The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme
BADGE -- Fieldless or Tinctureless
The ermine spot is considered a single charge, and is acceptable for fieldless badges (Eduard Halidai, July, 1992, pg. 3)
The heraldic heart is considered a heart, not a medium for armorial display (in the way an inescutcheon would be). [Thus it can bear a tertiary when it is the sole primary charge in a fieldless badge] (Fridrich Eisenhart, July, 1992, pg. 4)
A couple of this month's returns (Rosario di Palermo, Thorvald Redhair) involved counting difference against tinctureless badges: badges with no defined coloration, either of the background or of the charges. Such badges are occasionally found in mundane armory (the Stafford knot being the classic example), and for a short while they were registered in the Society as well. For many years the College assumed that, because tinctureless badges had no defined tinctures, they could be displayed in any tinctures --- including party tinctures. As the 1982 Rules for Submission put it (Rule XII.8): "A fieldless badge without tinctures specified for its charges is even harder to register, as both field and tincture of charges are unavailable for obtaining the necessary points of difference." The "point of difference" for tincture was defined in Rules XIV.1 and 2 as "The tinctures and/or the partitions of the field" [XIV.1] or "charges" [XIV.2].
Even after we stopped registering tinctureless badges, the principle was retained (for fieldless badges) that unspecified coloration was granted no difference against party tinctures: "Since a fieldless badge may legitimately be displayed on a divided field, the field contributes no difference." [BoE, 20 Oct 85, p.22] The current Rules for Submission state (Rule X.4.d) that "Tinctureless armory may not count difference for tincture of charges"; and the same Rule defines "the tincture or division of any group of charges" as the same type of change, with at most 1 CD for all changes (coloration and division) to a single group. Lines of division are considered part of the tincture of a charge, as of a field; so tinctureless badges could not count difference for adding or removing lines of division on a charge.
Master Da'ud altered this policy somewhat, in his LoAR of Feb 92, p.10. SCA tinctureless badges would be treated as before; but mundane tinctureless badges would now be granted difference for lines of division on the charge. "The assumption (until proven otherwise) is that mundane badges were displayed only in solid tinctures (including the furs). It is therefore reasonable that the addition of a line of division should count for difference."
Evidence on the period display of tinctureless badges is hard to come by under the best of circumstances. Most period badges had a defined tincture (the black bull of Clarence, the red rose of Lancaster, the white swan of Bohun); many of the badges blazoned without tinctures in Fox-Davies' Heraldic Badges testify to Fox-Davies' lack of knowledge, not the tincturelessness of those badges. Once a truly tinctureless badge is identified, sufficient period examples of its display must then be found to give a good indication of the limits to that display. Even combining the Laurel library with my own personal library, such examples are extremely limited.
I have nonetheless managed to find instances of tinctureless armory displayed in divided tinctures. The badge of the Lords de la Warre is A crampet (that is, the metal ferrule at the end of a scabbard), commemorating the capture of the French king at Poictiers. My edition of Legh's Accedence of Armory, 1576, was originally owned by John, Lord de la Warre; he may have been one of Legh's patrons, for the de la Warre achievement and badges are prominently mentioned in the book. Legh gives the de la Warre badge as A crampet, and his illustration of it is colored Or. The frontispiece of the book, personalized by the original owner, likewise shows the de la Warre achievement and badges --- and the crampet is Party azure and argent. The same badge, tinctureless by definition, was borne either as solid metal or party metal and color.
This usage is corroborated by examples of tinctured badges whose charges were given a line of division when depicted in a tinctureless medium. The seal of William Innes, c.1295, showed his badge of A star azure with a gyronny line of division. The seal of Philip II of France, c.1200, showed his badge of A fleur-de-lys Or with a per-pale line of division. The usage may be seen at the end of period as well, with devices: the argent fess of Austria depicted Per pale, the gules cross of the Archdiocese of Trier depicted Gyronny, and the gules saltire of the Earldom of Lennox also depicted Gyronny. There's even a case (Sir Thomas Cecil, 1st Earl of Exeter) where a device that should have been party was depicted in the tinctureless medium without the line of division. Plainly, when rendering a charge in a tinctureless medium, any interior lines of division must have been considered artistic license --- and therefore worth no difference. (An excellent collection of seals may be found in Siegelkunde ("Sigillography"), by Wilhelm Ewald, 1914. Other sources for the above examples are Boutell's English Heraldry, 1902; von Volborth's Art of Heraldry, 1987; Eve's Decorative Heraldry , 1908; and St.John-Hope's Heraldry for Craftsmen and Designers, 1929.)
Having different standards of conflict for SCA and mundane badges is awkward, to put it mildly. With evidence in hand that period tinctureless badges were depicted with party charges, I have decided to simplify the Rules and return to our previous policy. Henceforth, all tinctureless badges receive a CD for fieldlessness (tincturelessness), and the second necessary CD must come from some category of difference that doesn't involve tincture. As lines of division and partition are included as part of the tincture of a charge, per Rule X.4.d, they will not count for difference against tinctureless badges.
There've been some complaints about this ruling in the commentary, even before it was made --- and certainly before the complainers had heard the evidence. Apparently, there's a strong perception that the lines of a party charge are "structural", integral to the design; they are shown in an uncolored outline drawing of the badge; they separate tincture within the charge in the same way the charge's edge separates its tincture from the field's. By this interpretation, the charge's division should count for difference, even against a tinctureless badge. There's an equally valid perception, however, that a charge's division is simply part and parcel of its tincture; that between a crescent gules and a crescent per pale Or and argent is one change, not two, and that the division is a direct result of the choice of coloration; and that interior lines can be added at whim, and should not therefore count for difference. The examples cited above, and the Rules, both support the latter perception. Pending further research on this topic, that's the interpretation we'll follow. Against tinctureless armory, we will not count difference for lines of division --- either of the field, or of the charges. (10 November, 1992 Cover Letter (September, 1992 LoAR), pp. 5-6)
Placement on the field cannot be counted against a fieldless badge. [See also Gawain Blackthorne, same letter, pg. 53] (Ariel de Courtenay, September, 1992, pg. 42)
One can't grant difference for placement on the field against a fieldless badge. (Gawain Blackthorne, September, 1992, pg. 53)
On a fieldless badge, charges cannot issue from the edge of the field; there is no field. (Yusuf Ja'bar al-Timbuktuwwi, October, 1992, pg. 24)
Rule X.4.a.i is amended to read:
(15 January, 1992 Cover Letter (November, 1992 LoAR), pg. 2)
I've ...decided not to implement a comprehensive ban on fieldless badges with overall charges. I will be returning cases where the underlying charge is rendered unidentifiable, per Rule VIII.3; this will include the most egregious cases of overall charges (e.g. A pheon surmounted by a hawk's head). But this can be done as an interpretation of the current Rules, and needn't involve a new policy. In cases where identifiability is maintained --- where one of the charges is a long, slender object, and the area of intersection small --- overall charges will still be permitted in fieldless badges. [For complete discussion see under CHARGE -- Overall] (15 January, 1992 Cover Letter (November, 1992 LoAR), pg. 3)
[A thistle purpure] was returned Feb 92 for conflict with the badge of Clan Stewart (Fox-Davies' Heraldic Badges , p.146): A thistle [proper]. At the time, it was assumed that the Stewart badge was tinctureless. However, in blazoning the Scots plant badges, Fox-Davies did not account for their most common use: as sprigs actually worn on the person. This makes the Scots plant badges' coloration proper in correct usage. The original submission was therefore returned in error; [the submittor] might consider resubmitting it. (Fionna Goodburne, December, 1992, pg. 19)
[Two straight trumpets in saltire, surmounted by another palewise, the whole ensigned of a fleur-de-lys Nourrie between two lions combattant] Some commenters suggested that, because the charges were conjoined, they formed a single group. That isn't necessarily the case: A mullet within and conjoined to an annulet has an obvious primary charge surrounded by a secondary charge. As drawn here, the lions and fleur-de-lys appear to be a separate group from the trumpets; thus, this does not appear to be a group of three dissimilar types of charge (soi-disant "slot-machine heraldry"). Whether the badge's visual confusion is now at acceptable levels is a separate issue; absent any supporting arguments, this must still be considered unacceptably complex for a fieldless badge. A more standard arrangement of charges would probably solve this. [Badge returned also for presumption, see PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION] (Norrey Acadamie of Armorie (Taliesynne Nycheymwrh yr Anyghyfannedd), December, 1992, pg. 21)
[Two wooden staves in saltire proper surmounted by a palmer's scrip or] This is acceptable under our current standards for overall charges in fieldless badges: the underlying charges are long and skinny, and readily identifiable. (Sean ua Neill the Staffmaker, March, 1993, pg. 17)
If a charge can be considered a medium for heraldic display, it may not bear a tertiary in a fieldless badge: such a design is interpretable as a display of arms, with the tertiary as a primary. For instance, we don't permit (fieldless) On a lozenge argent a fleur-de-lys gules: since the lozenge is a medium for heraldic display, this looks like a display of Argent, a fleur-de-lys gules. Such arms-badge confusion is reason enough for return, even if the display in question doesn't conflict. In this case, the triangle inverted must be considered such a medium, comparable to the escutcheon, lozenge, or roundel. It may be considered either an early-style shield (Neubecker's Heraldry: Sources, Symbols and Meanings, p.76), or a lance-pennon [returned for this reason and also because the armory obtained by considering the badge displayed on a triangular shield was in conflict]. (Barony of Dragonsspine, March, 1993, pg. 25)
The College does not register crests (LoAR of 20 Sept 81), partially to avoid having to decide who may or may not be entitled to them, and partially to save ourselves work. This submission is a crest by virtue of its being set atop a torse. (A joscelyn is simply a torse with bells added. On a "joscelyn fesswise", those bells are invisible, and count for nothing.) (Faustina von Schwarzwald, March, 1993, pg. 26)
[A feather palewise surmounted by a gryphon's head] Fieldless badges may no longer use overall charges, except in cases where the overlap area is small; this is usually restricted to long, skinny charges such as a sword (LoAR cover letter of 15 Jan 93). As drawn [the feather is a wide as the gryphon's head minus the beak and ears], the feather in this badge doesn't meet that standard. (Order of the Golden Feather (Principality of Artemisia), May, 1993, pg. 14)
[(Fieldless) A cubit arm proper issuant from the mouth of a fish's head couped close vert, maintaining a crescent gules] This was an appeal of a return on the LoAR of Sept 92. At the time, I'd judged the three charges to be of roughly equal visual weight, and considered this a single group of three dissimilar charges (so-called "slot- machine heraldry"). Such practice is in general disallowed, per Rule VIII.1.a. The appeal provided extensive documentation, intended to support the submitted design in specific and the use of three dissimilar charges in general.
