[ANSTHRLD] looking for help w/ conflict check

tmcd@panix.com tmcd at panix.com
Wed Mar 22 13:20:53 PST 2006

Forwarded back to the Ansteorran Heralds list, for eddicational

Alden asked for a conflict check for
    Per pale azure ermined Or and argent.

Someone pointed out to him Malta,
    Per pale argent and gules.

Alden asked me about the RfS, because it seemed to say that that
wasn't a conflict.

The call was correct, unfortunately for the submitter.  See this
precedent from the January 2005 LoAR:

  Jeffery of Jarrow. Device. Per chevron gules and azure.

      Unfortunately, this lovely armory conflicts with Geoffrey
      FitzDavid, Per chevron gules and chevronelly Or and sable. While
      RfS X.4.a.ii.c says that "independent changes to the tincture,
      direction of partition lines, style of partition lines, or
      number of pieces in the partition may be counted separately when
      comparing two pieces of field-primary armory," changing the
      bottom half of the device from chevronelly Or and sable to azure
      really cannot be considered two independent changes.

      There are also conflicts with Alfonso Henriques de Montoya, Per
      chevron azure and Or, and Tanczos Istvan, Per chevron potent and
      gules. In each case, only half of the field tincture is changed.
      As precedent states:

           [Per saltire gules and azure] Conflict with ... Per
           saltire Or and gules. The only possible rule that
           could make these clear is RfS X.4.a.ii.b, Complete
           Change of Tincture (part of the Field-Primary Armory
           rules); however, that rule states If the fields of two
           pieces of field-primary armory have no tinctures in
           common, they are considered completely different and
           do not conflict, irrespective of any other
           similarities between them. While each portion of the
           field has changed tincture, one cannot say that they
           do not have a tincture in common. [Iohanna Carracci,
           11/00, R-Middle].

I dislike the second precedent and don't even really understand it.

Actually, I also disagree with the first paragraph.  It's true that if
you remove a line of division (chevronelly, in this case), the
tincture of half of that section must of necessity change.  But both
Or and sable were dropped.

But, still, there it is, a substantial roadblock to field-primary

Danielis de Lincolia
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com

More information about the Heralds mailing list