[ANSTHRLD] Conflict check

[Tim McDaniel]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Emily Minier <adalia.nyx at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Lynda Boots <primevalooze at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a client who would like to use
>>>
>>> gules ermined or, a badger rampant facing dexter or within a bordure
>>> engrailed or.
>>>
>>> Is this blazoned correct.
>>
>> Gules ermined Or, a badger rampant within a bordure engrailed Or.
>>
>> I'm not sure whether the first "Or" could be omitted.
>
> Actually, I think the following precedent prevents the bordure and the
> emining from being the same 'color'...
>
> In summary, No charge of color A (or metal A) can be placed on field that's
> even partly the same color (or metal).
>
> [Gyronny gules and argent, a sheep couchant sable sustaining a
> wood-hafted halberd bendwise sinister argent hafted proper.] This
> device is returned for a redesign. The identifying feature of the
> halberd is the blade. In this emblazon the argent blade lies on the
> argent portion of the field, ... So size, or exact placement on the
> gyronny field, is irrelevant: an argent charge, even maintained,
> cannot be placed on a field that's even partly argent. [Geoffrey
> Blesedale, 11/05, R-East]

The same precedent would hit the badger versus the ermining in the
exact same way.

Thing is, you don't have to draw ermining according to the "wallpaper"
model, where ermine spots are in a regular array a fixed distance
apart.  They can be placed irregularly to fill the space available
without touching any charge.

So I don't think the precedent applies to ermined fields specifically.

Daniel de Lindonio
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com