Much of the documentation did not support the concept of three dissimilar charges in a single group: while the examples did show three types of charge, they generally weren't in the same group. (E.g. the badge of Nordham, c.1525: Within a fetterlock argent garnished Or, an escutcheon azure charged with a lion's head erased argent. By our definitions, the lion's head is not of the same group as the fetterlock or escutcheon --- and it's arguable whether they're in the same group.) Others of the examples, such as the rose-thistle-trefoil badge of the United Kingdom, were post-period
At least one of the examples cited, however, exactly matched the form of this submission: the badge of the Lord Chamberlain, c.1525, A cubit arm habited bendy sinister wavy of five pieces argent and azure and issuant out of a rose gules, the hand proper grasping an arrow. Additionally, it has been noted that Rule VIII.1.a describes the ban on "slot-machine heraldry" as a guideline, not an ironclad law. Finally, re-examination of the emblazon shows the crescent to be neither unarguably one of the primary charge group nor unarguably a negligible "held" charge; one could make a case for either ruling. Added to the mort of documentation, I have no qualms in now registering the badge (Simona Zon d'Asolo, August, 1993, pg. 12)
Fieldless badges consisting only of forms of armorial display, such as escutcheons, lozenges and delfs, are not acceptable since in use the "shield" shape does not appear to be a charge, but rather the field itself. This presents an entirely different armory for view. (Stephen Wolfe, September, 1993, pg. 25)
BADGE -- General
For many years now, we've permitted couples to register household badges jointly, under both their names. One member of the couple was designated the main badge-holder, and the badge's blazon appeared under his/her name in the Armorial; but the badge was cross-referenced under the name of the couple's other half. (See, for instance, Rule AP5 of the 1986 Rules for Submission.)
Two such joint household badges were considered at the July meeting. It was noted in the commentary that the current Rules (1990 vintage) don't allow for joint registration: a household name and badge are specifically "retained under the Primary Society Name of the group's designated representative." I don't think this was deliberate, but was simply an oversight during the Rules revision; certainly, we've registered joint badges since then (e.g., the badge jointly registered to Jehan le Batarde and Ygraine of Preston, on the LoAR of Feb 92, p.8).
I'd like to continue joint registration of household names and badges. My policy shall be that the first name on the submission be the main badge-holder --- who has the right to release, grant permission to conflict, etc. --- and the second name receive the cross-reference in the A&O. Moreover, to ensure that this confusion doesn't arise again, I propose to change the Section in the Administrative Handbook, Registerable Items: B.3, Household Names, to read:
"By convention, this designation is applied to the name of a group other than a Society branch or order, such as a household, guild, group fighting unit, etc. Such names may be registered either by an individual or by a Society branch, and armory may be associated with such names. In the case of a household registered by an individual, records dealing with the group's name or armory will be retained under the Primary Society Name of the group's designated representative; when the household is jointly registered by a couple, a cross-reference shall also be listed under the Primary Society Name of the other member of the couple."
The rest of the paragraph shall remain unchanged; and paragraphs D.3 and E.1 of the same Section shall be amended to refer to paragraph B.3, to include joint registration of fielded and fieldless badges as well as names. (3 August, 1992 Cover Letter (July, 1992 LoAR), pg. 2)
While the current Rules and Administrative Guidelines do not explicitly permit a household to have multiple badges, neither do they explicitly prohibit it. After some thought, I've decided there's no reason a household shouldn't have as many badges as the Rules allow. Certainly, houses in period could have more than one badge --- a Scots clan, for instance, could have a crest-badge and a plant-badge. Our only restriction is that one person be the primary owner for all the household's badges --- which effectively limits the number of badges per household. (Yseult de Cherbourg, September, 1992, pg. 28)
The household name and badge were twice submitted on the LOI: once under [the submitter's] name, and once under the name of [another submitter]. Per our current policy on joint badge registration (LoAR cover letter of 3 Aug 92), one of these gentles must be designated the primary badge-holder. [Name and badge attached to other name and returned for unrelated reasons]. (Ursus Imminere (Jane Falada of Englewood), October, 1992, pg. 28)
There have recently been some questions about Society branches registering badges to generic names: e.g. a badge for the Stonemarche Scribes' Guild, or for the Keeper of the Regalia of the Principality of the Sun. How are such generic names protected? Why do we register them?
To my mind, these are not names, not in the same style as Order names, household names, heraldic titles, and the like. A better term might be "job-description:" a simple declaration of the intended use of the badge. As such, we haven't held these to the same standards of conflict as other group names: for instance, both Caid and An Tir have badges registered to the Office of the Lists, without any infringement. If every branch officer who may can register a badge, then no one Kingdom may claim sole use of the name of the office; otherwise, only the West could have a Constable. By extension, the same holds true for other branch functions: Baronial Guard, King's Champion, Brewers' Guild, etc. So long as the badge is associated with a purely functional name, it's neither checked for conflict during submission or protected from conflict afterwards.
