[ANSTHRLD] Field division

[Timothy McDaniel]

kevinkeary wrote:
> In a message dated 8/18/2010 7:27:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> winther.der.truwe at gmail.com writes:
>> Is  quarterly of six permitted in SCA heraldry?
>
> I suspect it would be blazoned Per pale X and Y, a fess counterchanged,
> then the other charges if any overall.

*facepalm*  Here I'd been all focused on gyronny!  Thank you.

In the SCA, it is blazoned "party of six pieces [tincture] and [tincture]
..." or "party of six [tincture] and [tincture] ...".  It's been
registered 12 times.  10/92 LoAR:

Laeghaire ua'Laverty.  Badge.  Party of six pieces gules and Or, three
bells Or.

    This was blazoned on the LOI as Per fess gules and Or, on a pale
    counterchanged between two bells, a bell Or.  That would be the
    normal modern blazon, but not the period blazon.  In period, this
    was considered a field division, not a counterchanged pale.  It
    appears to have been considered a field division from its
    invention, mid-15th Century, to the end of our period: the arms of
    the Worshipful Company of Girdlers, granted 1454, were blazoned on
    the grant as a schucheon of .vi. pointes of Azure & gold with
    .iii. greydyron [gridirons] of that same, while the arms of Thomas
    Cromwell, Earl of Essex, were given in the Parliamentary Roll of
    1540 as Party of six pieces or and gules three fleurs de lys azure
    and three pelicans or.  It wasn't until Bossewell's Armorie of
    1572 that the field began to be blazoned as a counterchanged pale
    -- and Bossewell makes clear that this is an alternate blazon, not
    the recommended style.  The "official" blazon is still as a six-
    parted field: "Partie per fesse, countercolored in 6. quarters
    .... and the same I do commende, for that he which used hys blazon
    was an Heraulte, and wel learned in theire mysteries."

    With such documentation in hand, I have little choice but to count
    this a conflict with Swymmer, cited in the LOI (Papworth 181):
    Gules, three bells Or.  There's a single CD, for the field.

    There was some feeling that the College has a long-standing
    tradition of regarding this as a counterchanged pale, not a field.
    I couldn't find any precedent or ruling supporting such a
    tradition.  Quite the contrary: our policy is that we register the
    emblazon, not the blazon, and a conflict found under any valid
    blazon is a real conflict.  We try not to equate charges with
    field divisions, but occasionally we must -- witness how often we
    must call conflict between a pile and Chauss{e'} -- and based on
    the new research presented, this is such a case.  Any change that
    would distinguish this as a counterchanged pale (e.g. tincture,
    complex line) would bring this clear of Swymmer; so would
    reversing the field's tinctures, which would put the bells 1&2.

As for Robin's concern about marshalling, 9/02 LoAR:

  Crystine Thickpenny of Giggleswick. Device. Party of six pieces vert
  bezanty and paly or and azure.

    Conflict with Cornwall, Sable bezanty (important non-SCA
    arms). There is one CD for changing the field. There is no
    difference for changing the arrangement of the charges, since the
    bezants cannot reasonably be expected to fall on the very thin
    portions of azure in the paly portions of the field, and they
    certainly may not fall on the same-tincture Or portions of the
    paly portions of the field.

    Some commenters inquired whether the party of six pieces field
    division was ever used for marshalling and, if so, whether the
    armory in this submission would thus appear to be marshalled
    arms. Note that RfS XI.3 is only concerned with divisions
    "commonly used for marshalling", not divisions "which may rarely
    have been used for marshalling." We have only found a few 16th C
    English coats (and a few more post-period coats) with marshalling
    in six pieces. Each such example uses a different coat in each of
    the six pieces (such as the arms of Jane Seymour on p. 87 of
    Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry, painted c. 1536). No
    evidence has yet been presented that party of six was "commonly"
    used for marshalling. No evidence has yet been presented for party
    of six being used to marshal only two separate coats (which might
    give an appearance like the armory in this submission). Without
    new evidence, there seems no compelling reason to add party of six
    pieces to the fields which the SCA has found to have been
    "commonly used for marshalling".

    There were also some style questions raised about this armory. We
    note that no evidence has yet been presented for armory using a
    party of six field with more than one charge in each section of
    the field. However, since the charged portions of the field merely
    use multiples of a single type of charge, this is at worst one
    step from period style ("a weirdness") and is not in itself a bar
    to registration.

And this from 3/04:

  Petronella Underhill. Name and device. Party of six pieces per fess
  nebuly azure and Or, three frets Or and three crabs azure.

      Party of six pieces was found with more than one type of charge
      on the field - albeit infrequently. Gwynn-Jones' Art of Heraldry
      (p. 103) illustrates arms from c. 1558 that can be blazoned as
      Party of six pieces azure and Or, three roundels barry wavy two
      and one argent and vert and three lion's heads erased one and
      two gules. Anthony Wagner's Historic Heraldry of Britain gives
      the arms of Thomas Cromwell (d. 1540) as Party of six pieces Or
      and gules, three fleurs-de-lys azure and three pelicans Or.

      No evidence has been either presented to, or found by, this
      office for party of six pieces with a complex per fess line
      (although we grant that we had limited research time, after our
      last meeting in office). A similar field was registered by
      Theodoric of Salt Keep in October 1996 without comment, Party of
      six pieces per fess nebuly gules and ermine, three anvils argent
      and three falcons close sable. The practice also seems a
      reasonable extension of the not-uncommon period design of
      quarterly with a complex per fess line. Party of six pieces with
      a complex per fess line of division seems, at worst, a single
      step from period practice (a "weirdness").

Daniel de Lincoln, tmcd at panix.com