Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The rainbow is too complex a charge to fimbriate. Moreover, the natural rainbow is by definition a colour plus metal and therefore neutral charge (see the Glossary of Terms under "proper".) (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 20)
The collocation of the chief triangular and the [debruising] rainbow is definitely not period style and the device as a whole is strongly reminiscent of modern "decal" design. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 16)
[A bend coloured as a natural rainbow] This is a clear case of non-period style. Such rainbow tinctured charges as this have been banned from Society use for some years. (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 7)
[Rioghbhardan (a documented given which means "royal bard"), and on the device a rainbow and a harp] At least one herald also found the rainbow to contain an allusion to senior bardic circles, since only the most senior bards were allowed to wear seven colours (such as are contained in the natural rainbow). [Name registered, device returned] (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 15)
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)
Please request the submittor to draw the rayonny correctly, with all the rays equal in size and evenly curved. (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 3)
Tradition and Laurel precedent dictate, for example, that regalia earned in one kingdom may be worn in another, even if the second kingdom does not recognise that insignia (for example, viscomital coronets). (CL 24 Nov 89, p. 6)
When any Society branch other than a Kingdom goes out of existence, its ownership rights over its name and armoury revert to the Kingdom in which it was located at the time it passed out of existence.... Names and armoury of Society branches which have reverted to a Kingdom in this manner may be released by joint action of the Crown and Kingdom Seneschal, provided these procedures are followed: a. the intended release must be advertised in the Kingdom newsletter with adequate time for the populace to comment on the appropriateness of the release; b. Once the advertisement period is complete, the notice of intent to release must be published to the College of Arms in a letter of intent properly circulated to the College of Arms by the Principal Herald or designated representative.... c. After the appropriate period for commentary and objection from the College has elapsed, Laurel shall evaluate any objection to the proposed release.... Laurel shall then announce the release of the appropriate items in a letter of acceptance and return.... The ownership rights in the name and armoury of defunct Kingdoms shall revert to the Board at the time the Kingdom passes out of existence. Such names may be released only by action of the Board after due advertisement of the intent to release in Tournaments Illuminated and the Kingdom newsletters. (CL 23 Jan 90, 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)
Visually it does look like a quilt design, as noted by several commenters. While this is not in and of itself a problem, the fact that the cross must not only be throughout but of a precise size to reproduce the design is. Not only can we not guarantee its accurate reproduction by an heraldic artist, but such size-dependent designs are not period style. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 36)
[Three flames of fire between two wings conjoined, displayed and inverted] The flames are so reduced in size by the design that they are virtually unidentifiable. Moreover, there is really no way to guarantee that this design will be drawn in this particular manner, even through a long and precise blazon. These two facts together clearly point to a design that is not period style. (LoAR 31 Mar 90, p. 16)
The primary charge [a Norse serpent] could not be accurately reconstructed from the blazon by a competent heraldic artist. There are literally dozens of Norse serpents possible in the various documented styles. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 16)
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) (See also: LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 10)
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 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)
Although they are a documented period charge, the cronals are clearly too close visually to the reserved crown/coronet to be accepted for use in the Society. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 21)
The single laurel or bay leaf is not restricted to the members of the Order of the Laurel. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 7)
The Staff of Aesculapius has been reserved in the past for those with mundane medical qualifications, the intent being to avoid confusion in the case of a medical emergency at a Society event (the same motivation for restricting certain medical occupational surnames).
