Two Question on Differencing

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Thinking ahead a generation, though, would Sandy's suggestion not be the better choice so that the next "set" of matriculants can use the quartered bordure without there being any confusion?

I admit that chequey and compony counter compony would be easily confused (especially on a battlefield, though that's not really the purpose of heraldry today), so it certainly wouldn't be ideal.

And I am most certainly still interested!

Generally speaking, the next "generation" would probably difference by dividing the bordure per fess, and the generation following that one would divide per cross (quarterly). In all probability variations in the lines of partition would also be tossed in for the chevron, as well as for the bordure.

That said, Sandy's suggestion of a bordure compony counter-compony is probably the technically better choice, especially if the Herald failed to use all of the options available to him when composing the differencing of the coat of arms. In that same vein I think a bordure billettee argent and azure would probably be a better choice, although it may look like the dreaded compony at first glance. Bastard!

[Cygnus]

Generally speaking, the next "generation" would probably difference by dividing the bordure per fess, and the generation following that one would divide per cross (quarterly). In all probability variations in the lines of partition would also be tossed in for the chevron, as well as for the bordure.

I'm very surprised by how many variations one can get, especially with such a simple "undifferenced" shield.

That said, Sandy's suggestion of a bordure compony counter-compony is probably the technically better choice, especially if the Herald failed to use all of the options available to him when composing the differencing of the coat of arms. In that same vein I think a bordure billettee argent and azure would probably be a better choice, although it may look like the dreaded compony at first glance. Bastard!

I also think the difference between billettey and compony is more immediately obvious than the difference between chequey and compony counter compony. So, for those who may be following along (and who are visual learners like I am), here's the same chart with the "mystery" shield filled in.
(I assumed it would still be a bordure divided per pale even though MacMillan of Rathdown didn't say so in his description, so please tell me if it's incorrect and I can modify it.)

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I'm very surprised by how many variations one can get, especially with such a simple "undifferenced" shield.



I also think the difference between billettey and compony is more immediately obvious than the difference between chequey and compony counter compony. So, for those who may be following along (and who are visual learners like I am), here's the same chart with the "mystery" shield filled in.
(I assumed it would still be a bordure divided per pale even though MacMillan of Rathdown didn't say so in his description, so please tell me if it's incorrect and I can modify it.)

This is spot on. Now imagine the next generation with their bordures ratched 90* around to the right, with the top half of the shields white with the bottom half "coloured". Another generation and imagine the shields with quartered bordures. That's 13 distinct families descending from the third son of the original armiger before altering the line of partition on the bordure. PHEW!

And to think John Stodart did this before the invention of computers.

[Cygnus]

This is spot on. Now imagine the next generation with their bordures ratched 90* around to the right, with the top half of the shields white with the bottom half "coloured". Another generation and imagine the shields with quartered bordures. That's 13 distinct families descending from the third son of the original armiger before altering the line of partition on the bordure. PHEW!

And to think John Stodart did this before the invention of computers.

To quote one of Basil Rathbone's cronies in The Court Jester: "The man [was] pure genius."

I have TONS of other questions, but I feel I can wait until the book that you so kindly recommended arrives and look for answers there before bringing them here. This decision may have something to do with the fact that different lines of partition are much harder for me to draw than bordures!

Thank you, Scott and Sandy, for humouring me; your responses and the time you took to provide them are greatly appreciated!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

The top bar of a lable of three, five, or seven points should extend from one side of the shield to the other. If it is cut off on either side of the points it become a "file" which is used to indicate a senior line passed over in favour of a junior line. (Files are usually depicted has having their points "dovetailed", while labels have longer, straight sided points.)

Now his rarely happens, but as a coat of arms is the personal property of the armiger, he may, within the terms of the destination of the original grant, choose to leave his undifferenced arms to someone other than his eldest male child. When this happens a file of three points is added as a permanent charge on the shield of the person passed over (in the instance of a Scottish chief a different cadency mark-- three eagle feathers-- is used) and the designated heir inherits the undifferenced arms. All other children retain their normal cadency mark.

In the examples shown above in both instances a label of yellow, or white would be appropriate.