Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme
[Quarterly, in bend two <charges>] Several commenters noted a possible appearance of quartered armory here ...However, the Rules specifically permit this motif as one of those that can use a quarterly field without being considered marshalling. Rule XI.3.b states that the "charged sections must all contain charges of the same type," which applies to this submission. It's unimportant that two of the quarters are uncharged: the SCA College of Arms has never considered plain, single-tincture fields to be worthy of protection, nor a consideration in marshalling. ...In short, this design motif is not considered marshalling; so long as other restrictions are met (e.g. no more than one charge per quarter, etc.) it should be acceptable for SCA use. (Duncan Kieran, July, 1992, pg. 7)
[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 (Eiríkr Fence Splitter, August, 1992, pg. 8)
[Quarterly Or and gules, four swans counterchanged sable and argent] The device isn't marshalling, any more than the armory of Wales (Quarterly Or and gules, four lions passant guardant counterchanged) is marshalling. So long as all the charged sections of the field bear a single (identical) charge, this is considered acceptable for SCA use. (Deirdre O'Connell, August, 1992, pg. 14)
This runs afoul of Rule XI.3, which forbids the appearance of marshalled armory. The use of multiple charges in the first quarter, and of a different type of charge in the fourth quarter, gives a strong impression of independent coats in those quarters. The use of the complex line of partition does not entirely dispel that impression. (Johannes of Amstelveen, August, 1992, pg. 27)
[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)
[Quarterly Or and lozengy azure and Or, in bend two <charges>] After much soul-searching, I must agree with the commenters who saw an appearance of marshalling in the device. Rule XI.3.b states that quarterly may be used only "when no single portion of the field [appears] to be an independent piece of armory." In general, complexity in any of the quarters makes it look like independent armory; for example, XI.3.b explicitly cites the use of multiple charges in a quarter as unacceptable. The motif Quarterly X and Y, in bend two [charges] is allowable when the uncharged quarters are plain tinctures; we don't protect plain tinctures. But when the uncharged quarters are complex fields, we lose that rationale; and the complexity then begins to make it look like an independent coat. This, beneath all the subtext, is exactly what XI.3.b is meant to prevent. (Aric Thomas Percy Raven, October, 1992, pg. 30)
[Quarterly, in bend an eagle's head and a flute] The use of the quarterly field with two different charges in opposite quarters gives a strong appearance of marshalled armory, and is disallowed per Rule XI.3.a. (Kenrick atte Kyte, November, 1992, pg. 18)
It has been previously ruled (LoAR of Oct 92, p.30) that the use of a complex field [in this example, checky] in two quarters of a quartered design gives too strong an appearance of marshalling. This is true whether or not those quarters are charged; their complexity gives them the appearance of independent armory, which Rule XI.3.b prohibits. (Fáelán MacFergus, January, 1993, pg. 26)
[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)
[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)
Rule X.4.j.ii requires substantial difference of tertiaries to earn a CD; we would not grant substantial difference between mascles and rustres. The only differences to these tertiaries are tincture and the exact type of voiding --- which may be considered the change of quaternary charges. (Eric Alard, September, 1992, pg. 52)
For the purposes of Rule X.4.j.ii, a mask of comedy and a mask of tragedy are considered identical charges. (Cassia Mortivaux, September, 1992, pg. 16)
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)
[A schimäre] Schimäre is the German word for "chimera". The chimera of German heraldry has the forequarters of a lion, the hindquarters of a goat, a dragon's tail (often ending in a dragon's head), and often the head and breasts of a woman. (It's illustrated in von Volborth's Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles, p.47.) It looks very little like the chimera of English heraldry, which has a lion's head, a goat's head and a dragon's head all issuant from the shoulders of a goat's body (illustrated in Dennys' Heraldic Imagination, p.154, which in turn is from Bossewell's Armorie of 1572); and neither of these is much like the classic "Homeric" chimaera from ancient Greek drawings.
