[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Lozenge) |Next Page (Mascle and Rustre)]
[Quarterly, in bend two <charges>] Several commenters noted a possible appearance of quartered armory here ...However, the Rules specifically permit this motif as one of those that can use a quarterly field without being considered marshalling. Rule XI.3.b states that the "charged sections must all contain charges of the same type," which applies to this submission. It's unimportant that two of the quarters are uncharged: the SCA College of Arms has never considered plain, single-tincture fields to be worthy of protection, nor a consideration in marshalling. ...In short, this design motif is not considered marshalling; so long as other restrictions are met (e.g. no more than one charge per quarter, etc.) it should be acceptable for SCA use. (Duncan Kieran, July, 1992, pg. 7)
[Per pale, a decrescent and an increscent] The consensus seems to be that this is not impaled armory; it's no different than, say, two beasts combattant on the same field (Eiríkr Fence Splitter, August, 1992, pg. 8)
[Quarterly Or and gules, four swans counterchanged sable and argent] The device isn't marshalling, any more than the armory of Wales (Quarterly Or and gules, four lions passant guardant counterchanged) is marshalling. So long as all the charged sections of the field bear a single (identical) charge, this is considered acceptable for SCA use. (Deirdre O'Connell, August, 1992, pg. 14)
This runs afoul of Rule XI.3, which forbids the appearance of marshalled armory. The use of multiple charges in the first quarter, and of a different type of charge in the fourth quarter, gives a strong impression of independent coats in those quarters. The use of the complex line of partition does not entirely dispel that impression. (Johannes of Amstelveen, August, 1992, pg. 27)
[Per pale, a harp and a cross of four lozenges, a chief embattled] The chief was a mark of primary cadency in period (Gayre's Heraldic Cadency, p.153), and it became part of the Stodart system of cadency used today in Scotland. Thus, the addition of a chief to quartered armory would not remove the appearance of marshalling. However, the chief's use as a brisure was never as widespread as the bordure's; where the bordure would be used to cadence all forms of marshalling, the chief would only be used to cadence quartering. In the case of impalement --- which implies a marital coat, not an inherited one --- the addition of the chief is sufficient to remove the appearance of marshalling. (Æthelstan von Ransbergen, September, 1992, pg. 1)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Lozenge) |Top of Page |Next Page (Mascle and Rustre)]
[Quarterly Or and lozengy azure and Or, in bend two <charges>] After much soul-searching, I must agree with the commenters who saw an appearance of marshalling in the device. Rule XI.3.b states that quarterly may be used only "when no single portion of the field [appears] to be an independent piece of armory." In general, complexity in any of the quarters makes it look like independent armory; for example, XI.3.b explicitly cites the use of multiple charges in a quarter as unacceptable. The motif Quarterly X and Y, in bend two [charges] is allowable when the uncharged quarters are plain tinctures; we don't protect plain tinctures. But when the uncharged quarters are complex fields, we lose that rationale; and the complexity then begins to make it look like an independent coat. This, beneath all the subtext, is exactly what XI.3.b is meant to prevent. (Aric Thomas Percy Raven, October, 1992, pg. 30)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Lozenge) |Top of Page |Next Page (Mascle and Rustre)]
[Quarterly, in bend an eagle's head and a flute] The use of the quarterly field with two different charges in opposite quarters gives a strong appearance of marshalled armory, and is disallowed per Rule XI.3.a. (Kenrick atte Kyte, November, 1992, pg. 18)
It has been previously ruled (LoAR of Oct 92, p.30) that the use of a complex field [in this example, checky] in two quarters of a quartered design gives too strong an appearance of marshalling. This is true whether or not those quarters are charged; their complexity gives them the appearance of independent armory, which Rule XI.3.b prohibits. (Fáelán MacFergus, January, 1993, pg. 26)
[Per pale gyronny sable and Or, and gyronny Or and sable, on a chief triangular argent <charge>] The device does not appear to be correct medieval style. The use of the two gyronny divisions is visually confusing here, with the sinister division being the counterchange of the dexter division.
Moreover, the only examples we've seen of multiple gyronny divisions in one device involved marshalling. Were this considered a marshalled coat --- and the fact that the Campbell (Caimbeul) arms are Gyronny sable and Or suggests this was the submitter's intent --- it would be returnable on those grounds alone. It's true that a charged chief may, in most cases, remove the appearance of impalement; but simultaneously, the use of Campbell armory with the name Caimbeul reinforces that appearance. For either reason, this must be returned. (Sionan Padraig Caimbeul, July, 1993, pg. 12)
[Quarterly counter-ermine and argent, in bend sinister two pairs of annulets interlaced bendwise sinister gules] The quarterly field division must be used carefully, to avoid the appearance of marshalled armory. Rule XI.3 sets out what designs will appear to be marshalled: the use of more than one charge per quarter is unacceptable in this context. This must be returned. If he used a single annulet in each argent quarter, or a group of two linked annulets overlying the line of division, it would be acceptable (assuming no conflicts). (Tristan of Landhelm, September, 1993, pg. 21)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Lozenge) |Top of Page |Next Page (Mascle and Rustre)]