Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme
[A whip nowed] The nowing of the whip renders it unidentifiable. This must be returned, per Rule VIII.3. (Eriu Morgana Nic Dhubhghlaise Crawford, October, 1992, pg. 29)
The Arabic ceremonial saddle (qubbah) is a highly stylized charge from Moslem heraldry, according to the article by Lord Clarion in The Islamic World (Complete Anachronist #51, p.63). (Salim ibn abd al-Rahman al-Rashid, March, 1993, pg. 17)
[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)
[Per saltire gules and sable, a saltire counterchanged, fimbriated argent] Much of the commentary opposed this submission, as over-complex and having insufficient contrast. However, it's acceptable by both period and SCA standards: period, as illustrated by the arms of Say, c. 1586 (Per pale azure and gules, three chevronels counterchanged, fimbriated argent); SCA, as illustrated by the acceptance of Tristan Blackmoor of Darkwoods, April 92 (Per bend sinister gules and sable, a bend sinister counterchanged, fimbriated argent). This submission meets the same standards of simplicity: an ordinary, no complex lines, straight counterchanging, a choice of colors that (for two dark tinctures) maximizes visibility, and no other charges (or even types of charges) in the design.
Moreover, if necessary, this could be reblazoned "Per saltire gules and sable, a saltire argent charged with another per saltire sable and gules;" by that blazon, this would have raised far fewer objections. We opted for the more elegant blazon. [See also Nov. 1992 LoAR, pg. 2] (Nesta Gwilt, June, 1992, pg. 2)
[A saltire parted and fretted vs. a saltire gules charged with another humetty of the field] [The charge] in both armories is essentially a saltire voided. I can't see granting difference for the tiny changes at the intersection of the saltire (Gunnar Birkibeinn, October, 1992, pg. 25)
[In chief an eagle displayed, facing sinister, and in base a saltire, overall a <charge>] This raised some question in the commentary as to whether the saltire could legitimately be "abased" (not issuant from the corners of the chief), as in this submission. Normally, the placement of a saltire is fixed by the points of the shield: the upper limbs issue from the corners of the chief, as would bends and bends sinister. However, using the 13th Century arms of FitzWalter (Or, a fess between two chevrons gules) as a model, we decided that a hypothetical Or, a fess between two saltires gules would be acceptable style --- which would therefore argue that a saltire need not automatically issue from the corners of the chief, but might move to chief or to base if the design dictated. We also decided that such movement should be noted in the blazon, either implicitly (as in our hypothetical example) or explicitly (as in this submission). (Angus Ulrich, July, 1993, pg. 8)
The blanking shears, like scissors, have their handles to base by default (Ian Cnulle, June, 1993, pg. 1)
Scythes have their blades to chief by default, judging by the emblazon of Sneyd (Foster 179). (Li Kung Lo, May, 1993, pg. 9)
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. (Kierano Chonnacht, September, 1992, pg. 40)
We have hitherto granted no difference for type of ship [galley vs. longship] (Erik the Runt, June, 1992, pg. 4)
A longship is so nearly symmetric, reversing it cannot count as a ...CD. (Erik the Runt, June, 1992, pg. 4)
The seal of the town of Bergen, c.1300, shows a double-headed drakkar, with genuine dragon-head prows. Whether or not the Vikings actually sailed such a ship, they were depicted doing so in medieval art. (Ingvarr Vikarsson, August, 1992, pg. 5)
[Lozengy vert and argent, three ships sable] Possible conflict was cited against the armory of the town of Wexford; Papworth (p.1092) blazons it as Three three-masted ships two and one, without the ellipses he normally uses to indicate unknown tinctures. However, the current arms of Wexford have an argent field and proper ships, according to Lord Crescent (who cites Louda's European Civic Coats of Arms). The citation in Papworth would appear to have been taken from a tinctureless depiction of those arms, a seal or church carving. Under the circumstances, we're willing to grant the submitter the benefit of the doubt here. (Eskil Eskilsson Örn, August, 1992, pg. 15)
[A demi-drakkar couped palewise reversed vs. an antique galley] There's a CD for the change to the ship, but we can't see granting Sufficient Difference per Rule X.2; and as both the drakkar and the antique galley (i.e. lymphad) are nearly symmetrical charges, there's no difference for which half of the boat is cut away. (Lars Gilsson, October, 1992, pg. 26)
Prior Laurel rulings (LoARs of July 91, Nov 91) have granted no difference
for the tincture of a ship's sails --- just as we grant no difference for
sails furled vs. unfurled. (Lars Gilsson, October, 1992, pg. 26)
[A wa'a outrigger sable, a bordure] This conflicts with [an antique galley with sails furled ]. There's a CD for the bordure. Previous returns have granted no difference between a galley and a drakkar (LoAR of July 91, p.20); evidently, type of ship is left to artistic license. We'd welcome some further evidence on whether this is a reasonable policy to maintain; for now, we'll uphold precedent. (Barony of Western Seas, January, 1993, pg. 27)
Oars proper are understood to be made of brown wood. (Alberic of Seawall, December, 1992, pg. 13)
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)
