Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
See also, Magic
There was considerable feeling in the College that the combination of the eye and sickle-shaped blade was excessively redolent of the occult. The Laurel staff also found the allusion (possibly unintentional) to ritual blinding to be potentially offensive. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 12)
[A fox maintaining in its mouth a squirrel] The addition of the minor charge in purpure, which has a low contrast with the sable fox, is [an] anomaly, while others felt that the dead squirrel bordered on the morbid. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 11)
It was the consensus of the commenting heralds that the bat with the drops of blood was too suggestive of a vampiric persona which might be offensive to a substantial portion of the populace (and would be demonstrably a claim to powers beyond the normal sphere), even without the allusion to Dracula involved in the byname Draco. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 12)
Reluctant as we are to call offensiveness, given the sexual and occult symbolisms of the cup and the spear or sword in this arrangement [palewise], we must reluctantly agree that a significant segment of the populace would feel this was inappropriate for use in the Society. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 26)
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. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 18)
There was considerable feeling in the College that the combination of the eye and sickle-shaped blade was excessively redolent of the occult. The Laurel staff also found the allusion (possibly unintentional) to ritual blinding to be potentially offensive. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 12)
This is an abstraction of the "sign of Tanit", one which actually appears to have been made in ancient formal and informal graffiti. The overwhelming association of Tanit (or Tanith) both in Greek and Roman sources is with the sacrifice of children. This association is frequently the one single thing that the layman knows about Carthaginian religion.... This is, moreover, not merely malicious propaganda on the part of the Romans: it is supported by the archaeological evidence. (LoAR Aug 87, pp. 12-13)
[Gwenhyfar le Wita] Although the name [Gwenevere] was used by other ladies in period and is licit for Society use, the contexts in which it is used must be carefully examined in order to avoid offense. [Guinevere the White is presumptuous] (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 11)
The byname "Tsepesh", which means "Impaler" and is associated with Vlad the Impaler, prototype for the Dracula legend, is offensive in itself, offensive in its association with Vlad/Dracula and should not be registered. (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 14)
[Jean d’Eaux] This will be considered by far too many as a bad example of offensive "toilet humour" ..., given the general Society euphemism of "Shrines of Saint John of the Waters". (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 18)
[Jean d’Eaux] Although the submittor may not really have intended the effect of a drawing of a modern (very Art Deco modern in black!) toilet seen from above, this is the picture that a majority of the populace will see, particularly when placed in context with the name. Leaving aside the issue of whether [this submission] is offensive, it is disruptive to the medieval atmosphere by its very modernity. (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 18)
While many of the members of the College had a major twitch at the use of the burning cross, this form does not resemble any of the forms nor use of any of the colour combinations that we could find used by the KKK or other white supremacist groups and the cross enflamed is a symbol used in religious iconography with some frequency in a positive manner. As many have commented over the years, offensiveness should only be called when the name or armoury will cause a clear problem, which does not seem to be the case here. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 3)
We have to be very careful not to go overboard in calling offense with regard to religion lest we ban religion altogether and cause offense by that ban itself. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 12)
We have been forced to the conclusion that the name ... has become so notorious and controversial that it cannot be registered to anyone at this time.... There is ample precedent for finding against a submission because of its historical associations in the mundane sphere. It seems unreasonable and unwise to dismiss our own history as being of lesser value and less likely to carry the seeds of offense.... No compromise appears possible between the parties and it is clear that the use of [Name] is causing the same sort of disruption/offense usually associated with the sort of mundane items which have been refused registration because of their mundane historical associations. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, pp. 17-18)
See also, Bordure, Chevron, Fess, etc.
