The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme
[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). (Leidhrun Leidolfsdottir, September, 1992, pg. 10)
[Party of six pieces, three bells] This was blazoned on the LOI as [Per fess, on a pale counterchanged between two bells, a bell]. That would be the normal modern blazon, but not the period blazon. In period, this was considered a field division, not a counterchanged pale ...this [is] a conflict with [Gules, three bells]. [For full discussion, see under FIELD DIVISION -- General] (Laeghaire ua'Laverty, October, 1992, pg. 25)
[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)
[A pile, with ≈ 14 indentations on each side] The indentations on the pile are too small to be considered good medieval style. For an example of a medieval pile indented, see the arms of Sire John de Forneus, 1322 (Foster, p.91). (Cailean McArdle, September, 1992, pg. 44)
[Sable chausse argent, <charges> vs. Argent, on a pile sable, <difference charges>] We grant no difference between a charged pile and a chaussé field; there is at most a CD for the change of tertiary charges. (Elgar of Stonehaven, November, 1992, pg. 14)
[Three piles and in base a <charge>] There was some question as to whether this could be considered a chief indented. Roger Pye, in a series of articles ("Evolution of the Arms of Douglas of Lochleven", Coat of Arms, N.S. vol.III No.107, Autumn 78; "Development of the Pile in Certain Graham Arms", Coat of Arms, N.S. vol.III No.110, Summer 79), has shown that the indented chief in some Scots arms came to be drawn as three piles palewise, as in this submission. However, the earliest example he cites of such a variation dates from 1672, which puts it beyond our use. If this were resubmitted with a true chief indented, it would probably be acceptable; but I can't see any way to register this with piles, so long as there's a charge in base. (Iciar Albarez de Montesinos, January, 1993, pg. 28)
The device had been returned on the LoAR of March 92 for lack of identifiability of the aloe vera plant ...The submitter has appealed that return, providing evidence that the aloe vera was known in period, and that it was used in (post-period) armory in the form shown here. I agree that the charge would probably have been as recognizable as, say, the lotus flower; it should be acceptable for SCA use. (Randwulf the Hermit, June, 1993, pg. 2)
The Venus-hair fern was known by that name in period, according to the OED; it's also called maiden-hair. (Kateline MacFarlane, January, 1993, pg. 2)
The mandrake is a plant of the genus Mandragora and is native to Southern Europe and the East. It is characterized by very short stems, thick fleshy, often forked, roots, and by fetid lance-shaped leaves (OED). Of the two examples cited in Parker, p. 390, one (de Champs) blazons them as plantes de mandragore (plants of mandrake). The other cited example, the only one in English armory, is actually shown in Rodney Dennys' The Heraldic Imagination, p.130, as more humanoid. Dennys states that "the Mandrake is not, of course, a monster or chimerical creature in the strict sense of the term, but in heraldic art it has acquired such anthropomorphic characteristics that it can be rated as one of the more fanciful of the fabulous creatures of heraldry" (p. 129). We feel there is a CD between a mandrake and human figures as there is between other fanciful heraldic creatures (e.g. angels) and human figures. (Leandra Plumieg, September, 1993, pg. 12)
[A branch of rosemary vs. sprig of three bluebells] There's [not a CD] for type of sprig.
There were also a number of other conflicts, all based on granting no difference for type of sprig: e.g., [a slip of three leaves], or [a sprig of parsley]. (Mairin ferch Howell, September, 1992, pg. 40)
There should be a CD between three stalks of barley and a garb. (Siobhan Chantoiseau de Longpont sur Orges, November, 1992, pg. 5)
Portcullises in heraldic art are generally identified by their square grillwork and their dangling chains. Omitting one of those aspects might be dismissed as artistic license; omitting both of them renders the portcullises unidentifiable, and so unregisterable. (Bronwen O'Riordan, July, 1992, pg. 18)
Turning a charge to sinister does not change its type, either technically or visually. These [charges] are identical charges for the purposes of Rule X.4.j.ii. (Briana Morgan of the Valley, July, 1992, pg. 3)
By SCA precedent, there's no difference between rampant and sejant erect. The only real change is the placement of a hind leg. (Killian Nc Iain VcFarland, June, 1992, pg. 4)
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)
[A bear sejant erect vs. a bear rampant or a bear erect] In each case, there's [not a CD] for the posture of the bear. (Henry of Three Needles, August, 1992, pg. 24)
[(Fieldless) A narwhale hauriant embowed argent] This is the fieldless version of [the submittor's] current device, ...Per pale vert and sable, a narwhale haurient embowed argent. Several commenters called conflict against [Sable, a whale haurient argent]. The same conflict call was made against his device, during its submission. Lord Laurel explicitly ruled the two armories to be clear of conflict: "There's a CVD for the field and a CVD for haurient embowed versus haurient." [LoAR of May, 1991] Exactly the same point count applies to the badge.
I happen to disagree with that ruling: I don't think there's a CD between haurient embowed and haurient, and I won't be granting it in future. However, I also believe that, given such an explicit ruling, in good conscience we have to call [the submittor's] badge clear ...The Grandfather Clause does apply to conflict, as well as stylistic problems; the badge conflicts no more (and no less) than the device, and if Gest may display the latter, it would be unreasonable to tell him he may not display the former. (Gest Grimsson, September, 1992, pg. 7)
[Volant affronty] This is an inherently unidentifiable posture, and so unsuitable for heraldry. (Robin Telfer, September, 1992, pg. 48)
Sejant tergiant is not an heraldic posture, previous registrations notwithstanding. It renders the <beast> unrecognizable, where the whole purpose of heraldry is identification (Catraoine ni Risteaird, September, 1992, pg. 52)
There are examples from Continental armory of birds displayed and rotated from the vertical: e.g. von Eptingen ( Siebmacher, plate 129), Or, an eagle displayed and fesswise sable. (James d'Orleans, October, 1992, pg. 2)
Volant affronty is not a recognizable posture. (Eirikr Eyvindarson, October, 1992, pg. 23)
The dormant posture should be used carefully, as it can all too easily render a beast unidentifiable. In this case, the wolf's head, paws and tail are neatly tucked in, making him indistinguishable from a meatloaf. This must be returned, per Rule VIII.3. (Vladimir Andreivich Aleksandrov, January, 1993, pg. 24)
As has been noted in the past, the dormant posture should be used cautiously, as it all too often obscures the beast's head, tail and feet, rendering it unidentifiable. (Anderewe Fouchier of the White Dove, March, 1993, pg. 22)
[A wingless dragon "displayed"] The displayed posture is not applicable to non-winged creatures, just as rampant is no longer applicable to birds (LoAR of May 91). No other blazon adequately describes this posture (although if the dragon's back were to the viewer, instead of its belly, it might be tergiant).