Were the German form and the English form not intended to be the same mythological monster, we wouldn't hesitate to grant at least a CD between them. The two forms are intended to be the same monster, though; and we don't normally grant a CD for drawing style (e.g. no difference between the Italian-style fleur-de-lys and the French-style fleur-de-lys), nor even distinguish style in blazon.
In this case, the two monsters share nothing in common but the name; it seemed safest to define them, for our purposes, as different charges. As was done for the schnecke, I've taken the German name for the German charge, to distinguish it from the English chimera. (Kevin Burnett, September, 1992, pg. 10)
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 dragon rampant contourny vs. a dragon statant erect to sinister, wings displayed] There's ...a CD for the posture of the wings (Dana Mac an Ghabhann, September, 1992, pg. 5)
The only difference between a wyvern and a sea-dragon is the exact shape of the tail's flukes, not enough for a CD. (Dugal MacTaveis, September, 1992, pg. 44)
I count a Substantial Difference between a unicorn and a dragon; even when dormant, the dragon's wings are prominent (Joanna Sparhawke, October, 1992, pg. 2)
[A two-headed double-queued eagle-winged wyvern displayed vs. a double headed eagle displayed] The changes to the wyvern (notably, the use of eagle's wings) prevent finding difference between the primary charges. (Alex of Kintail, May, 1993, pp. 16-17)
Wyverns are statant (or sejant; for wyverns, the postures are the same) by default. See the examples in Parker , pp.122-123, and Franklyn & Tanner 354. (Gylis Kingston, August, 1993, pg. 5)
The main difference between a wolf and an enfield is in the front legs; when one of the beasts is holding a charge with those legs, it becomes impossible to tell the two creatures apart. We cannot give a second CD for type of primary here. (Briana ni Óda, July, 1992, pg. 17)
[A sea-griffin vs. a sea-griffin queue forchy] There's [not a CD] for the ...number of tails. (Laura de Botelsford, June, 1992, pg. 4)
[A male griffin vs. a griffin] Despite its name, the male griffin is not the male of the griffin species, with the default griffin the female; they are different monsters, both usually depicted with male organs. (The male griffin is sometimes blazoned a keythong, to emphasize its distinction from a griffin.) There's a CD between the two monsters. (Jovan Greyhawk, December, 1992, pg. 6)
Just as I would grant Complete Difference of Charge between a griffin and a pegasus, so is there Complete Difference between a griffin and a winged beagle; the only thing they have in common are the wings. (Gwenhwyfar de Hwytinton, December, 1992, pg. 11)
[An opinicus vs. a griffin] The difference between the griffin-variants is too small to be worth a ...CD. (Bleddyn Hawk, August, 1993, pg. 15)
There is no defined "proper" coloration for a griffin. (Gavin Gamelson, October, 1993, pg. 16)
The illustration in the glossary section of Rietstap shows that he considered the harpy/frauenadler to be displayed by default. (Barony of Red Spears, September, 1993, pg. 25)
Note: the fact that [the harpy or frauenadler] were considered distinct charges in period allows us to grant a CD against eagles. (Barony of Red Spears, September, 1993, pg. 25)
[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)
[A slip eradicated joined to a snake's head] The College of Arms was nearly unanimous in declaring this monster to be obtrusively modern: the references to triffids (from Day of the Triffid) and Audrey (from Little Shop of Horrors) were very strong. Laurel hasn't seen any of the productions of either, but is willing to accept the opinions of those who have. (Brian di Caffa, September, 1992, pg. 51)
[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 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 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)
Just as I would grant Complete Difference of Charge between a griffin and a pegasus, so is there Complete Difference between a griffin and a winged beagle; the only thing they have in common are the wings. (Gwenhwyfar de Hwytinton, December, 1992, pg. 11)
[A phoenix gules, enflamed proper] The phoenix was blazoned on the LOI as proper, with the 12th Century Cambridge Bestiary cited as the authority (via Dennys' Heraldic Imagination). While the Bestiary describes the phoenix as "reddish purple," I would hesitate to define that as its heraldically proper tincture. As it turns out, there's at least one period heraldic example of a phoenix proper: the crest of the Worshipful Company of Painters, granted 1486, is blazoned a Fenyx in his propre nature and coloure. That phoenix is colored mostly gold, with red highlights and details. (Bromley & Child, Armorial Bearings of the Guilds of London, p.184 and plate 39)
