Cunnan - User contributions [en]

Talk:Tincture

2005-12-16T16:44:56Z

Daniel C. Boyer: man proper

Ought reference (somewhere) be made to the use of '''white''' in English heraldry, for the [[label]] attached to the Royal Arms for the Heir Apparent, or does this only commence after [[period]] ?<br>
It is mentioned on the page for [[label]].

==Proper==
See [[Talk:Proper]] for my objections to saying that mythical animals can't be proper. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 10:27, 13 Dec 2005 (CST)

==Man "proper"==
Saying a "man proper would be pale pink (in Europe at least)" is extremely questionable as there would be no question whatsoever in period of a man not being shown this way and not for some time after period. The only exception are some very, very unusual (and rather avant-garde, if you will) contemporary emblazonments. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 10:44, 16 Dec 2005 (CST)

Talk:Dancetty

2005-12-16T16:41:56Z

Daniel C. Boyer: fess dancetty as "dance"

Is a fess dancetty ever blazoned as "a dance" in SCA heraldry as it was in mundane heraldry at an early period (and there are now examples of this usage cropping up again)? --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 10:41, 16 Dec 2005 (CST)

Talk:Proper

2005-12-15T20:38:42Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

"Most heraldic beasts have no proper colour as they are mythical creatures who only exist in heraldry": this is patently untrue. "Proper" is the tincture the beasts are "considered" to be; there are examples in period of a "phoenix proper," for instance. The tiger, being considered to be naturally red even though the heraldic tiger "exists only in heraldry" (though it was not so believed at the time, the form the tiger would take being generally believed to be that), would thereby be emblazoned as red if blazoned as "proper." --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 10:45, 12 Dec 2005 (CST)
*Oops, I wrote this and I did it so long ago that I can't remember my basis for it. I think I got it from one of the SCA heraldry web pages (most likely Laurel Sovereign of Arms or West Kingdom Herald), and so most of this, including the table, should include the condition ''for the purposes of SCA heraldry''. [[User:Conrad Leviston|Conrad Leviston]] 19:54, 13 Dec 2005 (CST)
**O.K. However, in mundane heraldry including in period, as long as proper has been used (it was phrased in several different ways in the early period, but I'm talking about the concept, not necessarily the phrasing) it's always been true that imaginary animals could be blazoned as "proper" and how could they not be, since many of them were not recognised as imaginary at the time, and at any rate the real/imaginary dichotomy is not really helpful in any concievable way when it comes to heraldry? What I'm getting at is there seems to be a misconception of what "proper" means here: it means that the charge is in the tinctures the charge is "supposed" to be in, which is at times a convention rather than something observed from nature. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 14:14, 15 Dec 2005 (CST)

==Difference in SCA usage should be explained==
It is my understanding as per the chart that SCA heraldry differs greatly in its treatment of proper from how mundane heraldry has always dealt with it. In mundane heraldry proper is considered neither a colour nor a metal, but a sort of neutral tincture (yes, proper is a tincture!) that can be placed on either, even when the SCA's conception of proper maybe being a colour and maybe being a metal would cause rule-of-tincture violations, and even, theoretically, in low contrast situations (in theory, ''Vert a lizard proper'' would be a completely acceptable coat despite its being effectively invisible!). This might not be meaningful for inclusion in the article but I thought I'd bring it up. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 14:38, 15 Dec 2005 (CST)

Talk:Orle

2005-12-15T20:34:29Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

In the SCA, is it a rule, as it is in mundane heraldry, that the orle must be uncharged? Are there SCA examples of charged orles? --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 14:34, 15 Dec 2005 (CST)

Talk:Bendlet

2005-12-15T20:32:56Z

Daniel C. Boyer: scarp or scarf

In England at least the "bendlet sinister" could be blazoned as, and is in fact more usually blazoned as, a "scarp" or "scarf". Should this be mentioned? --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 14:32, 15 Dec 2005 (CST)

Talk:Chapé

2005-12-15T20:31:25Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

Saying that it would conflict with a pile inverted seems to be correct, except it was a rule of period (and later, though recently there have been some violations) that an unaccompanied pile can issue from any point of the shield except the base, and the reason for this is to prevent conflict with per chevron. So I would question this. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 14:31, 15 Dec 2005 (CST)

Talk:Fimbriated

2005-12-15T20:28:29Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

Technically the fimbriation is not an outline but is taken from the small area of the field where the fimbriation lies. It is not a border added to a charge but it is just that the field in that small area is of the different tincture. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 14:28, 15 Dec 2005 (CST)

Talk:Animals (Heraldry)

2005-12-15T20:25:02Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

"a torso, with limbs and head arranged round it -- presumably to make out how bold a hunter the bearer of the arms must have been" -- it is by no means certain that this is the meaning of the "lion couped in all its joints" in the arms of Maitland. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 14:25, 15 Dec 2005 (CST)

==Lion as Leopard==

Saying that the lion was sometimes referred to as the "leopard" is misleading as it is its attitude which makes it a leopard. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 14:23, 15 Dec 2005 (CST)

Talk:Animals (Heraldry)

2005-12-15T20:23:27Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

Saying that the lion was sometimes referred to as the "leopard" is misleading as it is its attitude which makes it a leopard. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 14:23, 15 Dec 2005 (CST)

Talk:Stains

2005-12-15T20:22:19Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

I don't know of any precedent or justification for including stains beyond tenne, sanguine or murrey; the others are just very unusual colours, usually of later vintage than those typically given. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 10:24, 12 Dec 2005 (CST)

