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

The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme


FEATHER


[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)


A peacock feather proper is mostly green, with an iridescent roundel near the end. This is therefore [a CD from] A feather azure. (Alena Vladimirovna, September, 1993, pg. 6)


FESS and BAR


[A wall vs. a fess embattled] A wall is defined to be a fess embattled and masoned; and as with all charges of stonework, the masoning is an artistic detail worth no difference. Siebmacher gives several examples of related families using either a fess embattled or a wall, where the only difference was masoned diapering. We might grant the addition of masoning as worth a CD, for any charge except a stonework edifice. (Zacharia of Westlake, August, 1992, pg. 31)


The difference between a fess embattled (top edge only) and a fess counter-embattled (both edges) is as great as that between a fess embattled and a plain fess [i.e. worth a CD]. (Lothar Freund, July, 1993, pg. 10)


[ Per fess wavy azure and barry wavy Or and azure, two scythes in saltire argent] ...although the LOI blazoned this again as a per fess field with a wavy bar in base, the visual effect is still of a per fess azure and barry wavy field. It was not unusual for barry or paly fields in period to be drawn with an odd number of traits (which we'd blazon as bars or palets); see, for example, the arms of Mouton (Multon, Moleton) found both as Barry argent and gules and Argent, three bars gules ( Dictionary of British Arms, pp 59, 88; Foster, p. 145). The distinction is even less noticeable when covering only a portion of the shield, as here; see, for example, the arms of von Rosenberg, whose Per fess field has in base either three bends or bendy depending upon the artist's whim (Siebmacher, p. 8; Neubecker and Rentzmann, p. 290). Even when the distiction is worth blazoning, it's worth no difference.

This remains a conflict with [Gules, two scythes in saltire argent] (Aidan Aileran O'Comhraidhe, September, 1993, pg. 18)


We grant no difference between argent, three bars wavy azure and barry wavy argent and azure. (Anne Elaina of River's Bend, October, 1993, pg. 15)


FIELD DIVISION -- General


[Per pall inverted arrondi [or schne] a threaded needle inverted bendwise, the needle extending to cover about half the distance possible] As drawn, the needle is completely unidentifiable. It is far too small for the available space; while this normally requires only an admonition to "Draw the charge larger", the flaw is fatal on this field. (Even a correctly-sized needle would be hard pressed to be identified on a field per pall inverted arrondi; the curved lines of the field and thread, and the thinness of the needle, combine to cause confusion rather than clarity.)

If the needle were drawn larger, this might be acceptable; but the submitter would be better advised to choose another field as well. (Hannah Graham, September, 1992, pg. 45)


[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. It appears to have been considered a field division from its invention, mid-15th Century, to the end of our period: the arms of the Worshipful Company of Girdlers, granted 1454, were blazoned on the grant as a schucheon of .vi. pointes of Azure & gold with .iii. greydyron [gridirons] of that same, while the arms of Thomas Cromwell, Earl of Essex, were given in the Parliamentary Roll of 1540 as Party of six pieces or and gules three fleurs de lys azure and three pelicans or. It wasn't until Bossewell's Armorie of 1572 that the field began to be blazoned as a counterchanged pale --- and Bossewell makes clear that this is an alternate blazon, not the recommended style. The "official" blazon is still as a six-parted field: "Partie per fesse, countercolored in 6. quarters ...and the same I do commende, for that he which used hys blazon was an Heraulte, and wel learned in theire mysteries."

With such documentation in hand, I have little choice but to count this a conflict with Swymmer, cited in the LOI ( Papworth 181): [Gules, three bells]. There's a single CD, for the field.

There was some feeling that the College has a long-standing tradition of regarding this as a counterchanged pale, not a field. I couldn't find any precedent or ruling supporting such a tradition. Quite the contrary: our policy is that we register the emblazon, not the blazon, and a conflict found under any valid blazon is a real conflict. We try not to equate charges with field divisions, but occasionally we must -- witness how often we must call conflict between a pile and Chaussé --- and based on the new research presented, this is such a case. Any change that would distinguish this as a counterchanged pale (e.g. tincture, complex line) would bring this clear of Swymmer; so would reversing the field's tinctures, which would put the bells 1 & 2. (Laeghaire ua'Laverty, October, 1992, pg. 25)


Counterchanging a vair field isn't an acceptable practice: there is no heraldic difference between vair and "vair counterchanged", and the result is as visually indistinct as, say, Per pale checky Or and gules, and checky gules and Or. In each case, except for a discontinuity in the center of the shield, from any distance it looks likea single field. (Richard Foxcroft, December, 1992, pg. 18)


[A thistle per chevron throughout purpure and vert] The division of the thistle could not be identified as such by the heralds at Laurel's meeting. On such an irregular shape as a thistle, any division must be exceptionally simple to be recognized. Per pale might have been acceptable; Per chevron, where the line must cross the empty space between the leaves and the blossom, is not. (Fionna Goodburne, December, 1992, pg. 19)


[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)


FIELD DIVISION -- Gyronny


Gyronny of ten is symmetric around the horizontal line, not the vertical line. (Iestyn ap Cadfael ap Ianto ap Danno ap Richard ap Owen ap Rhys o'r Cwm, September, 1992, pg. 33)


There are period examples of gyronny fields, where alternating gyrons were charged: e.g. the arms of Stoker, Lord Mayor of London in 1484, Gyronny of six azure and argent, each argent gyron charged with a popinjay proper. (Ginevra d'Altieri, October, 1992, pg. 9)


In Society heraldry, while fields may be gyronny of as many as 12, charges may be gyronny of no more than 8. (LoAR of 22 March 83) (Katrine Vanora of Maidstone, October, 1992, pg. 26)


In one of the March submissions (Wulfgar der Krieger [pg. 15]), I've ruled that gyronny of six palewise will no longer be permitted (after the standard four-month grace period, of course). Parker, p.301, states that gyronny of six should be symmetric around the horizontal axis, not the vertical axis; and this is borne out by such period examples as I've been able to uncover. Gyronny of six palewise is purely an SCA term for what is, as far as I can tell, a non-period rendition of the field. I can usually manage to reblazon it Per pale and per saltire; but sometimes (as with Wulfgar's submission) there's no way to reblazon it. I would prefer to see correct emblazons for this field, rather than have to resort to circuitous or torturous reblazon. If someone can provide evidence that gyronny of six palewise was used in period armory, I will continue to accept it; failing such evidence, I will begin returning it at the Oct 93 meeting. (8 May, 1993 Cover Letter (March, 1993 LoAR), pg. 3)


We grant no difference between Gyronny of six and Gyronny of eight, any more than we would for barry or bendy of those numbers. (Frithiof Sigvardsson Skägge, May, 1993, pg. 17)


[Sionan Padraig Caimbeul, Per pale gyronny sable and Or, and gyronny Or and sable, on a chief triangular argent <charge>] The device does not appear to be correct medieval style. The use of the two gyronny divisions is visually confusing here, with the sinister division being the counterchange of the dexter division.

