> > The Welsh national arms is unheraldic already - per fess argent and
If it's over a division of the field, and at least half the field is correct,
it's acceptable. (You wouldn't have a red dragon on, say, a field of black and
green).
> > Isn't the phrase 'en passant'?
In chess, that is.
To lump together other quibbles and address them: Flags, as well as shields,
should be correct. Generally a metal (gold and silver) goes on a color (red,
green, blue, black, purple), or vice versa; colors shouldn't be on colors nor
metals on metals. Sometimes people ignore the rules (the Kingdom of Jerusalem
had, as I recall, gold crosses on a white field); or use the equivalent of
house rules (German heraldry allows red on black; French allows another shade
of blue, called
"ciel"). If you want to know more, any decent encyclopedia should have
an article on basic European heraldry.
Badges are often (not always) derived from the devices on flags--not
usually a representation of the flag--and are normally done in a manner
that will be intelligible if rendered in black and white. My most rabidly
Welsh (excuse me, Cymric) acquaintance assures me that it is a wyvern,
regardless of how many legs it has. Presumably this is like an English
leopard, which is really a lion. I don't know, I mostly studied Continental
heraldry. If anyone wants "Heraldry" links, let me know; but be prepared for
some odd pages.
> laserlight wrote:
> If it's over a division of the field, and at least half the field is
Of course, you shouldn't have a field divided into black and green, either.
> To lump together other quibbles and address them:
Normally, one find corporate logos adhere loosly to this as well.
Of course, since the Byzantines never developed heraldry in the Western
European sense, the Nea Rhomaioi ignore these silly Latin restrictions with
glee.
> and silver) goes on a color (red, green, blue, black, purple), or vice
Then we can get into furs (ermine, erminois, vair, counter-vair, and a
couple others which I can't recall). These may be on either colors or metals
but not on other furs.
> My most rabidly Welsh (excuse me, Cymric) acquaintance assures me
Nonsense. Dragon.
> an English leopard, which is really a lion. I don't know, I mostly
Of course, which it is described as varies from time to time. It's a rather
common myth that the rules and regulations we are discussing were common
during the medieval period. Most were introduced (along with assorted and
contradictory systems ascribing meaning to the various
charges, colors, metals, ordinaries, etc) during the 16-17th centuries.
We don't really find anything that is definitely heraldry in the common
sense until the 13-14th century anyway, IIRC. But heraldic-style
insignia were carried by individuals or organizations and associated
with them from earliest times--perhaps the earliest I am aware of are
the shield designs of certain Greek city-states. At any rate, the
English great cats are variously described, but IIRC, the current formal
description is lions.
> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, laserlight wrote:
aha. i was not aware of this rule.
> To lump together other quibbles and address them:
the main argument i have with the metals and tinctures rule is that gold on
white looks really good, as in the kingdom of jerusalem. i'd introduce a house
rule that metal on metal is ok, but colour on colour is not. and make up some
future history to justify it ("at the 2013 convocation of the college of
heralds, the lord lyon finally bowed to pressure from the Merrillites and
allowed the use of charges or on a field argent").
Tom
> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
i can see a way out here. 'dragon' is a genus of the cryptosaurian order.
'wyvvern' is a species in that genus. sorted.
> > an English leopard, which is really a lion. I don't know, I mostly
exactly. in the same way as the victorians invented all the rules about
tartans and the idea that clans have their own specific tartan.
Tom