[Charge between four roundels within a bordure embattled] Note that, although the number of charges here would seem a trifle busy for a badge, the design forms a unified whole. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 4)

Three unrelated objects strewn on a field do not a badge make. (See Baldwin’s Rule of Thumb [below]). (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 11)

The chevron here forms one of the standard runes, as given in Koch’s Book of Signs, and runic characters are forbidden for use in devices, although they have been used on a case by case basis in badges. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 11)

The red rose of Lancaster, like the white rose of York, deserves extra protection versus Society badges which should differ by more than one major point from this particularly famous royal badge. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 14)

[The] appeal raised the question of potentially differing standards of identifiability for charges on badges because of their theoretically short-range usage in the Society. Leaving aside [the] fact that we are trying to encourage period usage of insignia, not the bookplate approach to heraldry, the fact remains that in the Society badges are - or should be - used to identify the individual, not the other way around. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 27)

[The submittor] should be reminded that, since his badge uses the restricted insignia of the chivalry [an orle of gold chain], it may not be borne or used by anyone not of that rank. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 4)

While abstract symbols may be used in badges, AR10c specifically states that "a badge shall not consist solely of one abstract symbol". Any kanji character must be considered an "abstract symbol" in the sense that the Rules intend. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 9)

This is by definition too complex for a badge since [what] it involves is three unlike charges floating on a divided field (this would be illicit for a device in fact!). (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 9)

[Azure, a bezant, pierced sable, between four plates, all within a bordure argent] This is right at the margin of acceptable complexity for a badge (the voiding of the bezant tried to tug it over, the unifying tincture of the outer charges pulled it back). (LoAR Aug 87, p. 4)

The addition of the bordure, which is a standard cadency mark, to a badge which was substantially the same seemed to demand a letter of permission. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 11)

Badges for orders are usually registered as simple armoury without specifying the shape of the field (i.e., without saying "on a roundel"): the method of display is up to the group involved. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 8)

[Per bend sinister embowed counterembowed, in fess a hammer fimbriated and a falcon] This submission ... is clearly too complex for a badge. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 21)

[A charged arch between two towers, between in pale two different monsters] There was a virtually unanimous opinion among the commentors that this is too complex for a badge. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 22)

Laurel herself shares the doubts of the Western heralds about the advisability of registering crestiform badges. However, as explained in ... the December, 1989, letter, commentary in the College seems more latitudinarian and the new rules do not prohibit them. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 6)

Badge - Fieldless

According to precedents set by Master Baldwin and enshrined in DR2, no difference may be derived from the field. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 20)

This was submitted as a fieldless badges [semy of charges], but the College had distinct qualms about the feasibility of "strewing" a non-existent field. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 8)

This badge, while marginally legal since the [color beasts] maintain the [metal charge], would be vastly improved if both types of charges were of [a single] class of tincture. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 9)

Under the new rules "fieldlessness" is recognised as a state and a point of difference granted for that state so that fieldless armoury and fielded armoury are no longer automatically considered identical. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 48)

[Insect volant fesswise between in fess two branches palewise] The manner in which the [insect] is placed between the two other charges does not really form a coherent self-contained design in the period manner as specified in the rules: the charges are not conjoined nor are they logically lined in a typical group arrangement.... This [is] non-period style, at least as far as the style for fieldless badges has previously been defined in the Society. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 14)

Badge - Group

For a group badge, two anomalies were felt to be excessive. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 3)

This is either an official guild, in which case the badge should be registered to the ... Kingdom, or is unofficial, in which case the name of the Kingdom should not be used. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 17)


Added to the relatively unbalanced arrangement of the [charges in bend] on either sided of the [per pale] field, the chief itself with its "moving" charge adds an undesirable degree of complexity and lack of balance to the design. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, pp. 16-17)

[Three pallets and three barrulets fretted in sinister base, in dexter chief in pale three roses in chevron and a goblet] The overall arrangement of the charges is extremely unbalanced, with the focus of the primary charge abased to the sinister base and the remaining charges consequently diminished so in size as to appear like an eccentric canton of augmentation. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, pp. 18-19)

