[ANSTHRLD] Field division

[Kevinkeary]

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