The key is for the name to be unarguably generic. Lyondemere Baronial Guard is functional, generic, and thus not held to conflict standards. The Lyondemere Levy, a deliberately alliterative name, is not generic, and must meet the normal name submission standards; once registered, it is then protected equally with Order names. (Notice that there are no generic Order names.) Generic names may only be registered by SCA branches, for common branch functions; but such generic names need not be checked for conflict, any more than the names of officers. (28 March, 1993 Cover Letter (January, 1993 LoAR), pg. 2)
[A pheon inverted] Possible conflict was cited against the English Royal badge, (tinctureless) A broadarrow. Lord Lion's Blood has noted instances of the badge's use (e.g. the seal of the Royal Butlery, c.1330) where the broadarrow is inverted, and suggests that this is its defined orientation. Other (post-period) uses of the broadarrow show the charge in a variety of orientations: e.g., the clothing used by British prisoners until 1920 was marked with broadarrows --- essentially semy --- in random orientations. However, while the badge might be rotated in use, its default posture would be that of the charge itself, which would be point to base in English usage. (A close examination of the illustration of the Royal Butlery seal [Coat of Arms, July 56, p.93] suggests that it was printed upside down: the Latin inscription around the seal, which starts at its bottom, is depicted at the tope of the drawing.) Pending more definitive evidence, we will assume that the badge uses the charge in its default posture. Against this submission, we thus count a CD for fieldlessness (tincturelessness), and a CD for posture. (Eric Ward of Winchester, August, 1993, pg. 1)
There's nothing to prevent an Order from having more than one badge; the Order of the Garter has multiple badges, and so does the SCA's Order of the Rose. (Barony of Caerthe, October, 1993, pg. 18)
BEACON and BRAZIER
There is a CD (at least) between a brazier and a beacon (Anastazia Winogrodzka, October, 1992, pg. 16)
BEAST -- Antelope
[An antelope vs. an ibex] According to Franklyn & Tanner (Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Heraldry, p. 179), "the heraldic ibex is indistinguishable from the heraldic antelope and may even be merely an alternative term." [Thus there is not a CD between them] (Alaric Liutpold von Steinman, September, 1992, pg. 37)
[An antelope vs. a deer] I would grant a CD between a correctly drawn antelope and a deer; the two charges were distinct in period armory (unlike, say, the heraldic dolphin and the bottlenosed dolphin, between which we grant no difference). [Device returned for different conflict] (Alaric Liutpold von Steinman, September, 1992, pg. 37)
The pronghorn antelope lives in the western United States; we have no evidence that it was known to period Europeans. Without such evidence, we cannot register the beast, or his attire. (Eoghan O'Neill, January, 1993, pg. 23)
BEAST -- Bear
[A bear sejant erect vs. a bear rampant or a bear erect] In each case, there's [not a CD] for the posture of the bear. (Henry of Three Needles, August, 1992, pg. 24)
BEAST -- Boar
[Boar's heads colored brown] Unfortunately, [this tincture is] unblazonable: they aren't proper, for boars in nature are dark-grey to black in color. Nor does there seem to be such a thing as a brown boar that could be rendered in this coloring. With no way to blazon the tincture of the heads, this must be returned. (Nils Rixon, October, 1992, pg. 27)
BEAST -- Camel
We agree there's a CD between a camel and an ypotril. (Guthfrith Yrlingsson, July, 1992, pg. 12)
BEAST -- Cat, Lion and Tiger
Tabby cats have no defined proper coloration. The Simon & Schuster Guide to Cats cites several different tinctures of tabby cat: silver tabby, cream tabby, blue tabby, brown tabby, and red tabby, among others. Without a fixed coloration, it cannot be blazoned "proper." (Bronwyn ferch Gwyn ap Rhys, July, 1992, pg. 9)
The lion of St. Mark is characterized by a halo, as well as wings; it is usually, but not invariably, also shown with a book. (Vinycombe, Fictitious and Symbolic Creatures in Art, with special reference to their use in British heraldry, 1906, pp.53-55.) (Anastasia dello Scudo Rosso, September, 1992, pg. 44)
The catamount proper is effectively Or (Roland de Mounteney, September, 1992, pg. 46)
[A Bengal tiger vs. a catamount] The tiger's marking is worth no heraldic difference (Roland de Mounteney, September, 1992, pg. 46)
[An ounce rampant Or spotted of diverse tinctures] The creature is not a panther, as blazoned on the LOI (for it isn't incensed of flame), but an ounce or maneless lion. As such, it gets no difference from a standard lion; and its spots here count for no more than the spots on any other spotted cat (e.g. a natural leopard). If she resubmits with a genuine panther, charged with large roundels --- better yet, with a Continental panther --- it should [be a CD from a lion]. (Alysandria of the Fosse Way, March, 1993, pg. 22)
While the English default for panthers is guardant, the German default is not. As it's easier to specify guardant than not-guardant (facing forwards, whatever), the SCA has not adopted the English default. (Russell Jervis, September, 1993, pg. 4)
[A lion Or vs. a Bengal tiger Or marked sable] There is no heraldic difference between a lion and a Bengal tiger, and no difference for the markings on the tiger. (Isabeau Celeste de la Valliére, October, 1993, pg. 18)
BEAST -- Deer
The moose of North America is the same beast as the elk of Europe (Alces malchis). The OED dates the term moose to 1613, within our 50-year "grey area" for documentation; so either term is acceptable in SCA blazonry. (Randulf von Gelnhausen, September, 1992, pg. 26)
[An antelope vs. an ibex] According to Franklyn & Tanner ( Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Heraldry, p. 179), "the heraldic ibex is indistinguishable from the heraldic antelope and may even be merely an alternative term." [Thus there is not a CD between them] (Alaric Liutpold von Steinman, September, 1992, pg. 37)
[An antelope vs. a deer] I would grant a CD between a correctly drawn antelope and a deer; the two charges were distinct in period armory (unlike, say, the heraldic dolphin and the bottlenosed dolphin, between which we grant no difference). [Device returned for different conflict] (Alaric Liutpold von Steinman, September, 1992, pg. 37)
The adult male moose is darker in coloration than most cervids; its coat is almost black, and its antlers dark brown. (Harper & Row's Complete Field Guide to North American Wildlife, plate 63) The latter thus have sufficient contrast with this [ermine] field. (Erik Norton of Helsfjord, November, 1992, pg. 4)
BEAST -- Demi
[Per bend sinister, a demi-panther guardant and a demi-panther inverted guardant, both issuant from the line of division] The style of this device has been registered before (Dairine Mor Ó hUigin, April 89). Similar designs are found in late-period German armory, as in the arms of Burgkmair, 1516 (Per bend sinister Or and sable, the line in the form of two bear's heads interlocked, the one in base inverted); see von Volborth's Art of Heraldry, p.55. So long as there are no other complexities (e.g. other charges), the motif is acceptable for Society use. (Michael David of Aran Island, September, 1992, pg. 29)
BEAST -- Dog, Fox, and Wolf
The main difference between a wolf and an enfield is in the front legs; when one of the beasts is holding a charge with those legs, it becomes impossible to tell the two creatures apart. We cannot give a second CD for type of primary here. (Briana ni Óda, July, 1992, pg. 17)
The Great Dane is a period breed of dog, according to Mistress Ammalynne's monograph in the Meridean Symposium Proceedings, 1982. (Kristoff McLain Cameron, August, 1992, pg. 5)
Period devices did not generally blazon an exact breed of dog; they tended lateto be more generic (talbot, mastiff, alaunt, etc.). (Kristoff McLain Cameron, August, 1992, pg. 5)
As a breed, Welsh corgies date back to the 12th Century, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. (Rosalynde y Corgwyn, January, 1993, pg. 21)
In general, period armory did not specify the type of dog used as charges, preferring to blazon them more generically (talbot, leveret, etc.). It's considered poor style in SCA armory, but permitted for known period breeds. (Tassine de Bretagne, January, 1993, pg. 29)
The bouvier de Flandres does not seem to be a period breed of dog. According to Simon & Schuster's Guide to Dogs, #43, "There is no real agreement concerning the origin of this Franco-Belgian breed. Probably it was formed by crossing the griffon and the Beauceron..."; the griffon and Beauceron breeds, in turn, were developed in the 19th and 18th Centuries respectively. (Jean Philippe des Bouviers Noirs, August, 1993, pg. 18)
To the best of our knowledge, period blazons did not specify an exact breed of dog; at best, they would describe a dog by its general characteristics (levrier) or for a cant (talbot). The SCA does permit known period breeds to be specified in blazon, but I consider the practice an anomaly or "weirdness"; another anomaly in the design ...might itself be sufficient grounds for return. (Jean Philippe des Bouviers Noirs, August, 1993, pg. 18)
BEAST -- Horse
There is at least a CD between a horse and a correctly drawn (i.e. medieval) unicorn (William Palfrey, September, 1992, pg. 14)
Lord Crescent is correct in noting that the same rationale banning unicornate horses should also ban hornless unicorns [horses with lion's tail, cloven hooves and a beard]. In either case, the distinction between genuine horses and honest unicorns is blurred; if we wish to grant period difference between these charges, we must insist on period emblazons. (Parthalán MacPhail, August, 1993, pg. 16)
BEAST -- Rabbit
Hares, rabbits and coneys are sejant by default ( Parker 306). (Donata Ivanovna Basistova, July, 1992, pg. 22)
BEAST -- Rodent
We have no evidence that the gopher was known to period Europeans: the OED, for instance, dates gopher in this context only to 1818. (There's also the Biblical gopher-wood, but that doesn't apply to this submission.) Since the gopher is a rodent from the North American plains, we can't automatically assume that it was known to period Europeans; we need some hard evidence before we can accept the charge. (Gerrich de la Foy, March, 1993, pg. 23)
We have no evidence that chipmunks were known to period Europeans: the OED's first citation of the word is dated 1842 [device registered as problem was not noted in previous return]. (Anne de Silva, July, 1993, pg. 4)
Hamsters were known in period: the OED cites the use of the term in 1602, well within our 50-year "grey area" of documentation. (Ammyra of House Mouse, October, 1993, pg. 8)
BEAST -- Sheep
[A musimon sable] The charge ...was submitted as a Jacob ram, a breed of sheep noted for its piebald coloration and double horns. (The name comes from a story in Genesis, chapter 30, where Jacob indulged in a remarkable feat of early genetic engineering.) Unfortunately, the breed dates only to the 18th Century; and since a Jacob's sheep is piebald by definition, it loses its distinctiveness when made a solid tincture, as here.
