[ANSTHRLD] Fw: Request conflict check

Alden Drake alden_drake at sbcglobal.net
Thu Feb 21 20:45:49 PST 2008

Ok - based on Jaelle's precedent;

"[considering Argent, four scarpes gules, overall a bear rampant sable] After much thought we have decided that with that many scarpes on the field, that there is no effective difference between that and a bendy sinister field. It was not unusual for barry or paly fields in period to be drawn with an odd number of traits (which we'd blazon as bars or palets); see, for example, the arms of Mouton (Multon, Moleton) found both as Barry argent and gules. and Argent, three bars gules. (Dictionary of British Arms, Volume 1, pp 59, 88; Foster, p.145) and the arms of von Rosenberg, whose Per fess field has in base either three bends or bendy depending upon the artist's whim (Siebmacher, p. 8; Neubecker and Rentzmann, p. 290). Even when the distinction is worth blazoning, it's worth no difference. Therefore, this conflicts with ... Argent, a bear rampant sable.... (Aron Nied wied , 12/ 97 p. 8)"

I can see how "Gules, three bendlets enhanced Or" could be considered indistinguishable from "Per bend bendy Or and gules and gules", but I don't agree that it should necessarily be the case.

Boutell's Heraldry states, " The bend is formed by two diagonal lines from dexter chief to sinister base (76).  Two or more bends may be borne on one shield (77), and if there are three or more they may be termed bendlets.  These must be distinguished from bendy." (pg 41)

And on bendy, the same source says, "Fields of a rather more complex character, termed varied fields, may be produced by further division, e.g. three, five or some other odd number of palewise lines produce paly; a similar number of fess-wise lines produce barry (called barruly, or burule, if the divisions are numerous  say ten or more); and bendy, bendy-sinister, and chevronny result from similar subdivision of the field (43-47).  It will be noted that these fields always consist of an even number of pieces. (pg 33)

I would suggest that to distinguish multiple diminutives on a field from a similar field division (i.e. three bendlets vs bendy) would be to draw them such that the lines that form the bendlets are not evenly spaced (as in the submitter's revised emblason), as they would be for bendy (as in the submitter's original emblazon).


----- Original Message ----
From: Britt <tierna.britt at gmail.com>
To: baron at namron.ansteorra.org; "Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:44:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] Fw: Request conflict check

>  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).

- Teceangl

Heraldry is designed to be easily reproduced by anyone who sees the arms. -
Heralds mailing list
Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org

More information about the Heralds mailing list