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

[Alden Drake]

"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


----- 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 5:30:39 PM
Subject: [ANSTHRLD] Arms for Entrants/Consorts - aka Impaling/Pretence

Alden,

Interesting.  And exactly the kind of citations I was seeking.  Thank you for providing them.

To the list in general,

I apologize for the long email below but the citations provided got me to pull some resources at work and check things as well.  Due to the length, I have cut items below Alden's immediate previous reply.  If you need to trace something, please look to previous emails.

In summary, I accept that impaling arms could be appropriate in some specific cases for a fighter and consort but I am now more convinced that an escutcheon of pretence would be horribly incorrect.  My cites and thoughts are below.  I love the examples given so far and that I am finding and I love learning more about period precedence and its practice and meanings.  I welcome any and all comments, refutations, disagreements, etc., with any of the above.  Dig out your books and bring more to the discussion.  Please.  The more we research and contribute the more we all learn.  If you disagree or think I am wrong, I am not going to take it personally and I hope no one else will if others add to the discussion.

I compared notes with Alden's citations against the edition of Fox-Davies "A Complete Guide to Heraldry" that was revised and re-released by Brooke-Little (1969 printing).  He (They) go into some detail in chapter 33 on the marshalling of arms.  Several citations Alden provided match word for word with this source as well.  They (Fox-Davies/Brooke-Little) spend a lot of time in the chapter defining an "heir or "heiress" as a critical point.
Pg. 404
"For heraldic purposes it therefore becomes necessary to define the terms heir and heiress."  And later on the same page, "No person can be 'heir' or 'coheir' of another person until the later is dead, though he or she may be heir-apparent or heir-presumptive."

So, until the wife was an heir (father had died) she would have had no personal arms unless she was created a peer or armiger in her own right.  Her personal seal, especially once widowed, would frequently have been a marshalled form of her husband and her family (since she had none of her own).  But for arms, she would have been included under her husband's arms once married (again, unless she was a peer or armiger in her own right) until he died and the son inherited. So for this discussion concerning entrants and consorts, given: 1) that the SCA does not pass on rank and title through inheritance (though a heraldic will can pass on arms) and 2) every armiger or commoner with a registered device in the SCA has such in their own right (not solely because of inheritance) then for this discussion of arms born by entrants and their consorts, we can focus solely on period examples where the consort bore arms in their own right.

As such, and as Alden already noted, the fighter could impale the arms of consort (and a herald would wear such to herald for them).  You documented the period citations and examples and I found some that support it as a period practice.  In fact, if the consort was of equal rank or higher than the fighter, it could be argued that they should.  If both were fighter and consort to each other, it would appear especially appropriate.  But...  Would the fighter actually have done so in period?

Pg. 413 of Fox-Davies covers a more practical point for this discussion
"A man bore his own arms, and he left his father-in-law, or his brother-in-law, to bear those of the family to which he had matched.  Of course, we find many cases in which the arms of a wife figure upon a husband's shield, but a careful examination of them shows that in practically every case the reason is to be found in the fact that the wife was an heiress.  ....[it] is due to the fact that the husband was bearing them not because of his mere marriage, but because he was enjoying the estates, or peerage, of his wife."

So, in the example of arms for a tourney entrant, the fighter could impale both arms and fight under such arms.  But, unless the fighter was enjoying an estate, peerage, or privilege of the consort (perhaps a Centurion fighting for a Countess and getting to stand in the order of precedence with the County entrants which has never been the case in our Crown Tournaments), then it likely would not model after period practice.  I still think a single herald for two fighters fighting for each other would be a really good case for this.  I'm not convinced that impaling would be appropriate for most cases or a correct recreation of a period practice for most cases.  But I'm enjoying the discussion and points and citations and have an open mind to additional evidence.

Having read the section on the inescutcheon, or escutcheon of pretense, I am more convinced that it would be inappropriate for this entrant/consort discussion.  My original concern was appearance of claiming augmentation.  Now I am more concerned with what it says about the fighter/consort.
Pg. 404 of Fox-Davies
"If the wife be an heraldic heir on [sic - typo, should be or] coheir [father was dead], in lieu of impalement, the arms of her family are placed on an inescutcheon superimposed on the center of her husband's arms, the inescutcheon being termed an escutcheon of pretence, because 'jure uxoris' [italicized in text] she being an heiress of her house, the husband pretends to the representation of her family."
Earlier I partially quoted something from Pg. 413 of Fox-Davies.  I quoted the last half of the comment but the first half is now relevant so I'll give the whole quote.
"Husbands were called to parliament in virtue of the peerages vested in their wives, and we cannot but come to the conclusion that whenever one finds use in early times of the arms of a wife, it is due to the fact that the husband was bearing them not because of his mere marriage, but because he was enjoying the estates, or peerage, of his wife."

I know several ladies who might love to have a fighter fight for them in tourney but might also take exception to the fighter now "representing" her; as in speaking for her and stating her opinions and in fact having a relationship not unlike a power of attorney.  To hold the arms in escutcheon of pretence is to state your legal interest in and claim to ability to speak for the arms to which you pretend.  So, if the consort had arms in her own right, consider the following statement about a created peeress, not inherited.
Pg. 409 of Fox-Davies
"...but supposing that the peeress were a peeress by creation and were not an heiress, how would her arms be displayed?  Apparently it would not be permissible to place them on an escutcheon of pretence...".  This statement comes right after a description of a peeress by inheritance and how an escutcheon of pretence is one way to display her arms on her husband's (surmounted by the coronet of her rank).  What she inherited, can be passed on to children of the two.  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".  In the SCA, marrying a countess does not make you a count, being married to a Laurel does not enable you to "represent" your Laurel spouse in the peerage circle and a non-augmentation inescutcheon conveys that you claim that legal right over all estates and privileges they possess.  For this reason, I remain firmly convinced
 that an escutcheon of
  pretence would be an incorrect usage in an SCA context for a fighter and their consort.  But, however firmly convinced I am now, there is nothing like evidence to change my mind.

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 11:48 AM
To: Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc.
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] trumpets vs Devices

>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

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