We've reblazoned this as the heraldic monster known as the musimon, defined to be a cross between a ram and a goat, with the horns of both. It is described in Guillim's
As a rule, baby animals are not used in SCA heraldry: they're visually indistinguishable from adult animals, and period examples of their use are rare. Lambs appear to be an exception: not only is the Paschal lamb often found in period armory, but lambs were used for canting purposes (e.g. the arms of Lambert --- or the current submission). (Agnes Margaret de Grinstead, October, 1992, pg. 12)
BEAST -- Urchin
The urchin proper is...brown, with a white face and belly (Mairghread of Ryvel, August, 1992, pg. 16)
BEAST -- Weasel
[A ferret vs. an otter] There's ...nothing for [type of beast]. (Stevyn Gaoler, September, 1992, pg. 42)
[A ferret statant erect vs. a mink rampant] There's nothing for ...posture. (Nadya Gornastaevna Chorkova, September, 1992, pg. 43)
BELL
We're willing to grant a CD between a bezant and a hawk's bell, although perhaps not Complete Difference of Charge. (Meurisse de Blois, January, 1993, pg. 20)
BEND
Neither the period discussions of Per bend bevilled nor an extrapolation from a bend bevilled would support the emblazon shown here; nor can it be accurately blazoned without resorting to barbarisms such as Per bend sinister bevilled fesswise. I'd be willing to accept Per bend (sinister) bevilled, as being one logical step from period evidence --- if drawn in a correct manner, with the middle "zag" palewise. The form shown here is two steps removed from the evidence, which is correspondingly harder to swallow. Given evidence that such bevilled fields were never used with charges, the whole becomes unacceptable. (Radulfr Arnason, August, 1992, pg. 25)
The College's ban on the international "no" symbol (a bend and bordure gules in combination) only applies when the combination is actually used as a "no" symbol: surmounting the symbol of whatever's being forbidden. The bend-bordure combination is not banned when there is no underlying charge. In this case [Vairy, a bend and a bordure gules], since vair isn't a charge, we find no stylistic problems here [device returned for conflict]. (Chryse Raptes, January, 1993, pg. 32)
BEND SINISTER
[a <charges> and in sinister chief three bendlets] The device is excessivly imbalanced, which is not period heraldic style. A similar device (Penelope of the Quill, Vert, a quill pen bendwise and three bendlets enhanced Or) was returned Jan 92 for the same reason. [See also Keridwen of Caermarthen, same letter, pg. 53 (and below); the lowest bendlet in both cases issues from the center of the chief] (Brendan Hugh Guarin, September, 1992, pg. 37)
[a bend sinister bevilled between in pale a skull and a skull inverted] The bend sinister in the device is not correctly drawn: it does not issue from the sinister chief, as the ordinary should, nor is it correctly bevilled [the two pieces of the bend sinister significantly overlap] (see the LoAR cover letter of 18 Sept 92 for a complete discussion on bevilling). Combined with the inversion of the lower skull, the whole device is unacceptably poor style. (Juan Sanchez Ramirez, September, 1992, pg. 45)
[Three <charges> and three bendlets enhanced] The device is excessively imbalanced, which is not period heraldic style. A similar device (Penelope of the Quill, Vert, a quill pen bendwise and three bendlets enhanced Or) was returned Jan 92 for the same reason. [The submitter] might try putting another set of bendlets in sinister base to balance the design. [The lowest bendlet ussued from center chief] (Keridwen of Caermarthen, September, 1992, pg. 53)
BILLET
The billet is one of the charges used for armorial display, and thus (per Rule XI.4) may not be charged with more than one tertiary. This is especially true for fieldless badges, where such charged billets look like displays of independent armory. (See also the LoAR of 8 June 86, p.7.) (Tostig Logiosophia, September, 1992, pg. 42)
BIRD -- CHICKEN
The term dunghill cock means simply "rooster"; Parker, p.120, attests to its use in blazon. While dunghill may seem to be an unnecessary modifier, it is no more a problem than the modifiers in the terms domestic cat or sewing needle; it distinguishes the barnyard fowl from the moorcock and peacock; and it helps avoid some of the modern connotations of the unmodified term cock. (Artorius Conchobhar, June, 1993, pg. 4)
BIRD -- Crow
The Cornish chough proper is black with red beak and feet; like a sword proper, it's a shorthand description of heraldic tinctures, not a complex Linnaean depiction. (George of Mousehole, October, 1992, pg. 1)
BIRD -- Dodo
We can see granting a CD between a dodo and a parrot. (Brian of Leichester, January, 1993, pg. 10)
BIRD -- Dove
[An eagle close vs. a dove close] Prior Laurel precedent (LoAR of Nov 90, p.16) has granted no difference for bird type, when the birds are in identical postures. In this case, when the eagle isn't displayed, it loses most of the traits that let it be identified as an eagle. Almost the only such trait visible on an eagle close is its head crest --- and the heraldic dove has one, too. (Cecilia MacInnes, September, 1992, pg. 37)
In heraldic art, the dove is drawn with a small tuft on its head, to promote identification. (Lisette de Ville, August, 1993, pg. 10)
BIRD -- Duck, Goose, or Swan
[Argent, a swan displayed sable] Against the ...possible conflicts cited (Argent, [some type of bird] displayed sable, etc.), I'd grant a CD between a swan and the birds in question. (Sveyn Egilsson, November, 1992, pg. 3)
The heraldic swan is rousant by default. (Estrella de La Trinite, March, 1993, pg. 11)
There is a CD ...for the difference between a goose and a swallow (though not between a goose and a generic bird). (Brighid of Lindisfarne, September, 1993, pg. 16)
BIRD -- Eagle and Falcon
[An eagle close vs. a dove close] Prior Laurel precedent (LoAR of Nov 90, p.16) has granted no difference for bird type, when the birds are in identical postures. In this case, when the eagle isn't displayed, it loses most of the traits that let it be identified as an eagle. Almost the only such trait visible on an eagle close is its head crest --- and the heraldic dove has one, too. (Cecilia MacInnes, September, 1992, pg. 37)
[An eagle displayed vs. owl displayed] The owl and the eagle are both raptors, and the main difference between them --- the head posture --- is specifically worth no CDs per Rule X.4.h. [See also Keja Tselebnik, May, 1993, pp. 16-17 below] (Cecilia MacInnes, September, 1992, pg. 37)
The charge in chief was blazoned on the LOI as an eagle, but even allowing for beginner's artistry, we cannot call that bird an eagle: it has no crest, no hooked beak, and no ornate feathers. We have simply blazoned it as a generic bird; if the submitter wishes an eagle, he'll have to provide us with a correct emblazon. (Hereward Bannerban, December, 1992, pg. 4)
[An owl displayed vs. an eagle displayed] [There is not a CD] for type of raptor in similar postures. (Keja Tselebnik, March, 1993, pg. 24)
[A two-headed double-queued eagle-winged wyvern displayed vs. a double headed eagle displayed] The changes to the wyvern (notably, the use of eagle's wings) prevent finding difference between the primary charges. (Alex of Kintail, May, 1993, pp. 16-17)
[In pale a bird migrant and a <charge>] This conflicts with [An eagle displayed]. There's a CD for the charge in base. There's no heraldic difference between displayed and migrant. That leaves only the possible difference between an eagle and a generic bird. After some thought, we decided we couldn't grant a CD between a generic bird and any specific type of bird. (Rowena MacDonald, June, 1993, pp. 19-20)
[An owl affronty vs. an eagle displayed] There's a CD for the change in the bird's posture, but nothing for its type: eagles and owls are both raptors, and the main heraldic difference --- the head posture --- is specifically worth no difference under the Rules (as well as having been subsumed into the rest of the posture change). (Stanwulf the Stern, August, 1993, pg. 17)
Note: the fact that [the harpy or frauenadler] were considered distinct charges in period allows us to grant a CD against eagles. (Barony of Red Spears, September, 1993, pg. 25)
Recall that falcons default to the close position, both mundanely and in the SCA. (Jamie Amalthea Rowan, October, 1993, pg. 4)
BIRD -- Hummingbird
Hummingbirds are a New World species, but they appear to have been known to period Europeans. The OED cites the first use of the English word to 1637, within our fifty-year "grey zone" for documentation, and I suspect the Spaniards or Portuguese were familiar with the bird even earlier. (Caitriona Keavy ni Ainle, September, 1992, pg. 4)
BIRD -- Misc
[A "firebird"] The ...charge does not appear to be a valid period usage. It is not a Russian firebird; that is essentially a variant of peacock, is found in period art, and has been accepted for SCA use. As drawn here, the bird is composed of flame, which is unattested in either period art or period armory. Since it is so easily confused with either a bird or a flame, I must rule this "firebird" unacceptable, pending solid evidence of itsperiod use [returned also for conflict] (Katharina von der Waldwiese, December, 1992, pg. 18)
[In pale a bird migrant and a <charge>] This conflicts with [An eagle displayed]. There's a CD for the charge in base. There's no heraldic difference between displayed and migrant. That leaves only the possible difference between an eagle and a generic bird. After some thought, we decided we couldn't grant a CD between a generic bird and any specific type of bird.
