[ANSTHRLD] requesting conflict check

[Haines, Paul]

*Daniel said*
> When you're going to discuss the details of an armorial design, please
> keep the blazon in.  I've deleted the message long since.  I gather
> that the original is
>     Quarterly ermine and azure, in bend two crosses something gules.
> or with the quarters reversed.
>
My apologies:  Quarterly ermine and azure, in bend two crosses formy gules.

*Alden said*
> > RfS XI.3.a says, "Such fields may be used with identical charges
> > over the entire field, or with complex lines of partition or charges
> > overall that were not used for marshalling in period heraldry.
> >
> > Technically, we are clear of this, as our charges are identical, are
> > over the entire field (though they are positioned within two
> > quarters), and are not charges used for marshalling.
>
*Daniel replied*
> You are, I'm afraid, completely misunderstanding it.  "Over the entire
> field" means exactly that: that there are identical charge(s) within
> every division of the field, as in
>     Quarterly ermine and azure, four crosses something counterchanged.
> That does not obtain in this case: over half the field is uncharged.
> Neither are their complex lines of partition that avoid marshalling,
> as in
>     Quarterly embattled ermine and azure, anything you want.
> and neither are their charges over the entire field of any sort (much
> less charges that weren't used in marshalling), as in
>     Quarterly ermine and azure, a bend gules between anything you want.
> so the "or" clause doesn't apply either.
>
> And if this clause did apply, you'd be done -- it's giving conditions
> that can instantly remove appearance of marshalling.
>
I think "Over the entire field" would also apply to the following:
Quarterly ermine and azure, a cross gules
Quarterly ermine and azure, three (two and one) crosses gules
Quarterly ermine and azure, in fess two crosses gules
Quarterly ermine and azure, in pale two crosses gules
Quarterly ermine and azure, in bend three crosses gules

So Quarterly ermine and azure, in bend two crosses gules (IMO) is as much
"over the entire field" as is any of the above examples.  The only
difference here is that neither of the crosses are situated over a division
line.  I agree that this may not be in agreement with the "intent" of the
rule, in which case perhaps the rule should be clarified - maybe to read
"Such fields may be used with charges over the entire field that cross a
field division line, or with complex lines of partition or charges overall
that were not used for marshalling in period heraldry."

*Daniel said*
> The only non-SCA plain-field armory is Brittany, so you only have to worry
> about "Ermine".
>
This makes sense, and perhaps the rules on marshalling would be made more
clear to look at each quarter of a quartered field and state that for it to
*not* be marshalled, at least one quarter must fail to exist as a
stand-alone device.  This would then mean (essentially) that as long as one
of the quarters is a plain tincture (except Ermine), it is clear of
marshalling.  Although to have a quartered device with three quarters that
could be stand-alone, and one not, would (I think) be impossible to do in
keeping with good heraldic practice.  It'd be something like:  Quarterly
argent and gules in chief two crossses counterchanged and in base sinister a
cross gules.  So you could better say that two quarters must fail to stand
alone.


Alden