Precedents of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme

[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Administrative - Registerable Items) |Next Page (Annulet)]

ADMINISTRATIVE -- Rule Changes

Having read the discussions and commentary, I've decided to accept Lord Palimpsest's recommendations of 10 Dec 92, with some very minor changes to the examples. Thanks to all who lent their voices to the debate.

Rule X.4.a.i is amended to read:

X.4.a.i. Fieldless Difference --- A piece of fieldless armory automatically has one clear difference from any other armory, fielded or fieldless.

Tinctureless armory and Japanese mon are considered to be fieldless for this purpose

Rule VIII.4.c is amended to read:

VIII.4.c. Natural Depiction --- Excessively naturalistic use of otherwise acceptable charges may not be registered.

Excessively natural designs include those that depict animate objects in unheraldic postures, use several charges in their natural forms when heraldic equivalents exist, or overuse proper. Proper is allowed for natural flora and fauna when there is a widely understood default coloration for the charge so specified. It is not allowed if many people would have to look up the correct coloration, or if the Linnaean genus and species (or some other elaborate description) would be required to get it right. An elephant, a brown bear, or a tree could each be proper; a female American kestrel, a garden rose, or an Arctic fox in winter phase, could not.

(15 January, 1992 Cover Letter (November, 1992 LoAR), pg. 2)

[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Administrative - Registerable Items) |Top of Page |Next Page (Annulet)]

Lord Palimpsest, in his letter of 19 June 93, has formally recommended changing Rule X.2, the Difference of Primary Charge Rule, to extend (and clarify) the conditions under which it applies. I like his simplified wording, for the most part, but I believe it can be simplified even further if we note three facts:

1. That a group of charges may contain any number of charges --- including one;
2. That the phrase homogeneous charge group, indicating either a single charge or a group of identical charges (and requiring a new definition, either in the Rule or the Glossary), may be replaced with the self-explanatory group of identical charges if the above definition of "group" is observed;
3. That a peripheral charge group is, in fact, a group of secondary charges; the phrase simply denotes a special class of secondaries, a class that can never be primaries, and that are automatically separate from any other secondary group in the same armory.

Rule X.2 is therefore amended to read as follows:

X.2 Difference of Primary Charges --- Simple armory does not conflict with other simple armory if the type of every primary charge is substantially changed.

This type of change was normally seen between complete strangers in blood, and wasn't usually used to indicate any form of cadency. For the purposes of this Rule, simple armory is defined by the following clauses. The word charge refers both to charged and uncharged charges unless it is specifically qualified; a group of charges may contain one or more charges.

a. Armory that has only a primary group of identical charges is simple armory.

Argent, a fess sable does not conflict with Argent, a lion rampant sable. Gules, on a pale argent three roses proper does not conflict with Gules, on a bend argent three roses proper. Or, three lozenges vert, each charged with a mullet argent does not conflict with Or, three billets vert, each charged with a mullet argent. Sable, a chevron Or does conflict with Sable, a chevron embattled Or, because the type of the primary charge group has not been substantially changed.

b. Armory that has only a group of uncharged primary charges is simple armory.

Per chevron gules and argent, three mullets counterchanged does not conflict with Per chevron gules and argent, two escallops and a roundel counterchanged. Azure, three maunches argent, each charged with a rose gules does conflict with Azure, two escallops and a heart argent, each charged with a rose gules, because the primary charges of the latter armory are neither identical nor uncharged. Per chevron gules and argent, three oak trees counterchanged does conflict with Per chevron gules and argent, three fir trees counterchanged, because the type of charge has not been substantially changed; it conflicts with Per chevron gules and argent, two mullets and a fir tree counterchanged because not all of the charges have been substantially changed.

c. Armory that has only a primary group of identical charges, accompanied only by a secondary group of identical charges, is simple armory.

Each of the following armories is simple: Argent, a chevron between three wolf's heads erased sable; Sable bezanty, three millrinds argent; Gules, a saltire between in fess two open scrolls argent, each charged with a pen sable;Vert, three gauntlets argent within a bordure Or semy-de-lys vert; Argent, a rose azure between flaunches gules; Sable, on a hand apaumy within an orle of martlets argent, a rose gules; and Argent, a greyhound courant and on a chief azure, a fleur-de-lys between two pheons argent. Gules, a fess argent charged with three mullets azure, all between three billets argent, each charged with a lozenge azure does not conflict with Gules, a chevron argent charged with three mullets azure, all between three billets argent, each charged with a lozenge azure, since both armories are simple. However, Vert, three gauntlets argent within a bordure Or semy-de-lys sable does conflict with Vert, two mullets and a clarion argent within a bordure Or semy-de-lys sable, because the latter is not simple: its primary charges are not identical. And Argent, a chevron between three wolf's heads erased sable, a chief gules does conflict with Argent, a fess between three wolf's heads erased sable, a chief gules, because neither armory is simple: the primary charge is accompanied by two groups of secondary charges.

This new wording also adds some further clarifying examples, and is more in line with our current definitions. In particular, it's more in line with our current definition of peripheral charge. I know there's been discussion in the commentary about whether peripheral charges can be primaries, whether they're always secondaries, whether they're always separate from other groups of secondaries, and so forth; some of the arguments presented are good, but I'm not yet persuaded to change our current definition of peripheral charges. If I were to change the current definition, it would require a more thorough overhaul of the Rules --- for instance, we'd probably want to add a new category to X.4, "Addition of Peripheral Charges", analogous to the current X.4.c for overall charges --- and I'd prefer it be done after complete discussion, not as a side-issue to this update of the Difference of Primary Charge Rule.

I intend to begin implementation of the revised Rule X.2 at the October Laurel meeting. My thanks to all who participated in the discussion, and especially to Lord Palimpsest for coordinating it and synthesizing a final Rule from it. (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pp. 2-3)

[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Administrative - Registerable Items) |Top of Page |Next Page (Annulet)]