Against [A falcon rising, wings expanded], we would grant a CD between migrant and rising, wings displayed [expanded]. (Rowena MacDonald, June, 1993, pp. 19-20)
There is a CD ...for the difference between a goose and a swallow (though not between a goose and a generic bird). (Brighid of Lindisfarne, September, 1993, pg. 16)
[Falcons rising displayed, each with the dexter wing inverted] A similar wing posture is found in the arms of the English College of Arms: Argent, a cross gules between four doves, each with the dexter wing displayed and inverted azure. (Oxford Guide to Heraldry , plate 4). (Dunecan Falkenar de la Leie, October, 1993, pg. 6)
BIRD -- Owl
[An owl affronty guardant vs. an owl statant guardant] The "blobbiness" of the owl's body, and the fact that the owl is guardant in all cases, leads me to conclude that there is no visual difference for turning the owl's body affronty. [See also Gundric Fawkes, October 1992 LoAR, pg. 29] (Stanwulf the Stern, August, 1992, pg. 26)
The owl was submitted as a Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) --- which, as the Latin implies, is a North American species. With no evidence that it was known to period Europeans, we have substituted the eagle owl (Bubo bubo), known through most of Western Europe; it has the same tufts of feathers on the head, and much the same brown coloration. ( Field Guide to the Birds of Britain and Europe, pp.165, 194) (Laurencia the Fletcher, September, 1992, pg. 20)
[An eagle displayed vs. owl displayed] The owl and the eagle are both raptors, and the main difference between them --- the head posture --- is specifically worth no CDs per Rule X.4.h. [See also Keja Tselebnik, May, 1993, pp. 16-17, below] (Cecilia MacInnes, September, 1992, pg. 37)
The owls were blazoned on the LOI as brown owls ...proper, but no such type of owl exists. The submitter insisted on having owls as drawn on her submission forms (brown, without spots or streaks, and without ear tufts), while we insisted on a species of owl known to period Europeans. The tawny owl (Strix aluco) meets all these requirements, according to Cerny's Field Guide to Birds, pp.140-141. (Danielis Pyrsokomos, January, 1993, pg. 17)
[An owl displayed vs. an eagle displayed] [There is not a CD] for type of raptor in similar postures. (Keja Tselebnik, March, 1993, pg. 24)
[An owl affronty vs. an eagle displayed] There's a CD for the change in the bird's posture, but nothing for its type: eagles and owls are both raptors, and the main heraldic difference --- the head posture --- is specifically worth no difference under the Rules (as well as having been subsumed into the rest of the posture change). (Stanwulf the Stern, August, 1993, pg. 17)
Note that in heraldry, the owl is guardant by default, even when the rest of the posture is blazoned. (Deborah of Gryphon's Lair, October, 1993, pg. 2)
BIRD -- Parrot and Popinjay
A popinjay proper is green with red details; it's a shorthand term for heraldic tinctures, not a Linnaean proper. Moreover, unlike many such terms, popinjays proper are period. (Aeruin ní hEaráin ó Chonemara, October, 1992, pg. 10)
We can see granting a CD between a dodo and a parrot. (Brian of Leichester, January, 1993, pg. 10)
BIRD -- Peacock
Peacocks proper have green bodies. (Fernando Juan Carlos Remesal, October, 1992, pg. 29)
The Russian firebird is a creature of Eastern European folklore, represented in art from the late 16th and early 17th Centuries. Heraldically, it is indistinguishable from a peacock. (Krzysia Wanda Kazimirova, August, 1993, pg. 6)
There [is] little difference between a peacock proper and a peacock azure [i.e., not a CD]. (Caitlyn Emrys, September, 1993, pg. 20)
BIRD -- Pheasant
[Two pheasants vert] The pheasants had been previously registered as ring-necked pheasants. Since there's no way to tell the breed of pheasant when solidly tinctured vert, and since the ring-tailed [-necked? mjh] pheasant appears to be a 19th Century import from China, we decided to remove the problem from the blazon. These are simply pheasants, and we'll leave the exact ornithological details to the artist. (Wilhelmina Brant, December, 1992, pg. 13)
The ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus torquatus) appears to be a 19th Century import from China, according to the 1911 E.Brit. , vol.XXI, p.361. This wasn't noticed for her original submission, probably because the birds were heraldically tinctured; they could as easily have been any kind of pheasant, and indeed we've amended her current blazon accordingly. But when tinctured proper, the problem of compatibility can no longer be ignored; we would need evidence that this breed of pheasant was known to period Europeans before we could register it. (Wilhelmina Brant, December, 1992, pg. 20)
BIRD -- Swallow
There is a CD ...for the difference between a goose and a swallow (though not between a goose and a generic bird). (Brighid of Lindisfarne, September, 1993, pg. 16)
BLAZON
The blazonry term sustaining is used when an animate charge (e.g. a lion) is holding another charge of comparable size. The term supporting could be used as well, but sustaining has this virtue: it's a known period term, used in the arms of Winstone, Per pale gules and azure, a lion rampant argent sustaining a tree eradicated vert. The coat is found as the second quartering of Sir William Cecil (b.1520), Queen Elizabeth's main counsellor. (Bossewell's Workes of Armorie, 1572, fo.107; Wagner's Historic Heraldry of Britain, p.67.)
Either sustaining or supporting will be used when a "held" charge is of comparable size to the beast holding it; maintaining will continue to be used when the held charge is of negligible heraldic difference. (Brayden Avenel Durrant, July, 1992, pg. 6)
[A commenter] has suggested countercolored to describe a charge counterchanged in tinctures other than the field's. I have never seen that term actually used in blazon; whereas in Scots heraldry, it is perfectly correct to say, e.g. Per pale X and Y, a mullet counterchanged W and Z. This style of blazon is fine. ( Franklyn & Tanner, p.90) (Rosamund d'Alewareton, July, 1992, pg. 8)
When in combination with a stringed musical instrument, bow is understood to mean a musical bow (Rebekah of Hillsview, July, 1992, pg. 15)
Period devices did not generally blazon an exact breed of dog; they tended lateto be more generic (talbot, mastiff, alaunt, etc.). (Kristoff McLain Cameron, August, 1992, pg. 5)
[Lozengy vert and argent, three ships sable] Possible conflict was cited against the armory of the town of Wexford; Papworth (p.1092) blazons it as Three three-masted ships two and one, without the ellipses he normally uses to indicate unknown tinctures. However, the current arms of Wexford have an argent field and proper ships, according to Lord Crescent (who cites Louda's European Civic Coats of Arms). The citation in Papworth would appear to have been taken from a tinctureless depiction of those arms, a seal or church carving. Under the circumstances, we're willing to grant the submitter the benefit of the doubt here. (Eskil Eskilsson Örn, August, 1992, pg. 15)
Cornucopiae, by definition, are horns of plenty; an empty cornucopia is an oxymoron. (Giovanna di Piacensa, August, 1992, pg. 20)
Estencely is the Norman French term for what is also blazoned "semy of sparks". Either term is correct. (Meliora of Snowshill, September, 1992, pg. 20)
The moose of North America is the same beast as the elk of Europe (Alces malchis). The OED dates the term moose to 1613, within our 50-year "grey area" for documentation; so either term is acceptable in SCA blazonry. (Randulf von Gelnhausen, September, 1992, pg. 26)
Augmentations in Society armory should always be blazoned as such; the bearer has the option of displaying the armory with or without the augmentation, and conflict should be checked against both versions. (Rondallyn of Golgotha, September, 1992, pg. 26)
When Papworth's blazons contain ellipses [...], we assume that he simply didn't know the exact tinctures -- and in cases of possible conflict, we give the submitter the benefit of the doubt...
