[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Saltire) |Top of Page |Next Page (Snowflake)]
Turning a charge to sinister does not change its type, either technically or visually. These [charges] are identical charges for the purposes of Rule X.4.j.ii. (Briana Morgan of the Valley, July, 1992, pg. 3)
Neither [Argent, a chief indented purpure] nor [Argent, a sinister canton purpure] armory contains a primary charge, so Rule X.2 does not apply ...I'm unhappy with the latter conflict, but I see no way around it as the Rules currently stand. Rule X.2, subtitled "Difference of Primary Charges", specifically applies only when "the type of primary charge is substantially changed." Neither the chief, nor the canton, nor any peripheral ordinary, can be a primary charge; otherwise, by Rule X.1 Lozengy bendwise azure and argent, a canton gules would be clear of Bavaria, and Gyronny sable and Or, a bordure gules would be clear of Campbell. That would be unacceptable; therefore a peripheral ordinary can't be the primary charge, even when it's the only charge in the design (Tristram du Bois, July, 1992, pp. 23-24)
For the purposes of Rule X.4.j.ii, a mask of comedy and a mask of tragedy are considered identical charges. (Cassia Mortivaux, September, 1992, pg. 16)
The escallop is not a simple geometric charge, so the change of type alone of tertiary is worth no difference per Rule X.4.j.ii. (Eleri Rhiannon ferch Cian, September, 1992, pg. 38)
[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)
[On a bend sinister argent between an sun and a increscent, a lizard azure] This conflicts with the device of Serena of Bagulay (SCA): [A bend sinister azure fimbriated argent between in dexter chief three lozenges conjoined in fess and in sinister base a bell]. [The latter] device could equally well be blazoned [On a bend sinister between a bar couped and lozenged and a bell, a bend sinister]; and by that blazon, this is a definite conflict under the Rules. There is a CD for type of secondary charges; but because this is not a "simple case" as defined by Rule X.4.j.ii, change of type alone of tertiary is not worth the second CD needed [and by the reblazoning, there is also nothing for number of secondaries]. (Muireann ní Riordáin, September, 1992, pg. 46)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Saltire) |Top of Page |Next Page (Snowflake)]
[On a bend, an lion's head jessant-de-lys between two acorns sable vs. on a bend, three mullets] A prior case (Gavin Malcoeur de Logres, LoAR of Jan 92, p.16) suggests that, when the tertiary group has two types of charge, the device is too complex for X.4.j.ii to be applied. However, Gavin's submission also had a multiply-parted field; I suspect it was the total complexity of the device that prevented the use of X.4.j.ii -- not the use of two types of tertiary per se. I would have no compunction in calling the current submission clear of [this conflict] [returned for a different conflict]. (Tancred Bras-de-Fer, September, 1992, pg. 47)
Rule X.4.j.ii does apply to charged flaunches [in the sense of being "an ordinary or similarly simple geometric charge"]. (Eleonora Vittoria Alberti di Calabria, December, 1992, pg. 8)
Armory with an overall charge doesn't fit the definition of "simple armory" outlined in Rule X.4.j.ii. (Shire of Drei Eichen, December, 1992, pg. 17)
[Azure, on a bend argent between two griffins segreant Or, three acorns palewise azure] Conflict with [Azure, on a bend argent between a mace erect and a barrel palewise Or, three fleurs-de-lys palewise azure]. There's a CD for the change in type of secondary charge. Since Jean-Marc's secondaries are dissimilar, Rule X.4.j.ii doesn't apply to this case; it requires both the armories under comparison to be simple. We thus cannot grant a CD for the single change (of type) of the tertiary charges. (Caroline de Chesnei, March, 1993, pg. 20)
Some commenters had wondered whether the presence of an overall charge automatically brings a design outside the scope of X.4.j.ii. As currently worded, Rule X.4.j.ii.b applies to "an ordinary ...accompanied only by a single group of identical charges on the field." Overall charges, in most cases, are not considered in the same class as charges on the field: they are separate categories of difference (X.4.b and X.4.c), for instance, and VIII.2.b.i refers to contrast between the field and "every charge placed directly on it and with charges placed overall", implying these are separate. Since the Rules don't seem to consider overall charges to be "directly on the field", X.4.j.ii.b doesn't apply to overall charges.
