ANSTHRLD - Semy of Mullets

[Timothy A. McDaniel]

mableth? / Amy & Bill Morris <awmorris at flash.net> writeth something
that beginneth in wrongness, proceedeth in its wrongness nigh all the
length of its writing, and cometh to rightness only at its ending,
whereat it is nigh wholly wrong.

Sorry -- I was checking something in the KJV Deuteronomy and the style
rubbed off on me.  (Son of a gun -- sodomy *is* forbidden in there!)

> Since the semy is a field treatment and not a true charge,

In the SCA, this is false, as I wrote in a previous message.  To quote
the SCA CoA Glossary of Terms,

    Field Treatment.  ... Field treatments do not include the ermined
    furs or strewn charges. ...

    Semy. An adjective meaning that something is strewn with identical
    charges.  (It is from the French sem{e'}, the past participle of
    the verb semer 'to strew'.)  A field Azure semy-de-lys Or is blue
    with a pattern of gold fleurs-de-lys on it.  A bordure vert semy
    of rowels argent is green and is charged with several (at least
    five and usually eight) white rowels evenly spaced around it.  The
    charges so used are called strewn charges.  When placed directly
    on the field, strewn charges are considered a separate charge
    group from any other charges.  Strewn charges may be considered
    the primary charge group if there are no other charge groups
    present or if the only other charge groups present are peripheral
    charge groups.  When placed on another charge, strewn charges are
    considered a tertiary charge group.  Strewn charges are not
    considered a field treatment.  Ermine spots in an ermined tincture
    are not considered strewn charges; they are considered part of a
    separate tincture.  See also: Ermined Tinctures, Field Treatment,
    Peripheral Charge Group, Primary Charge Group, Tertiary Charge
    Group.

Outside the SCA, I'm not sure they use the concept of "field
treatment".  Rouland?

> this is period but rather rare (France ancient, Brittany, de
> Ferrers, Albret, etc.)

I don't have _Anglo-Norman Armory II_ to hand, but as best I recall
it's not particularly rare at all even in the earliest days.  Semy of
crosses [crosslet], -de-lys, and of mullets are the examples I
remember.

> Most, but not all, examples are territorial arms, not personal.

How would you tell whether the arms of a landed lord are "territorial"
or "personal"?

I had not previously considered that there might be differences in
armorial style between landed folk and non-landed folk in the same
land in the same time, but that was an oversight on my part.
Nevertheless, given the general tendency to ape one's betters in the
Middle Ages, I'd be moderately surprised to see significant
differences.  What evidence do you have concerning this subject?

> Despite this chargeless blazons have in the past been 'boinged' for
> "not compatible with period practice."

Please cite one Laurel return since 1990 that would not have been
boinged had there been a charge.  I suspect that there have been none
such since Karina, but I've not looked at Baldwin, Wilhelm, or Alison
LoARs to know how they worked.

> In the past most of the plain arms submissions were simply bounced for
> conflict with mundane heraldry.  this avoided long involved technical
> discussions about how to conflict chargless devices.  The other option
> was to ask for two differences.

Since the new rules from around 1990, there have been no technical
discussions about how to conflict-check field-only armory (except for
some unfortunate laxness in the current wording).  2 CDs apply to
field-only armory just like any other armory, as does RfS X.1.  RfS
X.4.a.ii originally covered field-only armory, and now covers
field-primary (field-only, with at most one of an enumerated set of
uncharged peripheral charges).  X.4.a.ii gives extra CDs in
field-primary cases.

That was, in fact, how my current arms were conflict-checked and
passed: "Per chevron embattled argent and azure", 9/94.

Since the Modest Proposal in 12/94, there have been fewer conflict
calls versus simple non-SCA armory.  The current X.4.a.ii has improved
conflict-checking substantially for field-primary armory.  I had to do
several pages of charts based on 17 or so categories of Papworth's.

> The most straight-forward interpretation of the rules would be to
> consider the mullety as the primary charge.

(That would contradict your initial statement that it was a field
treatment; a field treatment is part of the tincture and hence not a
charge.)  As noted in the Glossary quote, and as noted in a Bruce
precedent quoted in a previous message (Alanna?  I don't recall),
that's indeed the interpretation under the rules.

> Actually I like this.

I agree with this sentiment.  Pity about the conflict.

Daniel de Lincolia
- -- 
                    *** NEW PERSONAL ADDRESS ***
Tim McDaniel is tmcd at jump.net; if that fail,
    tmcd at austin.ibm.com and tmcd at us.ibm.com are my work accounts.
    tmcd at crl.com is old and will go away.
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.