Editing Unified Posture and Orientation


'''WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference. This page is on this wikispace only to make the content "searchable" and easier to find. If you find the information you seek here, go to the original sources to verify the information and use them for your documentation.'''
----
=Illustrations:= 
==Period sources:== 
{| class="wikitable"
| [[File:BSB272 f59r 1550-55BonaldiMoustachOrientation.jpg|250px]]
| [[File:BSB312_1450-1580_TwoLions.jpg|250px|Scheibler'sches]]
|-
| Insignia Venetorum nobilium II (A-IP) - BSB Cod.icon. 272 [S.l.] Italien 1550-1555, f59r, moustaches?
| Scheibler'sches Wappenbuch, 1450-1580, BSB 312
|}

='''SENA A.3.D.2. Simplicity of Charge Groups''':= 
*A charge group is most frequently a group of a single type of charges of a unified tincture in a single posture/orientation. However, more complex examples are found in period armory. The rules below discuss which complex designs are allowed and which are not allowed.

**'''c. Unity of Posture and Orientation''': The charges within a charge group should be in either identical postures/orientations or an arrangement that includes posture/orientation (''in cross//, //combatant//, or //in pall points outward'', for example). A charge group in which postures for different charges must be blazoned individually will not be allowed without period examples of that combination of postures. Arrangements of charges which cannot be blazoned will not be allowed. Some standard arrangements for period charge groups are discussed in Appendix K.

For example, a design such as ''Argent, two lions passant respectant and a lion statant erect affronty vert// would not be allowed. Likewise, a design such as //Azure, two pheons bendwise, and a pheon inverted Or// would not be allowed. However, //crescents//,//increscents//, //decrescents//, and //crescents pendant'' were used occasionally in the same armory, so armory which includes more than one of these is allowed.

http://scaheraldry.wikispaces.com/SENA%2C+Armory+Part+3%2C+Style

=Period Examples of Un-unified Postures and Orientations:= 
(Courtesy of Yehuda ben Moshe mka Juliean Galak - only relevant portions of the blazons are reproduced or created)

1) The pattern of three of the same charge...

'' Other patterns that have already been ruled registerable (see Precedents, below) have been omitted.''

* 1c) There is at least one example of a device where the bottom animal is in another posture:
**''' English''' - Harleian MS 6163, sn Syr John Cley, one quadrant of a marshalled device: Three wolves, two in chief combatant, one in base passant http://archive.org/stream/twotudorbooksofa00fostuoft#page/230/mode/2up

* 1d) There is at least one example of a device with 5 of the same charge, two, one, and two, where the chief pair and base pair are addorsed:
** '''Holy Roman Empire''' - Collected Imperial Armorial, BSB Cod.icon. 307 sn ?? (spelling uncertain, second row from top, leftmost) - Five eagles displayed, two, one, and two, the two in chief and two in base heads addorsed, the middle head to sinister: http://codicon.digitale-sammlungen.de/Blatt_bsb00020245,00541.html?prozent=1

* 1e) There is at least one example of a device where three animals are arranged 1 and 2, with the top in a different posture
** ''' French''' Arms of Roman Ponitffs and Cardinals, V. 15, Arms of knights of the French Order of Saint-Michel, BSB Cod.icon. 280 sn Dominus De Lestrange - Three lions, one and two, the one in chief passant guardant, the ones in base combatant. http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00001427/image_315
** '' Note: It is also possible to interpret this device as the two combatant lions being the primary charge group, and the lion in chief being a secondary. As all three appear to have approximately the same visual weight, I believe they are all part of the same charge group.''

=Precedents:= 

==July 2021 - Unity of Arrangement further clarified==
Bergdís Berbeinn. Device. Per pale Or and vert, an oak tree eradicated vert and three breasts two and one argent, on a point pointed gules a badger's head cabossed argent.
This design presents no issue with SENA A3D2c, which requires all charges within a charge group to be in either identical postures/orientations or an arrangement that includes posture/orientation. Quoting and reaffirming the January 2014 Cover Letter, "From Wreath: SENA A3D2c and Arrangements, One More Time", which discusses the requirement of comparability when considering unity (emphasis added):

An arrangement of charges within a group that is blazonable is registerable, as long as it does not otherwise violate the unity of posture and orientation rule by having different postures/orientations amongst the group. In short, when you have comparable postures/orientations amongst the charges in a group, they should be in the same posture/orientation. For example, three swords in pall and an arrow fesswise has comparable charges in different orientations and would therefore be a violation of A3D2c, but four mullets in chevron and a rose would not. The latter may be poor style, but at this point we are not inclined to further restrict charge group arrangement upon the field.

