[ANSTHRLD] Field division

Bob Wade logiosophia at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 20 16:34:47 PDT 2010


Again, I was referring to the historical example as being unregisterable as it expressly states it is marshaled arms.  That statement alone makes it violate XI.3
 
As for Precedents, what you're probably looking for is from the Sep 2002 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.
--- On Fri, 8/20/10, doug bell <magnus77840 at hotmail.com> wrote:


From: doug bell <magnus77840 at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] Field division
To: heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
Date: Friday, August 20, 2010, 7:14 AM



Everything was explained clearly in the discussion.  What I was asking 
was has anyone ever tried to register what appeared to be independent marshaled
arms on something other than a per pale or quarterly of 4 field?

I was concerned with your extension of the marshaling rules to cover examples
that don't appear to have ever been ruled on by Laurel.  It doesn't appear the precedents
are designed to handle anything other than per pale and quarterly.

Quarterly of 6 with a chevron throughout in each section would look very much like
marshaled arms.  What about having two types of charges like a lion and a mullet?
That is not allowed for per pale and quarterly of 4 because of marshaled arms but 
it seems OK if you reblazon it as party of six.

That is why I was looking for examples in past SCA rulings.

Magnus


                          
_______________________________________________
Heralds mailing list
Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org



      


More information about the Heralds mailing list