PRECEDENTS OF THE S.C.A. COLLEGE OF ARMS

The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme

CANTON

Charged cantons may not be used except in the case of augmentations of arms. This prohibition dates from at least 28 Dec 82 and is still in force. This must be returned, per Rule XI.1. (Aurora Ashland of Woolhaven, January, 1993, pg. 25)

CARTOUCHE

The charges considered media for heraldic display --- the delf, lozenge, cartouche, etc. --- when used in a fieldless badge may not be charged. This ruling has been in force since 1986, and is itself reason enough for return. (Order of the Stella Rubra (Kingdom of Meridies), July, 1993, pg. 14)

The cartouche was drawn in this submission with pointed ends, not the rounded ends normal for the charge. We've registered this variant form in the past, usually blazoned a cartouche with pointed ends; the technical term for the shape is mandorla, or amygdaline aureole. (Metford's Dictionary of Christian Lore and Legend) (Order of the Stella Rubra (Kingdom of Meridies), July, 1993, pg. 14)

CASTLE AND TOWER

[In the doorway of a tower, a lion couchant guardant] The lion in the doorway is effectively a tertiary [in terms of calling conflict]. (Seeker's Keep (Aelfric se Droflic), September, 1992, pg. 1)

[A portcullis between and conjoined to two towers] The primary charge is blazoned [as noted] for the sake of the cant [with Gate's Edge], but is indistinguishable from a castle (Canton of Gate's Edge, September, 1992, pg. 7)

There's [not a CD] for castle vs. single-arched bridge. (John Quartermain, September, 1992, pg. 50)

There's no heraldic difference between a tower and a castle. [See also Irwyn of Hartwich, same leter, pg. 21, Sela nic a'Phearsoin of Clan Chattan, January, 1993, LoAR, pg. 29, and Maelgwn McCain, August, 1993 LoAR, pg. 20] (Konner MacPherson, October, 1992, pg. 27)

CHARGE -- Compatible

The dovetailed line is currently allowed, as compatible with period practice. We grant it no difference from embattled or raguly, however. (Ariel Giboul des Montagnes, July, 1992, pg. 4)

This sort of wavy ordinary, with the waves opposed instead of parallel ("wavy bretessed" instead of "wavy-counter-wavy"), was returned on the LoAR of Dec 91 as a non-period depiction. The strangeness of the motif would have been more obvious here, had the wavy lines been drawn in a bold medieval style; the fact that they weren't contributes to the non-period depiction. (Brighid Aileen O'Hagan, July, 1992, pg. 17)

The [mascle-knot] is unique to Society armory, defined in the device of Leonard the Younger [Gules, within the head of a mjolnir inverted and voided, a mascle-knot argent]. This is a case where an SCA-invented charge is still acceptable: the name does not apply to any other charge in mundane heraldic texts (not even Elvin ), the charge is not readily confused with any other, and it is conceptually similar to period charges (i.e. angular Bowen knots, 1530; v. the Oxford Guide to Heraldry, p.149). (Cynthia Tregeare., August, 1992, pg. 11)

The Norse serpents (or "Norse twisty-beasties", as they're sometimes called) currently defined for SCA use are still permitted; the Laurel precedent that everyone half-remembers (LoAR cover letter of 12 July 86, p.3) banned any new types of Norse serpent. (Katherine Dun na nGall of Westmeath, August, 1992, pg. 12)

[Leonard the Younger: Gules, within the head of a mjolnir inverted and voided, a mascle-knot argent] This is the defining instance of the SCA charge, the mascle-knot. When the device was registered back in Oct 76, it was blazoned Gules, a Mjollnir-pendant inverted, pierced, and within the head a mascle-knot of six corners argent. It was reblazoned Feb 89 by Mistress Alisoun as Gules, on the head of a Mjollnir inverted gules, fimbriated, a mascle-knot of six corners argent. Both blazons specified the mascle-knot as having six corners; but after a little experimentation, it's hard to see that it could have any other number. A "mascle-knot of four corners" would be blazoned a Bowen cross in SCA armory, or four mascles-fretted by Elvin; a mascle-knot of eight corners would actually be a saltire parted, voided and interlaced; and a mascle-knot of more than eight corners would probably not be permitted.

I am therefore restricting the definition of "mascle-knot" to six corners, no more or less, and reblazoning the orginal registration accordingly. The mascle-knot, so defined, is still acceptable for SCA use. (Leonard the Younger, August, 1992, pg. 16)

A "chief indented singly" is not, to the best of our knowledge, a period charge. Nor could we, in good conscience, reblazon this "Per chevron sable and erminois:" not only does it not seem to be the submitter's intent, the point is too high and shallow to be a real per-chevron division. This is being returned for redrawing. (Gryphon ap Bedwyr, August, 1992, pg. 22)

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 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 rainbow emitting lightning flashes] There are indeed lightning flashes in this submission. The fact that they are worth no heraldic difference does not mean they aren't there. Modern comic-book lightning flashes (so-called "shazams") have been disallowed for a decade. (Yvon Bater of Darkwood, August, 1992, pg. 29)

The commentary was strongly in favor of disallowing the rivenstar (save only to the Barony of Rivenstar, to whom it would be grandfathered), as a non-period charge. Lord Pale suggested that the charge continue to be permitted, for the sake of residents of Rivenstar who wished to show their allegiance in their armory. This suggestion would carry more weight if some Rivenstarites had ever actually registered armory with rivenstars; but according to Lord Morsulus, except for the armory of the Barony there's only one SCA registration of a rivenstar. Consequently, we have no qualms about disallowing the charge, pending evidence that it's period, or at least formed in a period manner. (Galen O'Loingsigh, August, 1992, pg. 32)

[A heart attired of stag's attires reblazoned to a stag's massacre surmounted by a heart] As noted in the case of Erc Mortagh the Pict (LoAR of August 92), adding horns to inanimate charges doesn't appear to have been a period usage; certainly, I'd like to see some evidence for the practice. In this case, the visual effect is of a set of antlers and a heart overall, and that's how we've blazoned it. (Gabriel Gertrude Gyles, September, 1992, pg. 7)

[Sea-urchins] (= "fish-tailed demi-hedgehog") has been registered before, in the armory of Rufus the Short of Burgundy. In Society armory, "the sea-urchin should be assumed to be a heraldic sea-urchin unless otherwise specified." [AmCoE, 25 Jan 87] (Order of the Sea Urchin (Kingdom of Atlantia), September, 1992, pg. 18)

The orm is a charge unique to the Society, more complex than a simple serpent, not as complex as the Norse serpent nowed. It has been registered recently (Elina Grimmsdottir, June 91); without stronger evidence than has yet been presented, I hesitate to disallow a charge that was so recently accepted. (Canton of Fjarska Holt, September, 1992, pg. 20)

[A slip eradicated joined to a snake's head] The monster doesn't appear to have been formed in a period style; the only comparable example in period (non-armorial) art was the vegetable lamb, a tree that bore sheep as its "fruit". It was described by Sir John Mandeville, c.1371, and was evidently an attempt to describe cotton, not a mythical beast. The example of the vegetable lamb does not support the monster shown here. (Brian di Caffa, September, 1992, pg. 51)

Grafting unicorn's horns onto random animals is not period practice. It has been decried by previous Laurels (LoAR of 3 Aug 86, p.15), and always discouraged; I am taking the final step and, except for Grandfathered cases, disallowing it entirely. (Sorcha ni Mhurchadha, October, 1992, pg. 22)

[A dragon with lion's hindquarters] The dragon-lion monster is unusual -- the accepted period hybrid of those creatures is the lion-dragon, with a lion's forequarters and wyvern's tail -- but would probably be acceptable by itself (Dafydd ap Bleiddudd, October, 1992, pg. 32)

[A Maltese star cross] While SCA-variant charges are often considered acceptable ("period-compatible", as it were), we draw the line at variants of SCA-variants. This submission is a case in point: the star-cross is a Society invention, unattested in medieval armory. While it's still acceptable for SCA use, variations of it are two steps removed from medieval armory, which is an unacceptably broad leap of faith. Without evidence of period compatibility, the Maltese star-cross is unacceptable [see also Elgar of Stonehaven, January 1993 LoAR, pg. 23]. (Elgar of Stonehaven, November, 1992, pg. 14)

[A monster ccomposed of the head of a wolf, the forelegs of a hawk, and the body and hindquarters of a stag] The monster is similar enough to the heraldic enfield to be considered acceptable style (Serafina de Kalais, December, 1992, pg. 3)

[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 easil yconfused 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)

[A mullet pierced, the points moline] The "mullet moline" is unorthodox, to put it mildly. Before we can accept this, we need some evidence of its period use -- at the very least, that the moline treatment could be applied to anything other than crosses (and of course millrinds). Pending such evidence, this must be returned. (Roland Witt, December, 1992, pg. 18)

[A chief triangular embattled] With very rare exceptions (e.g. in combination with enarched lines), the use of two or more complex lines on the same charge is confusing, and unattested in period armory. (Wavy raguly? Embattled rayonny? I think not.) In this case, the chief could be either embattled or triangular --- but not both. (Johann Götz Kauffman von Erfurt, December, 1992, pg. 20)

The bog beast is a charge unique to Society heraldry, with a talbot's head, boar's tusks, dragon's body, cloven forefeet, lion's hindfeet, and a housefly's wings. As the submitter has one in his registered device, its use here is Grandfathered; otherwise I wouldn't be inclined to permit the charge. (Nikolai Andreeov, January, 1993, pg. 2)

There was a strong feeling in the College that the double tressure dancetty braced was non-period style, and at first I was inclined to agree. On reflection, however, I found I couldn't put a name to exactly why I felt so. Visually, this is not so different from an orle masculy, or saltorels couped and conjoined in orle, either of which would have raised far less objection. It's balanced, blazonable, and reproducible. The College has in the past registered bars dancetty braced (Katherine d'Argentigny, July 86), so we even have a precedent for this.