The default point in base is centered and contributes to the balance of the design rather than unbalancing it, as does this [dexter] point.... Granted that certain other unbalancing charges (most notably the charged gore) crept into Society heraldry in the past, we see no reason to allow the inherently unbalanced charged dexter (or sinister) point. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 20)

[Three pallets and three barrulets fretted in sinister base] While this resubmission laudably simplifies the device, it does not resolve the problem with the off-center "cross" which produces a distinctly non-period dynamically unbalanced design. (LoAR 22 Oct 89, p. 10)


The difference between barry of six and barry of eight is negligible. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 18)

By the current rules a barry field may not consist of two colours (AR2a). (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 10)


Although the submittor has provided some documentation for the enarched chief and base as separate elements, there is some doubt whether a base of this sort is period and certainly the "cat’s eye" effect is distinctly modern. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 17)


[Coney vs. otter] [This] has ... a minor for the type of charge (the differences in tail and ears between the coney and otter are worth at least a strong minor when a single animal is in question). (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 5)

[The issue raised was] whether the addition of the wings is indeed a minor point of difference or should be counted as a major point of difference.... We have concluded that the determination of difference depends not only [on] the proportion of the charge which is modified but also on the "pattern of recognition" involved. In other words, if the modifications create a beast which has a separate identity of its own, either in period or modern heraldry (e.g., a lion as opposed to a sea-lion), it is feasible for the modifications to produce a major point of difference. If the modifications produce a beast which is clearly derivative (e.g., a winged sheep), then the difference created will be minor. (LoAR 14 Jun 87, p. 6)

[Two foxes salient respectant in annulo] The attempt to force the beasts into an annulate arrangement forces them out of any identifiable salient or rampant posture. (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 13)

While a number of commentors objected strenuously to the use of a beast unknown to western Europe in period, the wording of the current rules dictates acceptance of the platypus as a charge: "Objects, living things, or design elements not normally used in heraldry, ... but were known to humanity prior to 1601, may be accepted as charges on a case-by-case basis. The guideline for acceptability is whether there is one recognizable form." It would indeed be offensive to deny that the aboriginal natives of Australia are a subset of humanity.... The issue then is reduced to whether there is a single recognizable form for a platypus: since there is, the charge must be accepted. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 3)

The submittor has indeed copiously documented the existence of piebald horses in period. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 17

We do not register baby animals: a bear is a bear is a bear, the precise depiction is left to the artist. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 22)

There was a considerable consensus in the College that the hexapodal [six-legged] weasels were not consonant with period style. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 24)

The standing precedent [is] of not allowing "complete difference of charge" between quadrupeds, no matter how different. Under the requirements for Type Change (X.4.e) in the new rules, the shape of the modified rabbit in any normal depiction is clearly different from that of a rhinoceros or an enfield. Since this significant change in type is applied where the charges are primary charges alone on the field, the Difference of Primary Charges rule (X.2) comes into play and the device is definitely clear. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 27)

The new rules do not require complete difference of charge between the ... primary charges on simple coats, merely significant difference of primary charge, as defined in the section on Significant Armorial Differences. Under that section, it is clearly stated that charges will be considered different in type which were considered clearly separate in period heraldry. Rabbits or hares and lions were so considered. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 14)

It was the sense of the meeting that section X.2 of the rules should apply between mice and lions used a qualifying primary charges. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 4)

Note that the equine is depicted as a normal horse: we have not withdrawn the ban on non-heraldic "baby animals", but followed period precedent in using a term that will produce a cant. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 8)

The visual similarity between the fox and the wolf as depicted in the Society was too great to allow difference lacking solid evidence that the two were distinguished as separate charges in period. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 19)

Beast - Bear

[One commenter] provided some distinct evidence that the panda was not seen by an European until this century and that its furs were not known to Europeans until the last century. However, there is no doubt that Europeans were in China so that it falls in the "domain" of the Society as we were discussing it this summer when the spirit of the discussion seemed to be that any flora and fauna from any continent visited by Europeans in period was "fair game" on the grounds that those items could have been known to explorers.... While we are extremely dubious about the appropriateness of panda bears for Society use, [a commenter] is correct in saying that, if you register a panda for anyone, you must register it for everyone. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 5)