Moreover, the only examples we've seen of multiple gyronny divisions in one device involved marshalling. Were this considered a marshalled coat --- and the fact that the Campbell (Caimbeul) arms are Gyronny sable and Or suggests this was the submitter's intent --- it would be returnable on those grounds alone. It's true that a charged chief may, in most cases, remove the appearance of impalement; but simultaneously, the use of Campbell armory with the name Caimbeul reinforces that appearance. For either reason, this must be returned. (Sionan Padraig Caimbeul, July, 1993, pg. 12)


FIELD DIVISION -- Lozengy


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)


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)


FIELD DIVISION -- Paly


[Purpure, three palets Or, overall two flaunches] We were tempted to blazon this as Paly purpure and Or, two flaunches That's the visual effect of the traits' regular widths and the overall charges. There are instances of period arms blazoned and emblazoned, interchangeably, as paly and three palets: cf. the armory of Valoines found in Foster, p.196. Certainly, we grant no heraldic difference between the two renditions. The above blazon does more accurately describe the submitted emblazon, however. (Eleonora Vittoria Alberti di Calabria, December, 1992, pg. 8)


FIELD DIVISION -- Per Chevron


[Per chevron Or and azure, a pall inverted between three <charges> counterchanged] The previous submission (Per chevron inverted sable and Or, a pall counterchanged Or and gules between in chief a bezant charged with a cross formy fitchy at the foot, and in base two crosses formy fitchy at the foot gules, each within an annulet sable) was returned Sept 83 for over-complexity and non-period style. Laurel suggested at the time that the submitter "Please use a simple pall gules", implying that the counterchanging of the pall over the field division was part of the non-period style.

This resubmission, though greatly simplified, still has a pall (this time inverted) counterchanged over a Per chevron field division. We have in the past registered solidly-tinctured palls inverted over Per chevron divisions (or the same motif inverted); the pall is then understood to overlie the line of the field. The same understanding cannot apply when the pall is counterchanged: the line of the field could legally be under the center of the pall, under one of its edges, or even extending beyond the pall on the other side.

Moreover, the visual effect is that of a pall inverted (the lower limbs narrower than that in chief) and a point pointed azure, all on an Or field. The visual confusion, combined with the problems of reproducibility, combine to make this motif unacceptable. (Allen of Moffat, June, 1993, pp. 20-21)


FIELD DIVISION -- Per Chevron Inverted


[Per chevron inverted, three piles in point, pile ending in the upper section] Piles are properly drawn throughout, or nearly so; they would not come to a point at the point of the field division, as here. If [the submittor] drew this with the piles crossing the line of division, it would be acceptable; or [the submittor] might try [chassé, three piles], etc. (Elwin Dearborn, August, 1992, pg. 31)


FIELD DIVISION -- Per Fess


[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)


[Per fess enarched sable and gules, a <charge>] Two-color fields with complex lines of division should not have charges overlying them, per Rule VIII.3. The enarched line is considered a complex line in SCA armory, though no difference is granted between it and an untreated (straight) line. (Arthur Bromere, December, 1992, pg. 16)


FIELD DIVISION -- Per Pale


[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)


[Per fess paly azure and argent, and argent] The upper portion of the device was blazoned on the LOI as four pallets argent on an azure background. Visually, however, this is a striped field partition; and that impression is reinforced by the fact that it occupies only one portion of a Per fess field. There is certainly no heraldic difference between the two blazons; and multiply-divided fields were occasionally drawn with an odd number of traits for aesthetic reasons. (St.John-Hope, Heraldry for Craftsmen and Designers, p.49). (Leidhrún Leidólfsdóttir, September, 1992, pg. 10)


[Sionan Padraig Caimbeul, Per pale gyronny sable and Or, and gyronny Or and sable, on a chief triangular argent <charge>] The device does not appear to be correct medieval style. The use of the two gyronny divisions is visually confusing here, with the sinister division being the counterchange of the dexter division.

Moreover, the only examples we've seen of multiple gyronny divisions in one device involved marshalling. Were this considered a marshalled coat --- and the fact that the Campbell (Caimbeul) arms are Gyronny sable and Or suggests this was the submitter's intent --- it would be returnable on those grounds alone. It's true that a charged chief may, in most cases, remove the appearance of impalement; but simultaneously, the use of Campbell armory with the name Caimbeul reinforces that appearance. For either reason, this must be returned. (Sionan Padraig Caimbeul, July, 1993, pg. 12)


FIELD DIVISION -- Quarterly


[Quarterly counter-ermine and argent, in bend sinister two pairs of annulets interlaced bendwise sinister gules] The quarterly field division must be used carefully, to avoid the appearance of marshalled armory. Rule XI.3 sets out what designs will appear to be marshalled: the use of more than one charge per quarter is unacceptable in this context. This must be returned. If he used a single annulet in each argent quarter, or a group of two linked annulets overlying the line of division, it would be acceptable (assuming no conflicts). (Tristan of Landhelm, September, 1993, pg. 21)


FIELD DIVISION -- Vairy


[Per bend sinister counter-vairy gules and Or and counter-vairy sable and Or, a dragonfly ermine] The field, though visually complex, is the same as that used on his previous return ...and no objection was raised at that time. Moreover, there are a few period examples of multiply-parted fields of three tinctures: e.g. the arms of von Hohenegk ( Siebmacher, plate 35), Checky sable, argent, sable and gules, a canton Or. So, for a design this simple, this field is not unreasonable. (Ilya Vsevolod Fominich., September, 1992, pg. 25)


Counterchanging a vair field isn't an acceptable practice: there is no heraldic difference between vair and "vair counterchanged", and the result is as visually indistinct as, say, Per pale checky Or and gules, and checky gules and Or. In each case, except for a discontinuity in the center of the shield, from any distance it looks likea single field. (Richard Foxcroft, December, 1992, pg. 18)


We grant no difference for the artistic distinctions among the vair-type furs. That is, no difference for vair vs. vair ancient (indeed, we don't even blazon this, leaving it to the artist), no difference for vair vs. potent, no difference for vair in pale vs vair in point vs. counter-vair, etc. (Aedhán Brecc, March, 1993, pg. 25)


It was announced in the cover letter of the July 93 LoAR that vair is vair, whether drawn in an earlier, undulating style or in a late-period, angular form; the difference is purely artistic, and shouldn't even merit mention in the blazon. This has raised a question from some commenters as to which varieties of vair we should blazon, and why.

