The reaction was excellent (on FaceBook) but two contributors felt that it having three colours on the field wasn't the done thing saying that it "would not fit in with European rules" as it was a breach of the tincture rules with one of the contributors quoting Michel Pastoureau in his Traité de l'Héraldique who expanded upon the rule.
My response to the "criticism" was that, "yes, it would fit with European rules (not that it needs to as it belongs to a citizen if the USA). If you have read the blazon you would have noted that the field is "en cousu" which is a term used by the French heralds. There are many examples where a colour is "placed" next to another colour, shields that are tierced per pale being an example of a field where, simply because it is divided into three parts, unless a fur is used, it almost always has either one colour against another colour, or one metal against another metal. The point being that whilst placing a charge of a colour onto a field of another colour is, quite sensibly, an unfortunate breach because it can't easily be seen, here we have charges of a metal placed upon a multi coloured field and all is clearly visible. A field of one colour adjacent to another is not at all unusual or unknown in heraldry."
I recieved further quotes from Michel Pastoureau and his Traité de l'Héraldique. Now, I have never read the works of M. Pastoureau but I am prepared to believe that his champion is very well informed about his work; in which case, it seems that M. Pastoureau is, or was, simply of a closed mind.
I further suggested "that the rather unflexible approach of Michel Pastoureau is not only staid but is today totally unacceptable. The whole purpose of the so called "tincture rule" is to aid clarity, not to prevent the design of arms that have an inherent clarity already. Even modern heralds are content to find ways around the tincture rule, the most abused being the use of the term "Proper" ; witness the use of the term in the recent grant by the Lord Lyon to George Vernon Dent MBE ("Or on a bend Azure three lozenges Ermine in chief two swords in saltire points upwards Proper and in base a jackdaw Proper. ) with silver swords on a gold field. Not one I would condone but clearly a greater breach of the "rule" than the widely accepted "en cousu" where in reality, the shield and its charges are as clear as day. We must look at "old writings" as guidance, and where we find them to be "misguided" we should use our common sense. To blazon a field as en cousu is nothing new and a sensible way to treat a multi-coloured field charged with metal charges. When flown as a flag from the battlements of a tower this "en cousu" achievement will be clear, far clearer than two swords in saltire "proper" on a gold field. Whilst I respect the fact that you have researched your opinion, it is not one I share."
These are of course my views but I am willing to expand upon them.
I work on the basis that the "tincture rule" is very sensibly there to guide, but it is not there to dictate. Witness the quoted example (which I personally would try to avoid) of the granted arms of Mr. Dent MBE.
There are many workarounds which are quite legitimately accepted in the heraldry world.
There are "geometric workarounds" (divisions of the field). The tincture rule only applies when a charge is placed on top of a field. It does not apply to divisions where two fields sit next to each other.
Then there is "juxtaposition": A shield split down the middle (per pale) can safely be half-red and half-blue because the colours are touching side-by-side, not layered. There is absolutely nothing wrong with placing a metal charge on a shield per pale Azure and Gules.
Neutral Fields: If a shield is evenly divided into an equal number of colour and metal pieces (such as barry stripes, bendy diagonal lines, or chequy checkers), the entire field is considered "neutral". You can place any charge, metal or colour, on top of it because it will inevitably cross over contrasting sections.
Using "amphibious" tinctures. Certain materials bypass the metal/colour divide entirely. For example heraldic furs like Ermine (black tails on white) or Vair (blue and white squirrel patterns) are considered neutral. They can legitimately, and without fear of repecussions, be placed on a metal or a colour, and vice versa.
The dreaded "Proper": When a charge is blazoned Proper (meaning depicted in its natural colours, like a brown bear or a green tree), it is generally exempt from the rule. I have to say that this is not always a good workaround as we have seen with silver swords on a gold field but perhaps more acceptable when a hawk Proper is placed upon a green field but care should be taken to ensure that the charge can actually be seen otherwise (as in the swords coat) Proper is a cheeky waste of time and the artist is often required to heavily outline the charge in order for it to clearly seen; much better to use "fimbriated" if one has to. On the whole, using the hawk as an example, when a hawk is placed upon a shield it would be better defined in one of the true heraldic colours or metals (nothing wrong with a red hawk on a silver field) and confine the beauty of a hawk Proper to the crest where it is not competing with a background.
Then, rather rarer, we have Sable as a "hybrid": In certain regional traditions (particularly German and Eastern European heraldry), Sable (black) is treated as a hybrid tincture that can occasionally be treated as either a colour or a metal to maintain visibility.
And now we arrive at our example of flaunches "en cousu" which come under the heading of Fringes, Bordures, and Overlapping Charges.
1) The "Cousu" (Sewn) Loophole: Popular in French heraldry, if an influential noble or city wanted to add a charge that violated the rule, heralds would blazon it as cousu. This linguistically implied that the new piece was "sewn" alongside the shield rather than painted on top of it, bypassing the restriction.
2) Debruised Charges: If a charge is placed over a field and another element (like a bend or diagonal stripe) passes over both the field and the charge, it is acceptable because it is technically passing over multiple contrasting layers.
3) Composed Charges: Small accents on an animal, such as a lion's claws or tongue (armed and langued), can bypass the rule if they are too small to impact the shield's overall contrast from a distance.
4) Overlining or Fimbriation (referred to previously). If an armiger absolutely insists on putting a dark charge on a dark field (e.g., a blue cross on a red field), a herald can add a fimbriation. This adds a narrow border of metal (gold or silver) around the charge. The metal serves as a separation strip, meaning the colour technically touches metal rather than another colour.
There are of course, historically, deliberate violations (Armes à enquerre). Sometimes, the rule was broken entirely on purpose to force an exception. These are known as armes à enquerre (arms to inquire about). The deliberate mistake was meant to look so shocking that viewers would immediately stop and ask about the history of the shield. The Kingdom of Jerusalem, being the most famous example, features five gold crosses directly on a silver shield (Or on Argent). This was intentionally allowed to signify the unique, holy status of the kingdom, placing it above the standard laws of mortal heraldry.
So, to sum up, the so called tincture rule is there to guide only, and as a guide, it has its merits, but there are legitimate workarounds which can, and should be used (with the proviso that the ultimate aim is to maintain visibilty and clarity).
And remember, there is a lot of outdated information out there that was, once upon a time, perfectly valid; like the oft quoted "fact" that the helms of gentlemen and esquires have to face to dexter and only those abouve a certain rank can have forward facing helms. Rules that have long since been abandoned to common sense. But above all, remember that heraldry should be fun.
The wonderful flag of Wales.
A breach of the tincture rules? Maybe but no one could say that this flag couldn't be seen if it was flown from the battlements of a castle - it often is and the so called tincture rules don't for one moment matter.