Moreover, since the dragon's posture (however blazoned) is indistinguishable from tergiant, this conflicts with [a natural salamander tergiant] ...putting the dragon in this posture greatly reduces any difference to be granted for type of reptile. (Balthasar of Eastwick, March, 1993, pg. 22)
The College has judged inverted creatures to be unacceptable style, barring documentation of this practice in period heraldry. (Mistylla of the Misty Isle, September, 1993, pg. 21)
[Falcons rising displayed, each with the dexter wing inverted] A similar wing posture is found in the arms of the English College of Arms: Argent, a cross gules between four doves, each with the dexter wing displayed and inverted azure. (Oxford Guide to Heraldry , plate 4). (Dunecan Falkenar de la Leie, October, 1993, pg. 6)
We grant no difference between sejant erect and rampant. (Alistrina de Mann, October, 1993, pg. 15)
This was submitted as Anne Marie Constable of Kilbirnie. Such a form is tantamount to claiming a rank and title --- potentially a fairly high rank, considering that the Constable of England ranked with the Earl Marshall. We have deleted the problematic element of the name. (Anne Marie of Kilbirnie, August, 1992, pg. 7)
Perhaps I'm paranoid, but MacQueen seems to fall into the same category as FitzEmpress: doubtless a documented name, but one that claims royal rank to the average yeoman-on-the-road [the name was registered with the Gaelic spelling (MacShuibne)] (Brenainn MacShuibne, August, 1992, pg. 14)
[Thora + lightning bolt] Hitherto, the combination of a lightning bolt with a name derived from Thor has been considered an excessive reference to the Norse god. (The list of Prohibited Name/Charge Combinations is found in the 1986 Glossary of Terms, and is still in force.) The rationale has been to avoid, not presumption, but the appearance of a claim of magical power or non-human descent. The need was fairly great when the rule was promulgated, a decade ago; the College had to actively discourage submissions from demi-gods, elves, and wizards. Even today, we get the occasional non-human epithet (e.g. Stormrkartr).
On the other hand, the tenor of the Society has grown more authenticist and less fantasist over the last ten years. And as Lord Dragon notes, "Reference isn't presumption": for instance, submitters named Catharine are permitted, even encouraged, to use Catharine's wheels in their armory.
There are still enough submitters Unclear On The Concept to warrant returning excessive fantasy references, or appearances of magical or non-mortal claims. But the key word is excessive: I think we can henceforth relax our standards a bit. For those names that are well documented as period human names, that also happen to be the names of gods, one armorial allusion to the god will no longer be considered excessive. (Thora of Thescorre, August, 1992, pg. 17)
[Stormrkartr] The byname is incorrectly formed: in combination, stormr loses its final R. Even were it correctly formed, it wouldn't mean what the submitter claims: stormkartr means "storm cart", not "storm bringer". Finally, even if the name meant "storm bringer", it would be a claim to superhuman powers, forbidden under Rule VI.2. (Knutr Stormrkartr, August, 1992, pg. 24)
Except in rare instances (Regina being the prime example), we don't care about the putative meanings of given names, so long as they're correctly formed period names. Ælfmæg [meaning effectively "elf-kin"] seems to be such a name, and is thus acceptable. (Ælfmæg McKuenn, September, 1992, pg. 1)
[On a targe Or, a Celtic cross] In precedents dating back to June 86, it has been ruled that, in a fieldless badge, a charge commonly used for armorial display (e.g. an escutcheon, a delf, a lozenge, etc.) should not itself be charged. That includes roundles, and most particularly targes (a shield by any other name).
Moreover, considering this as a display, on a round shield, of [Or, a Celtic cross], this would conflict with [Or, a Celtic cross, overall a <charge>]. There would be a single CD, for deleting the overall charge. (Kieran ó Chonnacht, September, 1992, pg. 40)
The billet is one of the charges used for armorial display, and thus (per Rule XI.4) may not be charged with more than one tertiary. This is especially true for fieldless badges, where such charged billets look like displays of independent armory. (See also the LoAR of 8 June 86, p.7.) (Tostig Logiosophia, September, 1992, pg. 42)
[Christian Vicarius] Though each element in the name is reasonable in itself, the combination is too evocative of the title Vicar of Christ (Christis Vicarius), one of the titles of the Pope. (Christian Vicarius, September, 1992, pg. 44)
[Juan Sanchez Ramirez] [The name] infringes on Sancho I Ramirez, King of Aragon in 1063 and of Navarre in 1066 (Louda & Maclagan, Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe, table 45). Sanchez is the patronymic form of Sancho (being the genitive case; it means literally "of Sancho"), so the name is a claim of descent, prohibited under Rule V.5. (Juan Sanchez Ramirez, September, 1992, pg. 45)
The sennachie, or seanchaidhe, were more than simply historians; they studied and told the old tales and legends, and were the keepers of genealogy and tradition in Ireland and the Scottish highlands. The sennachie became a semi-hereditary class, similar to bards; and it's worth noting that the office of the High Sennachie was the precursor to the Lyon King of Arms. As such, seanchaidhe is a title and rank, not merely the Irish for "historian"; it may not be registered as a household name. (Seonaid of Nairn, September, 1992, pg. 46)
Baatour is a Mongolian title analogous to "knight;" in the variant spelling Bahadur, it has been reserved as a Society title, for use by Mongol-persona Knights, on the LoAR cover letter of 13 Sept 89. As such, it may not be registered in a name. (Timur Baatour Khitai, September, 1992, pg. 47)
[Styphan ap Owain] This infringes on the name of Morgan ap Styphan ap Owain, registered earlier on this LoAR. Rule V.5 forbids any name that claims a close relationship to a specific individual; this name claims such a relationship (as Morgan's father). The fact that the submitter undoubtedly is Morgan's father does not permit him to make the claim without permission --- any more than Paul of Bellatrix's son could register his arms, even differenced, without permission. We need a letter of permission from Morgan before we can register this name. (Steven of Mountain's Gate, September, 1992, pg. 53)
[Sara Annchen Baumeister] Until such time as the Board of Directors releases the title Master for use by the populace, it must be considered a title of peerage in the Society; we will not register any name that claims to be a "Master [anything]". In the case of the Master Bowmen of the East (LoAR of July 90), it was ruled: "We cannot, in good conscience, register a title reserved by Corpora to peers to any non-peerage group, no matter in what form they propose to use it." The same argument applies to individuals. (Sara Annchen Baumeister, October, 1992, pg. 24)
[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)
Eriu is both the name of a country (Ireland) and a goddess. We cannot register this without more definite evidence that this name was used by humans in period. (Eriu Morgana Nic Dhubhghlaise Crawford, October, 1992, pg. 29)
[Ty Oeniga'u Buddug, stated to mean "Boudicca's little lambs"] The name claims relationship to a specific historical figure, Boadicea, which is forbidden per Rule V.5. This is no more registerable than Torquemada's Personal Guard or Richard Lionheart's Drinking Buddies. (Tanarian Brenaur ferch Owain fab Bran, October, 1992, pg. 33)
[Brendan Hay, with Argent, two rapiers in saltire sable between three escutcheons gules, a bordure sable] The arms of Hay, Earls of Erroll, are Argent, three escutcheons gules; the armories of all the cadet branches of Hay include the three escutcheons, suitably differenced. (In some cases, the cadet difference is the addition of a primary charge --- which we'd consider Sufficient Difference between strangers in blood.) The use of the surname Hay with a device obviously based on Hay's caused some concern among the commenters; but even stipulating that the submitter's additions were Scots cadet differences, there are at least two CDs between this submission and any Hay variant we could discover. Any relationship so denoted is therefore distant, at best --- exactly why we insist on two cadency differences in the Rules. (Brendan Hay, December, 1992, pg. 2)
