[ANSTHRLD] Follow up on Baron Tepesa, part 2

Alasdair MacEogan alasdair at bmhanson.net
Wed Jan 25 13:11:04 PST 2006

francis.schalles at ttuhsc.edu wrote:
>  And I think that his device violates the rules. I cant seem to get
>  anything to describe
>  the black top and red bottom correctly. Best I can come up with is:
>  Sable, a chevron argent, 3 crosslets fitchy Or in chief,
>  phoenix displayed and elevated on base gules.
>  With out the chevron, it’s color next to color.

No rules violation.  A field divided as this is (Per chevron gules and sable) is perfectly legal.  It is not color on color, but as you said color "next to" color.  That is perfectly within the rules of heraldry and done all of the time.  Remember you do not have a field of a single color so you would not start out "Sable, ..."  You javea  field division of per chevron so that is how the blazon would start.

>From a prior email by me on the subject:

>> Hmm, let me try:
>> Per chevron sable and gules a chevron argent between in chief three crosses crosslet fitchy in fess 
>> and in base a pheonix Or.
>> Hmm, that does not look right either.  I have to run though and cannot figure out where it is wrong 
>> right now.  :-) I am not that the "in chief" and "in base" need to be there.

Of course that last sentence should have been "I am not SURE that ..."

Design wise it does not violate any construction rules and it can be heraldically described.  Now asking if it is a period style or if it has a conflict within the society is a different question and I do not have time to research it so will leave that to the heralds and pursuivants on the list.



More information about the Heralds mailing list