For the record, we'll probably extend our policy to Chesshyre & Woodcock's Dictionary of British Arms (the so-called "New Papworth"); since that work explicitly contains only devices, not badges, we can assume that a blazon with no tinctures listed shows a lack of knowledge (or perhaps the overzealousness of the compilers), not tinctureless armory. (Helena Gereman, October, 1992, pg. 9)
Lochaber axes have a defined heraldic form, characterized by a long curving haft ending in a hook (Parker 29). (Magnus Rothach, October, 1992, pg. 17)
Lord Crux Australis has advocated renaming the mullet of four points (elongated to base or not) as a cross estoile. The cross estoile is indeed an heraldic charge, found in the arms of van Toulon, of Utrecht; but the earliest citation I've found for it is 19th Century. (I note that Rietstap, who cites van Toulon as his exemplar for the charge, blazons it une croix étoilée (étoile à quatre rais) --- that is, even he gives mullet of four points as an alternate blazon for the charge!) Without evidence that the charge is period, I'm reluctant to start using its Victorian name --- particularly when our current usage is equally good (or bad). (Egill Gunnbjarnarson, October, 1992, pg. 29)
A hulk is a boat's hull, without sails, mast, or oars ( Franklyn & Tanner 179). (Anastasia Germain, October, 1992, pg. 31)
[Purpure, three palets Or, overall two flaunches] We were tempted to blazon this as Paly purpure and Or, two flaunches That's the visual effect of the traits' regular widths and the overall charges. There are instances of period arms blazoned and emblazoned, interchangeably, as paly and three palets: cf. the armory of Valoines found in Foster, p.196. Certainly, we grant no heraldic difference between the two renditions. The above blazon does more accurately describe the submitted emblazon, however. (Eleonora Vittoria Alberti di Calabria, December, 1992, pg. 8)
When a human figure's vesting is not part of its definition (e.g. the savage, the Saracen), the vesting or lack of same is normally blazoned. (Austrechild von Mondsee, December, 1992, pg. 11)
[Two pheasants vert] The pheasants had been previously registered as ring-necked pheasants. Since there's no way to tell the breed of pheasant when solidly tinctured vert, and since the ring-tailed [-necked? mjh] pheasant appears to be a 19th Century import from China, we decided to remove the problem from the blazon. These are simply pheasants, and we'll leave the exact ornithological details to the artist. (Wilhelmina Brant, December, 1992, pg. 13)
A "rolag" is the tuft of fibres waiting to be spun into yarn. While the term is found in the Supplement to the OED , I decided it was sufficiently obscure that, barring cants or other compelling reasons, it should not be used in blazon. We've simply called the tuft a tuft. (Maryam al-Baghdadi, January, 1993, pg. 2)
The owls were blazoned on the LOI as snowy owls argent marked sable, which is excessive precision in medieval blazon: the black spots were so small as to be heraldically negligible, and the exact type of owl here makes no difference. (It's the same distinction as that between bear argent and polar bear proper: the tinctures are identical, and the slight change in shape well within artistic license.) [owls registered as owls argent] (Beorhtric von Adlerheim, January, 1993, pg. 10)
In general, period armory did not specify the type of dog used as charges, preferring to blazon them more generically (talbot, leveret, etc.). It's considered poor style in SCA armory, but permitted for known period breeds. (Tassine de Bretagne, January, 1993, pg. 29)
Drawer-handles are found in Japanese Design Motifs (compiled by the Matsuya Piece-Goods Store) and Dower's Elements of Japanese Design; but neither of these works describe actual Mon, but simply designs suitable for Mon. Dower's book, however, notes the origin of the charge: kan (handles) seem to be an artistic variant of the mokko, a slice of segmented melon. Hawley's Mon, p.18, gives several examples of actual use under that blazon. We don't object, in this case, to using a modern term for a period charge, and it does make the blazon more readily renderable. (Kimura Tetsuo, March, 1993, pg. 1)
The charge in base was submitted as a sea-turtle; but that term in heraldry would refer to a fish-tailed demi-turtle, not the natural sea-turtle. Since there's no heraldic difference between a natural sea-turtle and a regular turtle, we've used the latter term. (Alexander Michael Connor O'Malley, March, 1993, pg. 1)
The charge ...was blazoned as a morningstar, for canting purposes. We will make great allowances in a blazon for the sake of a cant, but nonetheless insist that they be correct. In this case, the charge is neither the morningstar as defined in Stone's Glossary of Arms and Armor (which we'd call a spiked mace in the SCA) nor the morningstar as defined in SCA armory (which is the submitted charge with a long wooden handle attached --- essentially a spiky flail). If the submitter wishes to keep her cant, she'll have to resubmit with one of the above types of morningstar [reblazoned as a spiked ball and chain]. (Linnet Morningstar, March, 1993, pg. 2)
[A cat-a-mountain couchant guardant, tail "reflexed to base"] The submitter wishes her device's blazon to specify the exact placement of the cat's tail. (She's also added the tincture of the eyes, which isn't in the current blazon, registered 31 Oct 82.) While I sympathize with the submitter's wish to have her emblazon rendered as she prefers, this can't be done at the expense of correct blazonry. The posture of the tail is heraldically insignificant; moreover, the proposed reblazon doesn't use standard heraldic terms. Reflexed to base is not to be found in Parker, Franklyn & Tanner, Woodward, or any of our normal texts; nor is it found in the OED. As Lord Crescent noted, it seems pointless to "clarify" a blazon with an ambiguous phrase. This seems to be a problem more easily solved by communication with the artists than by torturous reblazon. (Leah Kasmira of Natterhelm, March, 1993, pg. 26)
The Stafford knots were blazoned as inverted on the LOI. Having seen mundane examples of Stafford knots in both orientations --- and since we grant no difference for the orientation of most knots --- we've left the exact posture of the knots to the artist's license. (Ingrid the Crafty, May, 1993, pg. 10)
The charge ...was blazoned a yin-yang on the LOI, at the submitter's insistence. The term does not appear to be correct. Yin-yang is the Chinese philosophy of opposing cosmic forces; the motif in this submission is a yin-yang symbol, according to the OED Supplement. (The submitter's own documentation refers to the motif as a "yang-yin disc".) The OED Supplement also gives t'ai chi as the name for this fusion of forces, the Supreme Ultimate --- but also as the name for the symbol of that concept. (The martial art characterized as "low- impact aerobics" on the LOI is properly called t'ai chi ch'uan.) The term t'ai-chi is correct for the motif; it's been used in previous SCA blazons; so long as we register the symbol, we will continue to so blazon it. (Randwulf the Hermit, June, 1993, pg. 2)
According to Franklyn & Tanner, a maiden in her modesty is nude, with one arm flexed across and covering the breasts. (Taliesin O Sionnaigh o Pholl na tSionnaigh, June, 1993, pg. 2)
The term dunghill cock means simply "rooster"; Parker, p.120, attests to its use in blazon. While dunghill may seem to be an unnecessary modifier, it is no more a problem than the modifiers in the terms domestic cat or sewing needle; it distinguishes the barnyard fowl from the moorcock and peacock; and it helps avoid some of the modern connotations of the unmodified term cock. (Artorius Conchobhar, June, 1993, pg. 4)
One of this month's submissions (Shire of Vair Couvert) raised some questions about exactly which artistic details are (or should be) explicitly blazoned. There's no question that any detail worth heraldic difference, that isn't a default, should certainly be blazoned. But which details don't get blazoned, and how do we decide?
There's no simple answer here. In general, I try to balance several competing principles. For instance, I won't blazon too many artistic details, for fear that someone might consider them "important" enough to be worth heraldic difference. ("Well, the arming, languing and pizzling wouldn't have been mentioned if they weren't important...") Nor will I blazon so many details as to make the blazon more difficult to interpret; such clutter is not usually found in period blazonry.
In fact, period blazonry provides the best model for our own. I may blazon items worth no heraldic difference, depending on whether they're large enough to be immediately noticeable, or whether they were included in period blazons. An example of the first criterion might be head posture: though we'd grant no difference between, e.g., lion rampant vs. lion rampant guardant, it's a large visual change, and deserves mention in the blazon. (And who knows? If someone uncovers evidence to support it, we might someday grant difference for head posture -- and on that day, we'd be glad we blazoned it.) An example of the second criterion might be tail posture: though we'd grant no difference between, e.g., lion rampant vs. lion rampant coward, it was blazoned in period and should probably be blazoned in the Society as well.
Occasionally, the very diversity of the Society dictates that some details shouldn't be blazoned. For instance, we don't normally blazon the local drawing style: a fleur-de-lys is blazoned a fleur-de-lys, whether drawn in the Italian style (sometimes blazoned a fleur-de-lys florencée by modern heralds) or the French style. In this way, we permit the broadest mix of cultures; we don't micro-manage the scribes, but allow them the fullest creativity and expression; and we make it possible for someone to change persona without requiring a reblazon. Other examples of this policy include the eagle displayed (the current English style) vs. the eagle displayed, wingtips inverted (the German style); and the case that prompted the discussion, vair (modern) vs. vair ancient, where the change in style is temporal rather than geographic.