Embattling the delf reduces its appearance as a medium for heraldic display -- just as a roundel indented (visually equivalent to a sun) no longer appears to be a medium for heraldic display. (Sabel Saer ferch Maredudd ap Rhosier, December, 1992, pg. 10)
The use of the white rose of York with the byname of York has been disallowed since the LoAR of 11 Nov 77; it is currently found as one of our prohibited name/charge combinations. (Christopher of York, December, 1992, pg. 17)
[Scholemaystre] Master is a reserved title in the SCA, and may not be registered as part of a Society name. The policy was most recently reaffirmed Oct 92, in the submission of Sara Annchen Baumeister. (Raffe Scholemaystre, December, 1992, pg. 20)
[Norrey Acadamie of Armorie] The name ...had been previously returned in 1984 and 1989: the name for presumption and conflict with the Norroy King of Arms ...The submitter has provided a letter from J.P. Brooke-Little, current Norroy & Ulster King of Arms, granting permission to use the title. ...Stipulating, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Brooke-Little has the authority to grant permission, his letter still doesn't remove the problem of presumption --- which lies solely in the axioms of our historical re-creation, and is unaffected by permission. To borrow Lady Harpy's analogy, even if the Queen of England wrote a letter permitting someone to use Elizabeth of England, we wouldn't permit it, because the name is inconsistent with our rules against claiming unearned honors. (And to extend the analogy, even with such a letter, there'd still be a conflict --- not with the current Elizabeth of England, but with the one in period. Mr. Brooke-Little's permission does not automatically prevent infringement against the previous holders of the title Norroy.) ...The LOI alluded to the submitter's heraldic rank and work in heraldic education. These are laudable, but not relevant to the problems of this [submission]. The appearance of a claim of official status in the SCA College of Arms would remain, whether the submitter were a herald or not; this is, after all, a personal [name and] badge for a household, with no official sanction. The infringement on the title of Norroy remains. (Norrey Acadamie of Armorie (Taliesynne Nycheymwrh yr Anyghyfannedd), December, 1992, pg. 21)
[Norrey Acadamie of Armorie with Two straight trumpets in saltire, surmounted by another palewise, the whole ensigned of a fleur-de-lys Nourrie between two lions combattant] The name and badge had been previously returned in 1984 and 1989: the name for presumption and conflict with the Norroy King of Arms, the badge for complexity and infringement on the badge of the SCA College of Arms, and the combination of the two for appearing (by the use of elements from the English and SCA Colleges, the title and arms of Norroy, and the title of a classic heraldic text) to claim an official status unsuitable for a private household. ... The appeal did not address the problem of the use of elements from the armory of Norroy and the English College of Arms. In conjunction with the name and the trumpets, those elements highlight the problem of presumption; but they are not, in and of themselves, objectionable. Under a different household name, and in a badge without the crossed trumpets, they would likely be acceptable.
Finally, the LOI alluded to the submitter's heraldic rank and work in heraldic education. These are laudable, but not relevant to the problems of this badge. The appearance of a claim of official status in the SCA College of Arms would remain, whether the submitter were a herald or not; this is, after all, a personal badge for a household, with no official sanction. The infringement on the title of Norroy remains. Complex badges remain complex, despite the submitter's rank.
Three separate Laurel Sovereigns of Arms, over the span of a decade, have deemed this name and badge unacceptable. The submitter is hereby formally enjoined from their further use. If he resubmits with a less exalted household name, and a redesigned badge, he should have no stylistic problems. [For a discussion on the other problems with the name and badge, see CHARGE -- Restricted and Reserved, STYLE -- Simplicity, and the name discussion in PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION] (Norrey Acadamie of Armorie (Taliesynne Nycheymwrh yr Anyghyfannedd), December, 1992, pg. 21)
If An amphora argent charged with a fleur-de-lys gules doesn't infringe on the arms of the city of Florence, then the current submission [On an amphora azure, a crux stellata argent] cannot infringe on the flag of the Eureka Stockade rebellion [Azure, a crux stellata argent]. [For the full discussion, see under CROSS] (Southkeep Brewers and Vintners Guild (Shire of Southkeep), December, 1992, pg. 23)
[Eric the Dane] It has been established (v. Wladislaw Poleski) that bynames of the form the [nationality] are not presumptuous, even when combined with the given name of the nation's ruler. Eric of Denmark would infringe on the rulers of Denmark named Eric; Eric the Dane does not. (Eric the Dane, January, 1993, pg. 11)
The Society considers the use of a clan name (Guinne, Gunn) with the seat of the clan (Kilernan) to be presumptuous; the only examples we've found of such usage are by clan chiefs and their immediate families. (Sine Guinne of Kilernan, January, 1993, pg. 24)
[Owen FitzRobert DeClare] This submission claims relationship with Robert de Clare (d.1134), 1st Earl of Clare, founder of the baronial house of FitzWalter and steward to King Henry I. The figure is found in general biographical references (e.g. Webster's New Biographical Dictionary, p.212), and therefore is worthy of protection. This must be returned, per Rule V.5. (Owen FitzRobert DeClare, January, 1993, pg. 31)
Lord Obelisk has noted a Laurel precedent (v. Duncan Forbes of Crathes, LoAR of Nov 90) that disallowed any use of a Scots surname with a Scots toponymic, as it "implies landedness in possession of a feudal barony." I suspect this was not intended to be a permanent change in our policy, which hitherto had disallowed the use of a Scots clan surname with the seat of the clan. Certainly, in the months following the above ruling, we registered Duncan MacFergus of Kintyre (Dec 90, p.7), John MacRobert of Grandloch (Feb 91, p.6), Fergus MacKillop of Skye (April 91, p.5), Gareth MacGunther of Gordon (April 91, p.8), etc. I believe that, in practice if not explicitly, the Nov 90 precedent has been overturned ...We will continue to prohibit the use of a Scots clan name with the seat or territory of that clan (e.g. Cameron of Lochiel), or a surname with the phrase of that Ilk (or its functional equivalent, e.g Macintosh of Macintosh). That usage, with or without the given name, is the title of the actual chief of the clan or his immediate kin; its use in the SCA represents a direct infringement on actual nobility, and also appears to be a claim to rank, either of which is grounds for return. But by and large, the use of a Scots surname with a Scots placename is acceptable for SCA use [for full discussion, see under NAMES -- Scottish]. (Alexander MacIntosh of Islay, March, 1993, pp. 7-8)30">
[Falkemeister] Meister (master) is a reserved title in the SCA, and may not be registered --- either alone, or in combination. (David Falkemeister, March, 1993, pg. 19)
Fionnula, in Irish legend, was one of the children of Lir who was transformed into a swan. However, as the name was much used by humans in late period, the combination of Fionnula with a swan is not an excessive reference to the legend; see the LoAR of Aug 92, p.17. (Deirdre ni Fhionnula, May, 1993, pg. 4)
The name was submitted as Elisheva bas Yehudah Arye ha Cohen. Yehudah and Arye are Hebrew given names; they are also nouns meaning "land of Judah" and "lion". There was concern among the commenters that Yehudah Arye might be a title ("the Lion of Judah"), and the name a claim of relationship. "Lion of Judah" was used as a title by the Emperor of Ethiopia, in the 20th Century; it was also applied to Christ (Revelations 5:5).