We have acceded to the desire of the [submittor] to maintain the cant by specifying the sex of the bears (although no one but a he-bear would presumably be able to tell). (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 19)

Beast - Boar

The beast was blazoned as a "grice" on the submission in a very complex allusive cant. The obscurity created for heraldic artists and researchers does not seem to be justified in view of the extreme reach of the cant. (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 3)

The "proper" tincture for a boar’s head is brown. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 2)

Beast - Dog

[English sheepdog] This variety of dog appears to have developed after our period and therefore are not permissible under AR7b (see Ammalynne Starchild Haraldsdottir "May I Use a Collie in My Arms?" in the Proceedings of the Meridian Heraldic Symposium, specifically p. 54). (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 28)

Mary, Queen of Scots, had a Skye terrier so that there is at least a presumption that the "Scottie" is period (Ammalynne Starchild Haraldsdottir, "May I Use a Collie in My Arms?", Proceedings of the Meridian Heraldic Symposium, pp. 45-55). (LoAR Aug 88, p. 2)

Beast - Ferret

Since the ferret ... can exist in several colorations, it cannot be proper. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 20)

Beast - Horse

See also, Monster - Sleipnir, Monster - Unicorn

The name Rhiannon may not be coupled with horses or unicorns in view of Rhiannon’s function as a horse goddess. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 12)

A name which appears so close to Rhiannon, whether it is derived from it or not, cannot really be used with a unicorn or horse as an element of the related armory. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 22)

A horse certainly is too complex an image to fimbriate under either set of rules. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 35)

Note that the equine is depicted as a normal horse: we have not withdrawn the ban on non-heraldic "baby animals", but followed period precedent in using a term that will produce a cant. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 8)

Beast - Lion and Cat

The mountain lion [proper] on the emblazon sheet is shown as a dark brown, but all our sources show the beast as a much lighter tincture that could only be blazoned as Or, so the cat would have insufficient contrast with the argent field. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 21)

The difference between a tyger and its cub may safely be left to artistic license. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 7)

The default for a cat’s head is not cabossed. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 2)

The foreparts of the lion are dismembered and the hindparts are not, in a distinctly non-period manner. (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 18)

[Lion vs. house cat] The distinction between a lion and a domestic cat under current rules can be no more than a minor point of difference. (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 19)

[Tyger sejant vs. domestic cat sejant] Only a minor point of difference can be derived between the two ... charges. (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 15)

This would be much better style if the panthers were drawn as separate entities (dropping the entwining of the tails). [Submission registered] (LoAR Aug 88, p. 8)

[Demi-lion vs. natural panther incensed] While it can by no means be assumed that a demi-beast will always be a major point of difference from a whole beast in the same relative position, in this case a comparison of the emblazons shows that the cumulative differences carry this feline well clear of the natural panther.... In addition to the truncation of the lower extremities, there is a significant difference in the portions of the beast that remain: the shape of the head (maned versus maneless), forelegs and tail (shaggy versus smooth) and general treatment (plain versus incensed of flame). (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 2)

Beast - Monkey

[A monkey argent vested Or vs. a monkey proper] The overall tincture of the [proper] monkey is as close to Or as makes no difference and the golden clothing covers the monkey to such an extent that it appears to be Or at any distance. The cumulative changes in the detail of the monkey do not make a full "point and a half" required for difference from a Society badge. It should be pointed out to the submittor that there was severe disquiet on the part of some commenters at the use of the "Monkey King" as a heraldic design. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 18)

Beast - Sheep and Lamb

The default lamb is passant. (LoAR 30 Oct 88, p. 5)

The primary charge cannot be blazoned as a sheepskin since that is already defined as a sheep’s fleece (as in the insignia of the Golden Fleece). What she clearly wants is a sheepskin rug; what she has drawn is a flattened sheep. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 7)


There is a precedent going back some eight years banning the use of the "Badge within a strap" since this is a standard form of display for Scottish badges: the chief uses the plain badge and the clansmen use the badge within a strap. Therefore, we have on several occasions returned or pended submissions to allow them to be considered without the strap. In this case, dropping the strap would not be adequate to resolve this problem since conflicts then arise. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 20)