The principle of comparability was also discussed in "From Wreath: Unity of Orientation and Posture", on the July 2019 Cover Letter, which includes "As another example, a stag's attire is usually found straight (and thus a long, orientable charge) but is also found in annulo in period. However, a sword (a long, orientable charge) cannot be in annulo. If a stag's attire and a sword are in the same charge group, they must either be in comparable orientations, or the attire must be in annulo (effectively rendering it a compact, non-orientable charge and thus in a different category)."

Since the tree and breasts are not comparable, there are no issues with either unity of posture or orientation, and so the question of a unified arrangement does not arise.

https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2021/07/21-07lar.html#30

==January 2014 CL SENA A3D2c and Arrangements, One More Time==
From Wreath: 
A few submissions this month had commenters discussing whether or not they violated "unity of arrangement." SENA A3D2c, Unity of Posture and Orientation, '''does not actually govern arrangement on the field'''. Specifically, it states in full:

The charges within a charge group should be in either identical postures/orientations or an arrangement that includes posture/orientation (in cross, combatant, or in pall points outward, for example). A charge group in which postures for different charges must be blazoned individually will not be allowed without period examples of that combination of postures. Arrangements of charges which cannot be blazoned will not be allowed. Some standard arrangements for period charge groups are discussed in Appendix K.

Precedent set on the May 2012 Cover Letter stated that "if the charges in a single charge group do not have comparable postures, they are not in violation of the "identical postures/orientations" part of the rule. The charge group as a whole must still be in a standard arrangement." That last sentence has been interpreted, along with the reference to Appendix K, to mean that only arrangements found in Appendix K are valid. However, we also ruled on the November 2012 Cover Letter that Appendix K is not meant to be all inclusive, and that "charges in a single group split in two by a field division or a central ordinary that are placed to reasonably fill the space available to them and that are similar to period patterns will be considered to be in a default arrangement, and they do not require their exact positioning to be blazoned."

We feel some clarity is in order. An arrangement of charges within a group that is blazonable is registerable, as long as it does not otherwise violate the unity of posture and orientation rule by having different postures/orientations amongst the group. In short, when you have comparable postures/orientations amongst the charges in a group, they should be in the same posture/orientation. For example, three swords in pall and an arrow fesswise has comparable charges in different orientations and would therefore be a violation of A3D2c, but four mullets in chevron and a rose would not. The latter may be poor style, but at this point we are not inclined to further restrict charge group arrangement upon the field.

https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2014/01/14-01cl.html#7

==November 2012 - Unified Posture and Orientation, Take 2 ==

Section A3D2c of the Standards for Evaluation states:
c. Unity of Posture and Orientation: The charges within a charge group should be in either identical postures/orientations or an arrangement that includes posture/orientation (_in cross, combatant,_ or _in pall points outward_, for example). A charge group in which postures for different charges must be blazoned individually will not be allowed without period examples of that combination of postures. Arrangements of charges which cannot be blazoned will not be allowed. Some standard arrangements for period charge groups are discussed in Appendix K.

The examples given concern groups of identical charges, but do not directly address how to handle mixed-type charge groups. Precedent set on the May 2012 Cover Letter stated:

It seems to us best to apply the concept of "comparable postures", as described in section A5G7, which references Appendix L. In short, if the charges in a single charge group do not have comparable postures, they are not in violation of the "identical postures/orientations" part of the rule. The charge group as a whole must still be in a standard arrangement.</span>

The phrase "in which postures for different charges must be blazoned individually" seems to be tripping people up. To clarify, we emphasize that when charges in a group are in different categories according to SENA A5G7 and SENA Appendix L, they do not have comparable postures/orientations and may be blazoned independently. The charge group as a whole must still be in a standard arrangement.

We looked at several period armorials to find out what sorts of posture/orientation combinations and arrangements we find in period armory for mixed-type charge groups. Keeping in mind that our core style is based on Anglo-Norman armory, there is an emphasis on those armorials; the full list of sources is below.

In period armory, when there are two or three dissimilar charges in the same group, they typically have identical postures only in some cases. Examples:
* BSB Cod.icon.291 f. 17v: _Argent, a dragon vert and a lion azure crowned gules combattant_. Dragons and lions have comparable postures; these are in an identical posture.</span>
* BSB Cod.icon.291, f. 38r: _Sable, on a bend between a dog salient and a dolphin naiant argent three roundels gules_. Dogs and dolphins do not have comparable postures; the dog here is upright while the dolphin is fesswise.
* SGS Cod.Sang.1084, p. 272: _Per fess argent and gules, two roses and a demi-fleur-de-lys inverted issuant from the line of division counterchanged_. Roses and fleur-de-lys do not have comparable orientations.