As it turns out, Yehudah Arye does not mean "Lion of Judah". According to Lady Triton, the word order in Hebrew determines the meaning of a phrase. "Lion of Judah" would thus be Aryeh (shel) Yehudah. The submitted name is therefore not a claim of relationship to a titled individual [Arye dropped to avoid claim of relationship with Yehudah Aryeh ha Cohen (1571-1648)] (Elisheva bas Yehudah ha Cohen, May, 1993, pg. 7)
[De Albuquerque] This is the name of the House of Albuquerque, descended from Sancho de Albuquerque, bastard son of Alphonso XI of Castile. The house may have taken its name from the town of Alburquerque (with two Rs), but the spellings diverged almost immediately. (1911 E.Brit., vol.I, p.516; Louda & Maclagan, table 48) Thus de Albuquerque is not analogous to the English of York; its sole period use was as the surname of a noble house. (Albuquerque, NM, was founded in the early 18th Century; it was named after a Duke of Albuquerque, who was Viceroy of Mexico at the time.) It's not often that a single letter can make the difference between presumption and non-presumption, but that appears to be the case here [name registered as de Alburquerque] (Juana de Alburquerque, May, 1993, pp. 10-11)
"It has previously been determined that, as far as the College of Arms is concerned, the names of the clans with an hereditary claim to the shogunate of Japan are equivalent to the surnames of royal families in Europe, and so may not be registered. I agree with this decision, and am upholding it. Tokugawa may not be used." [BoE, 18 May 86] I agree with this decision, and am upholding it. Tokugawa may not be used. (Tokugawa Basha, May, 1993, pg. 16)
[Dyana Greenwood, Argent, on a tree proper issuant from a base purpure, a decrescent argent] The submission has two problems, each sufficient for return. The first is conflict ...The second is excessive reference to Diana, the Roman goddess of the moon and forest. We've ruled (LoAR of 23 Aug 92) that a deity name used by period humans may add a single additional reference to that deity. The use of Greenwood, the tree and the crescent each constitutes an allusion to the goddess Diana; we find the combination excessive. We've registered the name, but any device resubmission should avoid any references to the goddess Diana. (Dyana Greenwood, May, 1993, pg. 17)
[Osnath Rachel bat Eleazar ha-Levi] This infringes on the registered name of Eleazar ha-Levi: it claims a specific relationship, disallowed per Rule V.5. The fact that Eleazar ha-Levi is the submitter's father does not permit her to make the claim without his permission --- any more than she could register his arms with a label, without permission. We need a letter of permission before we can register the name. (Osnath Rachel bat Eleazar ha-Levi, May, 1993, pg. 18)
The charges considered media for heraldic display --- the delf, lozenge, cartouche, etc. --- when used in a fieldless badge may not be charged. This ruling has been in force since 1986, and is itself reason enough for return. (Order of the Stella Rubra (Kingdom of Meridies), July, 1993, pg. 14)
[Lucius Thayne] A thane (or thegn) was a free retainer in pre-Conquest England, and in Scotland up to the 15th Century; the term denotes a member of territorial nobility corresponding to the Norman baron or knight. The title was one step below the eorl, and might be either earned or inherited. In the SCA, the term is used as the Old English equivalent of "baron", and is therefore reserved. Old English usage puts the title after the name: Ælfred cyning, Leofric eorl, Lyfing arcebisceop. The submitted name is thus exactly in the form that would have been used by a period thane. That fact, along with the Society use of the title, and its hereditary nature in period, outweighs the documented use of Thane, Thaine as a surname later in period. It must therefore be returned as presumptuous. (OED, under the entries for earl, king and thane; '93 E.Brit., vol.11, p.672; Reaney DBS II, pp.112, 345). (Lucius Thayne, July, 1993, pg. 15)
[Aoife ni Aodhagain with Chevronelly azure and argent, a serpent glissant palewise gules holding in its mouth an apple slipped and leaved vert] It has been ruled acceptable (Thora of Thescorre, LoAR of Aug 92) to have a single armorial allusion to a deity name that's also a documented period given name. It's reasonable to extend the policy, in this case, to the Biblical name Eve (often used as an anglicization of Aoífe). The allusion here is mild, and acceptable. (Aoífe ní Aodhagáin, August, 1993, pg. 6)
[Clemence d'Avignon] The anti-popes of Avignon do not seem to have exercised the same secular authority there that their Roman counterparts did in the Vatican; and the legitimate Popes who made Avignon their seat did so as the guests of the Counts of Provence. (1911 E.Brit., vol.iii, p.64, and vol.xx, pp.702-704) The name thus does not conflict with those Popes in Avignon (real and anti-) named Clement. (Cala of Savatthi, August, 1993, pg. 11)
[Myrrddin mab y Ddrraig Goch] The name has a minor spelling problem: neither Myrddin nor ddraig should use the double-R. Far more troublesome was the allusion to the sorcerer Merlin, of Arthurian legend. The submitted name translates as "Merlin, son of the Red Dragon". Depending on the version of the legend one prefers, Merlin was either the son of Satan (whose symbol, according to Revelations 12:9, was a dragon), or the son of Aurelius, High King of Britain (whose symbol, as betokened by the title Pendragon, was a dragon). The fact that the Red Dragon is the badge of Wales, often supposed to be the source of the Merlin legend, only strengthens the allusion. The submitted name is simply too strongly suggestive of Merlin the enchanter, and must be returned for that reason. (Myrrddin mab y Ddrraig Goch, August, 1993, pg. 16)
...the combination of a clan name with the seat or territory of the clan is the prerogative of the chief of the clan, and is thus disallowed in the Society. (Magdalene Katherine MacDonald of Sleat, August, 1993, pg. 17)
[A roundel charged with five rays issuant from base throughout] While it is true that roundels may be charged with rayed objects in the SCA, those rayed objects are not normally issuant from the inner edge of a roundel. To have charges issuant from the edge of a roundel is to give the roundel the appearance of an inescutcheon of pretense. This appearance is heightened by the use of five tertiaries on the roundel. This is therefore returned for appearance of marshalling. (Alberic Kentigern, October, 1993, pg. 17)
Tabby cats have no defined proper coloration. The Simon & Schuster Guide to Cats cites several different tinctures of tabby cat: silver tabby, cream tabby, blue tabby, brown tabby, and red tabby, among others. Without a fixed coloration, it cannot be blazoned "proper." (Bronwyn ferch Gwyn ap Rhys, July, 1992, pg. 9)
