, 1992, pg. 26)
This is not a new policy; we've applied the Clause to conflict problems in the past. Indeed, it was so often taken for granted that the Clause wasn't explicitly mentioned in the LoAR; one mustread the pertinent LOI and commentary to know that the Clause was applied. An example I recall is the submission of Cherie Ruadh MhicRath of Locksley (LoAR of Aug 86), Vert, on a tree eradicatedargent a cat statant guardant gules. Even under the Rules at the time, this would have conflicted with the mundane arms of Morewood, Vert, an oak tree argent fructed Or. But the device wasbased on the arms of the submitter's husband, Ioseph of Locksley the Rhymer, Vert, a tree eradicated argent; Laurel's notes in the submitter's file show that he considered the GrandfatherClause to apply to the conflict with Morewood.
[Two angels bendwise sinister, passant to sinister guardant, originially blazoned as rising] The angels' posture is not particularly heraldic, as evidenced by the number ofsuggestions for reblazoning them; neither volant nor rising is appropriate to humanoids. The above blazon was the closest we could devise, and it isn't all that accurate. The angelsneed to be in a blazonable posture. (Meghan Pengwyn of Wynterwood, September, 1992, pg. 46)
[Quarterly Or and gules, four swans counterchanged sable and argent] The device isn't marshalling, any more than the armory of Wales (Quarterly Or and gules, four lions passant guardantcounterchanged) is marshalling. So long as all the charged sections of the field bear a single (identical) charge, this is considered acceptable for SCA use. (Deirdre O'Connell, August, 1992, pg.14)
aa06259810