I suspect most of the College's objection arose from our long-standing ban on Celtic knotwork, which sometimes extends to anything even resembling Celtic knotwork. As noted in the commentary, though, this isn't Celtic knotwork: the sharp corners and lack of braiding make that clear.

With no substantive reason to return the motif, I've decided to give it the benefit of the doubt. I'm open to further arguments for or against it, and I would definitely count it a "weirdness" --- but not reason for return. (Shire of Otherhill, January, 1993, pg. 4)

Pending evidence one way or the other, we will assume that flaunches are as susceptible to complex lines of division as any other ordinary or subordinary. Papworth's citation of the arms of Daniell (Sable, two flaunches indented argent) is inconclusive: he doesn't date it from 1404, but rather cites it from Harleian MS number 1404. (Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry gives the same armory as Argent, a pile indented sable, affording much food for speculation...) (Brandwyn Alston of the Rift, January, 1993, pg. 5)

The Norse sun cross had at one time been treated as an alphanumeric symbol (that of the planet Earth), and so unacceptable for use in SCA devices. Under the current Rules, such symbols are now acceptable; indeed, a Norse sun cross was registered to Etain MacDhomhnuill on the LoAR of April 90. (Kenneth MacQuarrie of Tobermory, January, 1993, pg. 12)

[On a pale, a <charge> beneath seven mullets points in chevron] When compressed on the pale in this manner, the mullets in chevron strongly resemble an arch of mullets. This motif has been returned before now (in the LoARs of Sept 84 and Feb 91), and there seems to be no reason not to continue this policy. (Johann Mathern, January, 1993, pg. 33)

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)

[Per pale Or and sable, a monster composed of the body of a horse with lion's feet rampant purpure] While newly-invented chimerical monsters are usually permitted, they must be recognizable in all their parts. This monster is unidentifiable, and so unacceptable. Half the monster has extremely poor contrast against the black half of the field. The part with good contrast, against the gold half of the field, has its outline obscured by the non-standard stylization of the mane. That might not have been fatal, had this been a horse or a lion; but when the creature is a composite of the two, identifiability is paramount. This must be returned. (Lachlan O'Sheridan of Falconhold, March, 1993, pg. 26)

The charges in chief were blazoned as unicorns on the LOI. In fact, they are unicornate horses, which have been disallowed since at least Feb 85. Unicornate horses are not only a 20th Century fantasy rendition, they blur the distinctions between horses and genuine unicorns; for both reasons, they are unacceptable in SCA armory. Please have the client resubmit with genuine medieval unicorns: with beards, lions' tails, and tufted cloven hooves. (Meaghan Catherine McKenna, May, 1993, pg. 20)

[On an annulet of flame sable an annulet Or] This submission engendered considerable discussion at the Symposium; many felt that the badge was post-period in style ...The full-sized emblazon did not show an annulet "fimbriated of flame", as some commenters described it, but a ring of fire charged with a gold annulet. The question was whether an annulet of flame was an acceptable motif. Our standards regarding charges made of flame have tightened over the years, but we still accept simple cases (the base of flame being the prime example). The annulet of flame seemed simple enough to accept, on a case-by-case basis. (Barony of Wiesenfeuer, June, 1993, pg. 3)

[Two towers, between them a pair of swinging doors] The charge ...was blazoned as a gateway on the LOI. The gateway is a Society invention, defined the arms of the Shire of Stormgate. As such, it does not appear to follow the medieval exemplars of gates. We will blazon the charge by parts for this submission, but do not intend to accept it in the future. (Rian MacFinn, August, 1993, pg. 8)

Some commenters have urged that the valknut be disallowed. However, it's been quietly but continuously registered, during my tenure and those of my two immediate predecessors (v. the armory of Thorhalla Carlsdottir Broberg); it's a documented period artistic motif that has been accepted for Society armorial use. To disallow it at this point would require some better documented reason than "we don't like it". (Halvdan Stormulv, September, 1993, pg. 3)

The use of astrological glyphs heraldically in period can be seen on the crest of Bull, watchmaker to Queen Elizabeth I: On a wreath argent and gules, a cloud proper, thereon a celestial sphere azure, with the circles or; on the zodiac the signs of Aries, Taurus, Gemini, and Cancer (Parker, A Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry, p. 547). It has long been the College's policy to allow the use of elements from crests and supporters, if period usage is documented, as charges for SCA armory although there is no documentation of their use as charges in period armory (cf. yales). (Cadell ap Hubert, September, 1993, pg. 11)

Though blazoned on the LOI as rayonny, the bordure is in fact wavy crested. This line of division was introduced to heraldry in the 20th Century, and is thoroughly modern; it has not been accepted in Society armory for over a decade. (Luisa of the Willows, September, 1993, pg. 21)

CHARGE -- Documentable

Charges must be drawn in their period form (per Rule VII.3), so that they can be identified (per Rule VIII.3). This is especially true when a wrongly drawn charge can be mistaken for some other charge (Federico Arcière dal Fióre, July, 1992, pg. 18)

The black widow spider does not appear to have been known to period Europeans. It didn't even get the name until the early 20th Century; and it appears to have been introduced into America in the late 19th Century (from China, according to the best speculations). Without evidence that the black widow spider was known to period Europeans, it may not be registered. (Novia the Widow, July, 1992, pg. 20)

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)

Adding horns to inanimate objects doesn't appear to have been a period treatment; certainly, we would like to see some evidence of what is, at first glance, a highly improbable usage ...the reason for its improbability --- the fact that the elk-horned mask cannot be identified as such --- is ...grounds for return. (Erc Mortagh the Pict, August, 1992, pg. 24)

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)

[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 Displaie of Heraldry, 1632. (Deborah bat Yosef, September, 1992, pg. 5)

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)

The demon is a period heraldic charge, as found in the arms of the city of Brussels (Gules, the archangel Michael Or vanquishing a demon underfoot sable). (Asher Truefriend, September, 1992, pg. 30)

[A winch] Since this seems to be the defining instance of a winch in SCA armory, we need some documentation of this form as a period charge or artifact. [returned for this and for being drawn in trian aspect] (Sylvia Schirenhoferin, September, 1992, pg. 42)

It hasn't yet been established that the humpback whale (as a distinct species) was known in period; the OED 's first citation of humpback whale dates to 1725. [Device returned for this and for artistic problems] (Canton of Berley Court, September, 1992, pg. 44)

The charges on the chief were blazoned as rapiers, but drawn as modern fencing foils. While the LOI noted that the submitter would be told how to draw the charges henceforth, this doesn't make the device, as submitted, acceptable. We can wink at minor emblazonry problems, but not blatantly non-period artifacts. [See also Fernando Juan Carlos Remesal, October 1992 LoAR, pg. 29] (Thorun Geiri, September, 1992, pg. 50)

Bagpipes in period had at most two drones. Specifically, Scots bagpipes did not add the third, longer drone until the 18th Century. The set shown here [with three drones] is no more period than a saxophone. (Connor Mac Loghan, September, 1992, pg. 52)

[A mariner's astrolabe] Lord Green Anchor has provided ample documentation for this form of astrolabe, dating it to c.1480. Visually, it differs from an astronomer's astrolabe in the large cutout areas (so the wind won't keep blowing it aside and make readings more difficult). Where the astronomer's astrolabe is visually a roundel with diapering, the mariner's astrolabe is visually a wheel with diapering (Vincent McThomas, October, 1992, pg. 5)

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)

The starfish is not, to the best of our knowledge, a period heraldic charge; it seems to have started use in Victorian heraldry (Elvin, plate 32) [reblazoned as mullets, leaving internal markings as artistic license, see also pg. 19] [See also Ríoghnach Sláine ní Chonaill, same letter, pg. 19, and Meulsine d'Argent, same letter, pg. 21](Branwen ferch Madoc, October, 1992, pg. 18)

[a "Mongol helm"] We were given no evidence to support this form of helm as a "Mongol helm", or indeed as any nationality of helm. Such examples of Mongol helms as we could uncover did not show the submitted helm's fur trim or the hanging drapery; our best contemporary example (from an illustrated history of the Mongols by Rashid ad-Din, c.1300) showed a plain pointed cap with "ear muffs" on either side. Since this submission would be the SCA's defining instance of a Mongol helm, it's important that it be documented in this form. (Raven Helmsplitter, December, 1992, pg. 15)

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)

The Venus-hair fern was known by that name in period, according to the OED; it's also called maiden-hair. (Kateline MacFarlane, January, 1993, pg. 2)

While the standard heraldic spindle has its weight to base by default, this submission uses a drop spindle with its weighted disk in chief. Evidently, this is a valid variety of drop spindle: usually called a "high whorl spindle", it dates from ancient Egyptian times. ( The Spinner's Encyclopedia, Enid Anderson) The term inverted drop spindle can apply either to this variety, or to an heraldic spindle inverted --- the results are equivalent, technically and visually. (Maryam al-Baghdadi, January, 1993, pg. 2)

As a breed, Welsh corgies date back to the 12th Century, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. (Rosalynde y Corgwyn, January, 1993, pg. 21)

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)

We were given no documentation of the zalktis [a squared off `S' shape, set on its side] as an heraldic charge, or even as a religious symbol. It cannot be found in our standard references --- the OED, for instance, has no entry for it. As this would have been the defining instance of the charge in SCA heraldry, documentation becomes even more important; pending such documentation, this must be returned. (Gundras no Dzintara Krasta, January, 1993, pg. 28)

No documentation was provided to support a grinding wheel as a period charge, or indeed as a period artifact. As this submission would be the defining instance of the charge in SCA heraldry, such documentation is necessary. (Wolfric Hammerfestning, January, 1993, pg. 35)

The step-cut gem is found in period jewelry, if not armory; see some of Holbein's portraits of Henry VIII, for instance. (Ælfwynn Elswith, March, 1993, pg. 7)

The Arabic ceremonial saddle (qubbah) is a highly stylized charge from Moslem heraldry, according to the article by Lord Clarion in The Islamic World (Complete Anachronist #51, p.63). (Salim ibn abd al-Rahman al-Rashid, March, 1993, pg. 17)

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)

[A cross "formy convexed"] This badge had been returned on the LoAR of May 92 for lack of documentation on the type of cross. (It had been blazoned in the previous submission as a cross formy globate, which term we couldn't find in any of our references.) The submitter has appealed that return, providing evidence of this cross as an artistic motif on a suit of armor c.1630. The term "convexed", referring to the bulge of the outer edges of the cross's limbs, is documented in Elvin's Dictionary of Heraldry.