Well, there are certainly some varieties of vair we've never blazoned: vair en pal, for instance, is a valid period rendition of plain vair that acquired its own name only in the 19th Century. That example provides us with the key: we should recognize only those varieties of vair that period heralds recognized. That excludes, e.g., vair en pal, vair ancient, and the German Gespaltenesfeh. Other varietal forms, however, were making their appearance toward the end of period; they should be acceptable, both as motifs and in blazon.

The first vair-variant seems to have been potent. Legh's Accidens of Armorie gives an illustration of a potent field, which he blazons meirre or varry cuppe, and attributes to the Spanish; Guillim's Display of Heraldrie follows Legh in this, but prefers the blazon potent counter-potent. Both the fur and the blazon are acceptable, then; and indeed, Guillim's illustration shows a field potent en point, which might give us some justification for the same arrangement applied to vair.

Vair en point makes an appearance in its own right, however, along with counter-vair. Both of these appear to be German variants; Leonhard's Grosse Buch der Wappenkunst blazons them as Wechselfeh "back-and-forth vair" and Sturzgegenfeh "falling-reversed vair", respectively. They first showed up in the early 17th Century, and managed to find actual use in French armory soon afterward: Baron's l'Art Heraldique cites the arms of Brotin, Contrevaire d'or et de gueules, and of Durant, Vair en pointe. We can consider them to have been used, and recognized by heralds, within our "grey area" of documentation --- if not explicitly from within period, then at the very least compatible with Society practice.

It is equally illuminating to observe the styles of vair that period heralds did not distinguish. Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry shows many artistic variations taken from period rolls: they range from the wavy "vair ancient" style to the tesselated "modern vair" --- with a broad spectrum in between. See the arms of Bruis, p.33, and of Marmion, p.137, for different artists' versions of the same armory: the stylizations of vair include one that resembles nipples, and another that could be reblazoned barry embattled. Sometimes, the same roll of arms will employ two different styles of vair: Siebmacher's Wappenbuch of 1605, for instance, gives examples of "modern vair" (in the arms of von Pappenheim, p.19) and "vair ancient" (in the arms of von Linsingen, p.182). A similar example, with several different styles of vair ("ancient", "modern", and "other") used in a single roll of arms c.1500, may be seen in Pastoreau's Traité d'Héraldique, p.293.

Some commenters have argued that the distinction between vair ancient and the more angular modern vair, though certainly worth no heraldic difference, should nonetheless be blazoned as a courtesy to the submitters --- just as we blazon shamrock vs. trefoil, or sword vs. scimitar. The latter terms, however, are all found in period; vair ancient is not, to the best of my knowledge (not even to the extent of being described in an heraldic tract as "vair as it was drawn in ancient times"). Given the absence of "vair ancient" from period blazons, given the equally varied styles of vair that weren't blazoned, and given the absurdity of a medievalist re-creation group having to specify "drawn in the medieval style" in a blazon (as silly as blazoning a lion drawn in the medieval style, not the modern naturalistic style), I find the tone of moral indignation in some of the recent commentary to be unjustified. Vair ancient should not be explicitly blazoned in the SCA if it was not so blazoned in period; it is exactly the sort of artistic detail that should be left to the artist. (30 November, 1993 Cover Letter (September, 1993 LoAR), pg. 3)


FIELD DIVISION -- Vêtu;


Vêtu fields should not have charges in the "vested" portions of the field --- and although this was blazoned on the LOI as a lozenge concave throughout, the latter two adjectives almost mandate this be considered a vêtu field. (Caelina Lærd Reisende, December, 1992, pg. 15)


FIELD ONLY ARMORY


[Bendy sinister and per bend gules and Or] Versus [Per bend Or and gules it was argued in the commentary that the addition of the bendy sinister lines resulted in one half of the field tinctures changing and therefore worth a CD. A similar argument can be made against [Bendy sinister Or and gules] that the counterchanging across the per bend line can be considered a tincture change of one half of the field and also worth a second CD. These arguments are fallacious since they assume tincture changes forced by a field division change are independent of the field change itself. A more obvious example is the change from Quarterly gules and Or to Per saltire gules and Or. In this case, one half of the field (alternating gyrons) changes tincture. Yet only one CD is given for the field change because the tincture change is necessitated by the division change. The only difference between this submission and the examples above are the complexity of the field divisions involved. For tincture changes to count as difference in field only submissions, one of the tinctures must be changed to a tincture not involved with the division change. (Cynthia of Oakenwode, September, 1993, pg. 23)


FIELD TREATMENT -- General


I am forced to conclude that fretty is an artistic variant of the fret, and therefore a single charge [and not a field treatment]. [For the full discussion, see under FRET] (10 November, 1992 Cover Letter (September, 1992 LoAR), pg. 4)


FIELD TREATMENT -- Masoned


[A wall vs. a fess embattled] A wall is defined to be a fess embattled and masoned; and as with all charges of stonework, the masoning is an artistic detail worth no difference. Siebmacher gives several examples of related families using either a fess embattled or a wall, where the only difference was masoned diapering. We might grant the addition of masoning as worth a CD, for any charge except a stonework edifice. (Zacharia of Westlake, August, 1992, pg. 31)


FIELD TREATMENT -- Semé


[Argent estencely, a cat couchant sable] Though visually similar, this is clear of the arms of Wither (Papworth 75), Ermine, a lion passant sable. There's a CD for posture; and I would grant a CD (at least) between ermine and argent estencely sable. (Though, to judge from the discussion in Brault's Early Blazon, no period difference would be granted between estencely and mullety or estoilly.) (Caitlin Decourcey Corbet, September, 1992, pg. 3)


[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)


