[ANSTHRLD] trumpets vs Devices

Alden Drake alden_drake at sbcglobal.net
Mon Mar 3 09:47:53 PST 2008


>From The Oxford Guide to Heraldry pg 118 on dimidiation of arms:
"Francis Sandford, Lancaster Herald, in his Genealogical History of the Kings of England (1677) illustrates the seal of Margaret de Clare, wife of Edmond, Earl of Cornwall (died 1300), where the arms are dimidiated.  This appears to be one of the earliest instances of the practice."

"Dimidiation ceased as early as the third year of the reign of Edward III, as shown by the entire impalement on the seal of Thomas de Kingston of 1330.  It's demise was justifiable, for many coats cut in half vertically and joined to another treated in the same fashion were unrecognizable.  As Joseph Edmondson pointed out in his  Complete Body of Heraldry (1780), a coat such as Waldegrave Per pale Argent and Gules would be plain Argent when dimidiated for male members of the family and plain Gules for female members.  The only survival from dimidiation is the rule that, where either husband or wife's impaled arms contain a tressure or bordure, this should not continue down the palar line but only round the three other sides of the husband or wife's impalement."

>From The Oxford Guide to Heraldry pg 119 on impalement of arms:
"A husband and a wife who is not an heraldic heiress impale there arms, as do certain office-holders with the arms of their office.  In these cases the arms of office are placed in the dexter impalement and the personal arms in the sinister half of the shield."

pg 123:
"An armigerous man impales the arms of his wife as long as her father is alive.  On the father's death he may, if she has no surviving brothers or deceased brothers who left issue, place her arms on a shield in the centre of his own arms.  This is termed an escutcheon of pretence because he pretends to represent her family, and as there are no immediate male members of that family it is not inappropriate to bear such a coat in battle or times of war."

I forget where I read, and can't find it handily, that impaled arms were not borne in war by a husband, because it was assumed that his wife's father and/or brother(s) would be fighting in the war, and would thus be representing the family directly.

Yes, escutcheons of pretense as an indication of marriage can be confused with an augmentation displayed on an escutcheon (whether the escutcheon is displayed at the fess point or at the honor point), but then that's not more confusing than quartered arms being period ways to show marriage, descent, and augmentation.  It's one of those cases where the bearer, if asked, should identify the source of the additional display, and not claim honors he/she does not posess.

Alden


----- Original Message ----
From: Darin Herndon <darin.herndon at chk.com>
To: "Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org>
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2008 9:47:31 AM
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] trumpets vs Devices

As a general question to the list, does anyone have documentation on when dimidiated arms and impaled arms were used in period?  Specifically, did they overlap in usage through their history or did practice move from one style to the other across a hundred year period?  Was one more common in continental heraldry and the other in British heraldry?

I had thought that the use of impaled arms was not allowed until the father had died and the heiress actually received them.  Part of the reason being legal (father could still disown her until he died and she would get nothing) and part being the presumption (showing the arms impaled does visually note a legal interest or right or claimed right to those arms or to the actual, current, holder of those arms).  Are there cases where impaled or dimidiated arms were used while the father of the bride was still alive?

In a purely SCA context, I would avoid (and encourage an entrant who asked me to avoid) the escutcheons of pretense.  They appear quite distinctly in SCA heraldry as augmentations of honor and I think would raise confusion.  But that is one person's opinion.

Etienne

-----Original Message-----
From: heralds-bounces at lists.ansteorra.org [mailto:heralds-bounces at lists.ansteorra.org] On Behalf Of Alden Drake
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 4:01 PM
To: Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc.
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] trumpets vs Devices

Let us not forget marshalled arms also include dimidiated, impaled, and escutcheons of pretense.  These forms of arms -were/are- used to denote marriage.  Dimidiated arms (half of the husband's arms and half of the wife's father's arms) and impaled (full arms of the husband and full arms of the wife's father) were used when the husband, who legally bore arms, was married to a woman who was not the heiress of her father's arms (father still alive for example).  The conjoined arms were used to show a relation between families.  Arms on an escutcheon of pretense were borne by a husband who's wife was the heiress of her father's arms (he being dead).  In this style, a husband's arms completely surround his wife's, and by such indicate that those estates are within his keeping.  He does not stand to inherit them however, so he's only pretending ownership.  If he survives his wife, the arms will pass to her heir/ess, and the husband will no longer bear them on
his arms.

Now, what does this mean in an SCA context?  Depends on your POV, I think.  One view I like is if the husband being at least an armiger (AoA) has the right to arms, but his wife is not, he might impale her device with his arms.  This is representative of her device not yet being her Arms, much like if she was not the heiress of arms in a historical context.  If she is an armiger, then her husband can display her arms on an escutcheon of pretense within his own, and thus "pretend ownership" of his wife's arms.  Keep in mind that these are just suggestions for the display of marshalled arms.  The Society still does not *register* arms that are (or appear) marshalled.

Alden



----- Original Message ----
From: Darin Herndon <darin.herndon at chk.com>
To: "Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 2, 2008 10:49:03 AM
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] trumpets vs Devices

No.  The herald is heralding for the entrant and whomever might be the entrant's consort.  Primary emphasis would be on the entrant who "hired" the herald with appropriate mention (as the client might direct) on announcing their consort.

Marshalled arms would state that the herald is is announcing on behalf of the HEIR of those pair of armigers and would not be appropriate for representing either party.

The only good ways (my opinion) to have the arms of both represented would be to have two heralds or to keep one herald in the arms of the entrant but have the arms of the consort carried in on a banner.  One herald for each person works but I still think that is not a good option since the critical action is heralding in the entrants; having a herald for each would visually suggest that both are entrants (which may be true and appropriate in that case).  Having the entrant with a herald in the entrant's arms and a banner behind and above the entrant and the consort with their arms would look very appropriate.

Etienne
________________________________________
From: heralds-bounces at lists.ansteorra.org [heralds-bounces at lists.ansteorra.org] On Behalf Of Bob Wade [logiosophia at yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 8:53 AM
To: Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA,  Inc.
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] trumpets vs Devices

On the few occasions I've done it, the entrant agreed to their Consort having at least an equal emphasis during the procession.  In situations such as this ...

  ... would marshalled arms of the entrant and consort be appropriate?

  Tostig

This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any).
_______________________________________________
Heralds mailing list
Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org
_______________________________________________
Heralds mailing list
Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org

This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any).
_______________________________________________
Heralds mailing list
Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org


More information about the Heralds mailing list