As the phoenix in this submission is not tinctured like the phoenix proper in the Painters' crest, I have reblazoned it gules. (Astrid of Flanders, October, 1992, pg. 1)
[On a flame Or a salamander gules] Possible conflict was ...cited with the [A salamander proper]. Technically speaking, the medieval heraldic salamander would have been a reptile with spurts of flame, or at most lying on a bed of flame; in any event, the reptile would have been the primary charge. Here, the flame is the primary charge, and the salamander a tertiary. We might still have called a visual conflict, all other things being equal, had we been able to ascertain the tincture of a salamander "proper". We still aren't sure what that might be, but it doesn't seem to have been gules: Franklyn & Tanner, for instance, state that the salamander is "Generally argent or Or, and occasionally vert." In any event, we can give the submitter the benefit of the doubt on this conflict [badge returned for a separate conflict]. (Balian de Brionne, July, 1993, pg. 15)
[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 only difference between a wyvern and a sea-dragon is the exact shape of the tail's flukes, not enough for a CD. (Dugal MacTaveis, September, 1992, pg. 44)
There is at least a CD between a horse and a correctly drawn (i.e. medieval) unicorn (William Palfrey, September, 1992, pg. 14)
I count a Substantial Difference between a unicorn and a dragon; even when dormant, the dragon's wings are prominent (Joanna Sparhawke, October, 1992, pg. 2)
Unicorns are rampant by default. [See also Theodora Delamore, September, 1993, pg. 21] (Davyd Wyndwarde, October, 1992, pg. 9)
[Rhiannon de Licorne] "It is a long-standing policy that the name Rhiannon may not be coupled with horses or unicorns, in view of Rhiannon's function as a horse goddess." [AmCoE, 27 Sept 86] (Rhiannon de Licorne of Carreg Cennen, October, 1992, pg. 27)
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)
Lord Crescent is correct in noting that the same rationale banning unicornate horses should also ban hornless unicorns [horses with lion's tail, cloven hooves and a beard]. In either case, the distinction between genuine horses and honest unicorns is blurred; if we wish to grant period difference between these charges, we must insist on period emblazons. (Parthalan MacPhail, August, 1993, pg. 16)
Elevated and addorsed is the default wing posture for winged monsters statant, passant or couchant. (Stanislav von Neuland, September, 1992, pg. 21)
The lion of St. Mark is characterized by a halo, as well as wings; it is usually, but not invariably, also shown with a book. (Vinycombe, Fictitious and Symbolic Creatures in Art, with special reference to their use in British heraldry, 1906, pp.53-55.) (Anastasia dello Scudo Rosso, September, 1992, pg. 44)
Just as I would grant Complete Difference of Charge between a griffin and a pegasus, so is there Complete Difference between a griffin and a winged beagle; the only thing they have in common are the wings. (Gwenhwyfar de Hwytinton, December, 1992, pg. 11)
We agree there's a CD between a camel and an ypotril. (Guthfrith Yrlingsson, July, 1992, pg. 12)
The charge ...was blazoned as a morningstar, for canting purposes. We will make great allowances in a blazon for the sake of a cant, but nonetheless insist that they be correct. In this case, the charge is neither the morningstar as defined in Stone's Glossary of Arms and Armor (which we'd call a spiked mace in the SCA) nor the morningstar as defined in SCA armory (which is the submitted charge with a long wooden handle attached --- essentially a spiky flail). If the submitter wishes to keep her cant, she'll have to resubmit with one of the above types of morningstar [reblazoned as a spiked ball and chain]. (Linnet Morningstar, March, 1993, pg. 2)
Mountains, as variants of mounts, should be emblazoned to occupy no more than the lower portion of the field. (Barony of Blackstone Mountain, September, 1993, pg. 10)
There's ...no difference between a multi-pointed mullet and a sun (Juliana Richenda Trevain, July, 1992, pg. 20)
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)
[On a mullet of four points a sea-lion vs. on a mullet a cross crosslet] Change of type only of tertiary charge is worth no difference, per Rule X.4.j; and we grant no difference between a mullet of four points and a mullet of five points.
