I have come across a couple instances of labels not really following the tincture rule, red labels on blue shields and the such. Is there more leinancy for labels? and if so what about other cadency marks?
IIRC, then the "no-color-on-color,-no-metal-on-metal" rule does not apply to cadancy marks. However, I’m sure that those here with more heraldic experience than I will be more than happy to weigh in.
Forgive my ignorance, but what’s IIRC?
Linusboarder;47178 wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, but what’s IIRC?
It is IOTTMCO, but here is the answer.
Stephen R. Hickman;47175 wrote:
IIRC, then the "no-color-on-color,-no-metal-on-metal" rule does not apply to cadancy marks. However, I’m sure that those here with more heraldic experience than I will be more than happy to weigh in.
"If I remember correctly"
You are correct about marks of cadency in that they defy the colour on colour and metal on metal rule. Major brisures such as bordures follow a specific sequence of colour in order to indicate birth order regardless of the colour or metal of the field: second son Or, third son Argent, fourth son Gules, fifth son Azure and so forth. minor brisures on the other hand do not have specific colours but rather shapes: first son label, second son crescent, third son mullet, fourth son martlet, fifth son annulet and so forth. However with minor brisures, one must make sure that the brisure does not simply blend into the design of the arms or it will fail to be a recognisable mark of difference signifying a specific genealogical descent. This is why minor brisures of the traditional English type or the relatively new set of minor brisures developed in Canada for daughters are often colour on colour.
Thank you David, I knew the Scottish border system obviously didn’t follow it, but I was unsure about the minor marks. Thank you for the clarification
thanks stephen and david. good to know on cadency marks. i did not know that before, as i thought the same rules applied to them.
i will ask at HSS on the borders. as i know that was the rule, for certain, but something tells me that i’ve read somewhere that they may have changed it to where the same color or metal is not checkered with the first metal/color so it is not so confusing; for example, a gules field with a Silver star having instead of a Gules border a Gules and Silver checkered border. i may well be wrong. i’ll ask over at HSS.
Donnchadh;47188 wrote:
thanks stephen and david. good to know on cadency marks. i did not know that before, as i thought the same rules applied to them.
i will ask at HSS on the borders. as i know that was the rule, for certain, but something tells me that i’ve read somewhere that they may have changed it to where the same color or metal is not checkered with the first metal/color so it is not so confusing; for example, a gules field with a Silver star having instead of a Gules border a Gules and Silver checkered border. i may well be wrong. i’ll ask over at HSS.
You are correct about open fields with matching bordures being made chequey by the Lord Lyon so that the bordure would not be rendered pointless. An example would be Argent, a lion rampant Sable for the second son it is fine to use the standard bordure Or but for the third son, on must make the Argent bordure chequey of the metal and primary tincture so that it is visible. The balzon of the third son’s arms would thus be Argent, a lion rampant Sable, within a bordure chequey Argent and Sable.