Category talk:Contravention of no colour on colour
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Hey all !
To offer some clarification about what does and what doesn't break the Rule of Tincture, we must establish some defining points :
- First : charges & elements that are blazoned proper (au naturel in French) do not contradict the Rule of Tincture. Arms that incorporate this element have no room here.
- Second : charges & elements that are placed upon a partition (per fess/pale/bend/bar, tierced, quartered, etc) do not contradict the Rule of Tincture. This is justified by the fact that original arms (namely in the Feudal system) used these partitions to incorporate several arms into a single shield. These arms could not be modified in any way. This, ideally, should not apply to modern arms (20th century onwards) that were created with a partition, since these arms could have been created thus in order to circle around the Rule of Tincture.
- Third : furs, as well as the color Purpure, are considered hybrid and as such can be placed on both without contradicting the Rule of Tincture. A shield of, let's say : Per bend Vert and Azure, a bend ermine charged with three roundels purpure, does not contradict the rule of Tincture despite the total absence of metals. This is to be thought as, in medieval times, colors were obtained through pigment & paint or ink, while metals were obtained by melting metal or placing melted charges, and furs through -you guessed it- fur. As such, these could be placed on top of each other without blending together, thing which is impossible by painting several colors on each other.