[ANSTHRLD] per bend Fleury counter Fleury

[Teceangl]

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Alden Drake <alden_drake at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Hedwig/Melissa wrote:
>>
>> So, I've spent the better part of the morning looking for info on if this
>> (per bend Fleury counter Fleury ) is a registerable design.  Help would be
>> appreciated.
>>
>> Hedwig
>>
>>
>
> Here's an example:
> http://oscar.sca.org/index.php?action=175&loi=134  Number 20
>
> The device was registered by Laurel:
> http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2007/05/07-05lar.html in May 2007.
>
> David of Carillion. Holding name and device (see RETURNS for name). Per pale
> fleury-counter-fleury vert crusilly couped and argent, in sinister a bear
> rampant sable.
> Submitted under the name David Erbe von Bärau.
>
> Alden

Which (begging Star's pardon) only proves that it was registered, not
that it is registerable. :)  These can indeed be mutually exclusive.
Laurel makes mistakes or sometimes doesn't remember to include
explanations as to why _this_ submission is allowed while others might
not be.  To prove that it's a registerable motif, you need a ruling
indicating that it is.

Hedwig, it's not too hard to find.
http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents.html
The category to seek in the compilations is LINES OF DIVISION -
Miscellaneous (since it's not any of the others).

Two precedents under the first tenure of Francois work here:
----------------------------------------------
[Per bend trefly Or and sable] The submitter has fixed the artistic
problems with his previous submission. However, the line of division
drawn here is not (as blazoned on the LoI) fleury. Fleury would be
drawn with demi-fleurs-de-lys issuing from the per bend line towards
sinister chief. A demi fleur-de-lys would show three petals tapering
to a stalk, like the top half of a fleur-de-lys. This appears to be
trefly, with three round conjoined lobes and no stalk, like the end of
a cross bottony. The submitter should be advised to draw fewer and
larger trefoils in the trefly. [Rudolphus Heydenreic, 03/02,
A-Drachenwald]
----------------------------------------------

This text makes it plain that a division fleury is acceptable.
Next precedent:
----------------------------------------------
[Per pale fleury-counterfleury vert and azure] ... there was some
question as to whether the fleury-counterfleury line of division could
ever be registerable between low-contrast tinctures. The October 1998
LoAR, p. 12, discussed Continental lines of division that terminate in
leaves or similar plant motifs:

    The submitter has provided examples from Siedmacher's [sic]
    1605 Wappenbuch of armory that could be blazoned Per chevron
    ployé pointed with a linden leaf argent and gules., and Per bend
    Or and sable with trefoils counterposed and issuant from the center
    of the line., thereby showing period evidence for this motif. However,
    all exemplars provided used difference tincture classes for each half
    of the field.

    This design motif is essentially a divided field with leaves as
    counterchanged charges. Therefore, this submission violates
    the Rule of Tincture. Barring period evidence of this motif using
    two tinctures from the same class, it can only be used in the SCA
    with tinctures from the different classes.

Fleury-counterfleury is similar in concept to the lines discussed in
this precedent. It could be considered analogous to "a divided field
with leaves [or, in this case, demi-fleurs-de-lys] as counterchanged
charges." If one follows the logic of this precedent, one could decide
that fleury-counterfleury is not registerable between low-contrast
tinctures unless period documentation is provided for that design. We
decline to rule on this issue at this time; we might have pended this
submission for consideration of this issue, except that it was
necessary to return the submission for the other reasons mentioned. We
suggest that this question be addressed in any resubmission that uses
fleury-counterfleury between low-contrast tinctures. [Ainbthen inghean
Risdeig, 09/03, R-Trimaris]
----------------------------------------------

This lays it out really clearly.  Yes, fleury-counterfleury is
registerable as a line of division, no it is not registerable between
low-contrast sections without documenting that particular motif to
period.

So the answer to the question, "Is per bend fleury-counterfleury
registerable?" is, "That depends on what tinctures are being used."

Your answers are already compiled.  I have a couple of yet-uncompiled
(for public consumption, that is) rulings to add here that are more
recent:
----------------------------------------------
[Per bend sinister "tulipy-counter-tulipy" azure and argent, two roses
counterchanged, barbed and seeded proper.] This device is returned for
a redraw of the line of division. Blazoned on the LoI as
fleury-counter-fleury, the line of division resembles tulips not
fleurs-de-lys. No evidence was presented that such a line of division
was a reasonable variant of fleury-counter-fleury.

For a period example of a fleury-counter-fleury line of division, see
the arms of Jane Collyns, dated 1559, in Bedingford & Gwynn-Jones'
Heraldry, p.50. [Esa Baird, 11/05, R-Æthelmearc]
----------------------------------------------
[Per fess fleury counter-fleury gules and sable, three towers, one and
two, argent.] When fields with low contrast are used, complex lines of
division are accepted on a case-by-case basis. In this case there are
no charges obscuring the line of division and the line of division is
clearly drawn; therefore it is acceptable. [Isabel la Fouchiere,
12/05, A-Calontir]
----------------------------------------------

Which brings us back to 'depends on the tinctures being used AND
whether identifiability is maintained'. :)

- Teceangl
-- 
Heraldry is designed to be easily reproduced by anyone who sees the arms. -
http://www.s-gabriel.org/docs/clichelist.html