... I can at least explain the theory behind why they call this a conflict. Basically, in period heraldy in England and France, what you would see a lot isMessage 1 of 7 , Nov 7, 2007View Source--- "Rosie (aka Nawojka)" <Rosie_0801@...> wrote:
> > I'm told it conflicts with this:
> > Vert, on a fess argent two saltorels throughout,
> > each surmounted with
> > a Celtic cross, all sable
On 11/8/07, Sfandra <seonaid13@...> wrote:
> Because they're both Green, and they both have a white
> Fess. You only get 1 Difference for the number and
> color of the Tertiaries (here, 2 black saltorels w/
> celtic crosses -and let me say how "busy" that is-
> versus your one purple lekawica).
I can at least explain the theory behind why they call this a
conflict. Basically, in period heraldy in England and France, what
you would see a lot is stuff like this:
-- John Sterling bears "Vert, a fess argent."
-- His eldest son William inherits that when he becomes the senior Sterling.
-- His younger sons Henry and Robert (if they earn the right to their
own coat of arms) can't use "Vert, a fess argent" because William's
already using it. But they're proud of being Sterlings and want to
show that they're part of the clan, so Henry takes the family coat and
puts a couple of green dots on the fess, while Robert puts a red star
on it. Anybody who sees the white fess on green will know they're
dealing with a Sterling, and the little extra widgets let them know
which branch of the family. The technical term is "cadency".
So in your case, your device looks like you're claiming to be related
to the person with the saltorels (I guess. If you squint.). That's
the theory, anyway. It's based on the core English/French practice.
The Germans, on the other hand... Instead of fiddling with tertiaries,
all the branches of the family would use the same coat of arms, and
swap around their helmet crests instead. But since the CoA doesn't
register helmet crests, we're stuck with the English/French rules.
It's often possible to get around conflicts like this by asking the
other person for permission to conflict, but that won't help you with
Suriname. :^( The only thing that would help there, I think, is
someone doing a survey of period cadency and proving how period
heralds used fimbriation, one way or the other.
And yes, more people researching period heraldry in other countries
would be FANTASTIC.
... A Tertiary Charge is any charge placed completely on another charge. In this case, your lekawica is completely on the fess, so it is a tertiaryMessage 1 of 7 , Nov 7, 2007View Source
>Can someone more knowlegable than I explain why there is a problemA "Tertiary Charge" is any charge placed completely on another charge. In this case, your lekawica is completely on the fess, so it is a "tertiary charge". The two saltorels with Celtic crosses are, likewise, "tertiary charges". Unfortunately, changing a "tertiary charge", no matter how drastically, only counts as one CD. Sometimes that is a good thing. In this case, it is not.
>here? My rejected device is: Vert. On a fess argent a lekawica purpure.
>I'm told it conflicts with this:
>Vert, on a fess argent two saltorels throughout, each surmounted with
>a Celtic cross, all sable
>The first one is supposed to be a "single Clear difference for the
>changes to the tertiaries." I don't really know what that means, but
>it doesn't sound like one difference to me, but two. I mean, if the
>charge is different, and it's a different colour, that's two degrees
>worth of difference isn't it?
>The flag of Suriname: Vert, on a fess gules fimbriated argent aWell, maybe this will help.
>mullet Or (since a fess gules fimbriated argent is the equivelent
>of 'on a fess argent a fess gules')
>And having looked up a flag of
>Suriname, I can't see how it looks anything like my (not)device.
Your device is green with a decorated stripe across it.
Field=green. Primary charge=white bar. Tertiary charge=purple book-thing.
Suriname flag is green with a decorated stripe across it.
Field=green. Primary charge=red bar with white edges. Tertiary charge=gold star. This is apparently the same as:
Field=green. Primary charge=white bar. Tertiary charge=red bar. Tertiary charge=gold star.
I'm not sure I would agree that a red bar with a white edge is the same as a red bar lying on a white stripe (although looking at the actual flag of Suriname there is more white on it than a mere "white edge", but anyway), since that was their decision, the only difference between your device and the flag is the "Tertiary Charge", again only worth 1 CD. You might try to argue that you've changed two "Tertiary Charges" by 1.) removing the "red bar" and 2.) changing the gold star for a purple book thing, but I'm afraid that there's this thing called a "Charge Group" and since both the red bar and the gold star are on the same white fess, they are in the same "Tertiary Charge Group", so, again, no matter what you do to them together or separately, it only counts as one CD. Unfortunately.
I hope this makes a little more sense, now.
At your service,
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
It was rejected at Kingdom level. The really annoying part is the herald who helped with most of my submission at barony level, including finding the polishMessage 1 of 7 , Nov 7, 2007View SourceIt was rejected at Kingdom level. The really annoying part is the
herald who helped with most of my submission at barony level,
including finding the polish document, has now been promoted to
Kingdom level herald. So there's not really anyone to complain (very
nicely and reasonably) to.
> So, SCAdian heraldry 101: the CoA says that unlessAha! Clearly my definition of "simple" is completely wrong. My idea
> your device is Super Simple, you need 2 clear changes
> from anyone else's devise.
> Example of Super Simple: Green w/ a Gold Rampant Lion
> versus Red with a Gold Rampant Lion. 1 Difference in
> the color of background, because very few people would
> mistake Green for Red.
of simple is more about how tricky something will be to embroider.
Under my definition, my (not)device is really simple and your rampant
lion example isn't. Heheheh.
Anyway, the person I'm conflicting with has given me permission to do
so, and I think the flag of Suriname is arguable. They wouldn't be
mistaken at a distance, and I don't think they'd care anyway! Or do
you think I should be well behaved and change it. I don't want to. I
think it's pretty :)
It s based on the core English/French practice. ... From the bit I ve read about Polish heraldry, they go to even less trouble then the Germans. A coat of armsMessage 1 of 7 , Nov 7, 2007View SourceIt's based on the core English/French practice.
> The Germans, on the other hand... Instead of fiddling with tertiaries,From the bit I've read about Polish heraldry, they go to even less
> all the branches of the family would use the same coat of arms, and
> swap around their helmet crests instead. But since the CoA doesn't
> register helmet crests, we're stuck with the English/French rules.
trouble then the Germans. A coat of arms belonged to an entire clan,
not an individual person. Rather like how modern persons think
it's "their" coat of arms because they share the surname. Interesting