[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Fish - Dolphin) |Next Page (Flaunch)]
[On a flame, a goblet vs. On a flame, a sword charged with a goutte] There are no CDs for the type of tertiary charge in this case. (Lasairfhiona ni Dhoineannaigh, September, 1992, pg. 40)
Tongues of flame are not period [device returned for this reason in combination with other style problems]. (Shire of Crystal Moor, October, 1992, pg. 31)
Mundane armory seems to consider a flame proper as streaked of gules and Or, in equal proportions. Society armory considers a flame proper (on a dark field) as the same as a flame Or voided gules (or, alternatively, a flame Or charged with a flame gules). Either way, when used as the primary charge, there's a CD between a flame proper and a flame Or. (Helena of Durham, January, 1993, pg. 8)
Flames are an exception to the rule that complex charges cannot be voided: since a flame proper is defined in Society armory as "a flame Or voided gules" (on a dark field), by extension a "flame argent voided gules" should be equally acceptable. (Tegen Meanbh, January, 1993, pg. 21)
[On an annulet of flame sable an annulet Or] This submission engendered considerable discussion at the Symposium; many felt that the badge was post-period in style ...The full-sized emblazon did not show an annulet "fimbriated of flame", as some commenters described it, but a ring of fire charged with a gold annulet. The question was whether an annulet of flame was an acceptable motif. Our standards regarding charges made of flame have tightened over the years, but we still accept simple cases (the base of flame being the prime example). The annulet of flame seemed simple enough to accept, on a case-by-case basis. (Barony of Wiesenfeuer, June, 1993, pg. 3)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Fish - Dolphin) |Top of Page |Next Page (Flaunch)]
For some time now, we've been instituting a change (actually dating from Master Da'ud's tenure as Laurel) on enflamed charges: how they're considered, and how they're blazoned. In the early days of the Society, a [charge] enflamed was depicted as a [charge] completely enveloped by flame --- essentially a full flame, with the [charge] entirely on the flame. In those cases, the [charge] was considered the primary charge, with the flames either an artistic detail or a complex sort of fimbriation. More recently, such designs have been blazoned On a flame a [charge], making the flame the primary and the [charge] a tertiary. This has two effects: it brings our heraldic practice closer to that of period, and it alters the way difference is counted against such designs.
On the first point, enflamed charges weren't normally depicted in period armory as enveloped of flames. Discounting the fiery charges whose flames have a defined placement (e.g., the beacon), a period enflamed charge would be drawn with tiny spurts of flame issuant from several points. Mounts enflamed were not uncommon: in addition to the examples of MacKenzie armory cited by Lady Black Stag (in her commentary on Michael McKenzie, on this LoAR), there's the mountain couped azure enflamed proper in the arms of MacLeod (Guillim, 1632, p.127) and the trimount couped vert enflamed gules in the arms of Lerchenfeld (Siebmacher , 1605, plate 95) and Nouwer (Armorial de Gelres, c.1370, fo.40). There's also the arms of Brandt (Argent, a ragged staff bendwise sable enflamed gules), where the enflaming is depicted in various sources (Siebmacher , Gelres, the European Armoria) as on the top end of the staff, issuant from each "ragged" portion, or issuant to chief --- but never as On a flame gules a ragged staff sable. The salamander is usually shown with spurts of flame, but occasionally as lying on a bed of flame (Dennys' Heraldic Imagination, p.193); but I could find no period emblazon showing the salamander as a tertiary on a flame. The enflamed towers of the arms of Dublin are drawn with spurts of fire from the battlements and windows, not as flames with tertiary towers. I could go on, but I think the point is made: in period, the normal depiction of a [charge] enflamed showed the charge on the field, with tiny spurts of flame issuant (and also on the field).
Two consequences follow from this depiction. First, the [charge] and the flames must both have good contrast with the field. Enflaming isn't a way to get around the Rule of Tincture; we don't permit flaming fimbriation in Society armory. Second, by the period definition of enflaming an enflamed [charge] is definitely the main charge; but by the old SCA definition, an enflamed [charge] is now considered a tertiary charge. We'd count Sufficient Difference, per X.2, between a lion Or enflamed gules and a tower Or enflamed gules, but no difference at all, per X.4.j.ii, between on a flame gules a lion Or and on a flame gules a tower Or.
In all ways, then, it's in the submitter's best interest to render an enflamed charge in the period style, rather than as a tertiary on a flame. It's more authentic, and it reduces the chance of conflict. (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pp. 5-6)
[(Fieldless) On a flame Or a salamander gules] This is a technical conflict with [Sable, a flame proper]. There's a CD for fieldlessness. Since a flame proper is, on a dark field, equivalent to on a flame Or another gules, the only other change is to type of tertiary charge -- which on a complex primary is worth no difference, per Rule X.4.j.ii. (Balian de Brionne, July, 1993, pg. 15)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Fish - Dolphin) |Top of Page |Next Page (Flaunch)]