[ANSTHRLD] Bonwicke Order Badge

[Tim McDaniel]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Darin K. Herndon <darin-herndon at utulsa.edu> wrote:
> >  > #1 - (Fieldless)  A Latin cross patonce sable, overall a square flag
> >  > Per pale Or and gules, a pale indented counterchanged.
> >By Bruce's precedent as extended by later Laurels, overall charges can
> >be used on fieldless badges only when the area of intersection is
> >small.
>
> What if it had an argent background?  Would the gold portions of the
> flag run afoul of metal over metal?

Yup.  RfS VIII has the armorial contrast rules.  It includes
VIII.2.b.i:

    i.  The field must have good contrast with every charge placed
    directly on it and with charges placed overall.

> Also, does this fall afoul of the quarternary charge limit you refer
> to later?

No.  A layer is a charge placed on another charge.  As shewn above, an
overall charge is pretty much (not completely, or it would be just
another secondary charge) deemed to lie upon the field.  Therefore,
the field is layer 1, the overall charge is layer 2, and the pale upon
it is layer 3, which is OK for layering.

> What about: (Fieldless) On a latin cross patonce per pale indented
> Or and gules a pale counterchanged.  Would the pale run afoul of the
> rules mentioned in item 1 above?

No, it wouldn't.  Field: layer 1.  Cross: layer 2.  Pale: layer 3.
The pale has good contrast with what it lays on.

What it would fall afoul of is a return for recognizability.  If it
were drawn the normal width of a pale, it would be much wider than the
vertical arms of the cross.  You'd therefore get a little bit of
boundary visible only on the horizontal arms, and you couldn't figure
out that it was indented.

If you drew it narrow enough to fit well within the width of the
vertical arms of the cross, it wouldn't be a pale but a racing
stripe.  We don't register single diminutives of an ordinary; it would
be returned for size.

> Also: (Fieldless) A latin cross patonce per pale indented Or and
> gules.

"Latin" is Capitalized -- proper name.  No style return problems that
I can see.  Not egregiously bad, in period style terms, and I might be
able to find even early examples.

DdL
--
Tim McDaniel (home); Reply-To: tmcd at jump.net;
if that fail, my work address is tmcd at us.ibm.com.
 "To join the Clueless Club, send a followup to this message quoting every-
 thing up to and including this sig!" -- Jukka.Korpela at hut.fi (Jukka Korpela)