Neither [Argent, a chief indented purpure] nor [Argent, a sinister canton purpure] armory contains a primary charge, so Rule X.2 does not apply ...I'm unhappy with the latter conflict, but I see no way around it as the Rules currently stand. Rule X.2, subtitled "Difference of Primary Charges", specifically applies only when "the type of primary charge is substantially changed." Neither the chief, nor the canton, nor any peripheral ordinary, can be a primary charge; otherwise, by Rule X.1 Lozengy bendwise azure and argent, a canton gules would be clear of Bavaria, and Gyronny sable and Or, a bordure gules would be clear of Campbell. That would be unacceptable; therefore a peripheral ordinary can't be the primary charge, even when it's the only charge in the design (Tristram du Bois, July, 1992, pp. 23-24)
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 escallop is not a simple geometric charge, so the change of type alone of tertiary is worth no difference per Rule X.4.j.ii. (Eleri Rhiannon ferch Cian, September, 1992, pg. 38)
[On a flame, a goblet vs. On a flame, a sword charged with a goutte] There are no CDs for the type of tertiary charge in this case. (Lasairfhiona ni Dhoineannaigh, September, 1992, pg. 40)
[On a bend sinister argent between an sun and a increscent, a lizard azure] This conflicts with the device of Serena of Bagulay (SCA): [A bend sinister azure fimbriated argent between in dexter chief three lozenges conjoined in fess and in sinister base a bell]. [The latter] device could equally well be blazoned [On a bend sinister between a bar couped and lozenged and a bell, a bend sinister]; and by that blazon, this is a definite conflict under the Rules. There is a CD for type of secondary charges; but because this is not a "simple case" as defined by Rule X.4.j.ii, change of type alone of tertiary is not worth the second CD needed [and by the reblazoning, there is also nothing for number of secondaries]. (Muireann ní Riordáin, September, 1992, pg. 46)
[On a bend, an lion's head jessant-de-lys between two acorns sable vs. on a bend, three mullets] A prior case (Gavin Malcoeur de Logres, LoAR of Jan 92, p.16) suggests that, when the tertiary group has two types of charge, the device is too complex for X.4.j.ii to be applied. However, Gavin's submission also had a multiply-parted field; I suspect it was the total complexity of the device that prevented the use of X.4.j.ii -- not the use of two types of tertiary per se. I would have no compunction in calling the current submission clear of [this conflict] [returned for a different conflict]. (Tancred Bras-de-Fer, September, 1992, pg. 47)
Rule X.4.j.ii does apply to charged flaunches [in the sense of being "an ordinary or similarly simple geometric charge"]. (Eleonora Vittoria Alberti di Calabria, December, 1992, pg. 8)
Armory with an overall charge doesn't fit the definition of "simple armory" outlined in Rule X.4.j.ii. (Shire of Drei Eichen, December, 1992, pg. 17)
[Azure, on a bend argent between two griffins segreant Or, three acorns palewise azure] Conflict with [Azure, on a bend argent between a mace erect and a barrel palewise Or, three fleurs-de-lys palewise azure]. There's a CD for the change in type of secondary charge. Since Jean-Marc's secondaries are dissimilar, Rule X.4.j.ii doesn't apply to this case; it requires both the armories under comparison to be simple. We thus cannot grant a CD for the single change (of type) of the tertiary charges. (Caroline de Chesnei, March, 1993, pg. 20)
Some commenters had wondered whether the presence of an overall charge automatically brings a design outside the scope of X.4.j.ii. As currently worded, Rule X.4.j.ii.b applies to "an ordinary ...accompanied only by a single group of identical charges on the field." Overall charges, in most cases, are not considered in the same class as charges on the field: they are separate categories of difference (X.4.b and X.4.c), for instance, and VIII.2.b.i refers to contrast between the field and "every charge placed directly on it and with charges placed overall", implying these are separate. Since the Rules don't seem to consider overall charges to be "directly on the field", X.4.j.ii.b doesn't apply to overall charges.
Lord Owen gives another argument: Rule X.4.j.ii.b only applies if the ordinary is charged, not the accompanying secondary charge. If the secondary charge were to overlie the ordinary, it would crowd the tertiaries and render them harder to identify. That seems to contradict the intended purpose of the Rule, that simple armorial design meet less stringent difference standards. I have to agree with this. The presence of the overall charge prevents this design from being considered "simple armory" within the meaning of Rule X.4.j.ii. No CDs can be granted for type alone of tertiary. (College of Cathair Dhaibhaidh, March, 1993, pg. 20)
[Rule X.2 was changed; for the new wording see under ADMINISTRATIVE -- Rule Changes] (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pp. 2-3)
[Sable, on a bend vert fimbriated between two pairs of hammers in saltire, a turtle shell tergiant fesswise Or] This doesn't conflict with [Sable, on a bend vert fimbriated between two lightning flashes, a catamount rampant Or]. By the definitions of Rule X.4.j.ii, these are both simple armory. Thus, there's a CD for the change in type of secondary charges, and a second CD for the change of type of tertiary charge. (Conn Jamesson, June, 1993, pg. 6)
[Azure, a goblet Or, on a chief argent three roses gules] This technically conflicts with Lawrie [Azure, a cup Or with four laurel branches issuant argent, the center ones orlewise, on a chief of the third a lion passant gules between two mullets of the first.] The blazons of similar designs in Lawrie/Laurie armory convince us that the laurel branches are not "maintained" charges but significant secondary charges; their removal is worth a CD. However, we couldn't see giving the second needed CD for the changes to the tertiaries on the chief.