The urchin proper is...brown, with a white face and belly (Mairghread of Ryvel, August, 1992, pg. 16)
A pomegranate proper (as seen in the arms of the Kingdom of Grenada) is vert, seeded gules. (Magdalena Aeleis MacLellan, August, 1992, pg. 24)
An heraldic dolphin proper is vert with gules details. (Aodhán Doilfín, September, 1992, pg. 18)
The catamount proper is effectively Or (Roland de Mounteney, September, 1992, pg. 46)
[Argent, arms proper] The arms have insufficient contrast on the argent field. Human flesh "proper" was sometimes emblazoned as argent in period tomes; and in any case, carnation (pink) cannot be seen against white. (Simona Zon d'Asolo, September, 1992, pg. 51)
Technically, a melusine proper is considered neutral, and acceptable on argent; in practice, its contrast with an argent field is borderline [device returned for other contrast problems and for conflict]. (Simona Zon d'Asolo, September, 1992, pg. 51)
[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)
The Cornish chough proper is black with red beak and feet; like a sword proper, it's a shorthand description of heraldic tinctures, not a complex Linnaean depiction. (George of Mousehole, October, 1992, pg. 1)
A popinjay proper is green with red details; it's a shorthand term for heraldic tinctures, not a Linnaean proper. Moreover, unlike many such terms, popinjays proper are period. (Aeruin ní hEaráin ó Chonemara, October, 1992, pg. 10)
The heraldic rainbow proper has four stripes, vert, argent, Or and gules, in that order (on a light-colored field, which [this submission] implies). The submitted rainbow [colors not given] isn't correctly tinctured for a heraldic rainbow; neither is it properly tinctured for a natural rainbow. And blazoning each of its stripes individually would only emphasize the non-heraldic nature of the submission [badge returned]. (Ruben Klaus Winterhalter, October, 1992, pg. 24)
[Boar's heads colored brown] Unfortunately, [this tincture is] unblazonable: they aren't proper, for boars in nature are dark-grey to black in color. Nor does there seem to be such a thing as a brown boar that could be rendered in this coloring. With no way to blazon the tincture of the heads, this must be returned. (Nils Rixon, October, 1992, pg. 27)
Peacocks proper have green bodies. (Fernando Juan Carlos Remesal, October, 1992, pg. 29)
Rule VIII.4.c is amended to read:
The adult male moose is darker in coloration than most cervids; its coat is almost black, and its antlers dark brown. (Harper & Row's Complete Field Guide to North American Wildlife, plate 63) The latter thus have sufficient contrast with this [ermine] field. (Erik Norton of Helsfjord, November, 1992, pg. 4)
Oars proper are understood to be made of brown wood. (Alberic of Seawall, December, 1992, pg. 13)
The owls were blazoned on the LOI as brown owls ...proper, but no such type of owl exists. The submitter insisted on having owls as drawn on her submission forms (brown, without spots or streaks, and without ear tufts), while we insisted on a species of owl known to period Europeans. The tawny owl (Strix aluco) meets all these requirements, according to Cerny's Field Guide to Birds, pp.140-141. (Danielis Pyrsokomos, January, 1993, pg. 17)
[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)
[A bumblebee proper] The bee in this submission is tinctured sable and Or, with argent wings. Bees are sometimes blazoned proper in mundane armory (Papworth, p.957), so there must be a defined tincture --- but none of my sources say what that might be. The coloration of this submission, however, is the SCA's most common attempt at "proper"; I shall henceforth adopt it as the Society's definition of a bee proper. (Aideen the Audacious, September, 1993, pg. 1)
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)
There [is] little difference between a peacock proper and a peacock azure [i.e., not a CD]. (Caitlyn Emrys, September, 1993, pg. 20)
There is no defined "proper" coloration for a griffin. (Gavin Gamelson, October, 1993, pg. 16)
[Sean O'Connor] This conflicts with John O'Connor, Archbishop of the Diocese of New York, who has gained national attention with his anti-abortion opinions. He is listed in general referernces ( Encyclopedia Americana, 1992 ed., vol.20, p.628), so he's important enough to protect. (See also the LoAR of Nov 88, where another submission was returned for the same conflict.) (Sean O'Connor, August, 1992, pg. 23)
[Porsche Audi] This infringes on the Porsche-Audi division of Volkswagen of America, a registered corporation. Laurel took the most direct method of discovering this: he visited a local Porsche-Audi dealership. The conjunction of the names is distinctive and famous enough to warrant protection. [see also "Style -- Modern," pg. 50] (Porsche Audi, August, 1992, pg. 28)
[House von Neunkirchen] This conflicts with the city of Neunkirchen, in the Saar region between France and Germany. By our standards, the city is important enough to protect: it's a center for the European iron industry, and appears in at least two general references ( The New Century Cyclopedia of Names, vol.III, p.2919; 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, vol.XIX, p.426). The fact that it is a "generically formed name" does not detract from its importance: Iceland is a generically formed name, too. Nor does the fact that several other towns share the same name reduce the importance of this one. Neunkirchen meets the criteria for protection under the Administrative Guidelines; this must therefore be returned. (Astrid Radulfsdottir, August, 1992, pg. 30)
The badges of British ships are registered with the English College of Arms, so this is "real" armory, deserving protection under our current standards. (Marcus il Volpe and Regenwulf Osbern of Nympsfield, September, 1992, pg. 41)
[Juan Sanchez Ramirez] The name infringes on that of Juan Sanchez Villalobos Ramirez, the immortal played by Sean Connery in the film Highlander and its sequel. (The name is unlikely to soon fade into obscurity, for two reasons. First, the Highlander films have spawned a TV series, keeping the name in the public eye for some time to come. Second, the character is played by Sean Connery, which evidently makes the character ipso facto memorable; there are people [like some of my female friends] who would drive a hundred miles to hear Sean Connery read the telephone directory.) (Juan Sanchez Ramirez, September, 1992, pg. 45)
[Iron Horde of Cathanar] As in the case of the Company of the Checquered Shield of Western Seas (LoAR of 19 Jan 91), the use of the SCA branch name implies this is an official group of the Barony of Cathanar. As the submitter doesn't represent Cathanar, he may not style his household in a way that suggests official sanction. (If he has official sanction from Cathanar, the name should be registered to Cathanar.)
Normally, we'd delete the problematic part of the name, and register this as simply the Iron Horde, but that would then introduce conflicts. Specifically, it would conflict with the Iron Guard, a Rumanian fascist organization founded in 1924. Paramilitary and strongly anti-Semite, it played a major role in Rumanian history prior to and during World War II (including the assassination of one Premier and the installation of another). Since it's cited in several general references ( The New Century Cyclopedia of Names, vol.II, p.2135; 1991 Encyclopedia Britannica, vol.7, p.388), the Iron Guard is important enough to protect. (And in any case, I doubt the submitter would like a household name so close to a group whose atrocities offended even the Nazi Gestapo.) (Mengü of Cathanar, September, 1992, pg. 46)
[Maison des Animaux] The name is intrusively modern, strongly evoking the film Animal House (of which the name is an exact translation). Translation into another tongue can bring a name clear, per Rule V.4.b --- but only if the pronunciation is significantly altered. The difference between Animal and Animaux is too small to be considered significant; and the household designator (House, Maison) is transparent, and counts for no difference. As for the "fame" of the conflict, if a sizable fraction of the populace (of which the College of Arms may be considered a representative sample) recognizes Animal House as a movie title, it's probably necessary to protect it from conflict --- not so much for its own sake, as to keep the modern movie reference from intruding on our medieval re-creation. (Jacqueline de Lyons, September, 1992, pg. 49)
[Canton of Chuzan] There was some discussion as to whether this conflicts with Chuzan, the old name of central Okinawa (where the canton is located). The 1986 edition of the Rules for Submission permitted branch names to "use an old in-period name for the territory actually encompassed in the mundane world by that branch", so long as the old name wasn't in modern use (NR18.c). Thus, for instance, a Society branch along the Atlantic Canadian coast could call itself Vinland under the old Rules.
The current Rules do not contain that provision for obsolete placenames to be used by Society branches. I asked Mistress Alisoun, former Laurel Queen of Arms, and she told me the omission was deliberate. The 1986 Rules protected all mundane placenames, no matter how unimportant or obscure; a special dispensation for SCA branches was sometimes needed. The current Rules protect only famous or important placenames. Thus, if the obsolete name for a territory currently occupied by a Society branch is important or famous, it's protected against conflict by anyone (including the SCA branch); if the obsolete name is unimportant, there's no conflict in the first place, and any branch could use the name [name returned for a different conflict]. (Canton of Chuzan, September, 1992, pg. 53)
The movie Castle Keep, produced in the 60s, does not appear to have been important enough to protect. (Shire of Castle Keep, December, 1992, pg. 7)
Some of the conflict calls this month (e.g. Order of the Black Widows, Order of the Opus) were against fictional characters in our popular culture --- specifically, comic strip characters. I dislike having to call conflict against such ephemeral characters; on the other hand, if someone submitted the name Clark Kent, I'd almost certainly return it for conflict. On what basis, then, should we judge such conflicts?
There are two categories in the List of Protected Items (Administrative Guidelines, pp.2-3) that would cover such conflict calls: Category D, Famous Characters in Literature, and Category H, Trademarked Items. Most comic book characters' names are copyrighted these days, as a matter of course, and many are trademarked as well: Marvel and DC are said to be particularly trademark-happy. Our problem lies in the fact that most superhero names are of exactly the same nature as many SCA Order and household names: an epithet or descriptive, taken as a personal noun. Storm, Valor, Swordsman, Ice, Guardian, Phoenix are typical superhero names -- and some of them, as you see, are direct conflicts with registered SCA names. (Heck, Marvel even managed to copyright Meggan, a common given name!)
If I understand rightly, the purpose of trademarks is to keep competitors in a field from manipulating or benefitting from one another's reputations. Trademarks don't infringe when the intended use of the products is so different as to make the chance of confusion negligible. Thus the Excel (the car from Hyundai) doesn't infringe on Excel (the software from Microsoft). The Apple Music Company had no objection to Apple Computers using their name - - until the latter started manufacturing music-making Macs.
If that's the case, then we only need to worry about infringing on copyrights or trademarks when the intended use of the SCA-registered item is too close to the use of the trademarked item. In practice, I suppose this means fighting groups can't call themselves the West Kingdom Avengers or the Justice League of Atlantia -- but I don't see that the Shire of the Storm really infringes on the superheroine Storm.
That leaves protection as Famous Literary Characters, and this is more subjective. I don't want to get into a debate as to whether comics are Literature-with-a-capital-L; it's the fame of the characters, not the quality of their scripting, that concerns us. Infringement requires the character's name to be well-known; unknown names, by definition, won't be recognized as comic book characters. (The issue is related, in a way, to that of intrusive modernity: if people recognize a name as a comic strip character, they automatically know it's not medieval.) Most people haven't heard of most comic book characters; and even well-known superhero names (Captain America, Wonder Woman, Batman, Spiderman) are usually returnable for non-period style as well.
There are thus few comic characters that need to be protected: the aforementioned Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne possibly Mary Worth, Bart Simpson, Charlie Brown, perhaps a handful of others. Those conflicts are, unfortunately, valid -- but they will, in all cases, depend on whether the character's name has seeped into the public consciousness. We can't depend on finding these items in general references, our usual standard for importance. I'll try to be as objective as I can, but it'll still boil down in most cases to polling Yeomen on the Road to see who's heard of the name. (5 December, 1992 Cover Letter (October, 1992 LoAR), pg. 2)
[House Battleaxe] Possible conflict was cited against the HMS Battleaxe. I intend to offer warships the same protection as military units: if they're important enough to be cited in general references (such as encyclopedias), then they will be protected. The Battleaxe does not appear in the references I searched; we needn't protect it. (Michaela de Romeny, October, 1992, pg. 15)
While Howel Dda, ruler of Wales (d.950), is important enough to protect from conflict, evidently his son Owain is not: I couldn't find him mentioned in any of several general references, not even in the entries for his father. (Owain ap Howell, October, 1992, pg. 15)
[Isabella du Dauphiné]The Dauphiné is a region in SE France, which between 1378 and 1830 was nominally ruled by the Dauphin, the heir to the throne of France. Isabella of Bavaria was the wife of that Dauphin who later became Charles VI (Webster's Biographical Dictionary, p.763). This name is thus a direct conflict, in the same way Diana of Wales would conflict with the wife of the current Prince of Wales. (Isabella du Dauphiné, October, 1992, pg. 25)
[Compaignie Mercurie] The name is a technical infringement on the planet
Mercury; according to the OED,
it was spelled as Mercurie in period and was
known to be a place. It's certainly famous enough to protect. We might
have argued jesuitically that, per the Administrative Handbook (p.3), the
College protects only "geographical locations" --- with emphasis on geo-,
"earth". But that line of reasoning would seem to open the door for such
submissions as House of Antares, and we have a long history of returning
extra-terrestrial names ...while the name might be argued to conflict with
the Roman god Mercury --- who, like the planet, meets the criteria for
protection in the Handbook --- allusions to supernatural guardians were
common enough to allow us to call it clear. That is, Compaignie Mercurie
no more conflicts with the god Mercury than, say, the Company of St. Jude
conflicts with St. Jude. (Brynjolfr Myrkjartansson, October, 1992, pg. 26)
[Order of Black Widows] With regard to the possible conflict with the Marvel comic book character the Black Widow, I believe such character names should only be protected if the name is likely to be known outside the ranks of comic book aficionados. Superman, Spiderman, Wonder Woman, for instance, are well-known enough to be protected; the Black Widow is not. (She's a background character in the Marvel universe; she doesn't even rate her own book.) (Kingdom of Trimaris, October, 1992, pg. 33)
Henceforth, I shall apply the previous standard of non-identity: a significant change in spelling and pronunciation will clear a submitted name from the mundane name. [For a full discussion, see under NAMES -- Legal] (Kenrick atte Kyte, November, 1992, pg. 8)
[Rose Thorne] Under our standards for protecting comic-book characters (v. the LoAR cover letter of 5 Dec 92), this does not conflict with Rose Thorn, the secret identity of one of DC's superheroines. The character is minor even by DC's standards, never having had her own book. (Rose Thorne, November, 1992, pg. 9)
The movie Castle Keep, produced in the 60s, does not appear to have been important enough to protect. (Shire of Castle Keep, December, 1992, pg. 7)
[Duncan MacLeod] The name [conflicts] with Duncan MacLeod, hero of the "Highlander" television series. We hated to have to consider the latter conflict, but a random sampling of local SCA folk showed the majority recognized the character. (Duncan MacLeod of Edinbane, December, 1992, pg. 19)
[House Hellcat vs. the Marval superherione Hellcat] As Hellcat has never had her own book, I don't consider her worthy of protection. (Patricia Treise Hellcat, January, 1993, pg. 1)
With the recent increase in the availability of ordinaries -- old and new, compiled both within and without the Society --- it may soon become necessary to update the List of Protected Armory. Currently, the Administrative Handbook (p.3) restricts protection of mundane armory to the sources found in Appendix E. Strictly speaking, no other mundane sources should be checked for conflict (which came as a surprise to me, and possibly to others).
For practical conflict-checking purposes, the important sources in Appendix E are Fabulous Heraldry, the Lyon Ordinary I, Parker, Papworth, Woodward (or the Ordinary compiled therefrom for SCA use), and the Military Ordinary. Master Da'ud added Renesse (the ordinary to Rietstap) and Public Heraldry to the List.
The other sources listed in Appendix E --- e.g. Neubecker, Siebmacher, Foster, Whitney Smith's Flags --- contain armory that is likewise protected, at least in theory. In practice, since these sources aren't organized as ordinaries, conflict checking from them has been sporadic. However, the compilation of ordinaries has been a cottage industry in the College of Arms for many years now. Examples of ordinaries compiled by our heralds include: Hateful Heraldry (in the '81 Symposium Proceedings), Heraldry of the Manesse (in the '83 Symposium Proceedings), An Ordinary of Irish Arms (in Aspilogia Pennsica, '84), and the Ordinaries of Australian Corporate and Personal Heraldry compiled by the Lochac College. I have no doubt, then, that the other sources in Appendix E could spawn ordinaries in the near future.
There's some overlap of our sources: for example, most of the items in Siebmacher are also found in Rietstap. If only the latter is checked for conflict, that should suffice. But the armory in the above-mentioned Australian Ordinaries is too recent to be found in most of our other sources; ditto for the Canadian armory that's recently been compiled. Given the ability to check them for conflict, should we do so? The same logic that would have us protect the items in Papworth should lead us to protect these items as well; and yet the task of conflict-checking should not be allowed to grow exponentially.
The question parallels the Rules discussion that Lord Palimpsest recently announced; and yet, to some degree it's independent of that discussion. Even if no change were made to our current policy, we'd still need to decide which (if any) of the new ordinaries should be added to List of Protected Armory. For now, I propose to add those items that are readily available, lead to meaningful conflict calls (for the purposes of our re-creation), and which have been cited in recent months.
I therefore propose to add the following references to Appendix E:
I considered adding the Dictionnaire Heraldique as well. This is a French roll of arms, c.1723; its advantage is that everyone listed therein was Important at the time, peers and the like. The grand majority of these items are also found in Renesse (Rietstap), so we're wouldn't be protecting anything new. For that same reason, however, I've refrained from explicitly adding it to the List for the moment.
What about the ordinary of Canadian armory ("The Great White Ordinary")? Or the Ordinary to Luftwaffe badges, compiled by Lord Star? Our goal is not to protect every armory in the space-time continuum, but only those whose infringement would be detrimental to the Society's medieval re-creation. Arguments can be made for either including those sources ("If we protect Australian and British, we should protect Canadian"), or ignoring them ("How many people would even recognize a Luftwaffe badge?"). For the moment, I don't intend to add them to Appendix E; but I would like to hear your opinions as to whether they should be added in the near future. Please present your thoughts (possibly concurrent with the Rules discussion) over the next few months. (28 March, 1993 Cover Letter (January, 1993 LoAR), pp. 3-4)
When considering conflict against an historical figure, we must consider all the names by which the figure is known; the removal of the middle name is thus usually insufficient difference. John Kennedy, for instance, would definitely conflict with John Fitzgerald Kennedy; Thomas Edison, with Thomas Alva Edison; and so on. See the case of Patrick MacManus, LoAR of March 92, p.14. (William Hayes, January, 1993, pg. 32)
oW.M. Hawley and Kei Chappelear. Mon: The Japanese Family Crest. In adding this to Appendix E, I'm aware that some commenters feel that Japanese armory is inappropriate in a Society intended to recreate the Middle Ages of Europe; Mon shouldn't be registered, they feel, and mundane Mon certainly shouldn't be protected. The decision to exclude Japanese culture, however, is neither mine nor the College's to make; that can only be decided by the Board of Directors. Until the Board explicitly informs me that Japanese culture is no longer acceptable in the SCA, we will continue to register Japanese-style armory --- which means we will protect Japanese armory. (10 June, 1993 Cover Letter (May, 1993 LoAR), pg. 2)
The conflict cited against the badge of the VF10 (the Grim Reapers) ... would be valid if it came from a protected source. In point of fact, it comes from an as-yet-unpublished update to the Military Ordinary; since it isn't yet distributed, it cannot be considered for inclusion in Appendix E, our list of protected sources. (Li Kung Lo, May, 1993, pg. 9)
The name conflicts with William Ashbless, a major character in the award-winning novel The Anubis Gates, by Tim Powers. There's enough overlap between Society membership and science fiction fandom that we have to consider conflicts like these; and by the criteria set forth in the Administrative Handbook, the character is important enough to protect. (William Ashbliss, May, 1993, pg. 21)
[Wilhelm von Regensburg] Regensburg being the capital of the Upper Palatinate of Bavaria, the LOI questioned whether the name conflicted with those Dukes of Bavaria named Wilhelm. However, the Dukes in question never seemed to have been called of Regensburg; the name no more conflicts with the Dukes of Bavaria than John of London would conflict with King John (whose capital was London). (Wilhelm von Regensburg, June, 1993, pg. 3)
[Order of Perseus] Unlike the cases of Compaignie Mercurie (returned Oct 92) and House Sirius (returned Oct 91), the use of a constellation name here neither infringes on an important location, nor appears to be a claim to extraterrestriality. On the first point, a constellation is not a place; it's a pattern of lights. On the second point, most constellations were named either for artifacts or after characters from ancient myth --- which, during the Renaissance, were also the source for Order names. Given the recent registration of the Order of the Pisces (LoAR of June 92), this is acceptable. (Order of Perseus (Barony of Carolingia), June, 1993, pg. 7)
[Gwenllian ferch Llywelyn] Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, the last Welsh prince of Wales, had a daughter named Gwenllian, but she does not appear to have been important enough to protect from conflict: she appears in no general references, not even in the articles on her father. (Gwenllian ferch Llywelyn, June, 1993, pg. 8)
Joan Wolf is the name of the author of a number of historical novels, including one (The Road to Avalon) set in Arthurian England. However, she doesn't seem to be important enough to protect: she is not listed in our standard references, nor did a poll of randomly chosen populace find any who recalled her Name. (Joan Wolf, June, 1993, pg. 11)
[Or, two dragons combattant, tails entwined in base gules, within an orle
of golpes] Possible conflict was cited with the attributed arms of Uther
Pendragon. Papworth gives
two possible blazons (p.988): Or, two dragons
gules crowned vert, and Or, two wyverns without legs respecting each other
vert crowned gules. Dennys (Heraldic
Imagination, p.189) notes that Or,
two dragons addorsed vert crowned gules was the usual armory attributed to
Uther in medieval treatises. We may speculate that there were other
variants on these themes as well --- including a variant with which this
submission might conflict --- but without an explicit blazon to that
effect, we should give the submitter the benefit of the doubt.
Particularly, against the first of Papworth's blazons above, we assume the
dragons are not combattant; there's a CD for posture of half the monsters,
and a CD for the orle of roundels. (Rhys le Vyngnon, June, 1993, pg. 13)
The Canadian Ordinary (somtimes called the "Great White Ordinary") has not been added to Appendix E, and is therefore not protected --- nor has there been a great cry from the College to have it added. (Julienne Dubarry, August, 1993, pg. 3)
Two ...possible problems with the name were mentioned in the commentary .. . The second question, raised in the LOI, involved the use in the SCA, by a Society group, of the mundane name of the same group. Most of the officers and members of Windwardshire are mundanely the officers and members of the Windward Foundation, a 20th Century non-profit corporation. The Society does not permit its members to use their legal names as their SCA names, requiring some distance between modern and medieval identities; the prohibition is found in the Administrative Guidelines, Protected Items -- I: Any Name or Armory used by the Submitter outside the Society. The LOI raised the question as to whether the prohibition applied to groups as well as individuals.
A case could be made for maintaining some distance between modern and medieval identities, even for groups. The two most persuasive concerns are the need to avoid confusion, and the desire to not compel SCA members to join a modern group. The first concern can be better illustrated by, say, a campus group submitting the name of their college (e.g. a group at Santa Monica College, here in Caid, submitting the name College of Santa Monica). The second concern (which I hasten to note is as yet hypothetical!) would have the mundane group require membership in the mundane group as a condition for participating with the SCA group; it's irrelevant whether such a requirement were de jure or simply through social pressure.
The first concern was addressed by the commenters. Most of them felt that, just as simple non-identity prevented confusion between an individual's legal and Society names, it would prevent confusion between a group's legal and Society names. The mundane group is not called Windwardshire; the SCA group is never called anything else.
The other concern is not solely the province of the College of Arms. All the Powers That Be in a Kingdom should object to any illegal coercion such as I've described. A submissions herald might suspect, by a group's choice of name, that such coercion may be happening; if so, he should bring it to the attention of the Kingdom Seneschal, and the two officers should deal with the matter as seems best ...But the mere suspicion of possible future misconduct by a group is not, by itself, grounds for returning their name [name returned for mundane conflict]. (Windwardshire, August, 1993, pg. 14)
This client's original submission ...was made in the Middle Kingdom in 1976. The name was rejected by Laurel in August 1979 for being too close to the Virgin Mary. Current evidence indicates that this decision was in error. While mildness was an attribute ascribed to the Virgin Mary (see the OED for citations under mild), so were most of the other virtues. Nowhere in A Dictionary of Mary by Donald Attwater (P.J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1956), including in the entry "Titles of Mary", is this particular formation found. The Mild doesn't seem to have been one of her formal titles (such as the Virgin or Queen of Heaven), nor was it so intimately associated with Mary (as would be the Immaculate or the Sorrowful) that the usage must of necessity refer to her. (Mary the Mild, September, 1993, pg. 17)