Blazon question

[Dauyd]

I'm trying to help a friend come up with a device, but I'm stuck on how to blazon it.

What we're working on is quarterly black and red, with 2 pairs of rampant lions combatant in gold. One pair on top, and one below.

I'm pretty sure it starts out "per quarterly sable and gules", but I'm not sure how to blazon the lions.

" in chief 2 lions combatant Or, in base 2 lions combatant Or"?

"4 lions combatant Or"?

Something else?

[Effingham]

That probably wouldn't work, I'm afraid. It would look like quartered arms of sable a lion rampant or, and gules a lion rampant or.

If you're doing anything with charged quarters, there needs to be an overall uniting element (a bordure or something) to make it look a BIT less like marshaled arms.

[Klaus the Red]

If you make it just one pair of combatant lions "overall," ie, not placed within the quarters, it won't give the appearance of marshalled arms. My gut feeling is that a pair of beasts over a quarterly field is not too common- you might get a point of difference for the field, but then you'd still have one more point of difference from every other pair of lions combatant out there.

And the field is simply "quarterly," no "per" needed.


You could do per pale gules and sable (or vice versa), and (I think) two lions combatant in chief and two in base or- but keep in mind that mirror symmetry isn't all that period.

K

[Effingham]

You could do per pale gules and sable (or vice versa), and (I think) two lions combatant in chief and two in base or- but keep in mind that mirror symmetry isn't all that period.

Indeed.

Our modern eye prefers it -- two lions facing each other, for example -- but in period herald speak, those are two different charges (they are in different attitudes/directions/poses), whereas two lions rampant is just a repetition of the same charge.

[Dauyd]

Wouldn't lions combatant be considered a single charge?

I know that normally having 2 mirrored charges facing each other is a no-no, but in this case "combatant" specifically describes 2 beast in that posture.

Anyways, If I'm understanding correctly, there are 3 options.

1. Put a border around the outside (maybe counterchanged?)

2. Drop one of the pairs of lions and make the remaining one bigger and centered.

3. Leave the lions as is, drop to a simple vertical division.

My guess is he won't like #3, so 1 or 2 is more likely.

I did a really quick armourial search, and only came up with 6 hits for "lions combatant"- none of which are anything close to this, so he might be OK there.

How many points do you need now? 3?

[Effingham]

Wouldn't lions combatant be considered a single charge?

No, because it's only shorthand for "a lion rampant and a lion rampant contorny in pale."

[Konstantin the Red]

If he likes his four lions, something like a cross of any type that accommodates them (so the Cross of Calatrava wouldn't do, but formé, or throughout, or fleury would) would unite all the quarters into a single coat:

Quarterly sable and gules, a cross {whichever type} Or between four lions combattant Or (two and two, if such further blazon is required)

Any charge that debruises, or covers, either the fess line or the palar line of the quarterly field division would make the whole device indisputably single. A charge located where the two lines cross at the center point would do it too. A fifth lioncel? -- a "lioncel" because by now your lions are getting both quite numerous and hence necessarily smaller.

It might be fun to have the 4 lions combattant reguardant -- their heads all turned facing outwards on the shield.

Last I heard, 2 Clear Visual Differences from anyone in Society.

[edit for greater clarity]

[Domhnall na Moicheirghe]

That probably wouldn't work, I'm afraid. It would look like quartered arms of sable a lion rampant or, and gules a lion rampant or.

Not quite. It would look like the quartered arms of:
1. Sable, a lion rampant contourney Or
2. Gules, a lion rampant Or
3. Gules, a lion rampant contourney Or
4. Sable, a lion rampant Or

However, your point is still probably valid that this looks sufficiently like marshalling to be returned.

Wouldn't lions combatant be considered a single charge?

No, because it's only shorthand for "a lion rampant and a lion rampant contorny in pale."

In fess, not in pale. Again, your point is otherwise valid.

The three ideas Dauyd lists, plus the cross one from Konstantin are all registrable (although #3 would look odd IMHO).

Once he's decided, if you post the final idea here, I (or other passing heralds) can check it for you.

[ladyilsebet]

It'd be great if we could get ursula or another of the senior heralds in here. I was *just* reading this morning that having the same charge type on all parts of what would otherwise look like a marshaled device, removes the appearance of marshalling.

Here's the relevant bit from the RfS:

3. Marshalling. - Armory that appears to marshall independent arms is considered presumptuous.

Period marshalling combined two or more separate designs to indicate descent from noble parents and claim to inheritance. Since members of the Society are all required to earn their status on their own merits, apparent claims to inherited status are presumptuous. Divisions commonly used for marshalling, such as quarterly or per pale, may only be used in contexts that ensure marshalling is not suggested.

a. Such fields may be used with identical charges over the entire field, or with complex lines of partition or charges overall that were not used for marshalling in period heraldry.

b. Such fields may only be used when no single portion of the field may appear to be an independent piece of armory.

No section of the field may contain an ordinary that terminates at the edge of that section, or more than one charge unless those charges are part of a group over the whole field. Charged sections must all contain charges of the same type to avoid the appearance of being different from each other.

[Talorgen]

ladyilsebet is in fact correct, even with the relevant citation from the rules for submission. A lion rampant and a lion rampant contourney should be considered to be identical charges by longstanding precedent within the College of Arms, even though the difference in their orientation would count for one difference when counting conflict. In essence, the armory does not appear to be the marshalling of two independent arms because the potentially marshalled arms are too closely related to have been marshalled in a period context.