Finally, when all other factors are equal, the submitter's preference (if any) may be taken into account. I will go to great lengths to preserve a cant, for instance; or, if a client insists on shamrocks, not trefoils, I see no reason not to accommodate her (both terms are period, and it makes the blazon no longer). But I won't register a patently incorrect blazon, even if it's what the submitter wants. Nor will I blazon myriad artistic details that ought to be solely between the client and the scribe. If our blazons don't distinguish between Or and Gold, they oughtn't distinguish the period of a rendition of vair. Let's do our best to Keep It Simple, shall we? (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pp. 4-5)
In period, the normal depiction of a [charge] enflamed showed the charge on the field, with tiny spurts of flame issuant (and also on the field) [for full discussion, see under FLAME] (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pg. 5)
The difference granted for the slipping and leaving of flowers is one of our perennial problems [as it were]. The practice seems to have been uncommon in medieval armory; of the rare examples that had been discovered, none seemed to demonstrate a cadency change --- that is, the change one would expect to see between the arms of a cadet branch of a family and those of the main branch. For that reason, we've granted no difference between, say, a rose and a rose slipped and leaved.
Nonetheless, there have been suggestions that we should grant a CD for slipping and leaving, when the slip is so large as to constitute the majority of the charge --- in effect, when the charge is better blazoned a branch with a flower rather than a flower with a stem. I've found period evidence supporting this suggestion, in the arms of the Counts of Rapperswil, c.1232: D'or a treis rosers sur checkune roser une rose de goules checkune roser verte (Or, three rose branches vert, on each rose branch a rose gules). The comital line went extinct in 1283, but rosiers (rose branches) are still found in the modern arms of Rapperswilstadt, in the Swiss canton of St. Gall: Argent, in fess two rose branches vert, each with a rose gules. These are drawn just as they're blazoned: large stems (few or no leaves) with small roses. They are clearly artistic variations on branches, nor roses. (Anglo-Norman Armory II, p.442; Early Blazon, p.270; 10000 Wappen von Staaten und Städten, p.288.)
In cases that follow this example, I will register the plant as a branch with a flower. Moreover, I intend to grant a Substantial Difference (i.e., sufficient to invoke Rule X.2) between a branch (flowered or not) and a flower. Slipped flowers drawn with the flower dominant will still be considered negligibly different from a plain flower. Flowers whose slips are part of the definition (e.g., trefoil, thistle) will not get extra difference for the slip. I welcome suggestions on how we should count difference between flowered branches (e.g., between a branch vert with a rose gules and a branch vert with an iris gules); it should be at most a single CD, but I'm not convinced we could even grant that.
I think this new definition will bring us closer to period usage, and ease up a bit on conflict. It will also, I concede, make it temporarily harder to interpret old SCA blazons ("It says rose slipped. Does this conflict with a rose, or with a branch?"), but we can reblazon devices with branches as they come up in commentary. (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pg. 7)
[On a bordure seven <charges>] Normally, the [<charges>] on the bordure would be blazoned as semy. In this case, however, we have period examples of seven charges being explicitly numbered in the blazon: e.g. the arms of the Earls of Winchester, blazoned in Glover's Roll (c.1258) as De gules a set fauses losenges de or (Gules, seven mascles Or). Added to the cant on the name [des Sept Monts] (which we always like to encourage), there seemed sufficient reason to blazon the number here. (Anne des Sept Monts, June, 1993, pg. 12)
[A serpent nowed] The serpent was blazoned in the LOI as nowed in a Heneage knot. That wasn't strictly true --- at best, it would have been a Heneage knot fesswise --- and in any case, the exact form of a serpent's nowing is normally left to the license of the artist. We've done so here. (Ragnvald Bloodaxe, July, 1993, pg. 3)
[A foi] The charge in chief was blazoned on the LOI as two hands conjoined in fess. This would have had two default hands --- i.e. apaumy --- rather than the clasped hands shown. According to Lord Crescent, the motif of two hands clasped has an heraldic name: a foi, used in French blazons and possibly some English canting arms ( Parker 305) (Lothar Freund, July, 1993, pg. 10)
The charges on the chief were blazoned on the LOI as roses. The heraldic rose is typically drawn with five petals; there are a few examples with six, but we know of no instances using only four [charges reblazoned as quatrefoils barbed]. (Myghchaell Loughlin, August, 1993, pg. 3)
The phrase cross of Cleves is synonymous with "Latin cross flory". We will accept whichever blazon is submitted. (Jonathus of Santiago de Compostela, August, 1993, pg. 8)
The majority of charges, when couped, are couped in base by default (heads, hands apaumy, mountains, demi-lions, &c). The fact need not be blazoned here. (Gwydion of Blackmoore, August, 1993, pg. 10)
Some commenters raised the question of whether the hammered dulcimer is a period instrument. The exact form shown in this submission, played with hammers, is found in the Flemish painting "Mary Queen of Heaven", c.1485. (Mary Remnant, Musical Instruments: An Illustrated History, p.117) In theory, the modifier hammered is superfluous; this was the only period form of dulcimer. In practice, enough people are acquainted only with the post-period Appalachian dulcimer that it seems safer to specify. (Dulcinea Margarita Teresa Velazquez de Ribera, August, 1993, pg. 11)
To the best of our knowledge, period blazons did not specify an exact breed of dog; at best, they would describe a dog by its general characteristics (levrier) or for a cant (talbot). The SCA does permit known period breeds to be specified in blazon, but I consider the practice an anomaly or "weirdness"; another anomaly in the design ...might itself be sufficient grounds for return. (Jean Philippe des Bouviers Noirs, August, 1993, pg. 18)
It was announced in the cover letter of the July 93 LoAR that vair is vair, whether drawn in an earlier, undulating style or in a late-period, angular form; the difference is purely artistic, and shouldn't even merit mention in the blazon. This has raised a question from some commenters as to which varieties of vair we should blazon, and why ...we should recognize only those varieties of vair that period heralds recognized. That excludes, e.g., vair en pal, vair ancient, and the German Gespaltenesfeh. Other varietal forms, however, were making their appearance toward the end of period; they should be acceptable, both as motifs and in blazon [For the full discussion, see under FIELD DIVISION -- Vairy]. (30 November, 1993 Cover Letter (September, 1993 LoAR), pg. 3)
[Per fess wavy azure and barry wavy Or and azure, two scythes in saltire argent] ...although the LOI blazoned this again as a per fess field with a wavy bar in base, the visual effect is still of a per fess azure and barry wavy field. It was not unusual for barry or paly fields in period to be drawn with an odd number of traits (which we'd blazon as bars or palets); see, for example, the arms of Mouton (Multon, Moleton) found both as Barry argent and gules and Argent, three bars gules ( Dictionary of British Arms, pp 59, 88; Foster, p. 145). The distinction is even less noticeable when covering only a portion of the shield, as here; see, for example, the arms of von Rosenberg, whose Per fess field has in base either three bends or bendy depending upon the artist's whim (Siebmacher, p. 8; Neubecker and Rentzmann, p. 290). Even when the distiction is worth blazoning, it's worth no difference.
This remains a conflict with [Gules, two scythes in saltire argent] (Aidan Aileran O'Comhraidhe, September, 1993, pg. 18)
In general, we don't blazon the exact nationality of the drawing style, preferring to leave that to the artist; the few exceptions to this rule are just that, exceptions. (Miguel Tamut de Aldea, September, 1993, pg. 20)
[A pale sable, overall a Lakenvelder bull proper] Prior Laurel rulings have banned the use of animate charges counterchanged over an ordinary. While the submitter has tried to get around this ban by using a striped breed of bull, the visual effect is still that of a bull counterchanged over a pale. Heraldry is a visual art; the visual effect cannot be avoided by clever reblazons. This violates our ban on complex counterchanging and must be returned for redesign. (John MacGuire, September, 1993, pg. 24)
[An arrow argent enfiling a serpent involved] The definition of the term enfile has changed over the years. Boutell ( English Heraldry, 1902) equates it with "pierce": a sword passing through a crown would enfile the crown. Brooke-Little (An Heraldic Alphabet , 1975) equates it with "encircle": a sword passing through a crown would be enfiled by the crown. The confusion is sufficient reason to avoid the use of the term, but sometimes (as with this submission) it's hard to avoid. Friar (Dictionary of Heraldry, 1987, p.137) agrees with Boutell's definition; and that definition does follow more naturally from the etymology of the word (from French fil, "thread": beads are threaded on a string, crowns are enfiled on [by] a sword). That is the definition used here. (Audrey Wormsbane of Brittany, October, 1993, pg. 8)
[A bordure argent, overall on a chief <charges>] "The chief does not, as a rule, surmount other chargers, and consequently, such have often to be debased...when associated with a bordure (unless there is direct statement to the contrary) the bordure would be turned and continued beneath the base line of the chief." (Parker 112) The term overall in the blazon above is the "direct statement to the contrary" needed here. (Basilla la Merciere, October, 1993, pg. 11)
BODY PARTS
Nowing of the tongue ...must be considered artistic license, as is the exact style of nowing. (Morgan Etienne ap Gwalchmai Gwynedd, August, 1992, pg. 6)
In heraldry, a foot is a human foot by default. (Eoin Eardstapa, August, 1992, pg. 11)
The one registration of a "dragon's tongue" in the SCA, back in 1973, does not make it an identifiable charge. Nor does it seem in keeping with period armory: tongues were not used as charges, so far as I know.