Between this submission and Lawrie, there have been changes to type of all three charges on the chief, and to tincture of two of them. Since Lawrie's armory is not simple, Rule X.4.j.ii doesn't apply; change of type alone of the tertiaries isn't worth a CD. Rule X.4.j.i states that "Generally, such changes must affect the whole group of [tertiary] charges to be considered visually significant." [Emphasis Bruce's.] The word "generally" gives us some leeway, true, but the cases where that leeway can be exercised are few.
It has been ruled (LoAR cover letter of 16 Oct 90) that "in certain particularly simple cases, changes to type or number plus change of tincture of one-half of tertiary charge(s) will be sufficient difference for a CVD." The defining case closest to the current submission was that of Éibhleann O'Ceileachair, Sept 90: her submission of Azure, a demi-sun issuant from base Or, on a chief argent three shamrocks vert was deemed clear of the Barony of Aneala, Azure, a demi-sun issuant from chief Or, on a chief argent a laurel wreath vert between two swan's heads and necks erased respectant sable. That case, and the case of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme on the same LoAR, set the standard for "certain particularly simple cases": all the armories considered had at most a single charge beneath the chief. While the client's submission meets that standard, the arms of Lawrie do not; Lawrie has twisty branches, half of which form an orle. I therefore cannot consider this a simple case, and so cannot grant the needed CD for the tertiary changes.
To summarize: between this submission and the arms of Lawrie, there's a CD for the secondary charges (the laurel branches); but Lawrie's armory is too complex to allow us to get another CD for the changes to the tertiaries. This must be returned, with regrets. (Anne of Carthew, July, 1993, pg. 12)
Current precedent does not permit the heart to be considered a "simple geometric charge" for the purposes of Rule X.4.j.ii; therefore, only changing the type of the tertiary is not worth a CD. (Margaret Menteith, September, 1993, pg. 21)
[A Maltese star cross] This conflicts with [a snowflake]. The visual similarity between the Maltese star cross and a snowflake is too large to ignore. (Elgar of Stonehaven, January, 1993, pg. 23)
While we're generally content to mix-and-match elements from different heraldic regimes, we draw the line at mixing oriental and occidental charges. The College of Arms has frequently restricted the use of charges from Japanese Mon to Mon-style submissions: e.g. the nami or Great Wave, restricted to Mon-style submissions on the LoAR of 25 Feb 83. The use of a Chinese ideogram with lozengy flaunches falls into the same restricted area. (Dallán Ó Fearchaidhe vom Kirschwald, July, 1992, pg. 21)
[a bend sinister bevilled between in pale a skull and a skull inverted] The bend sinister in the device is not correctly drawn: it does not issue from the sinister chief, as the ordinary should, nor is it correctly bevilled [the two pieces of the bend sinister significantly overlap] (see the LoAR cover letter of 18 Sept 92 for a complete discussion on bevilling). Combined with the inversion of the lower skull, the whole device is unacceptably poor style. (Juan Sanchez Ramirez, September, 1992, pg. 45)
[Two angels bendwise sinister, passant to sinister guardant, originially blazoned as rising] The angels' posture is not particularly heraldic, as evidenced by the number of suggestions for reblazoning them; neither volant nor rising is appropriate to humanoids. The above blazon was the closest we could devise, and it isn't all that accurate. The angels need to be in a blazonable posture. (Meghan Pengwyn of Wynterwood, September, 1992, pg. 46)
[Per bend bevilled "fesswise", in sinister chief a <charge>] As noted in the LoAR cover letter of 18 Sept 92, this is not a correctly drawn Per bend bevilled; it follows neither the example of Per bend bevilled found in period heraldic tracts, nor is it a valid extrapolation from the documented bend bevilled. Added to the fact that such bevilled fields were never used with charges, the whole becomes unacceptable. (Theodora Delamore, September, 1992, pg. 47)
[Argent, two herons statant counter-statant in saltire, and a bordure flory azure] This is not really drawn in a period style. The ripples around the (couped) legs of the herons, and the Art Deco bordure that doesn't follow the line of the shield, combine to warrant a return for redrawing. (Ander Vargskinn, September, 1992, pg. 47)
[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 falcon rising, wings displayed, surmounted by a drawn bow, arrow nocked] This is essentially a falcon drawing a bow and arrow; in this case, we're willing to treat the bow and arrow as a separate group of charges from the falcon. (Aelfric the Kestrell, October, 1992, pg. 11)
Tongues of flame are not period [device returned for this reason in combination with other style problems]. (Shire of Crystal Moor, October, 1992, pg. 31)
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)
[Per pale, a mullet inverted between in chief three roundels one and two counterchanged and a chief] The arrangement of the roundels is a "weirdness", being poor style and awkward of blazon; since it was noted in her previous return, it needed to be changed or justified before the submission could be registered. In this case, the motif is already registered to the submitter's husband, ([Per pale, a mullet inverted between in chief three roundels one and two all counterchanged]); the Grandfather Clause permits her to register it as well. (Zillah de Barcelona, March, 1993, pg. 4)
[Per pale, three wolves' teeth issuant from the dexter flank and three wolves' teeth issuant from the sinister flank, counterchanged.] Siebmacher's Wappenbuch of 1605 shows the arms of von Keudell (plate 135): Argent, a fess vert, in chief three wolves' teeth issuant from dexter and three issuant from sinister sable. The use of wolves' teeth from both sides of the shield seems acceptable, at least in a design as simple as this. (Talon Graymane, March, 1993, pg. 18)
