[ANSTHRLD] Fw: Request conflict check

Donnchadh Beag mac Griogair donnchadh at cornelius.norman.ok.us
Thu Feb 21 14:31:46 PST 2008

Britt wrote:
>> 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.
The issue I see with calling it a muti-part division on half the field, 
is that the bendlets on the second emblazon do not span the entire half 
of the field.  I would think that if someone tried to submit that as per 
bend bendy, it would get bounced for a re-draw.  Would it be different 
if there were only two bendlets?  Obviously one bendlet would be 
considered a charge and not a field devision.

I've always been taught that we register the emblazon, not the blazon.  
In the first case the emblazon /looked/ like per bend bendy, and one 
can't get around that by trying to blazon it as three bendlets 
enhanced.  But that logic works both ways and so since the second case 
/looks/ like a charge of three bendlets because they don't span half the 
field, I don't see how one can then blazon it as per bend bendy and say 
that it conflicts.


More information about the Heralds mailing list