[ANSTHRLD] Identification of Complex Lines of Division

Doug Bell debell at txcyber.com
Fri Jun 7 14:04:43 PDT 2002


The relevant part of the rules for submission:

Rfs.VIII.2.b. Contrast Requirements -
iii. Elements evenly divided into two parts, per saltire, or quarterly
may use any two tinctures or furs. For example, a field quarterly could
be composed of azure and gules, argent and Or, Or and ermine, or vert
and vairy gules and argent.
iv. Elements evenly divided into multiple parts of two different
tinctures must have good contrast between their parts. For example,
checky argent and gules is acceptable, but checky azure and gules is
not.
v. Elements evenly divided in three tinctures must have good contrast
between two of their parts. Color/metal contrast is required for checky,
gyronny, and other field divisions beyond 4 parts.  At least 1 of the 3
divisions of a pall has to have good contrast.

Which means you can do low contrast divisions on per pale, per fess, per
bend (sinister), per chevron, per saltire and quarterly.
Low contrast fields are color/color and metal/metal.

There are restrictions on placing a charge over low contrast complex
line of division but that doesn't apply in Victor's case.

We register low contrast fields and complex lines with
gules vert
gules sable
gules azure
gules purpure
sable vert
azure vert
vert purpure

We don't register complex lines with low contrast fields
sable purpure
sable azure
azure purpure
I think there was a ruling banning purpure and gules but it was an old
one that didn't get into the precedents.  And I couldn't find it again
in the LoARs.  It may not have been continued.
The reason is you can't identify the line of division from any distance.

The most recent precedent I could find on this is:
Counter ermine is a mostly black field.
[June 1997 LoAR ATLANTIA - R Isabel d'Avignon] Device. "Per bend wavy
azure and counter-ermine, a sun proper and a decrescent argent. This is
being returned for unidentifiability. From any distance, the wavy line
separating the azure and counter­ermine cannot be seen. This submission
was ruled on at the roadshow meeting at the 1997 Known World Heraldic
Symposium, and the people sitting in the second row could not tell what
the line of division was. This return is in line with current CoA
precedent. In the January 1993 return of Elspeth of Oxfordshire, Master
Bruce as Laurel said: "[Per chevron embattled azure mullety of six
points Or, and sable, in base a <charge> argent] The low contrast
between azure and sable renders the embattled line indistinguishable
from any distance. As with the recent case of Per pale embattled purpure
and sable (LoAR of Aug 92, p.25), I must return this for lack of
identifiability, per Rule VIII.3."

The 1998 item on Weltschin von Wertheim was from a 1995 registration.
The June 1997 precendent flushes that one.

Arabella is an entirely different matter though.
[December 1999 LoAR Atenvelt-A] Arabella Eleanor Hamilton. Device. Per
chevron indented sable and purpure, two natural seahorses Or and a
winged sea-unicorn argent winged crined and armed Or.
Registered without comment.

I would be curious to know the how and why on this registeration.  It
looks like a banned low contrast field with a complex line to me.  I
can't think of anything special about indented or per chevron to cause
an exception.  This might have slipped through.  We need to check the
low contrast fields to see if there are others after June 97.  Victor
has the right idea.  Looking at registration patterns over time can show
you things that aren't in the published precedents.
Searching the LoARs can show you things that didn't make the precedents
as well.  It's just too time consuming to do it for every submission.

Victor isn't the only one affected by this.  There is a submission from
the May Meridies letter before the CoA with the same issue.  Depending
on how that one is ruled he may have an appeal for his device.

Magnus



More information about the Heralds mailing list