[Sable, three pallets and three bendlets fretted, between in bend sinister a rabbit rampant contourny, maintaining a sword, and a natural panther rampant argent] The device is unbalanced, and certainly not ideal style. On the other hand, given period grants that explicitly blazoned crosses tripartite as three pallets woven with three barrulets, this is not completely unreasonable [device registered] (Shea mac Conn, May, 1993, pg. 13)
[In chief an eagle displayed, facing sinister, and in base a saltire, overall a <charge>] This raised some question in the commentary as to whether the saltire could legitimately be "abased" (not issuant from the corners of the chief), as in this submission. Normally, the placement of a saltire is fixed by the points of the shield: the upper limbs issue from the corners of the chief, as would bends and bends sinister. However, using the 13th Century arms of FitzWalter (Or, a fess between two chevrons gules) as a model, we decided that a hypothetical Or, a fess between two saltires gules would be acceptable style --- which would therefore argue that a saltire need not automatically issue from the corners of the chief, but might move to chief or to base if the design dictated. We also decided that such movement should be noted in the blazon, either implicitly (as in our hypothetical example) or explicitly (as in this submission). (Angus Ulrich, July, 1993, pg. 8)
[Porsche Audi] Lord Crescent is correct when he states that there is no Rule explicitly banning intrusively modern names. Nonetheless, intrusive modernity is given as a reason for armorial return (VIII.4.b); it is given as a reason for not accepting mundane names, even under the Mundane Name Allowance (II.4); we may reasonably infer that intrusive modernity is unacceptable.
If a specific Rule must be cited, Rule I.1 requires all names to be "compatible with the period and domain of the Society"; moreover, even names formed from period elements can be returned if "they have been specifically declared incompatible by these rules, Laurel precedent, or a policy statement from the Board of Directors." Intrusive modernity has been declared sufficient reason for return in the past: Joe Westermark, the Artemisian Tank Corps, Rolling Thunder, and the Societas Historum Mortum have all been returned for modernity. The precedent is well-established, and therefore, by I.1 may be cited as reason for return.
The fact that this is a "joke name" is not, in and of itself, a problem. The College has registered a number of names, perfectly period in formation, that embodied humor: Drew Steele, Miles Long, and John of Somme Whyre spring to mind as examples. They may elicit chuckles (or groans) from the listener, but no more. Intrusively modern names grab the listener by the scruff of the neck and haul him, will he or nill he, back into the 20th Century. A name that, by its very presence, destroys any medieval ambience is not a name we should register. (Porsche Audi, August, 1992, pg. 28)
[A Scottish piper passant to sinister, in sinister chief three musical notes, two and one.] This runs afoul of the ban on overly pictorial design, Rule VIII.4.a: the musical notes hovering over the piper are a cartoon representation of music [device returned for this and other problems]. (Robert of Bohemia, October, 1992, pg. 24)
Rule VIII.4.c is amended to read:
[A chevron inverted debased] The chevron inverted is definitely debased, so much that the fact must be blazoned; but no evidence has been presented chevrons (inverted or not) were blazoned or drawn "debased" in period. (Charles of the Painted Glen, November, 1992, pg. 15)
The use of ring-necked pheasants proper and garden roses, when both have honest heraldic equivalents, violates our strictures against excessive naturalism, as outlined in Rule VIII.4.c. (Wilhelmina Brant, December, 1992, pg. 20)
[Or, an anvil sable atop a mount invected vert, a chief enarched rayonny azure] There are two stylistic problems with the device. First, the chief combines two complex lines of division, which has been grounds for return ere now (LoAR of Dec 92, p.20). Second, the device has a strong appearance of landscapism, disallowed under Rule VIII.4.a. While each of these is not quite sufficiently bad enough for return --- the enarched line is one of the few that might be combined with other complex divisions, and the landscape effect is not as blatant as it could have been --- the combination of the two is enough to have this returned for non-heraldic style. Both problems might be solved by using a plain chief. (Boris Brighthill, January, 1993, pg. 30)
The College's ban on the international "no" symbol (a bend and bordure gules in combination) only applies when the combination is actually used as a "no" symbol: surmounting the symbol of whatever's being forbidden. The bend-bordure combination is not banned when there is no underlying charge. In this case [Vairy, a bend and a bordure gules], since vair isn't a charge, we find no stylistic problems here [device returned for conflict]. (Chryse Raptes, January, 1993, pg. 32)
[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)
[A dragon couchant contourny, saddled and wings displayed argent, maintaining in its forepaws a harp, in chief a flute] this contains too many references to Pern, the world of Anne McCaffrey's Dragonrider series. Pern has a technology advanced well beyond that compatible with the SCA's period. The white dragon, saddled for a dragonrider, with the symbols of the Harper Hall, all combine to form an inescapable Pernish reference [returned for this reason and also for the non-heraldic position of the dragon]. (Gerome of Heyswyndon, March, 1993, pg. 26)
One of the precedents overturned at the July meeting was Master Da'ud's ruling (Jan 92, p.15) on how we count difference against mundane Mon. He was treating Mon as omni-tinctured fielded armory -- essentially, armory registered in every possible permutation of solid tinctures -- and thus counting no difference whatever for field or charge tincture (while still granting a CD for field division, versus the Mon's theoretically solid tincturing). The practical effect of his ruling was to set up two parallel systems of difference, one for tinctured armory, one for mundane Mon; and it seemed to unduly protect a set of armories that, at best, were on the fringe of the SCA's time-space domain.
