[ANSTHRLD] Heralds Digest, Vol 12, Issue 5

[tmcd at panix.com]

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Robert Wade <logiosophia at yahoo.com> wrote:
>   (1) "Per pale azure and bendy azure and Or"
> Since this is field only armory, it avoids the marshalling problem.

It is possible to have a return for marshalling on field-only armory.
Precedent at the bottom.  Summary: if each section is protected as
important non-SCA arms (translation: Brittany), or itself is parted
(lozengy gules and argent, say), each section has appearance of being
independent coats of arms.

However, those conditions do not obtain here: the dexter side saves
it.

> It is based on "Per pale sable and barry of six argent and sable"
> (Sir Will Carriage, Lord Mayor of London 1420) cited by Papworth
> from Glover's Ordinary.

Date: circa 1255.

> This was the only instance I found searching through "Per Chevron
> ...", "Per Fess ...", "Quarterly ..."

Unsurprising, because barry was the most common field in early
period.

> Every other listing has totally different tinctures on with side of
> the field division.

E.g., ANA2 has John Courtenay: "Per pale, dexter chequy or and azure,
sinister vert, two bars argent", again from Glover's.  That *would*
fall afoul of marshalling rules.

> (2) "Azure, a bend downset Or"
> An illustration is in Parker's Glossary under "dancette" (I stumbled
> across this while looking up "demi-").  It is a fractured bend with
> the ends couped at the per pale line of division.  The dexter side
> of the bend is debased, the top of the ordinary being the per bend
> field division.  The sinister side of the bend is enhanced, the
> bottom of the ordinary being the per bend field division.  This is
> based on "Azure, a bend argent impaling the same" and "Azure, a bend
> argent impaling argent, a bend sable" (Zorke) cited by Papworth
> from, again, Glover's Ordinary.  Parker uses the blazon "Per pale
> argent and  azure, a bend downset counterchanged" (Zorke) citing the
> Cotton MS as the source of his blazon and a Harl. MS as the source
> of the illustration [The two comprise Glover's Ordinary].

- It's never been registered in the SCA.

- Anglo-Norman Armory Two indexes Glover's, but the name
  index doesn't list Zorke; only Zouches are under Z.  It's also not
  in the body under Bends.

- the examples you give are both marshalled arms, if I'm parsing your
  unclear writing correctly; it might therefore be considered that a
  bend downset is ipso facto appearance of marshalling.

- neither Brooke-Little's An Heraldic Alphabet nor Friar's A
  Dictionary of Heraldry have "downset", though to be fair neither of
  them have any modified bends.

Danyell de Linccolne



    XI.3.  Marshalling - Armory that appears to marshall independent
     arms is considered presumptuous.

     Period marshalling combined two or more separate designs to
     indicate descent from noble parents and claim to inheritance.
     Since members of the Society are all required to earn their
     status on their own merits, apparent claims to inherited status
     are presumptuous.  Divisions commonly used for marshalling, such
     as quarterly or per pale, may only be used in contexts that
     ensure marshalling is not suggested.

     a.  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.

     b.  Such fields may only be used when no single portion of the
         field may appear to be an independent piece of armory.

         No section of the field may contain an ordinary that
         terminates at the edge of that section, or more than one
         charge unless those charges are part of a group over the
         whole field.  Charged sections must all contain charges of
         the same type to avoid the appearance of being different from
         each other.

However, there is also precedent that says that a divided sub-field
looks like "independent arms".

    [Per pale ermine and vert, in sinister a lion's head cabossed Or]
    Many commenters mentioned that this appeared to be the impalement
    of the arms of Brittany (Ermine) and the armory Vert, a lion's
    head cabossed Or. RfS XI.3 states: "Armory that appears to
    marshall independent arms is considered presumptuous.... Divisions
    commonly used for marshalling, such as quarterly or per pale, may
    only be used in contexts that ensure marshalling is not
    suggested." The rule continues, in RfS XI.3.b, to state that "Such
    fields may only be used when no single portion of the field may
    appear to be an independent piece of armory.... Charged sections
    must all contain charges of the same type to avoid the appearance
    of being different from each other".

    RfS XI.3.b was later refined by Laurel ruling, indicating that
    even when "charged sections ... all contain charges of the same
    type" there may be an appearance of marshalling if the uncharged
    quarters are complex fields. See the return of Quarterly Or and
    lozengy azure and Or, in bend two ravens contourny sable (LoAR of
    October 1992, Aric Thomas Percy Raven):

         After much soul-searching, I must agree with the commenters
         who saw an appearance of marshalling in the device. Rule
         XI.3.b states that quarterly may be used only "when no single
         portion of the field [appears] to be an independent piece of
         armory." In general, complexity in any of the quarters makes
         it look like independent armory; for example, XI.3.b
         explicitly cites the use of multiple charges in a quarter as
         unacceptable. The motif Quarterly X and Y, in bend two
         [charges] is allowable when the uncharged quarters are plain
         tinctures; we don't protect plain tinctures. But when the
         uncharged quarters are complex fields, we lose that
         rationale; and the complexity then begins to make it look
         like an independent coat.  This, beneath all the subtext, is
         exactly what XI.3.b is meant to prevent.

    After similar soul-searching, and considering the strong reactions
    of the College to this submission, we rule as follows:

    When considering armory using a field division commonly used for
    marshalling, if every uncharged portion of the field is a plain
    tincture that the SCA protects as "important non-SCA arms", then
    those uncharged portions of the field will appear to be displays
    of independent coats of arms, and the armory will appear to be
    marshalling.

    Quarterly azure and ermine, in bend two mullets Or has the
    appearance of marshalling Azure, a mullet Or with Ermine, the
    protected "important non-SCA arms" of Brittany. In this case,
    every uncharged portion of the field appears to be a display of
    the arms of Brittany. Quarterly azure and ermine, in dexter chief
    a mullet Or does not have the appearance of marshalling, because
    not every uncharged portion of the field appears to be a display
    of arms. This armory includes an uncharged quarter of azure, which
    is not protected in the SCA as "important non-SCA arms." This
    armory simply appears to be arms using a quarterly field with a
    single charge in dexter chief.

    Quarterly azure and vert, in bend two mullets Or does not have the
    appearance of marshalling. The flag of Libya, Vert, is a plain
    tincture protected as an "important non-SCA flag". Only arms would
    be used in marshalling in the real world, not flags or
    badges. There is only an appearance of marshalling when the
    protected plain tincture represents "important non-SCA
    arms". [Murdoch Bayne, 08/02, R-Æthelmearc]

-- 
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com