[ANSTHRLD] Field division
Kevinkeary
kevinkeary at aol.com
Thu Aug 19 11:24:15 PDT 2010
And I guessed wrong about whether it was more likely to be 2x3 or 3x2. That is per fess a pale counterchanged instead of my guess of per pale a fess counterchanged. And about whether it was a period or post-period field division.
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com>
To: Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA,Inc. <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org>
Sent: Thu, Aug 19, 2010 12:55 am
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] Field division
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
egistered 12 times. 10/92 LoAR:
Laeghaire ua'Laverty. Badge. Party of six pieces gules and Or, three
ells 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
______________________________________________
eralds mailing list
eralds at lists.ansteorra.org
ttp://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org
More information about the Heralds
mailing list