[ANSTHRLD] Advice on two blazons

[Mike Wyvill]

No CD for the differences in tinture?


>From: Britt <tierna.britt at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: "Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA,  Inc." 
><heralds at lists.ansteorra.org>
>To: "Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA,  Inc." 
><heralds at lists.ansteorra.org>
>Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] Advice on two blazons
>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:26:56 -0700
>
> > 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
>_______________________________________________
>Heralds mailing list
>Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
>http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org