[ANSTHRLD] I have another client who is interested in a Quarterly field partition

[Tim McDaniel]

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Alasdair MacEogan <alasdair at bmhanson.net> wrote:
> Or maybe to explain why, looking at the RFS (as Daniel pointed out)
> XI.3 Marshalling.  Specifically point B. "b. Such fields may only be
> used when no single portion of the field may appear to be an
> independent piece of armory."

That's not really the important sentence -- I mean, I suppose it might
be useful if there were a weird case and we needed to argue based on
first principles, but it's generally not useful.

The useful part is the next two sentences, which defines what "no
single portion of the field yadda yadda" is deemed to mean, and
the preceding sentence in point a:

     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. (quoted by Alasdair) 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.

Correcting the blazon as Tostig pointed out,

     Quarterly sable and azure, in bend two sheaves of five arrows Or.

RfS XI.3 precondition: "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 may apply; must consider
it.

RfS XI.3.a:
- "identical charges over the entire field": nope
- "complex lines of partition": nope
- "charges overall that were not used for marshalling": no overall
   charges.  (The wording, BTW, is because a cross and a few other
   crosses throughout WERE sometimes used in marshalled arms.)
So you can't say it's clear by RfS XI.3.a.

b:
- "ordinary that terminates at the edge of that section": bullet
   dodged
- "more than one charge unless those charges are part of a group over
   the whole field": that's an open question per Teceangl
- "Charged sections must all contain charges of the same type": check

So there's one possible problem remaining to be addressed.

Daniel de Lindo Colonia
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com