[ANSTHRLD] Heralds Digest, Vol 12, Issue 5
tmcd at panix.com
tmcd at panix.com
Wed Apr 4 20:50:26 PDT 2007
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
More information about the Heralds
mailing list