[ANSTHRLD] Fwd: GW Heralds' Point

[Ron]

The relevant rule is RfS XI.3:
"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."

> > This is what I told them:
> > Yours (I presume) will not fly -- the rule it violates is
> > 'appearance of marshalling'. It looks like two simple arms
> > 'impaled', as was occasionally done if a husband claimed the
> > arms his wife inherited or if their son inherited both. There
> > are things you can do to make it work, like using a complex
> > line of division, making the line between the two halves
> > embattled or dovetailed or dancetty or something. I will try
> > to do a conflict check on it to see if it's clear that way.
> > It's nice simple heraldry, so if we can get past the
> > marshalling issue I really like it. The blazon is "Per pale
> > argent?and sable, three tankards in pale sable and a mallet
> > argent". You could also rotate the design 90 degrees, making
> > the division 'per fess' instead of 'per pale', and that would
> > clear the problem, since that sort of division was never used
> > for marshalling.

Also consider having an overall charge counterchanged. This would also
resolve the appearance of marshalling issue. This is a really nice design,
it's a shame it appears to be marshalling.

> > Tega's is also questionable on grounds of appearance of
> > marshalling, but less so than if she had the heart or clover
> > in both quarters -- quartered arms with diagonal quarters
> > identical was ALSO used for marshalling two arms together.

The relevant part of the rule for hers is RfS XI.3.b and I agree with Emma
that the fess line needs to be lower. Also, watch the alternating colors of
the bars. Having an Or bar next to an Or field is low contrast and may be
grounds for return.

Eirik Halfdanarson