Unfortunately, my main concerns about this cross remain unaddressed. It's not readily blazonable: as drawn, it resembles a roundel with four semi-elliptical notches, not a variant of a cross formy. It's been documented only to within our 50-year "grey area", and only as an artistic motif, not an heraldic charge. The only terms that adequately describe it are found in a 19th Century work, compiled by an author whose lack of scholarship is legend. I simply have no grounds for believing this cross to be compatible with period heraldic style.

This cross has been submitted before, and returned for the above reasons; v. Jamys Ellyn Rothesay of Bannatyne Hall, LoAR of Sept 92, p.49. I'm tempted, I admit, to simply give the cross its own SCA name. (In the immortal words of Baldwin of Erebor, "Spring is in the air, and the fit is upon me; let me name but one cross before I die!") But this would do no service to the heralds and scribes who will follow us; we need some assurance that any blazon we devised would be reconstructable. In this case, at the very least we'd need to find this cross mentioned by name in some accessible reference. Failing that, or better evidence that it's a period motif, I must continue to return it. (Stanislaw Jan Ossolinski, March, 1993, pg. 28)

The device had been returned on the LoAR of March 92 for lack of identifiability of the aloe vera plant ...The submitter has appealed that return, providing evidence that the aloe vera was known in period, and that it was used in (post-period) armory in the form shown here. I agree that the charge would probably have been as recognizable as, say, the lotus flower; it should be acceptable for SCA use. (Randwulf the Hermit, June, 1993, pg. 2)

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)

The stag's horn or stag's attire --- singular, as opposed to the full rack of antlers -- is a period charge; the arms of the Duchy of Wuerttemberg are the most famous example of its use. (Alberto Accorsi, July, 1993, pg. 7)

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)

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)

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)

The mandrake is a plant of the genus Mandragora and is native to Southern Europe and the East. It is characterized by very short stems, thick fleshy, often forked, roots, and by fetid lance-shaped leaves (OED). Of the two examples cited in Parker, p. 390, one (de Champs) blazons them as plantes de mandragore (plants of mandrake). The other cited example, the only one in English armory, is actually shown in Rodney Dennys' The Heraldic Imagination, p.130, as more humanoid. Dennys states that "the Mandrake is not, of course, a monster or chimerical creature in the strict sense of the term, but in heraldic art it has acquired such anthropomorphic characteristics that it can be rated as one of the more fanciful of the fabulous creatures of heraldry" (p. 129). We feel there is a CD between a mandrake and human figures as there is between other fanciful heraldic creatures (e.g. angels) and human figures. (Leandra Plumieg, September, 1993, pg. 12)

The primary charge was submitted as a broach. The broach (more fully blazoned an embroiderer's broach) is a period charge, dating to 1558, in the arms of the Worshipful Company of Broderers; but it should be drawn with a pointed tip, not with the U-shaped tip drawn here. The charge drawn on the emblazon is also found in period armory in the arms of Waldstromer von Reichelsdorf (Siebmacher, plate 108); but I don't know what it's called. Rietstap blazons it simply as forche (fork), which in French can refer to almost any bifurcated artifact. Society blazonry calls the charge a handgun rest and we have so blazoned it here. (Alina Mika Kobyakovna, September, 1993, pg. 15)

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)

Claddagh rings (also called fede rings or friendship rings) are found in period in a variety of forms. (David Hinton, Medieval Jewellery, plates 13, 14) The motif is quite period. The claddagh ring normally used today shows the heart conjoined to a crown; so even were it a protected design, this submission [In fess a heart supported by a pair of hands issuant from the flanks argent] would be clear of it [badge returned for having hands issue from the edge of a fieldless badge]. (Myles of Falkon Hold, October, 1993, pg. 15)

The chevron écimé [with a blunted top] does not appear to be a period charge. The single registration in the SCA of the term was in 1973 (Eiolf Eriksson); and that wasn't even a correct blazon for the device (which has been reblazoned elsewhere in this LoAR). The current submission would thus be the defining instance of the charge, and we need to see evidence of its use in period before allowing its registration. We will defer any discussion of its difference versus an ordinary chevron until its validity as a period charge has been demonstrated. (Vladimir Heraldsson, October, 1993, pg. 15)

CHARGE GROUP

[Per bend sinister, an willow tree and an llama's head vs. Per bend sinister, an ash tree and a spearhead] In each device, the two charges form a single group of primaries. Changes are counted against the entire group: One cannot count a CD for a change to half a group, and another CD for the same category of change to the other half of the same group. Because both devices contain a tree, Rule X.2 does not apply; there is a single CD, for changing the types of charges of a single group. (Edward of Willowwood, July, 1992, pg. 22)

[A <bird> debruised by a fess] Under our current definition of primary charges, Rule X.1 brings this clear of [A fess]. (Gregory of Loch Swan, September, 1992, pg. 32)

[Azure goutty d'eau in chief a cloud] This conflicts with [Azure, goutty de eau]. This conflict call engendered much discussion in the commentary, centering on whether the cloud was a peripheral secondary charge (thereby making this a conflict with [above]) or a primary charge (thereby clearing the conflict per Rule X.1). One might argue either way: Had this been, e.g., Azure, in chief a cloud argent, the cloud would probably be the primary; had this been, e.g., Argent goutty d'eau, a chief nebuly argent, it would definitely be a conflict. In this case, the gouts are the primary charge group, and the cloud a secondary charge. Approach it by approximations: Comparing Azure, a gout argent vs. Azure, a gout and in chief a cloud argent, there would certainly be a conflict; likewise Azure, three gouts argent vs. Azure, three gouts and in chief a cloud argent, and Azure, six gouts argent vs. Azure, six gouts and in chief a cloud argent. In none of these hypothetical cases could Rule X.1 be invoked for adding the cloud in chief; the gouts are the primary charges. Increasing the number of gouts even further (to goutty, the present submission) does not change this. This is a conflict ...with a single CD for adding the secondary charge in chief. (Jon of the Mists, September, 1992, pp. 39-40)

[A drawn bow fesswise, nocked of a double-bitted axe, and sustained by two bears combattant] The device has a single group of charges, of three different types, in violation of Rule VIII.1.a. This must be returned (Big Bear of Haven, September, 1992, pg. 48)

[A castle, in chief three barrulets wavy azure surmounted by two escallops] The charges in chief were blazoned in the LOI as on a chief [wavy] barry wavy argent and azure, two escallops gules. However, the use of the field as one of the tinctures of the chief renders this as barrulets in chief rather than a chief barry. That this was the submitter's intent is shown by the emblazon, which had the escallops overlying the edge of the "chief" ...The correct blazon is with a primary castle, and a single group of charges in chief; and therefore, this conflicts with [Argent, a castle gules]. (Randulf von Gelnhausen, September, 1992, pg. 49)

[A serpent and a bordure vs. A serpent debruised by a fess] By current definitions, in each case the serpent is the primary charge; there is thus a single CD, per Rule X.4.e, for changing the type of secondary charge. (Konall Rogersson, October, 1992, pg. 23)

[Party of six pieces, three bells] This was blazoned on the LOI as [Per fess, on a pale counterchanged between two bells, a bell]. That would be the normal modern blazon, but not the period blazon. In period, this was considered a field division, not a counterchanged pale ...this [is] a conflict with [Gules, three bells]. [For full discussion, see under FIELD DIVISION -- General] (Laeghaire ua'Laverty, October, 1992, pg. 25)

[A lion's head azure jessant-de-lys vert vs. leopard's head jessant-de-lys gules] After much thought, we decided that the leopard's head jessant-de-lys was common enough in period armory to be considered a single charge, in the same way a penner and inkhorn would be. It could equally well be considered a single group of conjoined charges. Either way, there's a single CD, for the tincture of the primary charge group. (Ginevra Cecilia da Firenze, October, 1992, pg. 25)

I'd suggested in the [August, 1992] LoAR that we might consider the line of division to divide the group into "halves", regardless of the numbers involved. The College in general disapproved of my proposal, saying it would encourage poor style; and after reading the arguments, I'm inclined to agree. (Ríognhach MacLeod, October, 1992, pg. 34)

[A decrescent within an arch stooped between three mullets] As drawn here, the decrescent is the primary charge, just as it would be were it encircled by a wreath or an annulet. (Luanmaise nic Ailithir, November, 1992, pg. 12)

[In chief a boar's head and in base a bow and a sword in saltire] The use of a single group of three dissimilar charges is not permitted, per Rule VIII.1.a. The exact arrangement of the three charges within the group (whether 2&1, a sheaf, or whatever) does not change this (Colin Douglas of Greysmarch, November, 1992, pg. 14)

[A key bendwise sinisiter between two Welsh corgies] As drawn, the key and the corgies are separate groups of charges. Therefore, this doesn't conflict with [three wolves] or with [three wolves in pale]. (Rosalynde y Corgwyn, January, 1993, pg. 21)