[Semy of rams statant argent armed Or] The 1984 Rules for Submission did not permit semy charges to be fimbriated, proper, or of divided tinctures (IX.2). While that specific clause is not found in the current Rules, those usages remain poor style, and in extreme cases may be grounds for return under Rule VIII.3. The submitter would be well advised to use single-tinctured rams in her semy, when she resubmits [device returned for using a charged canton]. (Aurora Ashland of Woolhaven, January, 1993, pg. 25)


[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)


FIELD -- Ermined


[Argent estencely, a cat couchant sable] Though visually similar, this is clear of the arms of Wither (Papworth 75), Ermine, a lion passant sable. There's a CD for posture; and I would grant a CD (at least) between ermine and argent estencely sable. (Though, to judge from the discussion in Brault's Early Blazon, no period difference would be granted between estencely and mullety or estoilly.) (Caitlin Decourcey Corbet, September, 1992, pg. 3)


On an undivided field, there is a visible difference between Ermine (a field) and Argent, three ermine spots sable (a field with charges). [See also Edric Winterboren, same letter, pg. 31] (Donal Artur of the Silver Band, September, 1992, pg. 31)


[Counter-ermine] There was some debate as to whether the field should be blazoned Sable goutty d'eau inverted. However, examples have been produced showing this to be a valid depiction of ermine spots. It would probably be better, however, if the submitter could be introduced to more standard ermine stylizations. (Adnar Dionadair, October, 1992, pg. 11)


FIELD DIVISION -- Barry


[ Per fess wavy azure and barry wavy Or and azure, two scythes in saltire argent] ...although the LOI blazoned this again as a per fess field with a wavy bar in base, the visual effect is still of a per fess azure and barry wavy field. It was not unusual for barry or paly fields in period to be drawn with an odd number of traits (which we'd blazon as bars or palets); see, for example, the arms of Mouton (Multon, Moleton) found both as Barry argent and gules and Argent, three bars gules ( Dictionary of British Arms, pp 59, 88; Foster, p. 145). The distinction is even less noticeable when covering only a portion of the shield, as here; see, for example, the arms of von Rosenberg, whose Per fess field has in base either three bends or bendy depending upon the artist's whim (Siebmacher, p. 8; Neubecker and Rentzmann, p. 290). Even when the distiction is worth blazoning, it's worth no difference.

This remains a conflict with [Gules, two scythes in saltire argent] (Aidan Aileran O'Comhraidhe, September, 1993, pg. 18)


We grant no difference between argent, three bars wavy azure and barry wavy argent and azure. (Anne Elaina of River's Bend, October, 1993, pg. 15)


FIELD DIVISION -- Bendy


[Argent, four scarpes alternately gules and sable, on a chief <charges>] Though blazoned on the LOI as Bendy sinister argent and alternately gules and sable..., the full emblazon showed an argent field with four scarpes. Even considered as a Bendy sinister field, however, this is compatible with European armory. A period example may be found in the arms of von Schreibersdorf, c.1600 (Siebmacher, plate 166): Bendy argent, gules and sable. (Robin of Rhovanion, July, 1993, pg. 3)


FIELD DIVISION -- Chaussé


[Chaussé raguly] If we'd permit a pile raguly or Per chevron inverted raguly, we should permit this. (Thorfinn Bjarnarbrodir, September, 1992, pg. 23)


[Sable chausse argent, <charges> vs. Argent, on a pile sable, <different charges>] We grant no difference between a charged pile and a chausse field; there is at most a CD for the change of tertiary charges. (Elgar of Stonehaven, November, 1992, pg. 14)


FIMBRIATED and VOIDED CHARGES


[A pall Or fimbriated of flame vs. a pall Or] The complex fimbriation of the pall is worth no difference. (Theodric Alastair Wulfricson, August, 1992, pg. 29)


[A pall between <charges>] This conflicts with [a pall fimbriated of flame]. There's a CD for the secondary charges, but the fimbriation is worth no difference (Marian Loresinger, August, 1992, pg. 31)


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)


It seems to me that, if roundels and lozenges were voided in period, then charges of comparable simplicity may likewise be voided. Of course, this begs the question of defining "simplicity" for purposes of voiding. (Which definition differs entirely from that of "simple geometric charge" for Rule X.4.j.ii, or "simple armory" for X.2...)

The arguments presented in [the] submission provide a rule of thumb we can use. We consider voiding to have the same visual weight as adding a tertiary charge --- i.e. Sable, a cross Or voided gules and Sable, a cross Or charged with another gules are interchangeable blazons, yielding the same emblazon. This view is supported by period heraldic treatises: e.g. Guillim's Display of Heraldrie, 1632, in discussing chevrons voided, says "if you say voided onely, it is ever understood that the field sheweth thorow the middle part of the charge voided. If the middle part of this chevron were of a different metall, colour, or furre from the Field, then should you Blazon it thus: A Chevron engrailed Or, surmounted of another, of such or such colour."

We can use the equivalence between voiding and adding tertiaries to determine when voiding is acceptable: if the voided charge can be reblazoned as On a [charge], another --- that is, if the inner line and the outer line of the voided charge are geometrically similar --- then it's simple enough to void.

For instance, in the illustrations below, figure A could equally well be blazoned a delf voided or a delf charged with a delf; either blazon is correct for that picture. Figures B and C, on the other hand, are definitely a griffin's head voided and a griffin's head charged with another, respectively; the emblazons are quite dissimilar, and the inner line of figure B is not the shape of a griffin's head. The delf voided, then, is acceptable, but the griffin's head voided is not.

square within square head voided head on head
Fig. A Fig. B Fig. C

By this guideline, mullets, hearts and triangles are all simple enough to be voided or fimbriated. This is only a rule of thumb, of course, not an ironclad law, but it helps us decide a thorny question, it's consistent with how we (and some period heralds) view voiding, and it eliminates the need to collect reams of case law. I shall be employing it henceforth. (15 January, 1992 Cover Letter (November, 1992 LoAR), pp. 2-3)


[A flame voided argent vs. A flame voided Or] Voiding can be considered equivalent to adding a tertiary charge; [the first] submission can be equally well reblazoned On a flame another argent, and [the second] badge reblazoned On a flame another Or. By those blazons, the conflict is clearer: Rule X.4.j does not grant a CD for change of tertiary tincture alone. (Alicia Kyra Avelin, December, 1992, pg. 15)


[Four hearts voided conjoined in cross, points outward] Per the new outlines of acceptability for voiding (LoAR cover letter of 15 Jan 93), these hearts may be considered equivalent to four hearts conjoined in cross ..., each charged with a heart .. .--- and therefore registerable. (Ali abd ar-Rashid, January, 1993, pg. 1)