The only way I might have called this clear was to redefine a mullet of four points as a type of cross; and if I could have found such a cross in period armory, I might have done so. But I saw no point in replacing an SCA variation of a period charge with another SCA variation of another period charge; and the thought of reblazoning all the four-pointed mullets in the A&O did nothing to soothe my weary brow. (Ilse vom Rhein, August, 1992, pg. 32)
[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)
[Azure, two mullets of six lesser and six greater points and a swan naiant within a bordure argent] This conflicts with Iver of the Black Bow ...Azure, two estoiles and a unicorn's head cabossed, all within a bordure argent. Even granting difference between mullets and estoiles, I don't believe there is Substantial Difference as required by Rule X.2. There is thus a single CD, for type of primary charge group; we cannot grant a CD for type of half the group, and another CD for type of the other half of the same group. (Enid of Crickhollow, September, 1992, pg. 38)
Lord Crux Australis has advocated renaming the mullet of four points (elongated to base or not) as a cross estoile. The cross estoile is indeed an heraldic charge, found in the arms of van Toulon, of Utrecht; but the earliest citation I've found for it is 19th Century. (I note that Rietstap, who cites van Toulon as his exemplar for the charge, blazons it une croix étoilée (étoile à quatre rais) --- that is, even he gives mullet of four points as an alternate blazon for the charge!) Without evidence that the charge is period, I'm reluctant to start using its Victorian name --- particularly when our current usage is equally good (or bad). (Egill Gunnbjarnarson, October, 1992, pg. 29)
There is no difference between multi-pointed mullets (Susanne Grey of York, October, 1992, pg. 31)
[A mullet of eight points vs. a mullet of five greater and five lesser points] While the five lesser points are "lesser", they are still points; [the second] mullet is technically of ten points, from which we grant no difference from a mullet of eight points. (Anna Dimitriova Belokon, November, 1992, pg. 17)
[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)
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 sun of eight points] There's [not a CD] between a mullet of six points and the sun as drawn here. (Eoghan O'Neill, January, 1993, pg. 23)
We grant no difference between mullet of four points and mullet of five points. (Bengta Rolfsdatter, March, 1993, pg. 19)
There's ...no difference between suns and multi-pointed mullets --- which includes compass stars. (Friedrich von Rabenstein, June, 1993, pg. 18)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 tambour argent, framed of wood proper] The charge ...was blazoned a bodhrán on the LOI. The bodhrán is a large drum used in Irish folk music, and popular in the Society --- Laurel himself plays the bodhrán --- but there is no evidence that it's a period instrument. The best evidence I've found is that the bodhrán is "traditional" (Mícheál O Súilleabháin, The Bodhran: A Practical Introduction), which means it probably dates only to the 18th Century.
Fortunately, the instrument is indistinguishable from a tambour or tabor, which can be documented at least to Tudor times. Indeed, O Súilleabháin notes that the bodhrán is called a tambourine in Kerry, and its player a tambourine tipper. We have no qualms, then, in using a more readily accessible and provably period term for the charge in chief. (Cynthia Mairin of the Wilde Wode, June, 1993, pg. 15)
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)
I count no difference between hautboys and recorders (Jame the Heyree Harry's son, August, 1992, pg. 24)
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 jew's harp has its opening to chief by SCA default. (Rabah az-Zafir, October, 1993, pg. 4)
I count no difference between hautboys and recorders (Jame the Heyree Harry's son, August, 1992, pg. 24)