Cotising a bend in one tincture with another tincture is quite common in period rolls of arms and cannot be considered an anomaly. (Although it is far more common when the field is a colour and the bend and cotises are two metals.) (LoAR 31 Mar 90, p. 4)


The precedent in this case appears to be the badge of Albert von Drechenveldt which was returned in December, 1985, for appearing to be a "no outhouses" symbol. Since the tincture of the ordinaries in that case was Or, evidently the use of gules is not a consideration. Note also that in the Discouraged practices section (X3) merely specified "the bend-plus-bordure ‘no X’ motif". That this is a design that well could have existed in period (and show cadency from a family [arms]) is rendered irrelevant by the problems raised by the essentially twentieth-century perceptions of the majority of the membership. My feeling, however, is that rendering the bend and bordure in different tinctures would remove the visual suggestion of the "no [charges]" sign and thus resolve the problem. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 29)


The cumulative [differences] between the birds are worth a minor point at best (in this position [migrant] the primary difference is in the tail configuration). (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 16)

The position of the bird was blazoned originally as volant, but the posture of the wings, body and legs is clearly much closer to that which we associate with "striking". (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 12)

[A demi-eagle rising from a base rayonny] This is functionally a phoenix visually: the blazon provided ... has been retained to reinforce to the heraldic artist the essentially horizontal orientation of the top of the ... "flames". (LoAR Aug 87, p. 4)

The position of the heads must be specified since guardant is the default position for owls. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 6)

There is a clear point of difference for the differences of posture, but the double-heads are not sufficiently visible against the peacock’s tail to add the necessary extra difference. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 14)

However one counts the "points", this [argent, an owl rising guardant, wings elevated and addorsed, maintaining an arrow bendwise sable] is strongly in visual conflict with [argent, a raven rising reguardant, wings disclosed proper, in the dexter claw a sword gules]. (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 12)

The bird "perched" on the line of division is not period style so far as can be determined. (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 13)

The difference between eagle and hawk is really non-existent. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 24)

The triple-headed eagle has been banned from use in the Society for nearly nine years because of its close association with the aspirations of the Holy Roman Empire (it appears in at least one period armorial as the imperial arms ONCE Jerusalem has been reconquered). (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 25)

Since the submittor is a member of the Order of the Pelican, the use of the Pelican [is] legitimate. (LoAR Jun 88, p. 20)

[A penguin close] This bird is technically in "trian aspect".... This "Penguin Paperback" view of the bird seems to be the Society default for a penguin close. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 7)

As the peacock is normally as different from the standard cock as a wolf is from a lion (different head shape, distinctive tail, etc.) we have no hesitation in counting a difference between the two. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 3)

There is no heraldic difference between a heron, a crane and a stork. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 16)

Bird - Owl

[Two owls close guardant aspectant] The birds ... have been specified to be "guardant", although this is the usual default for owls close, because the particular arrangement might suggest that they are actually looking at each other. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 13)

Bird - Swan

The posture of the wings and body can be described best, not by "rising but by the swan specific "rousant". (LoAR Aug 88, p. 5)


Note: the awkwardness of the blazon reflects the "modern" style of the device. [Device registered anyway] (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 3)

What is registered is the emblazon, not the blazon; as the original sheets showed a [monster] couchant, rather than the clearly dormant [one] of the new emblazon sheets, this is technically a change of device rather than a blazon correction. A blazon correction exists when the original blazon does not correctly reflect the registered emblazon or the verbiage does not reflect the intent (e.g., for canting purposes) of the submittor and the new blazon will not be heraldically different from the registered emblazon: since a minor point [of difference] can be derived from a major charge which is dormant rather than couchant, this cannot be merely a blazon correction. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 11)

[A seal displayed erect, tail sufflexed] A charge must be identifiable without the blazon and this is not. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 27)

No blazon appeared on the emblazon forms to verify whether the coloration of the [charge] was intentional or an omission. All paperwork should include the proposed blazon on the forms! (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 25)

