[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Heraldic Defaults) |Next Page (Identifiability)]
Adding horns to inanimate objects doesn't appear to have been a period treatment; certainly, we would like to see some evidence of what is, at first glance, a highly improbable usage ...the reason for its improbability --- the fact that the elk-horned mask cannot be identified as such --- is ...grounds for return. (Erc Mortagh the Pict, August, 1992, pg. 24)
[A heart attired of stag's attires reblazoned to a stag's massacre surmounted by a heart] As noted in the case of Erc Mortagh the Pict (LoAR of August 92), adding horns to inanimate charges doesn't appear to have been a period usage; certainly, I'd like to see some evidence for the practice. In this case, the visual effect is of a set of antlers and a heart overall, and that's how we've blazoned it. (Gabriel Gertrude Gyles, September, 1992, pg. 7)
Grafting unicorn's horns onto random animals is not period practice. It has been decried by previous Laurels (LoAR of 3 Aug 86, p.15), and always discouraged; I am taking the final step and, except for Grandfathered cases, disallowing it entirely. (Sorcha ni Mhurchadha, October, 1992, pg. 22)
The stag's horn or stag's attire --- singular, as opposed to the full rack of antlers -- is a period charge; the arms of the Duchy of Wuerttemberg are the most famous example of its use. (Alberto Accorsi, July, 1993, pg. 7)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Heraldic Defaults) |Top of Page |Next Page (Identifiability)]
The demon is a period heraldic charge, as found in the arms of the city of Brussels (Gules, the archangel Michael Or vanquishing a demon underfoot sable). (Asher Truefriend, September, 1992, pg. 30)
[Nude angels , originially blazoned as cupids] The charges are angels, not cupids, as they aren't carrying a cupid's traditional bow and quiver of arrows. (Meghan Pengwyn of Wynterwood, September, 1992, pg. 46)
[Two angels bendwise sinister, passant to sinister guardant, originially blazoned as rising] The angels' posture is not particularly heraldic, as evidenced by the number of suggestions 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 angels need to be in a blazonable posture. (Meghan Pengwyn of Wynterwood, September, 1992, pg. 46)
Technically, a melusine proper is considered neutral, and acceptable on argent; in practice, its contrast with an argent field is borderline [device returned for other contrast problems and for conflict]. (Simona Zon d'Asolo, September, 1992, pg. 51)
There's no difference granted for melusine [two-tailed mermaid] vs. mermaid. (Simona Zon d'Asolo, September, 1992, pg. 51)
When a human figure's vesting is not part of its definition (e.g. the savage, the Saracen), the vesting or lack of same is normally blazoned. (Austrechild von Mondsee, December, 1992, pg. 11)
According to Franklyn & Tanner, a maiden in her modesty is nude, with one arm flexed across and covering the breasts. (Taliesin O Sionnaigh o Pholl na tSionnaigh, June, 1993, pg. 2)
[On a <charge> argent, three infants swaddled azure, heads proper] The infants' bodies are swaddled in blue, with only their heads showing. The charge is often found in medieval armory; and the contrast in this case is acceptable. (Michaela Nuernberger, June, 1993, pg. 4)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Heraldic Defaults) |Top of Page |Next Page (Identifiability)]