Several commenters suggested that these be reblazoned "dragon's tails." Conceptually, this would be much more acceptable: lion's tails and fox's tails were used as period charges, and I'd have no problem with correctly drawn dragon's tails. But the feature that marks these charges as dragon's tails are the barbs at the ends --- which were not found on period dragons. (See the dragons and wyverns in Dennys' Heraldic Imagination, pp.190-191 and the plate opposite p.177; or the Oxford Guide to Heraldry, pp.102, 109, and plate 16.) I might consider tail's barbs to be artistic license, when the tail is part of a full dragon; but I cannot accept a charge whose identifying feature is a post-period artistic detail.
Either as dragon's tongues or dragon's tails, the charges here may not be registered. Dragon's tails drawn in a period style should be acceptable. (Aaron Clearwater, August, 1992, pg. 27)
[A hawk's gambes bendwise sinister couped vs. an eagle's leg erased à la quise] The gambes shown here are not inverted: eagle's legs, unlike lions' legs, have their claws to base by default. However, since eagle's legs à la quise are somewhat embowed, they are often depicted with a bendwise sinister slant; so we can't get a CD for posture. (Shire of Blackhawk, January, 1993, pg. 30)
While we have no period evidence for the use of lips as charges, we do have examples of other body parts: hands, arms, feet, legs, heads, eyes, teeth and mustaches. On the basis of these, we've registered ears and toes in the SCA. Lips thus appear to be compatible with period armory, though I'd be willing to count them a "weirdness" pending better documentation. (Saundra the Incorrigible, March, 1993, pg. 1)
[A pig rampant, its dexter hind limb a peg-leg] Several commenters wondered whether the porcine prosthesis was compatible with period armory. I consider this on a par with the arms of Finland (Gules semy of roses argent, a lion rampant crowned Or, its dexter limb an armored arm brandishing a sword, standing atop a scimitar fesswise reversed argent). There should be no problem with the peg-leg [device returned for other reasons]. (Inigo Needham Bledsoe, March, 1993, pg. 26)
I would grant Substantial Difference between a human arm and a beast's jambe. (Caomh Beathan Crubach, June, 1993, pg. 13)
...we grant difference between a dragon and an eagle -- but none between a dragon's foot and an eagle's foot. (Laeghaire O Laverty, August, 1993, pg. 5)
BOOK
[Or, an open book argent bound sable] the book is essentially argent on Or, in violation of the Rule of Contrast. The black binding does not remove the problem, as fimbriation might --- for it doesn't completely surround the charge. (Caelina Lærd Reisende, December, 1992, pg. 15)
BORDURE
A number of commenters complained about the common use of annulets on fieldless badges, comparing them to bordures on devices (and, in some comments, granting no difference from bordures). I agree that annulets are added to SCA badges for the same reason bordures are added to SCA devices: to provide a quick, easy CD that doesn't greatly change the central design. Beyond that, annulets and bordures are quite different charges: the annulet is always round, where the bordure follows the outline of the display surface. The background shows on both sides of the annulet (even a fieldless badge is usually set against some background), but only on the inside of the bordure. A design may have multiple annulets, but only one bordure. And so forth.
If someone can present evidence that the use of annulets encircling other charges is non-period design, we can discuss the issue again. But as far as conflicts are concerned, an annulet and a bordure are separate charges. (Neil Greenstone, July, 1992, pg. 14)
[A sinister gore argent and a bordure ermine] The lack of contrast between the gore and the bordure causes them to blend together, reducing the identifiability of both. It's true, as Lord Crescent notes, that since contrast of each charge is measured against the field, they cannot have good contrast with one another. But, if anything, that argues against any use of a gore with a bordure whatsoever.
This case might have been acceptable had the bordure been, say, Or; there would still have been enough contrast to allow its distinction from the gore. But the contrast between argent and ermine is exactly the same as between argent and argent goutty sable: nonexistent. We cannot concede that the two charges will be distinguished from any distance. This must therefore be returned, per Rule VIII.3. (Khasar of the Keshik, November, 1992, pp. 15-16)
The use of azure semy-de-lys Or has been prohibited in Society armory for many years; it is too strongly suggestive of a claim to a French royal connection. The prohibition was reaffirmed on the LoAR of July 92, p.23. The bordure azure semy-de-lys Or has been specifically disallowed: "A bordure of France (ancient or modern) may not be used in SCA heraldry." [LoAR of 20 Oct 85] (Rhiannon Saint Chamberlayne, November, 1992, pg. 16)
When a bordure and chief are used together, the chief almost invariably overlies the bordure (Parker 73). The rare exceptions generally don't have tertiaries on the chief; they would be crowded by the bordure, rendering them harder to identify. The handful of SCA registrations with bordures surmounting charged chiefs have subsequently been disallowed as precedent (LoAR of Oct 91, p.17); far more often, such designs have been returned as non-period practice. [Device also returned for conflict] (Justin of Kent, December, 1992, pg. 20)
The College's ban on the international "no" symbol (a bend and bordure gules in combination) only applies when the combination is actually used as a "no" symbol: surmounting the symbol of whatever's being forbidden. The bend-bordure combination is not banned when there is no underlying charge. In this case [Vairy, a bend and a bordure gules], since vair isn't a charge, we find no stylistic problems here [device returned for conflict]. (Chryse Raptes, January, 1993, pg. 32)
[Per fess purpure and vert, a <charge> within a bordure argent charged with a tressure per fess purpure and vert, originally blazoned as an orle and a bordure] The submission caused us a few minutes of heartburn. The equal width of the outer three stripes, and the fact that the central stripe is of the field, gave this the appearance of a bordure voided, not of an orle within a bordure. Bordures voided and fimbriated have been disallowed since Aug 83. Playing with the widths a bit, to make this a bordure cotised, would be equally unacceptable. On the other hand, a bordure charged with a tressure is a perfectly legal design. In the end, we decided that the latter blazon is the most accurate and reproducible description of the submitted emblazon --- and since it appears to be legal, we've accepted it. It also guarantees the device to be clear of [Azure, a <same charge> within a double tressure argent]. (Lisette de Ville, August, 1993, pg. 10)
A <charged> nesselblatt is not equivalent to a <charge> within an indented bordure. This would be more apparent if the armory were displayed on a rectangular banner: the nesselblatt would keep its triangular shape, where the bordure would follow the line of the field. (Mielikki Kantelensoittajatar, October, 1993, pg. 1)
[A bordure argent, overall on a chief <charges>] "The chief does not, as a rule, surmount other chargers, and consequently, such have often to be debased...when associated with a bordure (unless there is direct statement to the contrary) the bordure would be turned and continued beneath the base line of the chief." (Parker 112) The term overall in the blazon above is the "direct statement to the contrary" needed here. (Basilla la Merciere, October, 1993, pg. 11)
BOW
When in combination with a stringed musical instrument, bow is understood to mean a musical bow (Rebekah of Hillsview, July, 1992, pg. 15)
BRANCH
[Per chevron inverted argent and vert, in chief an oak branch [inverted] fructed proper vs. Argent, an oak branch fructed proper] There's a CD for the field, but none for the movement of the mostly-vert charge to chief (since that's required by making the field half-vert), and in this case, none for orientation (since the visual difference between a branch and a branch inverted is well-nigh invisible). (Judith Anne of Durmast, September, 1992, pg. 43)
In cases [where a slipped and leaved flower consists primarily of the branch portion rather than the flower portion], I will register the plant as a branch with a flower. Moreover, I intend to grant a Substantial Difference (i.e., sufficient to invoke Rule X.2) between a branch (flowered or not) and a flower. Slipped flowers drawn with the flower dominant will still be considered negligibly different from a plain flower. Flowers whose slips are part of the definition (e.g., trefoil, thistle) will not get extra difference for the slip [for full discussion, see under BLAZON] (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pg. 7)