[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Pile) |Next Page (Pretense)]
By SCA precedent, there's no difference between rampant and sejant erect. The only real change is the placement of a hind leg. (Killian Nc Iain VcFarland, June, 1992, pg. 4)
Prior rulings notwithstanding, there is no difference between naiant and naiant "embowed": the naiant posture often includes a slight embowment. (Aldwin Wolfling, July, 1992, pg. 21)
[A bear sejant erect vs. a bear rampant or a bear erect] In each case, there's [not a CD] for the posture of the bear. (Henry of Three Needles, August, 1992, pg. 24)
[(Fieldless) A narwhale hauriant embowed argent] This is the fieldless version of [the submittor's] current device, ...Per pale vert and sable, a narwhale haurient embowed argent. Several commenters called conflict against [Sable, a whale haurient argent]. The same conflict call was made against his device, during its submission. Lord Laurel explicitly ruled the two armories to be clear of conflict: "There's a CVD for the field and a CVD for haurient embowed versus haurient." [LoAR of May, 1991] Exactly the same point count applies to the badge.
I happen to disagree with that ruling: I don't think there's a CD between haurient embowed and haurient, and I won't be granting it in future. However, I also believe that, given such an explicit ruling, in good conscience we have to call [the submittor's] badge clear ...The Grandfather Clause does apply to conflict, as well as stylistic problems; the badge conflicts no more (and no less) than the device, and if Gest may display the latter, it would be unreasonable to tell him he may not display the former. (Gest Grimsson, September, 1992, pg. 7)
[Volant affronty] This is an inherently unidentifiable posture, and so unsuitable for heraldry. (Robin Telfer, September, 1992, pg. 48)
Sejant tergiant is not an heraldic posture, previous registrations notwithstanding. It renders the <beast> unrecognizable, where the whole purpose of heraldry is identification (Catraoine ni Risteaird, September, 1992, pg. 52)
There are examples from Continental armory of birds displayed and rotated from the vertical: e.g. von Eptingen ( Siebmacher, plate 129), Or, an eagle displayed and fesswise sable. (James d'Orleans, October, 1992, pg. 2)
Volant affronty is not a recognizable posture. (Eirikr Eyvindarson, October, 1992, pg. 23)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Pile) |Top of Page |Next Page (Pretense)]
The dormant posture should be used carefully, as it can all too easily render a beast unidentifiable. In this case, the wolf's head, paws and tail are neatly tucked in, making him indistinguishable from a meatloaf. This must be returned, per Rule VIII.3. (Vladimir Andreivich Aleksandrov, January, 1993, pg. 24)
As has been noted in the past, the dormant posture should be used cautiously, as it all too often obscures the beast's head, tail and feet, rendering it unidentifiable. (Anderewe Fouchier of the White Dove, March, 1993, pg. 22)
[A wingless dragon "displayed"] The displayed posture is not applicable to non-winged creatures, just as rampant is no longer applicable to birds (LoAR of May 91). No other blazon adequately describes this posture (although if the dragon's back were to the viewer, instead of its belly, it might be tergiant).
Moreover, since the dragon's posture (however blazoned) is indistinguishable from tergiant, this conflicts with [a natural salamander tergiant] ...putting the dragon in this posture greatly reduces any difference to be granted for type of reptile. (Balthasar of Eastwick, March, 1993, pg. 22)
The College has judged inverted creatures to be unacceptable style, barring documentation of this practice in period heraldry. (Mistylla of the Misty Isle, September, 1993, pg. 21)
[Falcons rising displayed, each with the dexter wing inverted] A similar wing posture is found in the arms of the English College of Arms: Argent, a cross gules between four doves, each with the dexter wing displayed and inverted azure. (Oxford Guide to Heraldry , plate 4). (Dunecan Falkenar de la Leie, October, 1993, pg. 6)
We grant no difference between sejant erect and rampant. (Alistrina de Mann, October, 1993, pg. 15)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Pile) |Top of Page |Next Page (Pretense)]