[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Field - Ermined) |Top of Page |Next Page (Field Division - Gyronny)]
[Per pall inverted arrondi [or schne] a threaded needle inverted bendwise, the needle extending to cover about half the distance possible] As drawn, the needle is completely unidentifiable. It is far too small for the available space; while this normally requires only an admonition to "Draw the charge larger", the flaw is fatal on this field. (Even a correctly-sized needle would be hard pressed to be identified on a field per pall inverted arrondi; the curved lines of the field and thread, and the thinness of the needle, combine to cause confusion rather than clarity.)
If the needle were drawn larger, this might be acceptable; but the submitter would be better advised to choose another field as well. (Hannah Graham, September, 1992, pg. 45)
[Party of six pieces, three bells] This was blazoned on the LOI as [Per fess, on a pale counterchanged between two bells, a bell]. 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]. 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 Chaussé --- 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. (Laeghaire ua'Laverty, October, 1992, pg. 25)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Field - Ermined) |Top of Page |Next Page (Field Division - Gyronny)]
Counterchanging a vair field isn't an acceptable practice: there is no heraldic difference between vair and "vair counterchanged", and the result is as visually indistinct as, say, Per pale checky Or and gules, and checky gules and Or. In each case, except for a discontinuity in the center of the shield, from any distance it looks likea single field. (Richard Foxcroft, December, 1992, pg. 18)
[A thistle per chevron throughout purpure and vert] The division of the thistle could not be identified as such by the heralds at Laurel's meeting. On such an irregular shape as a thistle, any division must be exceptionally simple to be recognized. Per pale might have been acceptable; Per chevron, where the line must cross the empty space between the leaves and the blossom, is not. (Fionna Goodburne, December, 1992, pg. 19)
[Party of six pieces gules and Or, three <charges> Or and a chief sable] The addition of the chief removes the conflict from the previous return. However, there's now a lack of contrast between the sable chief and the field. The field is equally gules and Or, and technically neutral with respect to contrast --- for charges that are equally supported by the gules and Or traits. A centrally placed sable charge, or a sable bordure, would have sufficient contrast; but a sable chief might not. (The problem is not unique to this field division: Per bend gules and Or is a neutral field, but Per bend gules and Or, a chief sable still suffers a lack of contrast.)
In this case, the chief's contrast is exactly the same as with a hypothetical Gules, a pale Or and a chief sable. We would return the latter, were it submitted; we must likewise return this. The client might consider counterchanging the tinctures of the field, or using a bordure. (Geoffrey Peal (Laeghaire ua'Laverty), June, 1993, pg. 18)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Field - Ermined) |Top of Page |Next Page (Field Division - Gyronny)]