[Per chevron azure and argent, all mullety counterchanged] This is clear of [Azure, six mullets argent, three, two and one. Semy charges, by definition, are evenly strewn across the field. When the field is divided in half by a field partition (such as Per chevron), then half the semy charges are on each half of the field --- again, by definition. We thus count a CD for the tincture of the field, and a CD for the tincture of half the primary charge group. (Ariane la Fileuse, July, 1993, pg. 4)

CHARGE -- Maintained

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)

[Checky Or and gules, a <beast> maintaining a <charge> Or] The Or <charge> has insufficient contrast against the (partially) Or field. While maintained charges aren't as strictly bound by the Rule of Contrast as other charges, they still can't share a tincture with the field (v. Phillippa MacCallum, Sept 88). [See also Luke of Caerleon, November 1992 LoAR, pg. 16 and Eleri Langdoun, March 1993 LoAR, pg. 23] (Tanarian Brenaur ferch Owain fab Bran, October, 1992, pg. 33)

[A tree trunk couped azure, its top bound by a chain sable] The sable chain has insufficient contrast on the azure trunk. While artistic details are not as strictly bound by the Rule of Tincture as are primary charges, this submission still does not permit ready identification of all its charges. (Dofinn-Hallr Morrisson, August, 1993, pg. 18)

CHARGE -- Overall

There are a few period examples of overall charges counterchanged: e.g. Alwell, c.1586, Argent, a pile sable, overall a chevron counterchanged. These examples all seem to use ordinaries surmounting ordinaries. I am perfectly willing to permit overall charges in the SCA to be counterchanged, so long as they too are ordinaries (or charges of similar simplicity, such as roundels). [see also Aaron de Hameldene, July, 1992 LoAR, pg. 20] (Kendric of Black Water., July, 1992, pg. 13)

[On an estoile, a phoenix] This was blazoned on the LOI as An estoile ...and overall a phoenix. However, an examination of the full-sized emblazon showed this to be incorrect: the "overlap" of the phoenix over the estoile's edge was so small as to be negligible. This in itself is reason for return: the Laurel office has long insisted that overall charges be truly overall, not barely overlapping the edge of their underlying charge. (LoAR of 17 June 83) [Returned for this reason and for conflict] (Eirikr Sigurdharson, September, 1992, pg. 38)

Ermine fimbriation is disallowed (LoAR of 3 Aug 86, p.17), as are overall charges surmounting fimbriated ordinaries (9 March 86, p.12). (Cerridwen nic Alister, October, 1992, pg. 26)

[On a pale, a <charge>, overall a laurel wreath] Our general policy (LoAR of July 92, p.20), based on period practice, is that only ordinaries (or similarly simple charges, such as roundels) may be counterchanged across ordinaries. The laurel wreath is not a simple charge, and may not be counterchanged here. While we were tempted to be lenient in this case (considering the arms of the Shire's parent Kingdom contain a laurel wreath counterchanged across a pale), I decided that making an exception here would open a larger can of worms than I could contemplate with equanimity. (Shire of Blackmoor Keep, October, 1992, pg. 28)

In my LoAR cover letter of 3 August 1992, I suggested a ban on fieldless badges with overall charges. My reasons were that overall charges obscured the underlying charges into unidentifiability; that I could find no period examples of badges with overall charges; and that such badges, as they're often registered in the SCA, used overall charges of a different tincture class than the underlying charges, making it impossible to display the badges on any plain field.

There were some objections to my proposal, mostly fixating on the last (and least important) of my three points. There were also complaints that the ban would make it more difficult to register armory in the SCA, an objection that's been raised every time we try to improve our stylistic standards. The most substantive objection came from Lord Eclipse, who noted the badge of Baron Sudeley (Fox-Davies' Heraldic Badges, p.147): A fire-beacon and in front thereof and chained thereto, a panther ducally gorged, the tail nowed. This is emblazoned in Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry, p.221, and seems to be drawn with the panther overlying the stem of the beacon.

However, as a counter-example to my proposed ban, the Sudeley badge is doubly flawed. First, it's considerably post-period; Fox-Davies dates it to 1906. Second, the panther and beacon have a very small area of intersection; Sudeley's badge uses an overall charge to the same degree that, say, In saltire a sword and a lute uses an overall charge.

Eclipse's example got me to thinking, however, and I've realized that there are cases where a fieldless badge could acceptably use an overall charge. The cases are those where one or both of the charges were long and slender, making the area of intersection small --- e.g. A sword, blade surmounted by an anvil. Such a badge would have all its charges identifiable, and be well in keeping with period style.

I've therefore 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. (15 January, 1992 Cover Letter (November, 1992 LoAR), pg. 3)

Some commenters have asked about our current policy on overall charges: specifically, whether overall charges are the primary charge group in a design. The answer depends on whether we speak of Society or mundane armory --- or even which portion of mundane armory. Herewith, my best stab at answers:

Overall charges were uncommon in period armory. Most of the examples we have involve brisures: direct cadency between generations. Prince Arthur's Book (c.1520) gives examples of England with a [brisure]: a label overall, or a bend overall, or even an escarbuncle overall. (Oxford Guide to Heraldry, plate 1) In those cases, since the overall brisures were additions to a base coat, the underlying charges were the obvious primary charges. [Laurel Footnote: "There was a least one exception to this general rule: a case where the added brisure was the underlying charge, and the overall charge the primary! The original armes of Burnell were Argent, a lion rampant sable, as used by Robert Burnell c.1270. His descendants added a variety of changes (e.g. William added a label of five points overall gules); Philip Burnell, c.1280, added a bend gules, which in one roll was surmounting the lion --- and in another roll was surmounted by it! (Anglo-Norman Armory II, pp.58, 128) In each case the lion was the primary charge, whether underlying or overall.]

Once direct cadency cases are removed, there are still a few period cases of overall charges; in those cases, the overall charge is part of the original design of the armory. Examples include the Duchy of Cleves, c.1370 (Gules, an inescutcheon argent, overall an escarbuncle Or); the arms of Sweden, or more precisely, the Folkunga dynasty of Sweden, c.1290 (Azure, three scarpes wavy argent, overall a lion crowned Or); the Archbishopric of Canterbury, c.1350 (Azure, an archepiscopal staff Or, overall a pallium argent fringed Or and charged with four crosses formy fitchy at the foot sable); von Könige, c.1605 (Azure, a column Or, overall a horse courant argent); and a handful of others. It's not as easy to determine the primary charge in all these designs, but we can tell for some cases -- because their owners used that charge in other armory as well. Thus Anne of Cleves used a badge that incorporated the escarbuncle of her arms (Fox-Davies' Heraldic Badges); and the lion of the arms of Sweden are found again, as Sweden's supporters. (And I would certainly opine that the pallium was the primary charge in Canterbury's arms; the episcopal crozier is well-nigh invisible.)

In period armory, then, there is no hard and simple rule for determining whether an overall charge is the primary charge; it depends on what cadency changes have been made, if any. A rule of thumb might be that, if an animate charge (e.g. a lion) and an ordinary are used together, the animate charge is the primary charge, whether overall or underlying; but I wouldn't back that rule with money in any particular case. (Sources for the above examples include Siebmacher's Wappenbuch , 1605; the Armorial de Gelre, c.1370; Anglo-Norman Armory II, Foster, and the Dictionary of British Arms.)

SCA armory is different. Under previous Rules, the overall charge was always the primary charge, by defintion: "[Against mundane arms] the addition of a major overall charge ...is sufficient difference. The overall charge must be drawn large enough to make it the primary visual charge. The relegation of the [underlying charge] to secondary status will constitute the extra half point needed." [WvS, 20 Oct 80, p.6]

Under the current Rules, the situation is reversed, but equally universal in scope: the underlying charge is always the primary charge, again by definition. There were hints, prior to the current Rules, that the change was forthcoming: "Primary charges should not be `demoted' when a charge is placed overall: in mundane usage it is the charge overall which is considered to have been added for cadency, just as are the secondaries around the primary charge. The blazon represents reality: the primary charge will remain the charge which lies closest to the center of the field in the plane closest to the field." [AmCoE, 26 April 87, p.10] Currently, the addition of overall charges is explicitly deemed worth only a single CD, per Rule X.4.c; it is not Sufficient Difference, as the addition of a primary charge would be.