Lord Owen gives another argument: Rule X.4.j.ii.b only applies if the ordinary is charged, not the accompanying secondary charge. If the secondary charge were to overlie the ordinary, it would crowd the tertiaries and render them harder to identify. That seems to contradict the intended purpose of the Rule, that simple armorial design meet less stringent difference standards. I have to agree with this. The presence of the overall charge prevents this design from being considered "simple armory" within the meaning of Rule X.4.j.ii. No CDs can be granted for type alone of tertiary. (College of Cathair Dhaibhaidh, March, 1993, pg. 20)
[Rule X.2 was changed; for the new wording see under ADMINISTRATIVE -- Rule Changes] (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pp. 2-3)
[Sable, on a bend vert fimbriated between two pairs of hammers in saltire, a turtle shell tergiant fesswise Or] This doesn't conflict with [Sable, on a bend vert fimbriated between two lightning flashes, a catamount rampant Or]. By the definitions of Rule X.4.j.ii, these are both simple armory. Thus, there's a CD for the change in type of secondary charges, and a second CD for the change of type of tertiary charge. (Conn Jamesson, June, 1993, pg. 6)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Saltire) |Top of Page |Next Page (Snowflake)]
[Azure, a goblet Or, on a chief argent three roses gules] This technically conflicts with Lawrie [Azure, a cup Or with four laurel branches issuant argent, the center ones orlewise, on a chief of the third a lion passant gules between two mullets of the first.] The blazons of similar designs in Lawrie/Laurie armory convince us that the laurel branches are not "maintained" charges but significant secondary charges; their removal is worth a CD. However, we couldn't see giving the second needed CD for the changes to the tertiaries on the chief.
Between this submission and Lawrie, there have been changes to type of all three charges on the chief, and to tincture of two of them. Since Lawrie's armory is not simple, Rule X.4.j.ii doesn't apply; change of type alone of the tertiaries isn't worth a CD. Rule X.4.j.i states that "Generally, such changes must affect the whole group of [tertiary] charges to be considered visually significant." [Emphasis Bruce's.] The word "generally" gives us some leeway, true, but the cases where that leeway can be exercised are few.
It has been ruled (LoAR cover letter of 16 Oct 90) that "in certain particularly simple cases, changes to type or number plus change of tincture of one-half of tertiary charge(s) will be sufficient difference for a CVD." The defining case closest to the current submission was that of Éibhleann O'Ceileachair, Sept 90: her submission of Azure, a demi-sun issuant from base Or, on a chief argent three shamrocks vert was deemed clear of the Barony of Aneala, Azure, a demi-sun issuant from chief Or, on a chief argent a laurel wreath vert between two swan's heads and necks erased respectant sable. That case, and the case of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme on the same LoAR, set the standard for "certain particularly simple cases": all the armories considered had at most a single charge beneath the chief. While the client's submission meets that standard, the arms of Lawrie do not; Lawrie has twisty branches, half of which form an orle. I therefore cannot consider this a simple case, and so cannot grant the needed CD for the tertiary changes.
To summarize: between this submission and the arms of Lawrie, there's a CD for the secondary charges (the laurel branches); but Lawrie's armory is too complex to allow us to get another CD for the changes to the tertiaries. This must be returned, with regrets. (Anne of Carthew, July, 1993, pg. 12)
Current precedent does not permit the heart to be considered a "simple geometric charge" for the purposes of Rule X.4.j.ii; therefore, only changing the type of the tertiary is not worth a CD. (Margaret Menteith, September, 1993, pg. 21)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Saltire) |Top of Page |Next Page (Snowflake)]