I think it better to treat Mon just as we treat our own tinctureless badges: a special case of our fieldless badges. Per Rule X.4.d, tinctureless armory thus gets a CD for fieldlessness (see X.4.a.i), and the second necessary difference must come from some category that doesn't involve tincture. Such tinctureless armory is found in the SCA (mostly as seals) and in European heraldry (e.g. the Stafford knot); it seems simplest to deal with Japanese Mon on the same footing.
Thus, against the armory found in Hawley's Mon: The Japanese Family Crest, we now get an automatic CD for fieldlessness; on the other hand, just as with other fieldless badges, divided fields will no longer count towards difference. In the long run, I think this will work out for the best: it will be closer to how the Japanese treated their own armory, and it won't require special-case considerations in the Rules. (3 August, 1992 Cover Letter (July, 1992 LoAR), pg. 3)
While we're generally content to mix-and-match elements from different heraldic regimes, we draw the line at mixing oriental and occidental charges. The College of Arms has frequently restricted the use of charges from Japanese Mon to Mon-style submissions: e.g. the nami or Great Wave, restricted to Mon-style submissions on the LoAR of 25 Feb 83. The use of a Chinese ideogram with lozengy flaunches falls into the same restricted area. (Dallán Ó Fearchaidhe vom Kirschwald, July, 1992, pg. 21)
Tomoe are comma-shaped figures, used in Japanese Mon to represent a whirlpool. Mon designs may have one, two, or (most usually) three tomoe in annulo. They have no equivalent in European armory. (Hawley & Chappelear, Mon: the Japanese Family Crest, p.76) In general, Mon-like designs are acceptable in Society armory only if they can be blazoned in European heraldic terms --- as though a period Japanese, visiting Europe, were attempting to register his Mon with one of the kings of arms. Tomoe cannot be blazoned in European terms, and so cannot be considered compatible with European heraldry. This submission, though a splendid Japanese design, may not be registered in the Society. (Takeo Niro, November, 1992, pg. 15)
There have been some questions recently regarding the registration of mon. The Laurel Office position is plain: we don't register mon in the traditional Japanese style. Our emphasis is on European armory; our policy on Japanese-style submissions parallels the Society's policy on Japanese personae. Japanese personae are considered visitors to a European court (v. the SCA Organizational Handbook, p.74); Japanese-style armory are considered the attempts of such visitors to register their mon with a European king of arms. As noted in the return of Sakura Kita Maikeru (in the March section of the LoAR [pg. 20]), this policy has been in place at least since April 83 --- as have the policy's logical extensions. Mon must be blazonable in European heraldic terminology, and meet European standards of style; a decade of registrations has shown they can do this and still keep their Japanese aura.