Neither of these policy extremes is a perfect approximation to period style. But I'd be hard-pressed to devise a policy on overall charges that was a better approximation --- or if I could, it would likely be so complicated as to be unusable. And given the frequency of overall charges in Society heraldry, some policy we must have. The current policy --- that overall charges are secondaries, and underlying charges primaries --- has at least one advantage: it doesn't unduly encourage the addition of overall charges, which was at best a rare practice in period. I'm always open to suggestions, but for now, I'm enclined to let the current policy stand. (22 February, 1993 Cover Letter (December, 1992 LoAR), pp. 3-4)

[Or, a bend sinister, overall a bear] ...this is clear of [Or, a bear]. By our current Rules, the overall charge is considered a secondary, and the underlying charge a primary; Rule X.1 brings this clear (Conrad Erich von Brixen, January, 1993, pg. 6)

[A compass star, overall a decrescent] It had been announced (LoAR cover letter of 3 Aug 92) that, starting with this meeting, we would no longer register fieldless badges using overall charges. Except for designs with long, skinny charges (e.g. a sword, blade surmounted by an anvil), in general that ban is still in effect. In this particular case, it takes a very careful arrangement of the crescent and mullet to guarantee the identifiability of both; and any design that depends on the exact proportions of its charges is generally not good style. (James Adare MacCarthaigh of Derrybawn, January, 1993, pg. 24)

[Two spears in saltire argent hafted proper, surmounted by a serpent in annulo, with a head at either end argent.] The overall charge is acceptable in this design, per the LoAR cover letter of 15 Jan 93: the charges are slender, and the area of intersection small [badge returned for unidentifiably drawn spears] (Christof Gately, January, 1993, pg. 31)

[Two quill pens in saltire sable surmounted by a butterfly argent] The overall charge renders the pens unidentifiable, in violation of Rule VIII.3. Indeed, this submission is a textbook example of why I suggested a ban on overall charges in fieldless badges, in my cover letter of 3 Aug 92: the pens, far from being identifiable as pens, instead look like extensions of the butterfly's wings. The visual effect would be blazoned A butterfly argent, wings tipped sable; and therefore, this conflicts with [A butterfly argent, wings tipped gules]. (Sidonia of Seven Oaks, January, 1993, pg. 32)

[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)

Some commenters had wondered whether the presence of an overall charge automatically brings a design outside the scope of X.4.j.ii. As currently worded, Rule X.4.j.ii.b applies to "an ordinary ...accompanied only by a single group of identical charges on the field." Overall charges, in most cases, are not considered in the same class as charges on the field: they are separate categories of difference (X.4.b and X.4.c), for instance, and VIII.2.b.i refers to contrast between the field and "every charge placed directly on it and with charges placed overall", implying these are separate. Since the Rules don't seem to consider overall charges to be "directly on the field", X.4.j.ii.b doesn't apply to overall charges.

Lord Owen gives another argument: Rule X.4.j.ii.b only applies if the ordinary is charged, not the accompanying secondary charge. If the secondary charge were to overlie the ordinary, it would crowd the tertiaries and render them harder to identify. That seems to contradict the intended purpose of the Rule, that simple armorial design meet less stringent difference standards. I have to agree with this. The presence of the overall charge prevents this design from being considered "simple armory" within the meaning of Rule X.4.j.ii. No CDs can be granted for type alone of tertiary. (College of Cathair Dhaibhaidh, March, 1993, pg. 20)

[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)

[Sable, a bend sinister argent, overall a wolf's head caboshed, grasping in its mouth an arrow fesswise reversed counterchanged, a bordure embattled argent] The counterchanging of the complex charges over the ordinary is visually confusing, and disallowed per Rule VIII.3. This interpretation has been in force since April 90; it was most recently reaffirmed in the case of the Shire of Blackmoor Keep, LoAR of Oct 92.

This submission is an appeal of a return by the Atlantian College of Heralds. The submitter has been informed of the abovementioned policy; his appeal is based on two period examples, each showing a lion counterchanged over an ordinary. One example, from King René's Tournament Book, mid-15th Century, seems to have been invented for illustration purposes; while it might be argued to be acceptable style (by its inclusion in the book), it might also be argued to be obviously nonsensical style (to show that it's not real armory). King René's illustration is therefore inconclusive evidence.

The other example is a device found in the Mandeville Roll, c.1450 (Dictionary of British Arms 218): Azure, a lion argent and a bend counterchanged. No owner was named for this armory; we might reasonably assume it to have been an actual coat, but it's a weak example on which to overturn our present policy.

Moreover, the current submission isn't of comparable simplicity to the example in the Mandeville Roll. The latter had a single ordinary, with a single counterchanged charge. The current submission has two counterchanged charges plus an additional bordure, increasing its visual complexity. (We also note that the bend surmounts the bordure, which is a further anomaly. It isn't reason for return in this case; as both the bend and bordure are argent, they'll tend to blend together in any case. However, should he resubmit with this motif, please instruct the submitter to have the bordure surmount the bend.)

To sum up: by longstanding policy, the College disallows complex charges counterchanged over other charges. The examples given in this appeal don't apply to this case: the submitted device has more counterchanged charges than the examples, and an anomalous bordure as well. Even were the submission as simple as the examples, the latter are too nebulous (neither being attributable to a specific historical person) to warrant overturning our policy. This must be returned; he might consider making the bend Or and the wolf's head argent, assuming no conflicts. (Grethfurth Wulfstan, May, 1993, pg. 15)

CHARGE -- Peripheral

Neither [Argent, a chief indented purpure] nor [Argent, a sinister canton purpure] armory contains a primary charge, so Rule X.2 does not apply ...I'm unhappy with the latter conflict, but I see no way around it as the Rules currently stand. Rule X.2, subtitled "Difference of Primary Charges", specifically applies only when "the type of primary charge is substantially changed." Neither the chief, nor the canton, nor any peripheral ordinary, can be a primary charge; otherwise, by Rule X.1 Lozengy bendwise azure and argent, a canton gules would be clear of Bavaria, and Gyronny sable and Or, a bordure gules would be clear of Campbell. That would be unacceptable; therefore a peripheral ordinary can't be the primary charge, even when it's the only charge in the design (Tristram du Bois, July, 1992, pp. 23-24)

[Gyronny azure and argent, an orle vs. Gyronny azure and argent] The orle, as a peripheral ordinary, is by definition not a primary charge; Rule X.1 cannot be invoked here. (Galen MacDonald, August, 1992, pg. 29)

This was a very tough decision; evidence was available supporting either side of the question. The main issue boiled down to whether flaunches can ever be primary charges. If they can't, then the conflict is valid (as discussed in the LoAR of July 92, pp.23-24). Like the bordure, our prime example of a peripheral charge that can never be primary, the addition of flaunches need not disturb the placement of other charges on the field (July 92, p.6). On the other hand, unlike the bordure, flaunches can legitimately extend quite a ways into the field, increasing their visual dominance over a design.

In the end, the fact that flaunches are usually considered ordinaries (or sub-ordinaries, depending on the text) proved decisive. Ordinaries may be classed either as central ordinaries (e.g., the pale, fess, cross, etc.) or as peripheral ordinaries (e.g., the bordure, chief, base, etc.). No matter how they intrude into the field, flaunches do not cross its center, as central ordinaries would; therefore, they must be peripheral ordinaries. (Another peripheral ordinary, the chief, can legitimately extend into an unoccupied field quite as much as can flaunches.)

In the case of Eleonora Vittoria Alberti di Calabria (LoAR of Dec 92), it was decided that Rule X.4.j.ii applies to charged flaunches alone on the field. Since flaunches aren't in the center of the field, the only examples of the Rule that support the decision are those of X.4.j.ii (d), the examples involving peripheral charges. This confirms the general impression among the College that flaunches are peripheral --- and therefore cannot be primary, and cannot invoke Rule X.1. (Ceidyrch ap Llywelyn, June, 1993, pg. 19)

CHARGE -- Restricted and Reserved

[Gyronny gules and argent, in saltire four roses counterchanged] The Tudor rose, defined to be a combination of a red and a white rose, is a prohibited charge in SCA heraldry. One period form of Tudor rose was a rose per pale gules and argent (or argent and gules) (Boutell); this submission's charges could be equally well blazoned four Tudor roses saltirewise. (Kiera Lye d'Alessandria, July, 1992, pg. 22)

Neither France Ancient (Azure semy-de-lys Or) nor France Modern (Azure, three fleurs-de-lys Or) may be used in SCA heraldry, either as the field (or part thereof) or on a charge. To do so constitutes a claim to connection to French royalty, prohibited under Rule XI.1. [For full discussion, see under FLOWER -- Fleur-de-lys] (Raoul de Chenonceaux, July, 1992, pg. 23)

I must conclude that, in Germany, the field of Bavaria is used in very much the same way as the arms of France were used in France. I therefore restore the prohibition of Lozengy bendwise azure and argent in Society heraldry, as well as artistic variants such as Paly bendy azure and argent. [For full discussion, see under ROYAL ARMORY] (18 September, 1992 Cover Letter (August, 1992 LoAR), pg. 3)

[Argent, a gauntlet gules] There was some concern whether this was too reminiscent of the Red Hand of Ulster, a prohibited charge in the SCA. It turns out that the Red Hand of Ulster was used as an augmentation, not as a main charge. We would certainly return a device that used a canton argent charged with a hand gules, and perhaps even a chief argent charged with a hand gules would be too suggestive; but the use of red hands, gloves, gauntlets, etc., on white backgrounds is not, in and of itself, cause for return. (Guillaume de la Rapière, August, 1992, pg. 4)

[Quarterly gules and azure, the whole seme-de-lys Or, a <charge>] The use of Azure, semy-de-lys Or has been reason for return for the last ten years; it was reaffirmed on the LoAR of July 92. This must be returned for use of a prohibited treatment (Connor Malcolm O'Maoilbhreanainn, September, 1992, pg. 52)

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)

The use of paly bendy azure and argent has been prohibited in Society armory since 1984; it is too strongly suggestive of a claim to a connection to the rulers of Bavaria. The prohibition was reaffirmed on the LoAR cover letter of 18 Sept 92, p.3. In this case, the problem is particularly acute: the bordure is drawn so wide that this might be blazoned more accurately as Bavaria with an inescutcheon per pale Or and gules, thereon a castle counterchanged. This makes the problem of presumption more obvious, but either way, the use of the Bavarian field is unacceptable. (Siegfried Rupert Stanislaus, November, 1992, pg. 17)

[Two straight trumpets in saltire, surmounted by another palewise, the whole ensigned of a fleur-de-lys Nourrie between two lions combattant] The ...badge [has] been previously returned in 1984 and 1989 .. .for complexity and infringement on the badge of the SCA College of Arms ...The submitter contends ...that, since the new Rules did not republish the List of Reserved Charges (which included the crossed trumpets of the College of Arms), those charges were no longer prohibited to him. ...The List of Reserved Charges is still available, in the Glossary of Terms sold by the Stock Clerk, and is still in force. The use of the crossed trumpets is still reserved to the College of Arms; the only new submissions that may use them are the seals of Principal Heralds. Nor can one argue that the current submission, by using three trumpets instead of two, is clear of the problem. The design uses a reserved motif, and additional charges don't remove the presumption; that would be like saying that the use of one crown is reserved to Royal Peers, but the use of two crowns is not. [badge returned for this, complexity and other presumption problems] (Norrey Acadamie of Armorie (Taliesynne Nycheymwrh yr Anyghyfannedd), December, 1992, pg. 21)

