[ANSTHRLD] Arms for Entrants/Consorts - aka Impaling/Pretence

[Darin Herndon]

The issue requirement makes sense.  A baron who married a duchess did not become a duke.  But their son would.  Until there was a son, the baron could not claim that his bloodline would inherit the duchy.  Given some of the items you quoted earlier and that I saw, I wonder if that issue requirement became a hard and fast rule or if it had spotty application.

I feel obliged to point out for followers of this thread that the sentence you quoted below was me interpreting the quote I cited from pg. 409.  But your point about Fox-Davies using peerage to indicate nobility is a valid concern.  I do not know if this would exactly map to the lesser grants or not.  The herald in me that loves consistency hopes it would but enough rules in heraldry and the laws of arms were developed after conflicting precedents that had to be accommodated that it is uncertain.  Fox-Davies said something in that marshalling chapter about how the rules had to adapt to prior inconsistencies and make them fit some ongoing logic (I'm paraphrasing, not quoting); I may have to look that up again.

On Tostig's note, I would also like to see any documentation on consorts or ladies granting favor in tournaments and their traditional roles if any.  Most of what I have seen is information gleaned from reviewing paintings or fabric works of the period in books.  Mostly the "high age of romance" tournament paintings showing the ladies watching as a group and tying on favors, etc.  I cannot think of an example of a processional at tournament though I think I may have seen an image of a procession or entrance into a royal court.  If I can find that, I'll post the source.  If I remember correctly, the King was seated and a lord and lady were approaching with a herald under one banner (the lord's).

Etienne

-----Original Message-----
From: heralds-bounces at lists.ansteorra.org [mailto:heralds-bounces at lists.ansteorra.org] On Behalf Of Alden Drake
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 8:11 PM
To: Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc.
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] Arms for Entrants/Consorts - aka Impaling/Pretence

"What was given to her directly in her creation as a peeress may not be inheritable and as such may be illegitimate for the husband or fighter to "pretend" to "represent"."

This sentance then seems to say that if a peeress' arms are not inheritable, they should not be borne on an escutcheon of pretense by her husband.  It's worth pointing out though that Fox-Davies uses peerage to indicate nobility (baronies and above, and baronetcies too, I think), so the question remains, does this hold true for lesser Grants?  Also, I'd also want to look into when peerages were given that were not hereditary.  That may have been a later convention.  If so (and I don't see why it wouldn't), then since Arms granted in the SCA are not hereditary, an escutcheon of pretense would be improper.

I also found a neat bit in Oxford, pg 123, "College manuscript L 15 states  that there must be issue of the marriage before a husband may bear his wife's arms in pretence."  The word "issue" here refers to having children.

Alden

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).