:My understanding of the other stains is that they were used in Continental heraldry. [[User:Conrad Leviston|Conrad Leviston]] 19:30, 13 Dec 2005 (CST)

::But they are not and never have been classified as "stains"! Sure, until very recent times (World War II in the case of Bleu Celeste, which for some reason caused it to surge in popularity) they had only very rare occurence in Continental history and no, if any, occurence in England or Scotland, but they were always recognised (if they were recongised as tinctures at all; some have still not been recognised outside a very narrow framework, as e.g. Rose which is a 1997 innovation of the Canadian Heraldic Authority and has not been recognised elsewhere) as colours, not stains, in period (to the extent that they existed therein, which some did not) as well as today. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 14:22, 15 Dec 2005 (CST)

Talk:Line divisions

2005-12-15T20:21:49Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

I'm not sure "varied fields" encompasses everything under that heading, particularly "fretty". "Fretty" isn't part of the field (like semy is) but something laid over it. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 14:21, 15 Dec 2005 (CST)

Mascle

2005-12-15T20:20:40Z

Daniel C. Boyer: masculy

<div style="float:right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;">[[Image:mascle.PNG]]</div>

In [[heraldry]] a '''mascle''' is a [[ordinary|subordinary]] in the shape of a voided [[lozenge]].

A pattern laid over the field, ''masculy'' is similar to [[fretty]], but while the latter is an interlaced fretwork pattern, the former is a solid latticework pattern without interlacing. In period this very rare pattern was shown several different ways, however.

[[Category:Device heraldry]]

Talk:Wavy

2005-12-15T20:18:54Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

Is "wavy crested" a post-period development? Does anyone know its vintage? --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 14:18, 15 Dec 2005 (CST)

Talk:Stains

2005-12-15T20:18:04Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

Talk:Proper

2005-12-15T20:14:31Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

User talk:Daniel C. Boyer

2005-12-15T20:10:41Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

Hello Daniel, and welcome to Cunnan. Thanks for your contributions so far. As you can see we have made a reasonable start on the heraldry stuff, but there is still a great deal to be done to improve it. If you have any questions please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. By the way, I'll try and get back to you about my source for "gout de vin", but I don't have my major period heraldry source to hand at the moment. [[User:Conrad Leviston|Conrad Leviston]] 19:27, 13 Dec 2005 (CST)

:You're welcome. The first (1611) edition of Guillim is pretty close in many ways... --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 14:10, 15 Dec 2005 (CST)

Talk:Tincture

2005-12-13T16:27:41Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

Talk:Goutte

2005-12-13T16:25:27Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

What is the cite for goutte de vin? I'd not see this in period. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 10:25, 13 Dec 2005 (CST)

Semé

2005-12-13T16:24:45Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

Affronte

2005-12-13T16:22:23Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

In [[heraldry]], an [[animal]] facing towards the viewer is described as being '''affronte'''. It is not often present in [[medieval]] heraldry. One exception to this is the [[owl]], which is depicted affronte as a default.

[[category:device heraldry]][[category:heraldic poses]]

Talk:Proper

2005-12-12T16:45:42Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

Talk:Pean

2005-12-12T16:32:25Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

You really shouldn't describe fur as one of the "colours" as that's misleading; a "colour" is something else in heraldry. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 10:32, 12 Dec 2005 (CST)

Talk:Mascle

2005-12-12T16:27:22Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

Should there be a dicussion of masculy somewhere on here? --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 10:27, 12 Dec 2005 (CST)

Stains

2005-12-12T16:25:19Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

Stains

2005-12-12T16:25:09Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

Talk:Stains

2005-12-12T16:24:16Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

Murrey

2005-12-12T16:22:56Z

Daniel C. Boyer: use of murrey as livery colour; murrey not often distinguished from sanguine in earlier times but now it almost always is

<div style="float:right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;">[[Image:murrey.PNG]]</div>

In [[heraldry]], '''murrey''' indicates a purple-red, or mulberry, [[tincture]]. It is classified as one of the [[stains]] and so its use is extremely rare in English heraldry, though there were a greater number of instances of its use as a livery colour. In earlier times murrey was not usually considered a distinct heraldic [[tincture]] from [[sanguine]], but in the present, post-Victorian period, they are almost always distinguished.

[[Category:Device heraldry]]

Abatement

2005-12-12T16:18:45Z

Daniel C. Boyer:

In [[heraldry]] an '''abatement''' is a mark on a [[device]] indicating some form of dishonour. Where abatements are a charge, the tincture of that charge will be one of the [[stains]] in order to indicate a stain on the bearer's honour.

Abatements are described by [[Fox-Davies]] as ''one of those pleasant idiocies that has done so much to the detriment of heraldry''. In spite of being included in numerous books on heraldry in [[period]], the only abatement that appears to have been used in period is the [[inverted shield]] for treachery, and that not willingly (there are extremely isolated occurences of abatements in Scotland in the modern era). It is generally accepted that as it would be better to have no arms at all rather than arms with an abatement, the only place they ever really existed were in heralds' minds.

*[[Delf]]
*[[Escutcheon reversed]]
*[[Point dexter parted]]
*[[Point in point]]
*[[Point champaine]]
*[[Point plain]]
*[[Gore]]
*[[Gusset]]
*[[Inverted shield]]

[[Category:Device heraldry]]