The argument for exclusivity --- that the motif of a white crux stellata on a blue background is uniquely associated with the Eureka Stockade --- is weakened by Crux Australis' citations of its use by modern Australian trade unions and the Australian Republican movement, and by Hund's citation of its use by the Australian Army Pay Corps. With so many Australian institutions using the motif, it can be considered no more exclusive than, say, a black swan naiant on a gold background (the badge of Western Australia).[For the full discussion, see under CROSS] (Southkeep Brewers and Vintners Guild (Shire of Southkeep), December, 1992, pg. 23)

Charged cantons may not be used except in the case of augmentations of arms. This prohibition dates from at least 28 Dec 82 and is still in force. This must be returned, per Rule XI.1. (Aurora Ashland of Woolhaven, January, 1993, pg. 25)

[A dexter hand fesswise reversed, palm to chief, maintaining a flame] Some commenters wondered whether the central charge could be considered a hand of glory, which isn't permitted in Society heraldry. The hand of glory is essentially a hand on fire: it's usually seen apaumy, and issuant small flames (especially at its fingers). The hand shown in this submission is simply holding a flame, and is not a hand of glory [device returned for fimbriating the flame and for unidentifiability of the hand position]. (Deirdre Colintrie, March, 1993, pg. 23)

The use of two straight trumpets in saltire is reserved to the seals of Principal Heralds, and has been since at least 1983. It is the motif itself that's reserved; changes of tincture, addition of charges, or (as here) inversion of the trumpets, don't affect the reservation of that motif, any more than they affect the reservation of crowns to the armory of royal peers. (John Skinner of Rivenstar, March, 1993, pg. 24)

Lord Palimpsest's other formal recommendation was that the College lift the reservation of the motif Two straight trumpets crossed in saltire to the seals of the Principal Heralds --- that is, permit the use of the motif by non-heralds. In this he had the concurrence of nearly all the members of the College. Nearly all, but not quite: Lord Laurel, for one, dissents.

The use of the crossed trumpets has, for many years, been strongly identified with the College of Arms --- far more strongly than, say, the key has been identified with the Seneschalate, or a pale checky gules and argent with the Exchequer. This identification has been promoted by the College: the nature of our job makes us highly visible, and our badge (besides being an example of the heraldic display we encourage) tells onlookers that our pronouncements in court and field are official. As a result, the College with its badge is probably more visible than any other group of officers with theirs.

This identification has led to submissions (at least two in recent memory) that used the crossed trumpets to deliberately invoke a connection with the College of Arms. I can recall no comparable examples with the other officers' badges --- e.g., former seneschals don't submit armory with keys in an attempt to emphasize their political clout (or at least, they haven't yet). Since our usefulness to the Society hinges on our reputation, it's in our interest to protect that reputation, by restricting to the College of Arms the use of a motif uniquely identified in the public mind with the College.

It's been argued that the reservation of the crossed trumpets represents an intolerable "perk": a privilege we permit ourselves but deny others. Folks, if I had to choose a special privilege for the College, I think I'd have picked something a bit more special. The crossed trumpets are restricted, even within the College, to the seals of the Principal Heralds --- which means that there can be only about fifteen registered armories with crossed trumpets at any given time. The effect on possible conflicts is so close to nil that God Himself couldn't tell the difference. We don't see a flood of submissions from Kingdom Colleges demanding seals, so it doesn't affect our workload. The reservation's only effect is on those submitters who want to capitalize on the College's reputation --- and while cynics may argue that such submitters deserve what they get, on the whole I'd rather not see the problem arise in the first place. (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pg. 4)

The orle flory has been disallowed for SCA use: it's too reminiscent of the double tressure flory counter-flory, which is an augmentation from the Scots crown. This precedent has been affirmed as recently as the LoAR of Sept 89. Indeed, given period renditions of the arms of Scotland with an orle flory instead of a double tressure flory counter-flory (e.g. Siebmacher, plate 2), and given a recent statement from the Lyon Office of Scotland declining to register orles flory without the Queen's express command, the precedent seems worth keeping. (Patrick Drake, August, 1993, pg. 19)

CHEVRON

[A chevron inverted debased] The chevron inverted is definitely debased, so much that the fact must be blazoned; but no evidence has been presented chevrons (inverted or not) were blazoned or drawn "debased" in period. (Charles of the Painted Glen, November, 1992, pg. 15)

There are no period examples of inserting charges within the interlacing of braced chevrons; usually, such interlacing was done so tightly as to leave no room for charges between the gaps. While we might permit charges in the gaps between braced chevrons in a Society design, the other problems in this design combine to warrant return for non-period style. (Gwendolyn æt Faegerlea, May, 1993, pg. 14)

The chevron écimé [with a blunted top] does not appear to be a period charge. The single registration in the SCA of the term was in 1973 (Eiolf Eriksson); and that wasn't even a correct blazon for the device (which has been reblazoned elsewhere in this LoAR). The current submission would thus be the defining instance of the charge, and we need to see evidence of its use in period before allowing its registration. We will defer any discussion of its difference versus an ordinary chevron until its validity as a period charge has been demonstrated. (Vladimir Heraldsson, October, 1993, pg. 15)

CHIEF

This is the correct placement of an orle with a chief: the orle runs parallel to the edge of the chief, and is not surmounted by it. See the arms of the Worshipful Company of Musicians, used by them c.1590. (Bromley & Child, Armorial Bearings of the Guilds of London, p.180). (Guillaume de la Rapière, August, 1992, pg. 4)

[Per pale, a harp and a cross of four lozenges, a chief embattled] The chief was a mark of primary cadency in period (Gayre's Heraldic Cadency, p.153), and it became part of the Stodart system of cadency used today in Scotland. Thus, the addition of a chief to quartered armory would not remove the appearance of marshalling. However, the chief's use as a brisure was never as widespread as the bordure's; where the bordure would be used to cadence all forms of marshalling, the chief would only be used to cadence quartering. In the case of impalement --- which implies a marital coat, not an inherited one --- the addition of the chief is sufficient to remove the appearance of marshalling. (Æthelstan von Ransbergen, September, 1992, pg. 1)

[Argent maily sable, on a chief a scroll charged with quill pens] This was blazoned on the LOI as [Per fess, in chief on an scroll quill pens]. However, the full emblazon didn't quite show a Per fess division, but rather a charged chief. The quill pens are therefore quaternary charges, which are disallowed per Rule VIII.1.c.ii.

The distinction between, say, Argent, a chief gules and Per fess gules and argent was not often observed in early heraldry; indeed, the first examples of Per-fess emblazons were blazoned a chief. (See Wagner's Historic Heraldry of Britain, plate II, for such an example.) However, the distinction was observed by the mid-15th Century, and is observed in the SCA. This may make it easier for us to avoid conflict, but it also requires us to insist on correct emblazons. If this is resubmitted with an undoubted Per fess field, there should be no stylistic problems. (August Kroll, September, 1992, pg. 37)

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)

[Three piles and in base a <charge>] There was some question as to whether this could be considered a chief indented. Roger Pye, in a series of articles ("Evolution of the Arms of Douglas of Lochleven", Coat of Arms, N.S. vol.III No.107, Autumn 78; "Development of the Pile in Certain Graham Arms", Coat of Arms, N.S. vol.III No.110, Summer 79), has shown that the indented chief in some Scots arms came to be drawn as three piles palewise, as in this submission. However, the earliest example he cites of such a variation dates from 1672, which puts it beyond our use. If this were resubmitted with a true chief indented, it would probably be acceptable; but I can't see any way to register this with piles, so long as there's a charge in base. (Içiar Albarez de Montesinos, January, 1993, pg. 28)

[A chief Or vs. On a chief double enarched Or, three mullets] There is clearly a CD for the addition of the mullets, but is the double arching of the chief worth a second CD? It has been previously ruled that there is not a CD between a chief singly arched and a plain chief: "the arching here is virtually identical to that shown on period renditions of a plain chief and adds almost no visual difference" (AMoE, LoAR 19 March 1988, p. 12)

Chiefs double arched have been acceptable in the S.C.A. for over twelve years. According to J.P. Brooke- Little, the first use of this line of partition seems to have been in 1806 in a grant to William Proctor Smith: Gules, on a chief double arched Or, three trefoils proper. (Fox-Davies, A Complete Guide to Heraldry, 1969 revision, footnote, p. 75) Therefore, there is no period evidence upon which to base a decision. However, from this example, we can infer that nineteenth century heralds viewed double arching to be different from a straight line of partition; at least a blazonable difference.

From a visual perspective, single arching has been used to give representation to the curvature of a shield, especially with bends. Double arching does not appear to be an artistic method of denoting curvature. It involves a distinct action in the drawing of the line of partition in the same way as bevilling. This makes it one step removed from a plain line of partition. Therefore, we feel a clear difference can be counted between a chief plain and a chief double arched. (Richard Stanley Greybeard, September, 1993, pg. 13)

[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)

CHOBAN (Japanese Gong)

I consider the choban [Japanese gong] to be distinct from an escallop, certainly enough to be worth a CD of difference. (Roberto de Jerez, November, 1992, pg. 9)

CLEAVER

As drawn, the charge was not identifiable as a cleaver. Various guesses, by commenters and Laurel's staff, included crescent wrench, half-eaten ice cream stick, plastic oil can, and a spout from a gasoline hose. If it can't be identified, it can't be used as an heraldic charge.