The line of division was submitted as "erased" and accompanied by documentation from a fourteenth-century Welsh heraldic tract which did indeed show that "erased" was a period form of usage for that partition line that is shown in our standard references as "rayonny". While we agree that, all things being equal, it is better to use a period term than a modern one, in this instance it seems preferable to retain the term "rayonny".... The usage of "erased" as a line of division is so obscure that we were unable to find it in any of the standard texts used by herald artists and local heralds throughout the Society.... This being so, the natural instinct of the heraldic artist will be to consider this as a heraldic neologism, derived from the usage of erased in the depiction of beast’s heads, which would result in a line of partition rather different from that which appears on the emblazon. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 11)

The emblazon cannot really be reconstructed from the blazon given: the style is so far from period style that it cannot be expressed in the traditional vocabulary. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 13)

If a blazon is correct in terms of the conventions in force at the time it passed and that blazon is not actually erroneous to such a degree that a herald researching for difference or an artist drawing the emblazon would misunderstand it, I will be loathe to change it....

The touchstone that we use for determining if the blazon is as clear as possible is whether the average heraldic artist would be able to draw a reasonable approximation of the emblazon from the blazon provided. Since clarity is our primary goal, terminology which is not readily available in standard texts must be avoided, even though it may be period and may even be more elegant than a commonly used term....

We should value [elegance and brevity] highly, but in our search for the most elegant turn of phrase we cannot lose sight of the fact that elegance is secondary [to the] primary goal of blazon: to describe the emblazon correctly. Nowhere is it truer than in heraldry that a picture is worth a thousand words: if our thousand words do not reflect the picture accurately, they are useless. (CL 18 May 87, pp. 2-3)

Although documentation was provided for the form of the primary charge’s being a legitimate one for [charge], it is by no means the only form of [charge]. Therefore, the charge could not be reconstructed by a competent heraldic artist from the blazon and may not be used for Society heraldry. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 12)

The blazon is as clumsy as it is because this is not really period style, although it is ... Society heraldry. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 7) [Device registered]

The flora was blazoned as a "scrog" on the letter of intent and this is a term in Scots blazon. However, its obscurity makes it inaccessible for the average heraldic artist and it must be avoided here since a perfectly good "plain language" option [a leafless branch] is available. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 2)

[A demi-eagle rising from a base rayonny] This is functionally a phoenix visually: the blazon provided ... has been retained to reinforce to the heraldic artist the essentially horizontal orientation of the top of the ... "flames". (LoAR Aug 87, p. 4)

The differences between the two serpents [cobra coiled affronty vs. rattlesnake coiled to sinister] in position and type are so weak as to be virtually negligible. The two may be blazoned differently for canting or symbolic purposes, but are not significantly different visually. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 10)

Since a bezant and a roundel Or are equivalent terms, there seems no reason to deny the submittor his preferred blazon, since he feels strongly on the issue. (This does not change the prejudice of Laurel towards the term bezant as being more concise and more elegant in most circumstances.) (LoAR 27 Sep. 87)

[Argent, a saltire vert between a pile and a pile inverted sable] The blazon does not really correctly describe the device as the sable is not really pile-shaped. The nearest blazon probably is "Per saltire sable and argent, a saltire vert, fimbriated argent...." However, this is not permissible since much of the "fimbriation" will fade into the argent portion of the field. [Submission returned] (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 11)

[Passant counterpassant] The occasional use of "counterpassant" in Society blazonry as the equivalent of "passant to sinister" demands the longer blazon. (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 14)

[(Field), in bend a comet bendwise sinister, head to chief, and an armoured leg, bent at the knee] Note that, if we have erred in the direction of explicitness on the blazon, it is because comets in the Society are more often than not placed in positions other than "bendwise sinister" and human legs have been used in a variety of postures, some not at all usual in mundane heraldry. To guarantee the submittor the device he wishes, we must forego the most elegant blazon. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 11)

If an alternate blazon applies, the device must be tested against that blazon. (LoAR 24 Dec 88, p. 16)