"Quarterly sable and gules, four lions combatant Or" is the blazon that Dauyd is looking for.

After a quick check, the armory also appears to be free of conflict at this time.

Although combatant is used somewhat more frequently in SCA heraldry than it was in the real world, it is not a significant problem. I see no reason that this device should not be registerable, and would advise the original poster to continue with the submission.

Talorgen
Sea Dragon Herald, Atlantia
(Armorial Education)

[Klaus the Red]

Boy, this is fun. Thanks, Dauyd! I'd forgotten how much I like heraldic commentary.

[Effingham]

That probably wouldn't work, I'm afraid. It would look like quartered arms of sable a lion rampant or, and gules a lion rampant or.

Not quite. It would look like the quartered arms of:
1. Sable, a lion rampant contourney Or
2. Gules, a lion rampant Or
3. Gules, a lion rampant contourney Or
4. Sable, a lion rampant Or

You know, I *totally* missed that the first iteration was pairs of combatants. Now it strikes me as even weirder, heraldically speaking.

Wouldn't lions combatant be considered a single charge?

No, because it's only shorthand for "a lion rampant and a lion rampant contorny in pale."

In fess, not in pale. Again, your point is otherwise valid.

DAMMIT!!!

Man, I was full of teh suck last night.

[Dauyd]

OK, after talking with him again, he has made some revisions.

First choice, per pale sable and gules, (in cheif? bigger overall ones) 2 WINGED lions combatant or. (I missed the winged part when I talked to him before)

He really likes the simplicity of that one, but worries he would not have enough differences to pass. The quarterly thing and the second set of lions were basically added because he thought it would give him more SD's.

2nd choice, Quarterly sable and gules, 2 winged lions combatant (#2 from above)

3rd choice, go with the origional.

His persona is Venetian, he says that winged lions were a Venetian "thing", thus the wings.

Thoughts? Any chance of the first option being unique enough to pass?

[zippy]

MORE IMAGINATION
use a less used lion position
try bicorporated or tricorporated
you get your two (or three) lion bodies and it looks cool as hell
two lions combatant or even two beasts of any kind combatant
is so common
but hey i have a frauenadler in one piece of heraldry and a wing terminating in a claw on another
and my fave
(Fieldless) An ermine spot azure ermined Or.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?pi ... 1112269331

[Konstantin the Red]

...2 winged lions enhanced combattant Or.

...Since he seems to want them up there chief-ish, while drawing them nice and big too. This would pretty much put their heads and forepaws up into chief, and their wingtips would go into each upper corner. Hind feet and maybe tail tufts not much below the fess line, but somewhat.

Search for O&A conflicts among "Monsters," as well as "Beast - Lion."

This wouldn't constitute enough difference from a similar-colored divided field and gold lions with wings or without simply set more middlin', as the difference of position would end up pretty slight, and two charges not being hugely different. But no problem with fields of different coloring or different colored lions.

[Talorgen]

Both the first and second choices conflict with

Anjou-Plantagenet, first house of Anjou
The following device associated with this name was registered in December of 1994 (via Laurel):
Gules, two lions combattant Or.

The wings are not sufficient to give a difference, and the change to color of half the field gives 1 difference for either design.

Adding the second pair of lions (winged or not) does clear the conflict and appears to be clear of any other conflict at this time.

zippy's suggestions are definitely a good way to proceed as well, and will produce heraldry that is much less l'cookie cutter' if that is important to the submitter.

Good luck to your friend!

[Domhnall na Moicheirghe]

Both the first and second choices conflict with

Anjou-Plantagenet, first house of Anjou
The following device associated with this name was registered in December of 1994 (via Laurel):
Gules, two lions combattant Or.

The wings are not sufficient to give a difference, and the change to color of half the field gives 1 difference for either design.

I disagree. There is a body of precedent that adding wings to a heraldic animal is worth one CD (e.g. Ruaidhri ua Ceallaigh, 09/2001, A-Calontir). This plus the CD for the field clears conflict with the Plantagenets.

In a brief check, I did not find any conflict for: Per pale sable and gules, two winged lions combattant Or.

Note that the winged lions should take up the entire half of the shield each. Please don't let your client do something as inauthentic as shoving them into the top half of the shield, particularly when it isn't necessary to clear conflict.

[Talorgen]

Excellent. I am pleased to be mistaken in this case, since that will permit the submitter to have what they want to begin with. Not only that, but on either of the field choices this is quite lovely armory!

I know that there was _something_ that I thought should have given a CD along these lines but did not - I'll have to go figure it out again and then keep the relevant precedents close to hand.

[Effingham]

...2 winged lions enhanced combattant Or.

OOoh, hey. Lions with wings. And halos, yeah!!!!!!

<---------------------------------- Lookie!

[Godric Alburne]

Complex lines of division also aid in establishing clear differences. For example, you could have:

"Per pale embattled sable and gules, four winged lions combattant Or."

[Dauyd]

OK, Thanks for all the help, my friend appreciates it.

Here is what I came up with (rough draft, of course):




I think it turned out pretty nice.


Of course, now there are a couple of others that want to do devices, and somehow I've turned into the device guy (only because I am willing to post on here for advice!), so I'll probably be starting a couple more similar threads in the near future. [/img]

[Konstantin the Red]

We're always up for that. Meanwhile see if you can get to at least one Kingdom-level College of Heralds meeting to work on submissions. That really sharpens up your SCA-style blazon. It's not quite British practice any more.