[ANSTHRLD] Request conflict check

Donnchadh Beag mac Griogair donnchadh at cornelius.norman.ok.us
Wed Feb 20 23:33:05 PST 2008

The issue is not whether there is a difference between three bendlets 
and three bendlets enhanced.  It is whether there is a difference 
between three bendlets (a second charge) and bendy (a field devision).  
Looking at the two different emblazons, to me there is a distinct 
difference.  The difference to me is not so much how thin the bendlets 
are, it's how they're arranged.  In the first example, they are spread 
evenly across the upper part of the field giving the impression of the 
field devision bendy.  In the second example, they're bunched together 
give the impression of a charge of three bendlets, which would be a 
second charge on the field, which would clear the conflict.


Ron wrote:
> Alden, read the precedent she quoted again, specifically this section:
>> 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]
>> ----------------------
> Even though I agree the bendlets are drawn much thinner in the second
> emblazon, this part of the precedent says that they are still considered the
> same and there is no difference between the two. So the conflicts Teceangl
> called are still valid conflicts and the client will have to find something
> to clear the conflicts.
> Eirik Halfdanarson
> _______________________________________________
> Heralds mailing list
> Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org

More information about the Heralds mailing list