The keyhole is an accepted SCA charge. If we'd permit a keyhole charged with a keyhole, we should permit a keyhole voided. (College of Skeldergate, January, 1993, pg. 15)


Flames are an exception to the rule that complex charges cannot be voided: since a flame proper is defined in Society armory as "a flame Or voided gules" (on a dark field), by extension a "flame argent voided gules" should be equally acceptable. (Tegen Meanbh, January, 1993, pg. 21)


The 1984 Rules for Submission did not permit semy charges to be fimbriated, proper, or of divided tinctures (IX.2). While that specific clause is not found in the current Rules, those usages remain poor style, and in extreme cases may be grounds for return under Rule VIII.3. The submitter would be well advised to use single-tinctured rams in her semy, when she resubmits [device returned for using a charged canton]. (Aurora Ashland of Woolhaven, January, 1993, pg. 25)


Mullets of six or more points may be voided and interlaced (the Star of David, for instance, is perfectly acceptable). (Diego Mundoz, August, 1993, pg. 6)


[Per fess purpure and vert, a <charge> within a bordure argent charged with a tressure per fess purpure and vert, originally blazoned as an orle and a bordure] The submission caused us a few minutes of heartburn. The equal width of the outer three stripes, and the fact that the central stripe is of the field, gave this the appearance of a bordure voided, not of an orle within a bordure. Bordures voided and fimbriated have been disallowed since Aug 83. Playing with the widths a bit, to make this a bordure cotised, would be equally unacceptable. On the other hand, a bordure charged with a tressure is a perfectly legal design. In the end, we decided that the latter blazon is the most accurate and reproducible description of the submitted emblazon --- and since it appears to be legal, we've accepted it. It also guarantees the device to be clear of [Azure, a <same charge> within a double tressure argent]. (Lisette de Ville, August, 1993, pg. 10)


FIREBALL


[A chevron rompu between three grenades vs. a chevron between three fireballs fired] There's a CD for making the chevron rompu, but not another for type of secondary charge. (Ragnar of Moonschadowe, September, 1992, pg. 41)


FISH -- Dolphin


An heraldic dolphin proper is vert with gules details. (Aodhán Doilfín, September, 1992, pg. 18)


We grant a CD between a dolphin and a generic fish. (Deirdre of Shadowdale, September, 1992, pg. 18)


[Two orcas sable marked argent vs. two bottlenosed dolphins sable] There is ...nothing for type; and the markings are artistic details, worth no difference. (Tymoteusz Konikokrad, September, 1992, pg. 47)


There's a CD between dolphins and most kinds of fish. (Alethea of Fair Isle, October, 1992, pg. 16)


FISH -- Lobster and Crab


Crayfish, like lobsters and scorpions, are tergiant by default (Eckhardt zu Westfilde, October, 1993, pg. 6)


FISH -- Misc


Prior rulings notwithstanding, there is no difference between naiant and naiant "embowed": the naiant posture often includes a slight embowment. (Aldwin Wolfling, July, 1992, pg. 21)


We grant a CD between a dolphin and a generic fish. (Deirdre of Shadowdale, September, 1992, pg. 18)


There's a CD between dolphins and most kinds of fish. (Alethea of Fair Isle, October, 1992, pg. 16)


FISH -- Starfish


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 Sláone ní Chonaill, same letter, pg. 21, and Melusine d'Argent, same letter, pg. 21] (Branwen ferch Madoc, October, 1992, pg. 18)


The natural 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) [device returned for this and other problems]. (Melusine d'Argent, October, 1992, pg. 21)


FISH -- Whale


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)


[Two orcas sable marked argent vs. two bottlenosed dolphins sable] There is ...nothing for type; and the markings are artistic details, worth no difference. (Tymoteusz Konikokrad, September, 1992, pg. 47)


FLAME


[On a flame, a goblet vs. On a flame, a sword charged with a goutte] There are no CDs for the type of tertiary charge in this case. (Lasairfhiona ni Dhoineannaigh, September, 1992, pg. 40)


Tongues of flame are not period [device returned for this reason in combination with other style problems]. (Shire of Crystal Moor, October, 1992, pg. 31)


Mundane armory seems to consider a flame proper as streaked of gules and Or, in equal proportions. Society armory considers a flame proper (on a dark field) as the same as a flame Or voided gules (or, alternatively, a flame Or charged with a flame gules). Either way, when used as the primary charge, there's a CD between a flame proper and a flame Or. (Helena of Durham, January, 1993, pg. 8)


Flames are an exception to the rule that complex charges cannot be voided: since a flame proper is defined in Society armory as "a flame Or voided gules" (on a dark field), by extension a "flame argent voided gules" should be equally acceptable. (Tegen Meanbh, January, 1993, pg. 21)


[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)


For some time now, we've been instituting a change (actually dating from Master Da'ud's tenure as Laurel) on enflamed charges: how they're considered, and how they're blazoned. In the early days of the Society, a [charge] enflamed was depicted as a [charge] completely enveloped by flame --- essentially a full flame, with the [charge] entirely on the flame. In those cases, the [charge] was considered the primary charge, with the flames either an artistic detail or a complex sort of fimbriation. More recently, such designs have been blazoned On a flame a [charge], making the flame the primary and the [charge] a tertiary. This has two effects: it brings our heraldic practice closer to that of period, and it alters the way difference is counted against such designs.

On the first point, enflamed charges weren't normally depicted in period armory as enveloped of flames. Discounting the fiery charges whose flames have a defined placement (e.g., the beacon), a period enflamed charge would be drawn with tiny spurts of flame issuant from several points. Mounts enflamed were not uncommon: in addition to the examples of MacKenzie armory cited by Lady Black Stag (in her commentary on Michael McKenzie, on this LoAR), there's the mountain couped azure enflamed proper in the arms of MacLeod (Guillim, 1632, p.127) and the trimount couped vert enflamed gules in the arms of Lerchenfeld (Siebmacher , 1605, plate 95) and Nouwer (Armorial de Gelres, c.1370, fo.40). There's also the arms of Brandt (Argent, a ragged staff bendwise sable enflamed gules), where the enflaming is depicted in various sources (Siebmacher , Gelres, the European Armoria) as on the top end of the staff, issuant from each "ragged" portion, or issuant to chief --- but never as On a flame gules a ragged staff sable. The salamander is usually shown with spurts of flame, but occasionally as lying on a bed of flame (Dennys' Heraldic Imagination, p.193); but I could find no period emblazon showing the salamander as a tertiary on a flame. The enflamed towers of the arms of Dublin are drawn with spurts of fire from the battlements and windows, not as flames with tertiary towers. I could go on, but I think the point is made: in period, the normal depiction of a [charge] enflamed showed the charge on the field, with tiny spurts of flame issuant (and also on the field).