Most of the cleavers shown in period documents (including Jost Amman's Ständebuch, cited in the LOI) have a massive, square blade. The sole exception was the submitter's source, Workers in the Mendel Housebook by the Nuremburg Masters, c.1436: it showed a cleaver similar (though not identical) to that in this submission. However, the documented cleaver had a proportionately broader blade, with a smaller notch, than the submitted emblazon; and we note that even a misshapen cleaver is more readily identified when shown in a butcher's hand, in the process of hacking meat.

We suggest the submitter use a more standard form of cleaver when he resubmits. (Erich Küchengehilfe, May, 1993, pg. 16)

CLOTHING

We would grant a CD between a fool's cap and most other types of hat (Catherine the Merry, May, 1993, pg. 11)

COILED MATCH

The consensus of the College was that a coiled match is visually too similar to an annulet to grant a CD between the two. (Kazimir Petrovich Pomeshanov, September, 1992, pg. 40)

COINS

In period, coins could be depicted in one of several ways. Plain bezants originally represented Byzantine gold pieces; bezants charged with crosses couped were a more exact representation, used in the arms of the Latin Kingdom of Constantinople c.1275. (Brault's Early Blazon, p.160) Finally, there's an example in late-period English armory of penny-yard pence proper (in the canting arms of Spence); these had cruciform designs stamped on them, without being explicitly blazoned. The pattern on the pence is considered detailing, of no more heraldic import than diapering. (Ian Cnulle, August, 1992, pg. 22)

COMET

We can see granting a CD between a comet and a mullet. This therefore does not suffer from the stylistic problem of using the same charge in both the semy and the primary groups. (Barony of Three Mountains, January, 1993, pg. 3)

[A comet bendwise sinister, head to chief] This had been returned on the LoAR of May 92 for conflict with the arms of [an eight-pointed estoile]. The submitter has appealed this decision, arguing that (a) estoiles and comets are separate charges, so Rule X.2 should apply here; and that (b) even if X.2 doesn't apply, there should be a CD for type of charge and a CD for placement on the field. (Honsard's estoile is centered on the shield, while the submitter's comet has its head in sinister chief.)

On the first point, I find no evidence that an estoile and a comet are so distinct charges as to permit Rule X.2, the Sufficient Difference Rule, to apply between them. All my sources define the comet as a modified estoile: an estoile with a flaming tail appended. ( Parker 130; Woodward 310; Franklyn & Tanner 82) Indeed, Lord Crescent notes examples from Papworth suggesting that the change from estoile to comet is a single cadency step: e.g. Waldock (Or, an estoile flaming [i.e. a comet] sable) and Waldeck (Or, an eight-pointed estoile sable). I am willing to grant a CD between the two charges, but I cannot see granting Sufficient Difference between them.

On the second point, the submitter overlooks the fact that, if we elongate the charge, parts of it must be displaced; that's included in the definition of elongation. One cannot count one CD for the first change, and another CD for the second: the second follows automatically from the first. It's analogous to the change between, say, a compass star and a compass star elongated to base, or a Greek cross and a Latin cross. So long as both charges are drawn to fill the available space, the change in type (from symmetrical to elongated) cannot also be counted as a change in placement. (Styvyn Longshanks, January, 1993, pg. 34)

There's [not a CD] for comet vs. mullet elongated to base. [charge actually attempted was a compass star elongated to base] (Ysmay de Chaldon, September, 1993, pg. 20)

COMPASS STAR

[Per chevron inverted, three compass stars one and two] The charge in chief was blazoned a compass star elongated to base in the LOI. The full emblazon showed only a slight elongation, well within the variation permitted for a charge filling the available space; we have left it unblazoned. Were the [compass star] significantly elongated (enough to mandate mention in the blazon), this would have to be returned for using two almost-but-not-quite-identical charges. (Angeline Aldwyne, September, 1992, pg. 2)

[A mullet vs. a compass star] Prior rulings on this point were a bit ambiguous, but in general, when there's a small change (5 vs. 6) in the number of points, we grant no difference for type of mullet --- and we do grant difference when there's a large change (5 vs. 8 or more). In this case, we have a specific precedent (LoAR of Dec 89, p.30) granting a CD between mullet and compass star, which matches the general policy. ...Pending [new] evidence, I will continue the current policy. (Steven of Mountain's Gate, September, 1992, pg. 35)

[A compass star and overall a lion's head cabossed] As drawn, the compass star is almost completely obscured by the lion's head, rendering it unidentifiable. Charges must be drawn so as to be recognizable, per Rule VIII.3. Visually, the star's rays blend with the lion's mane, making it almost a sun in splendour Or; as such, it's very close to [a charged sun].

Some of the commentary mentioned possible conflict between this "irradiated lion's face" and a lion's face jessant-de-lys --- e.g. [a leopard's head jessant a fleur-de-lys]. I believe there's a visible difference between the straight rays shown here and a fleur-de-lys' curved petals. (Tirlach Kinsella, September, 1992, pg. 44)

There's ...no difference between suns and multi-pointed mullets --- which includes compass stars. (Friedrich von Rabenstein, June, 1993, pg. 18)

We grant no difference between a compass star and a rivenstar, and no difference between a compass star and a sun. (Jacques Gilbert de Gascogne, September, 1993, pg. 23)

[A garden rose slipped and leaved and on a chief three garden rosebuds] There is a longstanding policy that one may not use two close variants of the same charge in one design. It creates visual confusion, where the whole purpose of heraldry is instant identification. The almost-but-not-quite identical charges need not be a single group; this is not related to our ban on "slot-machine heraldry." (We wouldn't allow, for example, a sun between three compass stars either.) If there's not a CD between the two charges, they should not be used together in the same design. (Joanna d'Oléron, September, 1993, pg. 24)

We grant no difference between mullets of six points and compass stars, nor between compass stars and suns, so all three are considered as variations on the same charge. Using them all in a single device is not acceptable style. (Isabella Julietta Diego y Vega, October, 1993, pg. 19)

COMPONY and COUNTER-COMPONY

[Per pale, a pale compony counterchanged] The use of a compony ordinary that shares a tincture with its field has been disallowed since at least the LoAR of July 85; the precedent was confirmed Sept 87, April 89, and Aug 90. This submission is an excellent illustration of the reason for the ban: the visual appearance is not of a pale, but of a group of billets straddling the field division. The lack of identifiability is sufficient reason for return. We suggest making the pale a solid tincture. (Darius of Jaxartes, August, 1993, pg. 20)

CONTRAST

[Checky Or and gules, a <beast> maintaining a <charge> Or] The Or <charge> has insufficient contrast against the (partially) Or field. While maintained charges aren't as strictly bound by the Rule of Contrast as other charges, they still can't share a tincture with the field (v. Phillippa MacCallum, Sept 88). [See also Luke of Caerleon, November 1992 LoAR, pg. 16 and Eleri Langdoun, March 1993 LoAR, pg. 23] (Tanarian Brenaur ferch Owain fab Bran, October, 1992, pg. 33)

[A brock's head cabossed vert marked sable] The markings on the badger are considered artistic license, worth no difference: for conflict purposes, the head is mostly vert. The markings aren't considered a violation of the Rule of Contrast, any more than A brock's head per pale vert and sable would break contrast. (Brocc of the Isles, May, 1993, pg. 6)

[On a <charge> argent, three infants swaddled azure, heads proper] The infants' bodies are swaddled in blue, with only their heads showing. The charge is often found in medieval armory; and the contrast in this case is acceptable. (Michaela Nuernberger, June, 1993, pg. 4)

[Party of six pieces gules and Or, three <charges> Or and a chief sable] The addition of the chief removes the conflict from the previous return. However, there's now a lack of contrast between the sable chief and the field. The field is equally gules and Or, and technically neutral with respect to contrast --- for charges that are equally supported by the gules and Or traits. A centrally placed sable charge, or a sable bordure, would have sufficient contrast; but a sable chief might not. (The problem is not unique to this field division: Per bend gules and Or is a neutral field, but Per bend gules and Or, a chief sable still suffers a lack of contrast.)

In this case, the chief's contrast is exactly the same as with a hypothetical Gules, a pale Or and a chief sable. We would return the latter, were it submitted; we must likewise return this. The client might consider counterchanging the tinctures of the field, or using a bordure. (Geoffrey Peal (Laeghaire ua'Laverty), June, 1993, pg. 18)

[A tree trunk couped azure, its top bound by a chain sable] The sable chain has insufficient contrast on the azure trunk. While artistic details are not as strictly bound by the Rule of Tincture as are primary charges, this submission still does not permit ready identification of all its charges. (Dofinn-Hallr Morrisson, August, 1993, pg. 18)

CORNUCOPIA

Cornucopiae, by definition, are horns of plenty; an empty cornucopia is an oxymoron. (Giovanna di Piacensa, August, 1992, pg. 20)

COTISES

Cotises should not be as wide as the ordinary they surround; their visual weight, as secondaries, should be much less than the primary's. (Gareth of Wyke, July, 1992, pg. 12)

Cotises follow the line of their central ordinary by default; thus a bend wavy cotised will have wavy cotises, parallel to the wavy bend (Custodia de Montemor, September, 1992, pg. 30)

[Gules, on a bend sinister cotised Or, a fox sable] Against [Gules, on a bend sinister cotised argent, a fox gules,] there's a CD for the tincture of the bend, and (since they're considered a group of secondary charges) another for the tincture of the cotises [device returned for differenct conflict]. (Louisa Reynell, January, 1993, pg. 34)

COTTON HANK

[Knots of four loops and four tassels vs. cotton hanks] After looking at the examples of cotton hanks in Parker and Elvin, I've decided there is a CD between them and [the submitter's] knots of four loops and four tassels: even assuming the hanks were drawn with their loops slightly separate, Rowan's knots could be considered equivalent to "demi-hanks". (Rowan O Curry, August, 1993, pg. 4)

COUNTERCHANGING

[Per saltire gules and sable, a saltire counterchanged, fimbriated argent] Much of the commentary opposed this submission, as over-complex and having insufficient contrast. However, it's acceptable by both period and SCA standards: period, as illustrated by the arms of Say, c. 1586 (Per pale azure and gules, three chevronels counterchanged, fimbriated argent); SCA, as illustrated by the acceptance of Tristan Blackmoor of Darkwoods, April 92 (Per bend sinister gules and sable, a bend sinister counterchanged, fimbriated argent). This submission meets the same standards of simplicity: an ordinary, no complex lines, straight counterchanging, a choice of colors that (for two dark tinctures) maximizes visibility, and no other charges (or even types of charges) in the design.