There is no difference between an ordinary and its diminutive. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 28)
A major point of difference can be derived from the addition of the tertiary on a single ordinary. (LoAR 26 Mar 89, p. 2)
We would be inclined to grant difference between an ordinary invected and an ordinary engrailed on the grounds that the two were distinguished in period armoury and have traditionally been distinguished quite well in Society armoury. However, we cannot in conscience grant difference where the ordinary involves both lines of division. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 19)
The origami crane is in trian aspect and, if it were placed in profile, there is a serious question whether it would be at all identifiable (it is marginal now). [Returned for conflict] (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 12)
The origami dragon [is] not an identifiable charge. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 15)
The use of the nested orles in different tinctures is an anomaly for period heraldic style. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 19)
As an ordinary wreathed of one colour (or "cabled", as the original blazon had it) has previously been disallowed (February, 1985), we have substituted an orle invected: any interior diapering would not contribute difference in any case. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 6)
We do not use single diminutives and so this [single tressure] has to be an orle. (LoAR Jun 88, p. 20)
[A pale, overall an orle of leaves counterchanged] The placement of the orle of leaves [is] visually confusing and poor style. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 19)
Orles do not overlie a chief. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 2)
The use of the orle fleury here, particularly given the Or and gules tinctures used, is far too close to the reserved tressure of Scotland. (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 13)
While the letter blazoned the [charges] as "in orle", their position was not actually "orlish", but more of a very regular semy. (LoAR 22 Oct 89, p. 1)
After much discussion we decided that the orle of rosemary was visually too close to one of the standard depictions of the required Society laurel wreath. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 27)
[An orle surmounted at its corners by three fleurs-de-lys in pall] The orle is suggestive of the royal tressure of Scotland. [Returned for other conflict] (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 17)
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)
This submission does not conflict by exact outline ... as suggested by one commentor, because of the paning of the lozengy field. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 8)
[A rose overall Or, slipped and leaved vert] It might be argued that in this case the slipping and leaving are non-trivial and should be required to obey AR4 which dictates that charges overall should be required to have adequate contrast with the field.... However, in this case, ... we elect to allow an exception as specifically provided for in AR4. This exception is peculiar to this submission and should not be taken as setting any general precedents. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 7)
The [charge] overlies the visually complex underlying charge to such an extent that it is unidentifiable without the aid of the blazon. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 23) (See also: LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 20)
There was almost unanimous agreement amongst the commenters that so much of the argent [overall charge] lay on the argent [ordinary] that it would be unidentifiable. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 15)
In period, it would have been a definite anomaly for a charge overall to share the charges of the field and the primary charge in a counterchange relationship, but counterchange of overall charges, when used in moderation, has become relatively accepted in the Society. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, pp. 7-8)
Primary charges should not be demoted when a charge is placed overall.... Under certain circumstances, charges overall can be held to have equal weight, but this will not "demote" the original primary charge, if the two are drawn in proper proportion. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 10)
The use of the charge overall here, overlying a base does appear to be non-period style, the more so since the ford is not drawn properly but rather as a "base wavy azure charged with four barrulets wavy argent." (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 10)
The intention [of Rule AR18a] was to allow automatic difference [between Society and mundane or fictional arms] in cases where period (and modern) heraldic practice would not perceive cadency. Thus a Society device which bore "Azure, a unicorn’s head Or, between three swords proper" would not conflict with "Azure, three swords palewise proper" because period heralds would perceive a potential cadet relationship not with the mundane coat cited, but with "Azure, a unicorn’s head Or". In the case of a charge added overall, the same situation does not exist, mundane heraldry does in fact indicate cadency by adding a charge overall. (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 4) (See also: the examples in Heraldic Cadency, Gayre, chapters XIV and XV; LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 17; LoAR 26 Mar 89, p. 6)
[Or, four pallets gules, overall a saltire counterchanged] This is in conflict with the arms of Aragon cited on the letter of intent ("Or, four pallets gules").... AR 18b, which grants automatic sufficient difference from mundane arms for the addition of the primary charge, does not apply here, since the saltire is added over an already charged field. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 19)
The question of whether charges overall should be considered primary or secondary (and thus granted the full weight of any changes made to them given the current limitation on difference derivable solely from secondary charges is thornier....
In this case, the criterion we have had to use is the way that the two devices will be perceived by the observer. Both devices are identical save for the type and tincture of the charge set overall. All the difference is derived ... from a single design element. In a similar situation (modifications to secondaries set around the central design element), it has been held that adequate difference between Society devices cannot be derived from cumulative changes to the same charge or set of charges. We feel the same situation applies here. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 17)
[The overall charge] is not truly "overall" since it does not evenly overlie the charges on the field. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 16)
The charge overall must be judged for contrast against the field and Or does not have adequate contrast with ermine in our system. Note that the exception allowance in AR4 only applies "where the underlying charge(s) are inherently large, taking up most of the shield in any reasonable emblazon".... The size and width of a saltire has a wide number of variants in period and an even wider variance in the Society so the saltire cannot be considered to be so inherently large that no significant part of the [overall charge] would be placed on the field in any reasonable emblazon. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 24)
Charges overall are considered to lie directly on the field although not entirely on the field for purposes of style and conflict. The wording of the section on layering was specifically worded to allow charging of charges overall. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 12)
Introduction and Index to Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane