Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme
[A triskelion of scythes within an annulet] According to Lord Pale (now Lord Dragon), this motif --- essentially a triskelion gammadion within an annulet --- is the logo of the Afrikaaner Weerstandsbeweging, a pro-apartheid white supremacist group in South Africa. The triskelion gammadion has been used by white supremacists before this: it was the ensign of the Nazi SS's "volunteer" division in Belgium, during WWII. ("Hateful Heraldry", Vuong Manh, in the Caerthan Symposium Proceedings) While the Nazis' use of the symbol doesn't necessarily poison it for our use, the fact that modern racists still use it as their logo suggests it has acquired a permanent symbolism, one that's offensive to many people. The triskelion gammadion, and its variants (such as the triskelion gammadion in annulo, or the current submission's triskelion of scythes) must therefore be disallowed, per Rule IX.4. [See also Nov. 92 LoAR, pg. 14] (Geeraert av København, September, 1992, pg. 39)
[Haus Robbenschlage, intended to mean "seal-beater"] Clubbing baby seals is repugnant; making jokes about clubbing baby seals is merely in poor taste. However, as several commenters noted, this name seems expressly calculated to offend any listeners, which makes it an affront to courtesy. (Translating it into German does not remove the offense, any more than would translating Motherfucker into German.) [name returned for grammatical reasons]. (Maximillian von Halstern, November, 1992, pg. 16)
[Per bend sinister, a sinister gauntlet sustaining a club, and a seal contourny] The design of the badge does not appear to be offensive. Lord Crescent is probably correct in thinking that the submission of Haus Robbenschlage [intended to mean "seal-beater"], earlier on the LOI, sensitized the College to any suggestion of seal-clubbing. But given the constant heraldic use of weapons (maces, swords, axes, etc.) with animals, this design by itself is unremarkable. (Timothy of Arindale, November, 1992, pg. 16)
[Azure, three annulets interlaced one and two argent, overall a Latin cross flory Or veiled purpure.] Several commenters wondered whether the combination of the cross, purple Lenten veil, and Trinity symbol constituted excessive religious symbolism. Such excessive symbolism is disallowed under Rule IX.2. This submission has less symbolism than the example of excessive symbolism given in Rule IX.2, but more than an obviously acceptable example (e.g. a single cross). I don't know whether it should be considered excessive, but the submitter should be prepared to argue his case, should he resubmit with this motif. [device returned for contrast and identifiability problems] (Petruccio Alfonso Maria Cuccieri de Cataluña, January, 1993, pg. 26)
[Or semy of whips sable, a feather bendwise and on a chief gules, a pair of manacles Or] The majority of the commenters found the design offensive, with its overwhelming connotations of bondage and degradation (B&D). While each of the charges may, by itself, be acceptable -- scourges, for instance, were used as martyrs' symbols in period -- the overall effect is excessive. This must be returned, per Rule I.2.
Additionally, many found the semy of whips unidentifiable. Period armory used scourges, with several lashes, to increase recognition; as drawn here, the charges look more like the ends of shepherd's crooks. (Hans the Gentle, July, 1993, pg. 11)
This is the correct placement of an orle with a chief: the orle runs parallel to the edge of the chief, and is not surmounted by it. See the arms of the Worshipful Company of Musicians, used by them c.1590. (Bromley & Child, Armorial Bearings of the Guilds of London, p.180). (Guillaume de la Rapiere, August, 1992, pg. 4)
[Gyronny azure and argent, an orle vs. Gyronny azure and argent] The orle, as a peripheral ordinary, is by definition not a primary charge; Rule X.1 cannot be invoked here. (Galen MacDonald, August, 1992, pg. 29)
There was a strong feeling in the College that the double tressure dancetty braced was non-period style, and at first I was inclined to agree. On reflection, however, I found I couldn't put a name to exactly why I felt so. Visually, this is not so different from an orle masculy, or saltorels couped and conjoined in orle, either of which would have raised far less objection. It's balanced, blazonable, and reproducible. The College has in the past registered bars dancetty braced (Katherine d'Argentigny, July 86), so we even have a precedent for this.
I suspect most of the College's objection arose from our long-standing ban on Celtic knotwork, which sometimes extends to anything even resembling Celtic knotwork. As noted in the commentary, though, this isn't Celtic knotwork: the sharp corners and lack of braiding make that clear.
With no substantive reason to return the motif, I've decided to give it the benefit of the doubt. I'm open to further arguments for or against it, and I would definitely count it a "weirdness" --- but not reason for return. (Shire of Otherhill, January, 1993, pg. 4)
The orle is considered a peripheral charge (LoAR of Aug 92, p.29), so its addition does not invoke Rule X.1. (Frithiof Sigvardsson Skägge, May, 1993, pg. 17)
[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
The orle flory has been disallowed for SCA use: it's too reminiscent of the double tressure flory counter-flory, which is an augmentation from the Scots crown. This precedent has been affirmed as recently as the LoAR of Sept 89. Indeed, given period renditions of the arms of Scotland with an orle flory instead of a double tressure flory counter-flory (e.g. Siebmacher, plate 2), and given a recent statement from the Lyon Office of Scotland declining to register orles flory without the Queen's express command, the precedent seems worth keeping. (Patrick Drake, August, 1993, pg. 19)