[ANSTHRLD] Fw: Request conflict check
tierna.britt at gmail.com
Thu Feb 21 13:56:22 PST 2008
> Yes - That's exactly what I was thinking too. I agree there's no difference between 'three bendlets' and 'three bendlets enhanced', but there should be a difference between 'a sun eclipsed' and 'three bendlets enhanced AND a compass star pierced'. When looking at the redraw of the emblazon, the bendlets are now clearly three bendlets and not 'Per bend bendy Or and gules and gules'.
I'm not trying to stomp on others' perceptions, but there really
cannot be difference between 'three bendlets enhanced' and a field
'per bend bendy' and plain. Even with the bendlets clustered, the
effect is still a multi-part division on half the field and no
division on the other but the whole shebang is equivalent to just
changing the field.
Now, if someone can find evidence that in period bendlets enhanced in
threes were specifically viewed as charges, that can be presented as
an argument to change past CoA decision. But at this point in time,
it's equivalent to a field division and a conflict.
I'm not sure people realize how much I hate to call conflict on
something. Before I do so I investigate every Laurel ruling and period
model I can find in order to justify clearing the armory. At this
point in time, I cannot do that and so would welcome period evidence
that would prove these two designs are not in conflict. But it has to
be evidence and not perception. We'd essentially be reversing
longstanding rulings based on period evidence that enhanced ordinaries
in multiples indicated a field division rather than charges on the
field. Documented exceptions are not hard to get but the pitfall is
that the data has to support the precise case being presented to the
Can anyone do that here?
Heraldry is designed to be easily reproduced by anyone who sees the arms. -
More information about the Heralds