Two consequences follow from this depiction. First, the [charge] and the flames must both have good contrast with the field. Enflaming isn't a way to get around the Rule of Tincture; we don't permit flaming fimbriation in Society armory. Second, by the period definition of enflaming an enflamed [charge] is definitely the main charge; but by the old SCA definition, an enflamed [charge] is now considered a tertiary charge. We'd count Sufficient Difference, per X.2, between a lion Or enflamed gules and a tower Or enflamed gules, but no difference at all, per X.4.j.ii, between on a flame gules a lion Or and on a flame gules a tower Or.

In all ways, then, it's in the submitter's best interest to render an enflamed charge in the period style, rather than as a tertiary on a flame. It's more authentic, and it reduces the chance of conflict. (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pp. 5-6)


[(Fieldless) On a flame Or a salamander gules] This is a technical conflict with [Sable, a flame proper]. There's a CD for fieldlessness. Since a flame proper is, on a dark field, equivalent to on a flame Or another gules, the only other change is to type of tertiary charge -- which on a complex primary is worth no difference, per Rule X.4.j.ii. (Balian de Brionne, July, 1993, pg. 15)


FLAUNCH


[Three crescents in pale between two flaunches] The in-pale placement of the crescents is not forced by adding the flaunches; this therefore does not conflict with [<field>, three crescents]. (Bevin O'Sullivan, July, 1992, pg. 6)


Rule X.4.j.ii does apply to charged flaunches [in the sense of being "an ordinary or similarly simple geometric charge"]. (Eleonora Vittoria Alberti di Calabria, December, 1992, pg. 8)


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)


[Per pale argent and sable, a pair of flaunches sable] This conflicts, alas, with [Per pale argent and sable]. Flaunches do not appear to be primary charges, so Rule X.1 does not apply here; there is a single CD for their addition. [For the full discussion, see under CHARGE -- Peripheral] (Ceidyrch ap Llywelyn, June, 1993, pg. 19)


FLOWER -- Fleur-de-lys


[A chevron azure charged with three fleurs-de-lys Or] The use of multiple gold fleurs-de-lys on blue is not permitted in SCA armory: it is too strongly suggestive of a claim of connection to French royalty. This ban covers both blue fields and blue charges, and has been in force for many years: "This color-semy combination may not be used in the SCA." [WvS, 15 March 82] "A bordure of France (ancient or modern) may not be used in SCA heraldry." [BoE, 20 Oct 85]

The prohibition is supported by period practice. Examples of armory using blue charges with gold fleurs include de St.Remi de Valois, Bastard of France, c.1520 (Argent, on a fess azure three fleurs-de-lys Or); John, Earl of Cornwall, brother to the claimant of the French throne, d.1336 (Gules, three leopards in pale Or, a bordure azure semy-de-lys Or); Medici, Dukes of Urbino, who bore an augmentation from the French crown c.1500 (Or, in annulo six roundels gules, the one in chief azure, charged with three fleurs-de-lys Or); Matthieu, Grand Bastard of Bourbon, d.1505 (Argent, on a bend azure semy-de-lys Or, a bendlet gules); and Jean de Rochefort, another Bastard of Bourbon, d.1444 (Argent, on a canton azure semy-de-lys Or, a bendlet gules). All claimed connection to French royalty, either by an augmentation therefrom or through blood; all bore a blue charge with gold fleurs-de-lys -- usually blazoned a [charge] of France.

It's not unreasonable to assume that a chevron of France makes a similar claim. The chevron was used this way for other dynastic houses: Philippe de Someldyck, bastard son of Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, c.1500, bore Or, a chevron of Burgundy.

The period examples are so numerous that I feel I must uphold the Society's ban on gold fleurs-de-lys on blue backgrounds --- and make it explicit. 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. (Raoul de Chenonceaux, July, 1992, pg. 23)


[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 flory counter-flory line is not correctly drawn here. While the treatment was applied to ordinaries in period (e.g. the double tressures of the arms of Scotland), I've found no period instances of its use as a complex field division. The closest analogies are the trefly counter-trefly division of von Hillinger and the per fess indented, points flory division of Woodmerton. Both of these models require the flory counter-flory line to be drawn with demi-fleurs, as shown here.

flory counter-flory line

As drawn in this submission, the "complex line" is actually a group of charges, counterchanged across the field division, with half of them inverted. This is not readily blazonable, and doesn't fit the period pattern for complex lines of division. (The illustration from Fox-Davies' Complete Guide to Heraldry, from which the submitter's emblazon is taken, is cited in no dated armory.) (Miriam de Xaintrailles, January, 1993, pg. 24)


[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)


FLOWER -- Foil


There is indeed a CD between a cinquefoil and a shamrock. (Principality of Lochac, July, 1992, pg. 14)


[A garden rose slipped and leaved vs. a cinquefoil] I agree there's no CDs between cinquefoil and (heraldic) rose; and no CDs between (heraldic) rose and garden rose; and no CDs between garden rose and garden rose slipped and leaved. But as Lord Crux Australis notes, conflict isn't necessarily a transitive operation; "A conflicts with B" and "B conflicts with C" doesn't guarantee that, by logical concatenation, "A must conflict with C". Thank Deity I don't have to decide the issue just now...[device returned for other conflict] (Roselynd Ælfricsdottir, August, 1992, pg. 32)


Legh, 1568, mentions the octofoil ("double quaterfoyle"), though citing no examples of its use. Given that it was described in period, I'm willing to grant a CD between it and a cinquefoil. (Sibylla Penrose of Netherhay, October, 1992, pg. 2)


FLOWER -- Misc


[A pansy vs. an ivy blossom] Comparing the emblazons showed no visible difference in the shapes of the two flowers [thus there is not a CD for type]. (Catherine Elizabeth Anne Somerton, August, 1992, pg. 32)


[A pansy vs. a rose] I cannot grant another CD for type of flower in this case. It's true that flowers of genus Viola have three large petals and two small ones; but in the case of the pansy, the size change is very hard to see. The petals' shape is the same for pansies as heraldic roses. Pansies don't seem to have been used as charges in period, so I must fall back on visual difference; and I must rule that pansies and roses are too close to yield a CD.

