[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Delf) |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Miscellaneous)]
[Three crescents in pale between two flaunches] The in-pale placement of the crescents is not forced by adding the flaunches; this therefore does not conflict with [<field>, three crescents]. (Bevin O'Sullivan, July, 1992, pg. 6)
[Quarterly Or and sable, a lion counterchanged vs. Quarterly Or and sable, in the first quarter a lion] There's a CD for the placement of the lion, from center to dexter chief; but the change of tincture is required by the change of placement, and so cannot be counted as the second necessary CD. (A lion quarterly Or and sable could not be entirely on the sable portion of the field; if the lion is moved there, its tincture must change.)
Or, alternatively, there's a CD for the tincture of the lion, from quarterly Or and sable to Or; but as a solid Or lion could not be centered on the field, the change of placement is required by the change of tincture. Either the tincture or the placement may be counted as a difference; but not both, since to change one requires us to change the other.
I confess not being satisfied with this return, but could find no way around it as the Rules now stand. (Moreach nic Mhaolain, August, 1992, pp. 22-23)
[Per fess rayonny azure and Or, in base a dolphin vert vs. Sable, a dolphin vert] This is clear ...with a CD for the field and a CD for the non-forced change of placement of the [charge]. (Aodhán Doilfín, September, 1992, pg. 18)
Placement on the field cannot be counted against a fieldless badge. [See also Gawain Blackthorne, same letter, pg. 53] (Ariel de Courtenay, September, 1992, pg. 42)
[Per chevron inverted argent and vert, in chief an oak branch [inverted] fructed proper vs. Argent, an oak branch fructed proper] There's a CD for the field, but none for the movement of the mostly-vert charge to chief (since that's required by making the field half-vert), and in this case, none for orientation (since the visual difference between a branch and a branch inverted is well-nigh invisible). (Judith Anne of Durmast, September, 1992, pg. 43)
[Quarterly purpure and Or, in dexter chief a Bengal tiger Or] This conflicts with [Per fess argent and vert, a catamount Or] ...There is a CD for the field; but making the field partly Or requires the Or cat to be moved, so there is no CD for the forced change of placement. (Roland de Mounteney, September, 1992, pg. 46)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Delf) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Miscellaneous)]
[Gules, in chief two <charges>] This conflicts with [Gules, three <charges>]. There's a single CD, for number of charges.
This conflict had been considered by Lord Vesper, but Lord Crux Australis had argued that there should be a CD for the escallops' placement on the field ("in chief" vs. "centered"), as well as their number. The ensuing discussion in the commentary on defaults and forced changes has been enlightening, but has missed an essential point: one cannot grant difference for change between two groups of charges, if the attribute being changed (placement, posture, whatever) doesn't apply to both groups.
This point is easier to see when applied to other categories of change ...for example, posture. The change between a lion rampant and a hand apaumy is a single difference, for type. We don't grant two CDs, for type and posture --- because lions can't be apaumy and hands can't be rampant (Baron Robin's "extra-ordinaries" notwithstanding). Change between two postures can only be counted if both charges could be in those postures. The principle was discussed further on the LoAR of 15 Sept 85, p.3.
Placement can be dependent on other categories of change besides number. For instance, between a chief and a base there's a single CD, for type --- not two CDs, for type and placement on the field. The latter cannot be counted, because chiefs by definition cannot be in base. The only categories in which difference can be counted are the ones both charges share: in this example, type of charge.
Finally, to take an example close to the current case: between one bezant and in pale two bezants we count a single change, for number. There's no further difference counted for placement --- not because the charge groups are (or aren't) in their default placement, but because a single bezant cannot be in pale.
So it is for this submission. Between [the submitter's] device and the [conflict] we count a CD for number. [The conflict's] charges are two and one --- a placement which can only apply to groups of three charges. Any other number of charges is hard pressed to get a CD for placement, because no other number can be 2&1. Had Acre's arms been, say, in bend three escallops, I'd agree there should be a CD for placement as well as number: groups of either two or three escallops can be in bend, or in chief. But since only groups of three charges can be 2&1, a change to any other number wouldn't normally count the change in placement independently.
This specific case is complicated by the fact that [the submitter's charge] are on the same spots on the shield as two of [the conflict's charge] . The visual effect is simply the deletion of the [charge] in base, a single change. There are examples in period armory of exactly such a change being considered a cadency change: e.g. Rotherfield, c.1395, Gules, three fleurs-de-lys ermine, and its cadet branch Rothfeld, c.1586, Gules, in chief two fleurs-de-lys ermine. ( Papworth 851, 849). There are other examples in Papworth: e.g. Rodney (Or, three eagles displayed vert) and its cadet branch Rodney (Or, in chief two eagles displayed vert). This change even applies to groups other than the primary charge group: e.g. the ancient arms of Stormyn, (Gules, a chevron between three mullets argent) and the Chester branch of Stormyn, 1586 (Gules, a chevron and in chief two mullets argent).
To sum up: the change from three charges 2&1 to two charges in chief cannot count a second CD for placement on the field, because two charges can't be 2&1. Period examples show the difference between this submission and Acre to be a single cadency change. This must be returned for conflict. (Leonia Dubarry, January, 1993, pp. 33-34)
[A comet bendwise sinister, head to chief] This had been returned on the LoAR of May 92 for conflict with [an eight-pointed estoile]. The submitter has appealed this decision, arguing that ...there should be a CD for type of charge and a CD for placement on the field. (Honsard's estoile is centered on the shield, while the submitter's comet has its head in sinister chief.) ...the submitter overlooks the fact that, if we elongate the charge, parts of it must be displaced; that's included in the definition of elongation. One cannot count one CD for the first change, and another CD for the second: the second follows automatically from the first. It's analogous to the change between, say, a compass star and a compass star elongated to base, or a Greek cross and a Latin cross. So long as both charges are drawn to fill the available space, the change in type (from symmetrical to elongated) cannot also be counted as a change in placement. (Styvyn Longshanks, January, 1993, pg. 34)
[A bend between a compass star and four wolf's heads in bend] This is clear of [A bend between three dolphins in bend and three quills in bend]. There's a CD for type of the secondary charges, and another for their placement around the bend. (Galina Petrsdottir, May, 1993, pg. 7)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Delf) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Miscellaneous)]