[ANSTHRLD] Fw: Request conflict check
tierna.britt at gmail.com
Thu Feb 21 14:44:53 PST 2008
> 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.
I don't have the source images, but one of the things about 'one
chevron, two chevronels, chevronelly' is that there is a period coat
where the depiction varies between a <complex charge> over three
chevronels clumped in the middle of the field and a fully chevronelly
field. Interchangeable, apparently, depending on the artist, and
usually blazoned as chevronelly. So in period clumping the ordinary
diminutives together was an artistic convention rather than
delineation between X number of charges and a multiply divided field.
We're up against that here. If it wasn't considered different in
period the SCA isn't likely to consider it different. In fact, we
moved _from_ considering three diminutives different from a multiply
parted field to seeing them as interchangeable based on period
It all boils down to period evidence. Find that ordinary diminutives
in multiples of three or more were not used interchangeable with
multiply divided fields and we can document it and clear the conflict.
Right now all the evidence we have points the other way.
For an understanding of the evolution of the decision we're dealing
with I suggest a run through Laurel precedents under the headers Field
Division and Bend and Chevron (and related headers).
Heraldry is designed to be easily reproduced by anyone who sees the arms. -
More information about the Heralds