Another consequence of our policy is that Japanese-style submissions should use the appropriate submission form for a device or badge. A "primary mon" is a device, and should be submitted on a device form, not a badge form. Once registered, the submitter may use the armory on any shape he chooses; but we have enough details to coordinate without also having to worry about whether a submission is or isn't a badge. The whole purpose of separate device and badge forms is to allow heralds at every level of the submission process to tell, at a glance, exactly what sort of armory is being submitted. Please cooperate with us by using them as they were intended. (8 May, 1993 Cover Letter (March, 1993 LoAR), pp. 2-3)
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 torii is still permitted in Society heraldry, due to its modern familiarity among Occidentals (for instance, the word is found in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) and its valid reblazon as a Japanese gateway. However, since no heraldic difference can normally be obtained from regional drawing style, we grant no difference between a Japanese gateway (torii) and a standard heraldic gate --- any more than we grant difference between an arch and a dolmen. (Ihashi Hidezo, June, 1993, pg. 22)
In general, we don't blazon the exact nationality of the drawing style, preferring to leave that to the artist; the few exceptions to this rule are just that, exceptions. (Miguel Tamut de Aldea, September, 1993, pg. 20)
[Per bend sinister, a demi-panther guardant and a demi-panther inverted guardant, both issuant from the line of division] The style of this device has been registered before (Dairine Mor Ó hUigin, April 89). Similar designs are found in late-period German armory, as in the arms of Burgkmair, 1516 (Per bend sinister Or and sable, the line in the form of two bear's heads interlocked, the one in base inverted); see von Volborth's Art of Heraldry, p.55. So long as there are no other complexities (e.g. other charges), the motif is acceptable for Society use. (Michael David of Aran Island, September, 1992, pg. 29)
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)
There are period examples of gyronny fields, where alternating gyrons were charged: e.g. the arms of Stoker, Lord Mayor of London in 1484, Gyronny of six azure and argent, each argent gyron charged with a popinjay proper. (Ginevra d'Altieri, October, 1992, pg. 9)
It has been ruled that an arch of charges is not period heraldic style. The ruling was originally for an arch of stars : "Stars surrounding only part of a charge is fantasy art." [BoE, 28 Sept 84] It has since been extended to any charges "in arch". (Michaela de Romeny, October, 1992, pg. 30)
When a bordure and chief are used together, the chief almost invariably overlies the bordure (Parker 73). The rare exceptions generally don't have tertiaries on the chief; they would be crowded by the bordure, rendering them harder to identify. The handful of SCA registrations with bordures surmounting charged chiefs have subsequently been disallowed as precedent (LoAR of Oct 91, p.17); far more often, such designs have been returned as non-period practice. [Device also returned for conflict] (Justin of Kent, December, 1992, pg. 20)
[
In one of the March submissions (Wulfgar der Krieger [pg. 15]), I've ruled that gyronny of six palewise will no longer be permitted (after the standard four-month grace period, of course). Parker, p.301, states that gyronny of six should be symmetric around the horizontal axis, not the vertical axis; and this is borne out by such period examples as I've been able to uncover. Gyronny of six palewise is purely an SCA term for what is, as far as I can tell, a non-period rendition of the field. I can usually manage to reblazon it Per pale and per saltire; but sometimes (as with Wulfgar's submission) there's no way to reblazon it. I would prefer to see correct emblazons for this field, rather than have to resort to circuitous or torturous reblazon. If someone can provide evidence that gyronny of six palewise was used in period armory, I will continue to accept it; failing such evidence, I will begin returning it at the Oct 93 meeting. (8 May, 1993 Cover Letter (March, 1993 LoAR), pg. 3)
[Argent, four scarpes alternately gules and sable, on a chief <charges>] Though blazoned on the LOI as Bendy sinister argent and alternately gules and sable..., the full emblazon showed an argent field with four scarpes. Even considered as a Bendy sinister field, however, this is compatible with European armory. A period example may be found in the arms of von Schreibersdorf, c.1600 (Siebmacher, plate 166): Bendy argent, gules and sable. (Robin of Rhovanion, July, 1993, pg. 3)
[Per chevron Or crusily botonny and azure, in base a cross botonny Or] The use of a charge of the same type as a semy on the shield has previously been ruled unacceptable. "The most serious [stylistic problem] is the fact that a single secondary charge is placed on a field strewn with the same charge (in the same tincture!). Such a differentiation is not period style..." (AMoE, LoAR 2/25/90, p. 19) This was extended by Master Dau'd to include a charge of a different tincture from the semy. (LoAR 9/90, p. 16). (Barbara ni Sheaghdha of Tir Chonall, September, 1993, pg. 22)
[Per pale azure and vert, in chief two lozenges conjoined in fess argent charged with two axes in chevron sable, in base a mullet of eight points argent] This is poor style, and not to be encouraged, but it appears to be registerable (Haakon Bjornsson, August, 1992, pg. 20)
[A] rainbow [proper]'s tinctures are counted individually; it could have been solidly tinctured, after all. If that means rainbows proper can only be used in very simple designs, so be it. (Yvon Bater of Darkwood, August, 1992, pg. 29)
[Per bend sinister counter-vairy gules and Or and counter-vairy sable and Or, a dragonfly ermine] The field, though visually complex, is the same as that used on his previous return ...and no objection was raised at that time. Moreover, there are a few period examples of multiply-parted fields of three tinctures: e.g. the arms of von Hohenegk ( Siebmacher, plate 35), Checky sable, argent, sable and gules, a canton Or. So, for a design this simple, this field is not unreasonable. (Ilya Vsevolod Fominich., September, 1992, pg. 25)
[Gyronny wavy azure and argent, a jester's head affronty proper, bearded gules, vested quarterly Or and vert, belled erminois] This device is as busy as we care to see [device registered]. (Thorbrand the Red, September, 1992, pg. 35)
[Argent maily sable, on a chief a scroll charged with quill pens] This was blazoned on the LOI as [Per fess, in chief on an scroll quill pens]. However, the full emblazon didn't quite show a Per fess division, but rather a charged chief. The quill pens are therefore quaternary charges, which are disallowed per Rule VIII.1.c.ii.