Society terminology follows the later English tradition which distinguishes between the two-legged wyvern and the four-legged dragon, although this distinction seems not to have existed in the earlier period and still does not exist in continental heraldry. (LoAR 15 Jan 89, p. 1

[Shamrocks rather than trefoils] The lady desires these to be blazoned as shamrocks to suit her persona, since there is no real difference between the two from the point of view of "differencing", we see no reason why we should not accommodate the lady. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 3)

While we understand the desire of the submittors to have this blazoned as a "merchild", there is no precedent for registering the young of such monsters and the only thing to distinguish the being as emblazoned from the typical merman is a certain roundness of body which could be accidental. We feel that this should best be left to the artist’s discretion. (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 10)

The details of the device (i.e., the colour of the beast’s toenails and the number of trees in orle) are simply details that we do not today blazon.... By and large, we blazon no more than is necessary to have a clear representation which will adequately depict the device so as to include all differencing items. The toenails and the difference between eight and nine or nine and ten trees are not differencing. Therefore, they are not blazoned. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, pp. 6-7)

[The principal herald] came up with the very late term "verdoy" for a bordure charged with flora. As [one commenter] noted, this does not demand a specific number or arrangement, may be a decadent usage and is equivalent to the usual Society usage for semy. To avoid any confusion for heraldic artists who may not have libraries as extensive as those of [the principal herald and commenting herald], we have used the commoner term. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 26)

The blazon stated the design to be "per fess rayonny enhanced". As many in the College noted, there is no such thing. What we have here is a chief, properly enlarged in the period manner to allow the harp to be clearly visible. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 1)

[A quill pen maintained by a cubit arm fesswise] Note that in the new rules (Changes to Charges on Charges, X.4.j) it is noted that "charges maintained by other charges are generally too insignificant to count towards difference at all." The qualifier was placed in this rule expressly to deal with situations like this where the object held is in fact of equal size to the being/thing maintaining it. (As opposed to the usual situation where a beast maintains a sword/flower/other artifact which is considerably smaller in size and design importance.) In terms of size and design importance the feather is equal to the cubit arm in this design and thus can be treated as having full weight for purposes of difference. In order to emphasize [this] fact..., we have reblazoned the badge to emphasize its primary importance in the design. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, pp. 3-4)

The usage "a sheaf" for "two [charges] in saltire surmounted by a third palewise" is a space-saving Society convention: it does not necessarily mean that the [charges] must be counted for difference as a single unit any more than a sword and a quill in saltire would be considered a single item. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 13)


Although the default posture for closed books in older examples appears to [be] palewise, since so many modern coats (e.g., Cambridge) have closed books fesswise, ... it should be specified that [the books in this submission] are palewise. Indeed, it is also necessary to specify the orientation of the books [spines to sinister]. (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 8)

Boot and Shoe

After much consideration (and evaluation of so many pictures of heraldic legs and boots that some accused Laurel of adopting foot fetishism!), we have come to the conclusion that the two cannot be considered adequately different enough to carry this clear.... Certainly, comparisons of the "heraldic boot" and the "heraldic leg" are similar enough in depiction that the two cannot be considered to be fully distinct charges. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 39)


There is a precedent in Society usage for the unusual bordure [of flames proper] with the device of [Name] ("[Tincture], a bordure of flames proper") (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 2)

The use of a bordure of the same tincture as half the field is extremely poor practice: in effect the bordure only surrounds a portion of the field. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 28)

[Per fess purpure and argent ... all within a bordure counter-compony purpure and argent] This approaches the limits of visual complexity. This would be improved with a simpler bordure which did not leave islands of argent in purpure and vice versa. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 8) [Device registered]

A bordure should not surmount a chief. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 15)

The bordure countercompony of vert and argent adds an unacceptable level of complexity to the device since the vert portions of the bordure fade into the azure and the argent fades into the argent of the field, leaving an effect of isolated rectangles of tincture. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 15)

There seemed to be considerable feeling in the College that the bordure compony which included as one of its tinctures the tincture of the field should not be permitted. Yet the Rules for Submission specifically use a bordure counter-compony as an example where a divided tincture charge which shares on tincture with the field may be used (AR1c). In both cases there are "islands" of the non-field tincture hovering on the field, although the underlying identity of the charge is a trifle clearer in the case of counter-compony. We could find only one mundane example of this phenomenon ..., and this was not dated.... (LoAR 28 Jun 87, pp. 3-4) [A bordure compony sharing a tincture with the field was later ruled not registerable.]