The same arguments bring this clear of [a sunflower] and [a rue flower]. (Catherine Elizabeth Anne Somerton, August, 1992, pg. 32)


[Per bend sinister, a lotus blossom in profile and a moose vs. Per bend sinister, an iris and a dove] There is a CD for type of primary charges, but because both armories contain a cup-shaped flower in dexter chief, we cannot grant Sufficient Difference of Charge per Rule X.2. (Simon Rodbeorhting, September, 1992, pg. 42)


There is no heraldic difference between a gillyflower and a carnation (Luciano Giovanni di Churburg, September, 1992, pg. 50)


While we're willing to blazon [the charge] as a hollyhock, we note that there's no heraldic difference between it and a rose. (Megan Althea of Glengarriff, October, 1992, pg. 2)


[A trillium flower vs. a rose] There is a CD for type of flower, but not the substantial difference required by Rule X.2. (Gwyneth MacAulay, October, 1992, pg. 29)


Period heralds seem to have distinguished between a teazel and a thistle, despite the similarity of the nouns. For armory as simple as this [(fieldless) A teazel slipped and leaved vs. <Field>, a thistle], we can see granting a CD for type of flower. (Ealdgytha of Spalding Abbey, December, 1992, pg. 12)


I am willing to grant a CD between a rose and a correctly drawn daisy. (Arielle le Floer, January, 1993, pg. 7)


[Three leaves conjoined in pall inverted within a annulet vs. A trillium and a chief] There's a CD for changing the annulet to a chief, but the central charges are indistinguishable. (Jaric de l'Ile Longe Sault, January, 1993, pg. 28)


In cases [where a slipped and leaved flower consists primarily of the branch portion rather than the flower portion], I will register the plant as a branch with a flower. Moreover, I intend to grant a Substantial Difference (i.e., sufficient to invoke Rule X.2) between a branch (flowered or not) and a flower. Slipped flowers drawn with the flower dominant will still be considered negligibly different from a plain flower. Flowers whose slips are part of the definition (e.g., trefoil, thistle) will not get extra difference for the slip [for full discussion, see under BLAZON] (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pg. 7)


FLOWER -- Rose


[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)


[A pansy vs. a rose] I cannot grant another CD for type of flower in this case. It's true that flowers of genus Viola have three large petals and two small ones; but in the case of the pansy, the size change is very hard to see. The petals' shape is the same for pansies as heraldic roses. Pansies don't seem to have been used as charges in period, so I must fall back on visual difference; and I must rule that pansies and roses are too close to yield a CD.

The same arguments bring this clear of [a sunflower] and [a rue flower]. (Catherine Elizabeth Anne Somerton, August, 1992, pg. 32)


[A garden rose slipped and leaved vs. a rose] [There is not a CD] for heraldic rose vs. garden rose; and we have hitherto granted no difference for slipping and leaving. (Roselynd Ælfricsdottir, August, 1992, pg. 32)


[A garden rose slipped and leaved vs. a cinquefoil] I agree there's no CDs between cinquefoil and (heraldic) rose; and no CDs between (heraldic) rose and garden rose; and no CDs between garden rose and garden rose slipped and leaved. But as Lord Crux Australis notes, conflict isn't necessarily a transitive operation; "A conflicts with B" and "B conflicts with C" doesn't guarantee that, by logical concatenation, "A must conflict with C". Thank Deity I don't have to decide the issue just now...[device returned for other conflict] (Roselynd Ælfricsdottir, August, 1992, pg. 32)


While we're willing to blazon [the charge] as a hollyhock, we note that there's no heraldic difference between it and a rose. (Megan Althea of Glengarriff, October, 1992, pg. 2)


[A trillium flower vs. a rose] There is a CD for type of flower, but not the substantial difference required by Rule X.2. (Gwyneth MacAulay, October, 1992, pg. 29)


I am willing to grant a CD between a rose and a correctly drawn daisy. (Arielle le Floer, January, 1993, pg. 7)


[A garden rose azure, slipped and leaved argent] This conflicts with [a rose slipped and leaved azure]. There's a CD for fieldlessness, but nothing for garden rose vs. heraldic rose; and we have traditionally granted no difference for a flower's slipping and leaving (either its existence, or its tincture), believing this to be little more than artistic license ...If someone can provide evidence that slipping and leaving was considered a cadency difference by period heralds, we'll reconsider these conflicts. Until then, they must stand. (Adrianna MacAverr, January, 1993, pg. 23)


There's ...no difference for garden rose(bud) vs. heraldic rose, and we've yet seen no evidence that period heralds granted difference for slipping and leaving. (Anna de Battista, May, 1993, pg. 17)


In cases [where a slipped and leaved flower consists primarily of the branch portion rather than the flower portion], I will register the plant as a branch with a flower. Moreover, I intend to grant a Substantial Difference (i.e., sufficient to invoke Rule X.2) between a branch (flowered or not) and a flower. Slipped flowers drawn with the flower dominant will still be considered negligibly different from a plain flower. Flowers whose slips are part of the definition (e.g., trefoil, thistle) will not get extra difference for the slip [for full discussion, see under BLAZON] (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pg. 7)


[A rose per pale Or and vert vs. Hirayama ( Hawley 27): Dark, a cherry blossom light] There's ...no difference between Hirayama's rendition of a cherry blossom (complete with five petals, barbing and seeding) and an honest heraldic rose. (Oriana d'Auney, July, 1993, pg. 17)


The charges on the chief were blazoned on the LOI as roses. The heraldic rose is typically drawn with five petals; there are a few examples with six, but we know of no instances using only four [charges reblazoned as quatrefoils barbed]. (Myghchaell Loughlin, August, 1993, pg. 3)


[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)


FLOWER -- Thistle


I would grant a CD between a thistle and a pomegranate. (Magdalena Aeleis MacLellan, August, 1992, pg. 24)


Period heralds seem to have distinguished between a teazel and a thistle, despite the similarity of the nouns. For armory as simple as this [(fieldless) A teazel slipped and leaved vs. <Field>, a thistle], we can see granting a CD for type of flower. (Ealdgytha of Spalding Abbey, December, 1992, pg. 12)


[A thistle per chevron throughout purpure and vert] The division of the thistle could not be identified as such by the heralds at Laurel's meeting. On such an irregular shape as a thistle, any division must be exceptionally simple to be recognized. Per pale might have been acceptable; Per chevron, where the line must cross the empty space between the leaves and the blossom, is not. (Fionna Goodburne, December, 1992, pg. 19)


FRET


One of this month's submissions required a ruling on the status of fretty: should we consider it a field treatment, or a charge group? If a charge group, was it a semy, or an artistic variation of the fret, or a single charge in its own right?