The distinction between, say, Argent, a chief gules and Per fess gules and argent was not often observed in early heraldry; indeed, the first examples of Per-fess emblazons were blazoned a chief. (See Wagner's Historic Heraldry of Britain, plate II, for such an example.) However, the distinction was observed by the mid-15th Century, and is observed in the SCA. This may make it easier for us to avoid conflict, but it also requires us to insist on correct emblazons. If this is resubmitted with an undoubted Per fess field, there should be no stylistic problems. (August Kroll, September, 1992, pg. 37)
[A <charge> and in sinister chief three bendlets] The device is excessivly
imbalanced, which is not period heraldic style. A similar device (Penelope
of the Quill, Vert, a quill pen bendwise and three bendlets enhanced Or)
was returned Jan 92 for the same reason. [See also Keridwen of Caermarthen, same letter,
pg. 53; the lowest bendlet in both cases issues from
the center of the chief] (Brendan Hugh Guarin, September, 1992, pg. 37)
[A drawn bow fesswise, nocked of a double-bitted axe, and sustained by two
bears combattant] The device has a single group of charges, of three
different types, in violation of Rule VIII.1.a. This must be returned (Big
Bear of Haven, September, 1992, pg. 48)
[A cubit arm issuant from the mouth of a fish's head couped close, sustaining a crescent] Visually the three charges have equal weight, making this a single group of three different charges. This must be returned for violating Rule VIII.1.a. [badge appealed and later registered -- see Simona Zon d'Asolo, August, 1993, pg. 12] (Simona Zon d'Asolo, September, 1992, pg. 51)
[Per bend sinister argent and sable, a skull sable jessant-de-lys gules and an eagle's foot erased inverted argent maintaining a torteau] While far from ideal, this is registerable style. (Damianus Petrolino, October, 1992, pg. 8)
[Gules, an elephant passant trumpeting, on a chief raguly argent two annulets gules, and for augmentation, in center chief an inescutcheon sable charged with an annulet Or.] We will allow augmentations to use quaternary charges in simple cases, such as this one. The blazon reflects the fact that the device may be displayed either with or without the augmentation; conflict should be checked against both forms. (Fiona Averylle of Maidenhead, October, 1992, pg. 13)
[Sable, on a pale between two mullets of four points elongated to base argent, a pine tree eradicated proper, on a chief argent three reremice sable] This is too complex. It has four tinctures and five types of charge, which exceeds our rule of thumb for complexity as outlined in Rule VIII.1.a. While this rule of thumb may be waived for a truly period design, the use of mullets of four points elongated to base prevents this from being considered such a design. (Egill Gunnbjarnarson, October, 1992, pg. 29)
[In pale a peacock in his pride, and a rapier and a lute in saltire] This
is a single group of primaries, of three different types, which violates
Rule VIII.1.a. (Fernando Juan Carlos Remesal, October, 1992, pg. 29)
[In chief a boar's head and in base a bow and a sword in saltire] The use
of a single group of three dissimilar charges is not permitted, per Rule
VIII.1.a. The exact arrangement of the three charges within the group
(whether 2&1, a sheaf, or whatever) does not change this (Colin Douglas of
Greysmarch, November, 1992, pg. 14)
[Argent, on a pale azure between two garden roses gules, slipped vert, a garden rose Or, slipped vert, on a chief azure an arrow reversed Or] This is too complex. It has four types of charge in five tinctures, which exceeds our standard for complexity as outlined in Rule VIII.1.a. While that guideline may be waived for a comely period design, the use of garden roses prevents this from being considered such a design. (Katherine of Thorneholde, December, 1992, pg. 20)
[Two straight trumpets in saltire, surmounted by another palewise, the whole ensigned of a fleur-de-lys Nourrie between two lions combattant] Some commenters suggested that, because the charges were conjoined, they formed a single group. That isn't necessarily the case: A mullet within and conjoined to an annulet has an obvious primary charge surrounded by a secondary charge. As drawn here, the lions and fleur-de-lys appear to be a separate group from the trumpets; thus, this does not appear to be a group of three dissimilar types of charge (soi-disant "slot-machine heraldry"). Whether the badge's visual confusion is now at acceptable levels is a separate issue; absent any supporting arguments, this must still be considered unacceptably complex for a fieldless badge. A more standard arrangement of charges would probably solve this. [Badge returned also for presumption, see PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION] (Norrey Acadamie of Armorie (Taliesynne Nycheymwrh yr Anyghyfannedd), December, 1992, pg. 21)
[A bend sinister between in chief a fox and in base a a crescent and a crescent inverted] The secondaries are technically not a group of dissimilar charges ("slot-machine heraldry"), and not ground for return; however, the design isn't the ideal period style, and would be considerably improved by deleting one of the crescents [device returned due to a badly drawn wavy line]. (Morgan Rowantree, March, 1993, pg. 21)
[Per bend sinister, a quill pen issuant from an ink bottle and a rose] The device has a single group of three dissimilar charges, all of equal visual weight. This is disallowed, per Rule VIII.1.a (Astrid Esbjörnsdotter, May, 1993, pg. 15)
[Gules, on a pale sable fimbriated Or between two cubit arms argent, an arrow inverted surmounted by two axes in saltire Or] The device is overly complex. It uses four tinctures and four types of charge, which by Rule VIII.1.a makes it marginal at best; the use of the fimbriation pushes it over the edge. This must be returned for simplification.
