[ANSTHRLD] Looking for help on badge conflict

[Alasdair MacEogan]

Britt <tierna.britt at gmail.com>
>  Now, there is a conflict for this proposal.  Normally I'd let Viviana
>  do the finding, but this is one of those obscure things which gets the
>  most interesting discussions going, so...
>  
>  >From the Ordinary:
>  
>  # Tudor, House of
>  
>      * The following badge associated with this name was registered in
>  December of 1994 (via Laurel):
>        (Fieldless) A Tudor rose.
>        A Tudor rose consists of a red and a white rose, one impaling,
>  surmounting, quartering, or otherwise combined with the other.
>  
>  This includes a rose gules charged with a rose argent.  A rose is too
>  complex a charge to void and therefore does not qualify for RfS
>  X.4.j.ii.  So the only CD is for fieldlessness.

Alright, I am game.  Lets have a discussion. ;-)  I will grant that roses and cinquefoils do not get a CD, BUT they are not the same charge.  Bear with me, this becomes relevant soon.

>From The Tenure of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane (September 1986 - June 1990)

Cinquefoil

While we appreciate the comments of [commenters] on the interchangeability of the cinquefoil and the heraldic rose in the early period..., it is a fact that the Society has for lang and lang distinguished between them, as a glance at the Armorial or even the Pictorial Dictionary ... will reveal. (Now fraises and cinquefoils, on the other hand.) (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 10)

Now I have not been able to find any other precedent since then that changes this.  

Now back to X.4.j.ii that you mentioned.  "to benefit from this clause. A charge is suitable for the purposes of this rule if (a) it is simple enough in outline to be voided, and (b) it is correctly drawn with an interior substantial enough to display easily recognizable charges."  Now i am wondering if the cinquefoil fits this criteria or not

1.  Is it simple enough to void?  

i could not find a precedent on this.  I believe that mullets are considered simple enough to void, so i would argue that if they are then so is a cinquefoil.

2.  Is the interior substantial enough to display easilly recognizabele charges.

Two points here really.  Is the  shakefok an easilly recognizable charge?  i say yes.  Is the cinquefoil interior substantial enough to display it? This is where I am unsure.  I have not been able to find any precedents to go either way.

If it is substantial enough to void then I would say the badge gets the X.4.j.ii difference.

Alasdair