For many years, fretty was considered a field treatment (v. the 1986 Glossary of Terms). Mistress Alisoun specifically overturned this in the LoAR of 25 Feb 90, redefining fretty as "a `semy of frets' and as such contribut[ing] difference. ...Period treatises make it clear that fretty was seen as placed upon the field in the same way that ...other charges semy were strewn. ...Unlike `normal' field treatments, but like secondary charges, a `fretty' can itself be charged." Unfortunately, no period sources were cited.

Master Da'ud, on the basis of further research, redefined fretty as an artistic variation of a fret: "Evidence has been presented that `a fret' and `fretty' were considered interchangeable in period, so no difference can be granted between them." [LoAR of July 90] However, some of his subsequent decisions (e.g. Miriel d'Estoile, LoAR of June 92, p.20) reverted to previous definitions. Clearly, fretty lends itself to many interpretations, and we need to select one and stick to it henceforth.

I don't believe that fretty is a field treatment. Lord Crescent has suggested that the very concept of "field treatments" is a Society invention. I'm not prepared to endorse that suggestion: Siebmacher, 1605, gives examples of both masoning and papellony, and the former seems to be considered part of the field, akin to diapering. But even stipulating the existence of field treatments, fretty doesn't seem to be part of the field. The examples of fretty with tertiaries --- e.g. Hemeldene, c.1308, Argent, fretty gules semy-de-lys Or --- strongly suggests that the fretwork is a charge group.

Should we consider fretty a semy, then? It's tempting to so define it; like other semys, it would then be the primary charge group when alone on the field, but would demote to a secondary charge group when an overall charge was added. If fretty were a semy, though, the next question would be, "Semy of what?" It could only be considered "semy of bendlets and scarpes", an interpretation supported by period heraldic tracts: the Argentaye Tract, c.1485, describes fretty as "cotises set and counter-set in the manner of a bend". But bendlets, as ordinaries, remain primary charges even when surmounted by overall charges: Just as Gules, six bendlets Or, overall a lion argent conflicts under our Rules with Gules, six bendlets Or, so would Gules, three bendlets and three scarpes interlaced Or, overall a lion argent conflict with Gules, three bendlets and three scarpes interlaced Or. If we define fretty to be "an unnumbered group of bendlets", then the fretty cannot behave like a regular semy.

I am forced to conclude that fretty is an artistic variant of the fret, and therefore a single charge. Partially, this is from the evidence of heraldic tracts: most of those I consulted did not (as the Argentaye Tract did) give a verbal description of fretty, but rather defined it by illustration --- and in so doing, drew no substantive distinction between what we would call "fretty" and "a fret". Legh, 1562, blazons both renderings as a frett; Bossewell, 1572, and Guillim, 1610, follow Legh's lead on this. Bara, 1581, does the reverse, blazoning as fretté what we would call "a fret".

Better evidence is found in the actual display of armory using fretty/a fret. Nearly every individual bearing arms with a fret on one roll may be found bearing the same arms fretty on another roll: e.g. John Maltravers, late 13th Century, who bore Sable fretty Or on the St. George's Roll and Sable, a fret Or on the Parliamentary Roll. The equivalence held true through Tudor times: the FitzWilliam Roll, c.1530, gives the arms of Theobald Verdon (Or, a fret gules) as Or fretty gules. The equivalence even held true in the presence of other charges on the field: e.g. the arms of Amery St. Armand were seen both as Or fretty and on a chief sable three bezants and Or, a fret and on a chief sable three bezants, and the arms of Despencer were seen both as Quarterly argent and gules fretty Or, a bendlet sable and Quarterly argent and gules, a bendlet sable between two frets Or. The latter example was, again, valid through Tudor times. (Sources: Dictionary of British Arms, vol.I, pp.338-340; Anglo-Norman Armory II, pp.454-460; and see also the visual examples in Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry, under the names of Maltravers, Harington/Haverington, and Belhuse/Bellewe.)

The main reason that Gules fretty Or, overall a lion argent conflicts with Gules fretty Or lies not in how we consider fretty, but in how we consider overall charges. So long as overall charges, by definition, can never be primary charges, such conflicts will continue to exist. Such considerations cannot change the evidence, however; the majority of the evidence shows fretty and a fret to be interchangeable charges, artistic variations of one another, and we shall henceforth so treat them. (10 November, 1992 Cover Letter (September, 1992 LoAR), pp. 3-4)


[Per saltire argent, and sable fretty argent, in pale a rose sable, barbed and seeded proper, and a sinister gauntlet aversant clenched sable] Under current precedent, fretty and a fret are artistic variants of the same charge. The submission therefore contains a single group of four primaries, of three different types: rose, gauntlet, and fretwork. This is disallowed per Rule VIII.1.a. (Tamara the Seeker, July, 1993, pg. 14)


[Per fess indented azure and vert fretty Or, in chief a <charge>] Against [Per fess wavy gules and barry wavy argent and azure, in chief a <same charge>], there's a CD for the field and a CD for the fretwork, which is considered a charge group. (AElfred Greybeard, September, 1993, pg. 1)


FRUIT


A pomegranate proper (as seen in the arms of the Kingdom of Grenada) is vert, seeded gules. (Magdalena Aeleis MacLellan, August, 1992, pg. 24)


I would grant a CD between a thistle and a pomegranate. (Magdalena Aeleis MacLellan, August, 1992, pg. 24)


[A pomegranate slipped and leaved, surmounted by a cross] When obscured by the cross, the pomegranate becomes unidentifiable -- the moreso since the seeding, a principal trait of the heraldic pomegranate, is entirely overlaid. This must be returned, per Rule VIII.3. (Isabella del Bosque, September, 1992, pg. 39)


We don't grant Substantial Difference between an apple and a pear --- there's at best a CD between the two fruits, and one could argue negligible difference. (Dévora Risée de Apors, July, 1993, pg. 11)


Table of Contents

Return to the Precedents Index Page