Moreover, the arrow was drawn with small, nigh-invisible point and fletching, which has been reason for return ere now. If he uses an arrow in his resubmission, please instruct the client to draw it with large, visible fletching and point. (Brychen Silverfist, May, 1993, pg. 17)
[Per saltire argent, and sable fretty argent, in pale a rose sable, barbed and seeded proper, and a sinister gauntlet aversant clenched sable] Under current precedent, fretyy and a fret are artistic variants of the same charge. The submission therefore contains a single group of four primaries, of three different types: rose, gauntlet, and fretwork. This is disallowed per Rule VIII.1.a. (Tamara the Seeker, July, 1993, pg. 14)
[(Fieldless) A cubit arm proper issuant from the mouth of a fish's head couped close vert, maintaining a crescent gules] This was an appeal of a return on the LoAR of Sept 92. At the time, I'd judged the three charges to be of roughly equal visual weight, and considered this a single group of three dissimilar charges (so-called "slot- machine heraldry"). Such practice is in general disallowed, per Rule VIII.1.a. The appeal provided extensive documentation, intended to support the submitted design in specific and the use of three dissimilar charges in general.
Much of the documentation did not support the concept of three dissimilar charges in a single group: while the examples did show three types of charge, they generally weren't in the same group. (E.g. the badge of Nordham, c.1525: Within a fetterlock argent garnished Or, an escutcheon azure charged with a lion's head erased argent. By our definitions, the lion's head is not of the same group as the fetterlock or escutcheon --- and it's arguable whether they're in the same group.) Others of the examples, such as the rose-thistle-trefoil badge of the United Kingdom, were post-period
At least one of the examples cited, however, exactly matched the form of this submission: the badge of the Lord Chamberlain, c.1525, A cubit arm habited bendy sinister wavy of five pieces argent and azure and issuant out of a rose gules, the hand proper grasping an arrow. Additionally, it has been noted that Rule VIII.1.a describes the ban on "slot-machine heraldry" as a guideline, not an ironclad law. Finally, re-examination of the emblazon shows the crescent to be neither unarguably one of the primary charge group nor unarguably a negligible "held" charge; one could make a case for either ruling. Added to the mort of documentation, I have no qualms in now registering the badge (Simona Zon d'Asolo, August, 1993, pg. 12)
[Argent, three piles sable, overall a rose proper, all within a bordure azure] The device has three types of charge and six tinctures, which would normally exceed our rule of thumb for complexity. Two of the tinctures, however, belong to artistic details, worth no heraldic difference, and the design itself is symmetrical and balanced (with an honest heraldic rose!). Under the circumstances, the visual complexity is acceptable. (Moira MacDonnel White, October, 1993, pg. 1)
There's ...no difference between a multi-pointed mullet and a sun (Juliana Richenda Trevain, July, 1992, pg. 20)
In counting conflict, we don't consider eclipsing to be a change in tincture, but equivalent to the addition of a tertiary charge. (I.e., a sun vert eclipsed Or and a sun vert charged with a bezant are equivalent blazons.) (Duncan Vitrarius, September, 1992, pg. 31)
There's no difference between a sun and a multi-rayed estoile. (Eirikr Sigurdharson, September, 1992, pg. 38)
I grant a CD between a roundel engrailed and a sun. (Solveig Throndardottir, October, 1992, pg. 10)
[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)
Just as we grant a CD between a sun and a mullet (of 5 points), so do we grant a CD between a sun and an estoile (of 6 rays). (Monica Eve le May, July, 1993, pg. 6)
[On a sun Or eclipsed sable, an anchor Or] The badge has two problems,
either of which is sufficient for return. The first is the use of
quaternary charges, or charges entirely on tertiaries. A sun eclipsed is
considered equivalent to a sun charged with a roundel; the two are
interchangeable blazons, and yield the same emblazon. The anchor atop the
roundel is therefore a quaternary charge, forbidden per Rule VIII.1.c.ii
[also returned for conflict] (Angus Sinclair, August, 1993, pg. 15)
We grant no difference between a compass star and a rivenstar, and no
difference between a compass star and a sun. (Jacques Gilbert de Gascogne,
September, 1993, pg. 23)
[A garden rose slipped and leaved and on a chief three garden rosebuds] There is a longstanding policy that one may not use two close variants of the same charge in one design. It creates visual confusion, where the whole purpose of heraldry is instant identification. The almost-but-not-quite identical charges need not be a single group; this is not related to our ban on "slot-machine heraldry." (We wouldn't allow, for example, a sun between three compass stars either.) If there's not a CD between the two charges, they should not be used together in the same design. (Joanna d'Oléron, September, 1993, pg. 24)
We grant no difference between mullets of six points and compass stars, nor between compass stars and suns, so all three are considered as variations on the same charge. Using them all in a single device is not acceptable style. (Isabella Julietta Diego y Vega, October, 1993, pg. 19)
The charges on the chief were blazoned as rapiers, but drawn as modern fencing foils. While the LOI noted that the submitter would be told how to draw the charges henceforth, this doesn't make the device, as submitted, acceptable. We can wink at minor emblazonry problems, but not blatantly non-period artifacts. [See also Fernando Juan Carlos Remesal, October 1992 LoAR, pg. 29] (Thorun Geiri, September, 1992, pg. 50)
There should be a CD for sword vs. sword inverted, when the primary charge in the device. (Lothair the Valiant, March, 1993, pg. 13)