[antir-heralds] cross conflict

[Britt]

(Teceangl rolls up her sleeves and prepares to send another poor
wretch into the Jungle of Laurel Precedents.)


> Is there any difference between fitching a cross and elongating its base but keeping the crossbar?

Laurel precedents:
http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/precedents.html

'Cross'' is its own category in all the relevant tenures (anything
from Baldwin on).
Find it under Francois, and of course you started with the most recent
first so it was a very short search:

     [two Latin crosses vs. two Latin crosses fitchy] ... nothing for
fitching the crosses. [Faílenn
     inghean Mheanmain of Ulster, 11/01, R-Atlantia]

> I have a client who wants to do "Per pale sable and Or, a cross crosslet elongated at the base gules". I can't find anywhere in precedents that compares "a cross crosslet elongated at the base" and "a cross crosslet fitchy". I think they probably look similar enough for there not to be a CD between them, and therefore, his device would conflict with:
>
> William de Rouen (January 1997 via Caid):
> Per pale argent and Or, a cross crosslet fitchy gules
>
> 1 CD for changing half the field from argent to sable

Yup.

> Now, if he changed the design slightly to be "Per pale Or and sable", that would still be only one CD still by RfS X.4.a.i, right? He'd need to choose a different sort of non-conflicting cross or consider adding something like an orle, a double tressure or a bordure to clear the conflict.

By George, I think she's got it!
Absolutely correct.  Chiefs are cool.  They're easy, period as all get
out, pretty, and fun on heraldic garb.  I remember long ago a fighter
in a yellow surcoat with his arms on it and there was a gules chief,
so his surcoat had a red yoke.  He was informally known as
'redshoulders'.  It was very cool.

By the way, there is a conflict table of crosses.  Read and heed the
'Cautionary Word' linked there in the intro, but it's a useful
resource:
http://www.heralds.artemisia.sca.org/crosstable.html

- Teceangl