[ANSTHRLD] Advice on two blazons

[Britt]

> Per bend gules and sable, a cross crosslet argent.

Perfectly fine style-wise. It's only when the line of division is
complex between low-contrast parts and obscured by the charge(s) on
the field that there'll be a problem.

Now, conflict...  Ugh.

Sigenoth the Blissful - January of 1998 (via AEthelmearc): Per pale
sable and vert, a Latin cross bottony argent.
One CD for changes to the field. Conflict.
The type of cross gets no difference:
     "There is not a CD between a cross crosslet fitchy and a cross
bottony" (LoAR December 1999).

     Because crosses bottony and crosses crosslet were not separate
charges in period, and
     because crosses and crosses fitchy were not separate charges in
period, RfS X.4.e gives no
     type difference between a cross bottony and a cross crosslet
fitchy. It is important to recall that
     the cross bottony and the cross crosslet are both used to
represent the same charge
     throughout our period's heraldry. The bottony form is found
predominantly in earlier artwork,
     and the crosslet form predominantly in later artwork. Good
examples of this evolution can be
     seen in the Beauchamp arms, Gules, a fess between six crosses
crosslet Or. It is also
     important to recall that there is a fair amount of evidence
showing that the fitching of crosses
     in period heraldry may be done as artist's license, particularly
when the crosses are in a group
     of strewn ("semy") charges. [Sean of the South, 08/02, R-Atenveldt]

Nor for the difference between equal-armed and Latin:
     There is no difference between a cross formy and a Latin cross
formy. [Michael Silverhand,
     10/02, R-Ansteorra]

Sigenoth the Blissful - January of 1998 (via AEthelmearc): Quarterly
sable and vert, a cross bottony argent.
One CD for changes to the field, nothing for type change of crosses as
per precedent quoted above.  Conflict.

Vitus Polonius - November of 2005 (via Drachenwald): Per bend gules
and sable, a rogacina doubly crossed and fourchy argent.
The defining instance of a rogacina was in 2003 and contains this
note: "a rogacina is a Polish charge that resembles a broadarrow
inverted with a complicated shaft".
There is likely a CD for type change of the cross. It could possibly
be X.2. substantially different, but I'd leave that call to Laurel and
consider it a problem to this submission.

Those are the most problematic conflicts.
There are some which are clear involving changed fields and added
charges, and some with changed fields and the cross crosslet shifted
from the center of the field, as well, so be aware of potential
problems with those when redesigning.

I just checked, three times, and discovered that the following is
apparently clear from conflict:
                  Per bend gules and sable a cross crosslet and a chief argent.
Plain, uncharged chief. A surrounding peripheral charge won't likely
clear it, but a plain, uncharged chief will.

- Teceangl