The device was blazoned with a double tressure, but the emblazon showed a bordure gules charged with an orle sable, which would not be licit. (LoAR 28 Jun 87, p. 4)

In both period and modern heraldry a chief, when it is combined with a bordure, is not overlain by the bordure. In some older cases of chief added for cadency, the chief is added above an attenuated field completely surrounded by the bordure. More common, however, in both period and modern heraldry is a chief which simply overlies and truncates the bordure. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 13)

The addition of the bordure, which is a standard cadency mark, to a badge which was substantially the same seemed to demand a letter of permission. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 11)

The consensus was that this was visually too reminiscent of [Name] ..., particularly given the fact that the largest visual difference between the two was the addition of the bordure, which is a standard mark of cadency. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 11)

A bordure compony where one tincture is identical to the field should not be permitted.... The "islands" of tincture ... [are] too large to permit the distinction between the plain bordure compony and a bordure embattled being readily apparent. (LoAR 27 Sep 87, p. 8)

The bordure overlays the chief, which is not period practise. [Returned for this and for conflict] (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 15)

[Gyronny of two colors, a bordure "voided counterchanged"] The "voiding" or "fimbriating" of a bordure is not permitted under the rules and the counterchange of two colours upon one another is not permitted (a bordure counterchanged is only permitted when the two tinctures involved are from different classes). (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 18)

[Sable, a bordure gules] The bordure violates the rules on contrast (Society heraldry does not allow the latitude to bordures of cadency that late mundane heraldry does). (LoAR Aug 88, p. 22)

[A barruly field] The bordure which is of the tincture of half the filed makes the gules traits look like barrulets couped floating in the middle of the field: this is why AR1c prohibits such a usage. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 19)

A bordure compony gules and Or may not be placed on a field Or: under both sets of rules, this would reduce the identifiability of the bordure to an unacceptable degree. (Note that the submittors intuitively grasped this problem: the field and the bordure are depicted in radically different shades of Or.) (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 34)

The bordure of flame proper here, particularly as depicted in the emblazon as individual tiny points of red placed on almost separated yellow tongues of flame, is not really a period effect. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 21)

[A bordure parted bordurewise indented] The bordure is a period usage, as noted by several commentors who adduced a number of examples of bordures and other ordinaries parted in this manner. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 21)

There is a standing precedent against the use of bordures of flame. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 18)

The only charge which appears to have been regularly surmounted by a chief was the bordure (and even then the practice was decidedly variable). Such period examples of orles or tressures in conjunction with a chief that we have been able to locate have the full orle placed below the chief, as in the arms of the Worshipful Company of Musicians. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 13)


In and of itself, [a skold] is no more offensive than the scourge ... or fetterlocks, both of which suggested "leather and bondage" to more than one member of the Laurel staff.... Since the brideskold can appear in various tinctures and forms, there can be no "proper" and a specific form must be specified. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 18)


[Two towers connected by a bridge vs. a castle] When a submission for the same order was returned in February, 1988, "the strong resemblance of the conjoint charge to a standard depiction of a castle" was noted. (It is essentially two towers conjoined by an embattled wall with arches to base.) There is no clear difference visually between a castle and the bridge on this submission. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 18)


Society tradition does not protect the ermine field of Brittany unless it appears in the context of quartering or attached to a name which is strongly redolent of Brittany. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 2)

Registration of a device or badge using the field of Brittany to a [submittor] with the byname "of Brittany" bothered several commentors, despite the fact that this was designated for an alternate persona. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 19) [Submission was returned by Lady Laurel.]

Previous Page

Next Page

Introduction and Index to Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane

Jump to Precedents main page
Jump to Laurel main page

maintained by Codex Herald
This page was last updated on $lastmod"; ?>

The arms of the SCA Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.