Moreover, if necessary, this could be reblazoned "Per saltire gules and sable, a saltire argent charged with another per saltire sable and gules;" by that blazon, this would have raised far fewer objections. We opted for the more elegant blazon. [See also David van den Storm, Nov. 1992 LoAR, pg. 2] (Nesta Gwilt, June, 1992, pg. 2)

There are a few period examples of overall charges counterchanged: e.g. Alwell, c.1586, Argent, a pile sable, overall a chevron counterchanged. These examples all seem to use ordinaries surmounting ordinaries. I am perfectly willing to permit overall charges in the SCA to be counterchanged, so long as they too are ordinaries (or charges of similar simplicity, such as roundels). [see also Aaron of Hameldene, July, 1992 LoAR, pg. 20] (Kendric of Black Water., July, 1992, pg. 13)

[Per pale and per chevron purpure and argent, three roses counterchanged] Visual conflict with [Per pale and per chevron azure and argent, three roses counterchanged]. Though we concede sufficient technical difference, the consensus of those at the Laurel meeting was that the two were too similar. Some attributed it to the similarity of blue and purple, others to the identical complex patterns of light and dark; but all agreed that the visual similarity overrode the CDs for field and charge tincture. (Grainne of Starmount, January, 1993, pg. 33)

A complex charge such as a laurel wreath cannot be counterchanged over an ordinary. This was last reaffirmed with the submission of the Shire of Blackmoor Keep (LoAR of Oct 92). (Shire of Turmstadt, October, 1993, pg. 16)

CRESCENT

[Per pale, a decrescent and an increscent] The consensus seems to be that this is not impaled armory; it's no different than, say, two beasts combattant on the same field (Eirikr Fence Splitter, August, 1992, pg. 8)

CRESTS

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)

The use of astrological glyphs heraldically in period can be seen on the crest of Bull, watchmaker to Queen Elizabeth I: On a wreath argent and gules, a cloud proper, thereon a celestial sphere azure, with the circles or; on the zodiac the signs of Aries, Taurus, Gemini, and Cancer (Parker, A Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry, p. 547). It has long been the College's policy to allow the use of elements from crests and supporters, if period usage is documented, as charges for SCA armory although there is no documentation of their use as charges in period armory (cf. yales). (Cadell ap Hubert, September, 1993, pg. 11)

CROSS

[A pair of angles fesswise interlaced in pale vs. a chevronel interlaced with another inverted] [There is a CD] for ...type of "chevronel" --- just as there's a CD between a cross (throughout) and a cross annuletted. (September, 1992, pg. 33)

[Three crosses crosslet fitchy vs. three crosses botonny] There's ...no difference for fitching the crosses, and no difference for crosslet vs. botonny. (Geoffroi de la Marche, September, 1992, pg. 39)

[A Celtic cross vs. a Celtic cross equal-armed, quarterly pierced and throughout] There is no heraldic difference for the charge being throughout, or not. However, there's a CD ...for the quarter-piercing, which is visually equivalent to adding a tertiary delf. (Toirrdelbach Ua Máel Doraid, October, 1992, pg. 16)

[A Maltese star cross] While SCA-variant charges are often considered acceptable ("period-compatible", as it were), we draw the line at variants of SCA-variants. This submission is a case in point: the star-cross is a Society invention, unattested in medieval armory. While it's still acceptable for SCA use, variations of it are two steps removed from medieval armory, which is an unacceptably broad leap of faith. Without evidence of period compatibility, the Maltese star-cross is unacceptable [see also Elgar of Stonehaven, January 1993 LoAR, pg. 23]. (Elgar of Stonehaven, November, 1992, pg. 14)

We can certainly see granting a CD between a cross moline and a cross patonce. (Dyryke Raleigh, November, 1992, pg. 19)

[On an amphora azure, a crux stellata argent] Lords Hund and Crux Australis had protested this badge when it was previously submitted, and have done so again for the current submission. They feel this infringes on the flag of the Eureka Stockade rebellion of 1854: Azure, a crux stellata argent. The Eureka rebellion was evidently a turning point in Australian history, and our Lochac colleagues opine that the motif itself is uniquely associated with it.

I sympathize with their concerns; but I can neither agree with their arguments of exclusivity nor consider this an infringement on the Eureka flag.

The argument for exclusivity --- that the motif of a white crux stellata on a blue background is uniquely associated with the Eureka Stockade --- is weakened by Crux Australis' citations of its use by modern Australian trade unions and the Australian Republican movement, and by Hund's citation of its use by the Australian Army Pay Corps. With so many Australian institutions using the motif, it can be considered no more exclusive than, say, a black swan naiant on a gold background (the badge of Western Australia).

Arguments for infringement or presumption require us to consider the amphora (or, for the other Southkeep badge submitted on this LOI, the tower) as a medium for heraldic display --- equivalent to an escutcheon, a lozenge, or a ship's sail. No evidence has been presented to support such a radical change in our policy. We didn't consider a hand argent charged with a rose gules, registered to Eglentyne Merryweather last month, to be a display of the arms of the Princes of Lippe (Argent, a rose gules); we didn't consider a crescent per fess gules and sable, charged [with] a fess argent, registered to Yngvar the Dismal in June 92, to be a display of the flag of the Pan-Arab Union of 1917 (Per fess gules and sable, a fess argent).

Many other examples could be found in the A&O of mundane armory "displayed" on some charge: an escallop, an eagle, whatever. Those charges, and the vast majority of charges, are not considered oddly-shaped shields; when bearing tertiary charges, they do not become displays of arms with the tertiaries seen as primaries. To do otherwise is to effectively ban the use of tertiary charges.

If An amphora argent charged with a fleur-de-lys gules doesn't infringe on the arms of the city of Florence, then the current submission cannot infringe on the flag of the Eureka Stockade rebellion. Our policy doesn't disparage this symbol from Australian history; rather, we set it on the same level of protection as any other armory. [Badge pended for missing a blazon]. (Southkeep Brewers and Vintners Guild (Shire of Southkeep), December, 1992, pg. 23)

The Norse sun cross had at one time been treated as an alphanumeric symbol (that of the planet Earth), and so unacceptable for use in SCA devices. Under the current Rules, such symbols are now acceptable; indeed, a Norse sun cross was registered to Etain MacDhomhnuill on the LoAR of April 90. (Kenneth MacQuarrie of Tobermory, January, 1993, pg. 12)

[A Maltese star cross] This conflicts with [a snowflake]. The visual similarity between the Maltese star cross and a snowflake is too large to ignore. It also conflicts with [six sets of arrow fletchings in annulo, points conjoined]. Again, the visual similarity is too great to permit a CD to be granted. (Elgar of Stonehaven, January, 1993, pg. 23)

[A cross swallowtailed] I'd grant a CD between this cross and a cross flory or a cross patonce (which were considered the same charge by medieval heralds). I might not have granted difference against a Maltese cross or a cross fourchy, but no conflicts were cited containing such crosses. (Donata Ivanovna Basistova, March, 1993, pg. 17)

[A cross "formy convexed"] This badge had been returned on the LoAR of May 92 for lack of documentation on the type of cross. (It had been blazoned in the previous submission as a cross formy globate, which term we couldn't find in any of our references.) The submitter has appealed that return, providing evidence of this cross as an artistic motif on a suit of armor c.1630. The term "convexed", referring to the bulge of the outer edges of the cross's limbs, is documented in Elvin's Dictionary of Heraldry.

Unfortunately, my main concerns about this cross remain unaddressed. It's not readily blazonable: as drawn, it resembles a roundel with four semi-elliptical notches, not a variant of a cross formy. It's been documented only to within our 50-year "grey area", and only as an artistic motif, not an heraldic charge. The only terms that adequately describe it are found in a 19th Century work, compiled by an author whose lack of scholarship is legend. I simply have no grounds for believing this cross to be compatible with period heraldic style.

This cross has been submitted before, and returned for the above reasons; v. Jamys Ellyn Rothesay of Bannatyne Hall, LoAR of Sept 92, p.49. I'm tempted, I admit, to simply give the cross its own SCA name. (In the immortal words of Baldwin of Erebor, "Spring is in the air, and the fit is upon me; let me name but one cross before I die!") But this would do no service to the heralds and scribes who will follow us; we need some assurance that any blazon we devised would be reconstructable. In this case, at the very least we'd need to find this cross mentioned by name in some accessible reference. Failing that, or better evidence that it's a period motif, I must continue to return it. (Stanislaw Jan Ossolinski, March, 1993, pg. 28)

[Four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center] The previous return (LoAR of Sept 91) determined that there was not Sufficient Difference between this arrangement of fleurs-de-lys and a cross flory. Had it been intended that the difference be negligible, however, I suspect the then-Laurel would have come out and said so. I believe there is a CD for type of primary charge group in this case. (Cara Michelle DuValier, August, 1993, pg. 6)

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)

Table of Contents