Most frequently, a mixed-type group consists of both animate and inanimate charges, occasionally two different types of inanimate charges, and less commonly two different types of animate charge. The vast majority of dissimilar charges in a group are all in their typical default posture/orientation, which in most cases is essentially palewise. Judging from the few examples listed above where that is not the case, our precedent appears to be consistent with period practice. '''While we found no examples of mixing inanimate compact charges with inanimate long charges in different orientations, for example _in pale a fleur-de-lys and a sword bendwise_, we feel that allowing such a combination is acceptable at this point in time.'''

A3D2c mentions _combattant_ as "an arrangement that includes posture/orientation". What other sorts of arrangements are possible?

Period armory draws charges to take up the most space possible. With two charges, typically we find both charges placed side by side _in fess_, with their long axes vertical. There are therefore three posture/orientation cases possible, all of which we see in period armory: both charges facing the same direction, charges addorsed, or charges respectant/combatant. There is also the far less common case of two horizontal charges placed _in pale_: both charges facing the same direction, or charges facing in opposite directions. Examples:
* BSB Cod.icon.291, f. 36r: _Bendy azure and argent, a sword fesswise between two lions counterpassant passant_. It is unclear if this is a single primary group of three charges, or a primary sword between secondary lions, or primary lions surrounding a secondary sword. In any case, the upper lion is passant to sinister and the lower lion is passant to dexter.
* BSB Cod.icon.307, p. 287: _Or, in pale a hunting horn and a hunting horn reversed sable_. Two horns facing in opposite directions.
* The Visitation of Cheshire in 1580 gives the arms of Glegg of Gayton as _Sable, two lions counterpassant in pale argent collared gules_. We would likely blazon this as _in pale two lions counter-passant passant_, to clarify that the upper lion is passant to sinister and the lower lion passant to dexter.

With three charges in a group on the field, the default arrangement is "two and one". The vast majority of these arrangements all face in the same direction, but '''the upper two charges may be addorsed or respectant/combatant'''. '''No examples were found where the bottommost charge did not face in the same direction as at least one of the uppermost charges.''' Examples:</span>

* BSB Cod.icon.291, f. 37r: _Per chevron gules and azure, two lions respectant and a fleur-de-lys Or_.
* BnF fr.4985, f. 89r: _Argent, a chevron gules between three eagles azure, those in chief heads addorsed_.
* Siebmacher pl. 161: _Argent, three lions gules, those in chief combattant_.
* SGS Cod.Sang.1084, p. 32: _Azure, three wings argent, those in chief </span><span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">addorsed_.
* Beinecke MS 648, f. 17r: _Argent, three axe heads, those in chief addorsed_.

Other posture/orientation combinations of comparable charges will need to be documented before they are registerable.
http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2012/11/12-11cl.html



== May 2012 Cover Letter - Unified Posture and Arrangement==
Section A3D2c of the Standards for Evaluation, Unity of Posture and Orientation, states:
* The charges within a charge group should be in either identical postures/orientations or an arrangement that includes posture/orientation (in cross, combatant, or in pall points outward, for example). A charge group in which postures for different charges must be blazoned individually will not be allowed without period examples of that combination of postures. Arrangements of charges which cannot be blazoned will not be allowed. Some standard arrangements for period charge groups are discussed in Appendix K.
All of the examples given are of groups with the same charge type. But what about groups of mixed charge types?

It seems to us best to apply the concept of "comparable postures", as described in section A5G7, which references Appendix L. In short, if the charges in a single charge group do not have comparable postures, they are not in violation of the "identical postures/orientations" part of the rule. The charge group as a whole must still be in a standard arrangement.
For example, ''two lions and an eagle// is in a standard two-and-one arrangement for a group of three charges, and is a mixed-type charge group consisting of quadrupeds and birds. Quadrupeds and birds do not have comparable postures, so this is allowable under A3D2c. For example, //two lions and a bear sejant// is a mixed-type charge group consisting of quadrupeds; as quadrupeds do have comparable postures and the lions and bear are not in identical postures, this is not allowable under A3D2c. For example, //two swords in saltire and a lion'' is a mixed-type charge group consisting of inanimate charges and animate charges, which do not have comparable postures. However, the entire group is not in a single unified arrangement, but instead has the swords and the lion arranged separately. This is not an allowable arrangement under A3D2c, without further documentation of its use in period.

http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2012/05/12-05cl.html

[[Category:Armory]]