[ANSTHRLD] Request conflict check

Britt tierna.britt at gmail.com
Wed Feb 20 16:13:21 PST 2008

I just realized this came off the list and really, many sets of eyes
and skills should be involved to best serve the client.

Here's the original emblazon:
Under the possible blazon 'Per bend bendy Or and gules and gules, a
comp[ass star Or charged with a roundel sable' I called conflict
against Kourost Bernard of the East Woods - reblazoned in December of
2000 (via the West): Sable, a sun Or eclipsed sable.
One CD for changing the field, nothing for the forced move to base.

Latest response:

>  Part of the blazon should have read something
>  like Three Bendlets Or, Enhanced.

> http://x42.xanga.com/6ccc532031333174605415/z132872947.png

Sent me to Laurel precedents to see if the space at the top was enough
to remove the alternate blazon option of per bend bendy Or and gules
and gules.
They're not overly enhanced, which is good. Either emblazon is
acceptable as to the depiction of enhanced bendlets.

You cannot blazon your way out of a conflict. It looks like my
conflict call still stands.  This precedent comes closest to
illustrating the problem with this depiction - either of them:
[Quarterly gules and sable, three bendlets argent] Conflict with
Ysfael ap Briafael, Per bend bendy vert and argent and vert. Ysfael's
device could alternately be blazoned as Vert, three bendlets enhanced
argent, and was originally submitted under that blazon. Ysfael's
registration in the LoAR of December 2000 stated, "Originally blazoned
as three bendlets enhanced, the blazon above more closely describes
the emblazon." When considering Ysfael's device under the alternate
blazon of Vert, three bendlets enhanced argent, and comparing it to
Tigernach's submission, there is one CD for changing the field, but
the second CD must come from the change of location of the bendlets
from enhanced.

Our original inclination was to give a second CD for enhancing the
bendlets under RfS X.4.g. However, evidence indicates that, in period,
armory using three bendlets enhanced was not distinct from armory
using three bendlets in their default location on the field. We thus
should not give difference between these designs.

The Dictionary of British Arms (DBA) volume two gives very few coats
of arms using three bendlets enhanced (on p. 117). Most of these coats
are also found belonging to the same family but with the three
bendlets in their default position (on pp. 114-116): the arms of
Byron, Argent, three bends [enhanced] gules, Greeley, Gules, three
bends [enhanced] Or, and Mawnyse/Mauvesin, Gules, three bends
[enhanced] argent. For one of these families, there is scholarship
which explicitly states that the coat with the three bendlets enhanced
is a later version of the coat with three bendlets, rather than a
distinctly different, cadenced, coat. Woodward's A Treatise on
Heraldry British and Foreign discusses the arms of Byron on p. 132,
stating, "What appears to have been the original coat of Biron viz.,
Argent, three bendlets gules, is now borne with the bendlets enhanced
(Fr. haussés) i.e. placed higher in the shield, as in the arms of the
poet, Lord Byron."

The difference between three bendlets and three bendlets enhanced is
thus similar to the difference between crosses bottony and crosses
crosslet. We give no difference between these crosses because, as
discussed in the LoAR of August 2002, "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." The evidence in DBA and Woodward
suggests that three bendlets and three bendlets enhanced are both used
to represent the same armory throughout our period's heraldry. Just as
the cross crosslet became distinct from the cross bottony after our
period, three bendlets enhanced became distinct from three bendlets
after our period. [Tigernach Mag Samhradháin, 11/03, R-Æthelmearc]

So the problem still exists.  I've suggested a bordure Or, as that
wouldn't be at all uncommon in such a design in period. And I did
check that option for conflict as well, particularly since it pulls
the design out of X.2. qualification.

I find 'Gules, three bendlets enhanced and on a compass star Or a
roundel sable' clear of  Catherine de Clare of Alconleigh - July of
1991 (via the East): Gules, five annulets interlaced in bend within a
bordure Or. One CD for changing the type of charges in the primary
group by X.4.e. and another CD for adding a tertiary charge group
under X.4.i.

I find 'Gules, three bendlets enhanced and on a compass star Or a
roundel sable' clear of Bran Cuilean mac Muirchiu ua Néill - November
of 1992 (via the Middle): Gules, two wolves rampant and on a sun Or, a
raven migrant to sinister chief sable, a bordure Or. There is one CD
for change of number of charges by X.4.f. and another CD for changing
the type of more than half of them under X.4.e.

Any and all other information/advice/opinions welcomed.

- Teceangl
Heraldry is designed to be easily reproduced by anyone who sees the arms. -

More information about the Heralds mailing list