PRECEDENT: Symbols associated mundanely with the medical profession are restricted to those with appropriate mundane medical qualifications, i.e., medical doctors, registered nurses and mundanely qualified emergency medical technicians. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, pp. 5-6)
While the fleam is a particularly appropriate charge for those with a medical background, it is not so closely associated with medics that it should be reserved. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 13)
Laurel can recall telling a would-be submittor ... that if the Society only protected a dozen mundane insignia, [the insignia of the Knights of Malta] would be one of them. We see no reason to change our view now and feel that the original insignia of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem (better known as the knights of Malta) should be rendered the protection offered sovereign states for they certainly functioned as a sovereign entity for a significant part of their history, ruling first Rhodes and then Malta as de facto sovereign states. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 19)
The use of the fleurs-de-lis in orle here on the azure field creates precisely the appearance of a field azure, semy-de-lis Or, upon which the [charge] has been placed. As this field is not permitted in the Society due to its close association with the royalty of France, the submission must be returned. (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 17)
The use of the crown is reserved to royal peers, kingdom arms and principality arms. It has been specifically ruled as long ago a 1981 that a badge containing a coronet or crown may only be registered by royal peers and may only be used by royal peers. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 17)
There was strong feeling in the College that the orle [flory counterflory] infringed on the royal tressure of Scotland. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 21)
[Double tressure flory at the outer edge] After a considerable amount of comparisons of the various depictions of the reserved royal tressure of Scotland, we decided that this tressure was just too close to be acceptable for Society use. (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 12)
By long-standing Society precedent, 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) (See also: LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 12)
For purposes of difference a moon in her complement and a plate are functionally identical. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 17)
There is not complete difference of charge [between a hexagon and a roundel of the same color]. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 20)
[In pale a mullet of four straight and four wavy rays and a bird statant to sinister, wings addorsed and inverted, proper between two flaunches, each charged with a Maltese cross, fitched at the foot] This device runs perilously close to the limit on anomalies and is decidedly poor style. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 3)
The comments on discouraged practices say "A submission may incorporate one of these discouraged practices and still be marginally acceptable, but it costs the submittor the benefit of the doubt." This does not mean that particularly flagrant examples of any of the discouraged practices may not be in and of themselves grounds for return.... (LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 11)
[In pale a quadruped holding in its mouth a squirrel, and a mount] This is a case where the tally of the anomalies adds up to a device which is not acceptable. In period style, the [quadruped] would more normally be statant atop the base, not floating in mid-air; the addition of the minor charge in [a color], which has a low contrast with the [color field], is another anomaly, while others felt that the dead squirrel bordered on the morbid. Taken individually, each of these items would have been acceptable; cumulatively, they were considered to create a non-period device. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 11)
The cumulative effect of the anomalies involved in this device are just too strong. [Three -- fimbriated plate, dolmen issuant from base, "ranch gate"-style dolmen.] (LoAR 30 Nov 86, p. 11)
Gyronny from any point other than the center of a field or charge is definitely an anomaly, that is the reason that the visual complexity added by the use of colours has been limited.... The poor contrast with the field was another anomaly. For a group badge, two anomalies were felt to be excessive. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 3)
Where one anomaly may be acceptable, two may be marginal, three will be unacceptable, even where each anomaly, taken in itself would not cause a submission to be returned. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 12)
The use of the late and unusual charge of the yale..., the chief dove-tailed and the use of the gore are all "allowable anomalies" that have been permitted for Society use. However, the use of all three together, with the added anomaly of the demi-beast issuant from the gore in a decidedly eccentric manner, force us to return this for "non-period style". (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 9)
This is not period style. The anomalies here are simply too great. In the first place this is not really "per chevron enhanced", but rather "chape rayonny gules... [and sable]", i.e., colour on colour. Even if it were a proper "per chevron" field division, the gules rayonny which lies almost entirely on sable would not show up well. Also, the "sun eclipsed" is really thin line heraldry being merely a band of rays linked to a sector of an annulet. Suns issuant from a complex line of division like this are a major anomaly (indeed, suns issuant from anything but the sides of the shield are exceptional in period heraldry). The whole is simply "too much". (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 9)
[Sable, on a pale counter-ermine, fimbriated argent, a horned human skull affronty gules] The count of anomalies here was excessive: thin line heraldry in the fimbriation, a primary charge which is low contrast and would be illegal were it not for the fimbriation, an extremely unusual tertiary charge and that in a low contrast tincture which makes it harder to identify. [Submission returned] (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 12)
[Quarterly argent and lozengy gules and argent, in bend two pairs of oak leaves pilewise, fructed, vert, overall a fillet cross sable] This fails by the accumulation of too many anomalies. Despite the attenuated cross, this clearly looks like quartering (the impression is the greater since the Germanic nations commonly superimpose a cross on the line of division of their grand quarters. What is more, ... it quarters the arms of Monaco in the second and third quarters! The fillet cross here is perilously close to "thin line heraldry" and ... the foliage could be mistaken by the casual observer for a laurel wreath. (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 18)
The "rule of thumb" proposed by Master Baldwin in his cover letter dated 29 September, 1985, "the use of three or more non-identical charges in what would conventionally be considered a "group" may ... cause a submission to be returned as too complex", surely applies here. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 11) (See also: LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 19; LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 9)
[A pall between crescent, a dolphin uriant, and a dolphin hauriant] The differences in the position of the dolphins make them visually different charges so that there are three different charge types about a pall, an arrangement that has been ruled illicit even for a device. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 25)
Although two different charges on either side of a pile charged with a third type of charge was not specifically banned at the time three different charges on a field or three different charges on a pile were banned, this is visually three different charges on a divided field and clearly violates the spirit of the rules. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 18)
The exemption from the "Rule of Tincture" extended to a chief in some periods of mundane heraldry is not permissible in Society heraldry. Thus the gules chief on the sable field is "colour on colour". (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 19)
Introduction and Index to Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane