[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Charge - Maintained) |Next Page (Charge - Peripheral)]
There are a few period examples of overall charges counterchanged: e.g. Alwell, c.1586, Argent, a pile sable, overall a chevron counterchanged. These examples all seem to use ordinaries surmounting ordinaries. I am perfectly willing to permit overall charges in the SCA to be counterchanged, so long as they too are ordinaries (or charges of similar simplicity, such as roundels). [see also Aaron de Hameldene, July, 1992 LoAR, pg. 20] (Kendric of Black Water., July, 1992, pg. 13)
[On an estoile, a phoenix] This was blazoned on the LOI as An estoile ...and overall a phoenix. However, an examination of the full-sized emblazon showed this to be incorrect: the "overlap" of the phoenix over the estoile's edge was so small as to be negligible. This in itself is reason for return: the Laurel office has long insisted that overall charges be truly overall, not barely overlapping the edge of their underlying charge. (LoAR of 17 June 83) [Returned for this reason and for conflict] (Eirikr Sigurdharson, September, 1992, pg. 38)
Ermine fimbriation is disallowed (LoAR of 3 Aug 86, p.17), as are overall charges surmounting fimbriated ordinaries (9 March 86, p.12). (Cerridwen nic Alister, October, 1992, pg. 26)
[On a pale, a <charge>, overall a laurel wreath] Our general policy (LoAR of July 92, p.20), based on period practice, is that only ordinaries (or similarly simple charges, such as roundels) may be counterchanged across ordinaries. The laurel wreath is not a simple charge, and may not be counterchanged here. While we were tempted to be lenient in this case (considering the arms of the Shire's parent Kingdom contain a laurel wreath counterchanged across a pale), I decided that making an exception here would open a larger can of worms than I could contemplate with equanimity. (Shire of Blackmoor Keep, October, 1992, pg. 28)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Charge - Maintained) |Top of Page |Next Page (Charge - Peripheral)]
In my LoAR cover letter of 3 August 1992, I suggested a ban on fieldless badges with overall charges. My reasons were that overall charges obscured the underlying charges into unidentifiability; that I could find no period examples of badges with overall charges; and that such badges, as they're often registered in the SCA, used overall charges of a different tincture class than the underlying charges, making it impossible to display the badges on any plain field.
There were some objections to my proposal, mostly fixating on the last (and least important) of my three points. There were also complaints that the ban would make it more difficult to register armory in the SCA, an objection that's been raised every time we try to improve our stylistic standards. The most substantive objection came from Lord Eclipse, who noted the badge of Baron Sudeley (Fox-Davies' Heraldic Badges, p.147): A fire-beacon and in front thereof and chained thereto, a panther ducally gorged, the tail nowed. This is emblazoned in Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry, p.221, and seems to be drawn with the panther overlying the stem of the beacon.
However, as a counter-example to my proposed ban, the Sudeley badge is doubly flawed. First, it's considerably post-period; Fox-Davies dates it to 1906. Second, the panther and beacon have a very small area of intersection; Sudeley's badge uses an overall charge to the same degree that, say, In saltire a sword and a lute uses an overall charge.
Eclipse's example got me to thinking, however, and I've realized that there are cases where a fieldless badge could acceptably use an overall charge. The cases are those where one or both of the charges were long and slender, making the area of intersection small --- e.g. A sword, blade surmounted by an anvil. Such a badge would have all its charges identifiable, and be well in keeping with period style.
I've therefore decided not to implement a comprehensive ban on fieldless badges with overall charges. I will be returning cases where the underlying charge is rendered unidentifiable, per Rule VIII.3; this will include the most egregious cases of overall charges (e.g. A pheon surmounted by a hawk's head). But this can be done as an interpretation of the current Rules, and needn't involve a new policy. In cases where identifiability is maintained --- where one of the charges is a long, slender object, and the area of intersection small --- overall charges will still be permitted in fieldless badges. (15 January, 1992 Cover Letter (November, 1992 LoAR), pg. 3)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Charge - Maintained) |Top of Page |Next Page (Charge - Peripheral)]
Some commenters have asked about our current policy on overall charges: specifically, whether overall charges are the primary charge group in a design. The answer depends on whether we speak of Society or mundane armory --- or even which portion of mundane armory. Herewith, my best stab at answers:
Overall charges were uncommon in period armory. Most of the examples we have involve brisures: direct cadency between generations. Prince Arthur's Book (c.1520) gives examples of England with a [brisure]: a label overall, or a bend overall, or even an escarbuncle overall. (Oxford Guide to Heraldry, plate 1) In those cases, since the overall brisures were additions to a base coat, the underlying charges were the obvious primary charges. [Laurel Footnote: "There was a least one exception to this general rule: a case where the added brisure was the underlying charge, and the overall charge the primary! The original armes of Burnell were Argent, a lion rampant sable, as used by Robert Burnell c.1270. His descendants added a variety of changes (e.g. William added a label of five points overall gules); Philip Burnell, c.1280, added a bend gules, which in one roll was surmounting the lion --- and in another roll was surmounted by it! (Anglo-Norman Armory II, pp.58, 128) In each case the lion was the primary charge, whether underlying or overall.]
Once direct cadency cases are removed, there are still a few period cases of overall charges; in those cases, the overall charge is part of the original design of the armory. Examples include the Duchy of Cleves, c.1370 (Gules, an inescutcheon argent, overall an escarbuncle Or); the arms of Sweden, or more precisely, the Folkunga dynasty of Sweden, c.1290 (Azure, three scarpes wavy argent, overall a lion crowned Or); the Archbishopric of Canterbury, c.1350 (Azure, an archepiscopal staff Or, overall a pallium argent fringed Or and charged with four crosses formy fitchy at the foot sable); von Könige, c.1605 (Azure, a column Or, overall a horse courant argent); and a handful of others. It's not as easy to determine the primary charge in all these designs, but we can tell for some cases -- because their owners used that charge in other armory as well. Thus Anne of Cleves used a badge that incorporated the escarbuncle of her arms (Fox-Davies' Heraldic Badges); and the lion of the arms of Sweden are found again, as Sweden's supporters. (And I would certainly opine that the pallium was the primary charge in Canterbury's arms; the episcopal crozier is well-nigh invisible.)
In period armory, then, there is no hard and simple rule for determining whether an overall charge is the primary charge; it depends on what cadency changes have been made, if any. A rule of thumb might be that, if an animate charge (e.g. a lion) and an ordinary are used together, the animate charge is the primary charge, whether overall or underlying; but I wouldn't back that rule with money in any particular case. (Sources for the above examples include Siebmacher's Wappenbuch , 1605; the Armorial de Gelre, c.1370; Anglo-Norman Armory II, Foster, and the Dictionary of British Arms.)
SCA armory is different. Under previous Rules, the overall charge was always the primary charge, by defintion: "[Against mundane arms] the addition of a major overall charge ...is sufficient difference. The overall charge must be drawn large enough to make it the primary visual charge. The relegation of the [underlying charge] to secondary status will constitute the extra half point needed." [WvS, 20 Oct 80, p.6]
Under the current Rules, the situation is reversed, but equally universal in scope: the underlying charge is always the primary charge, again by definition. There were hints, prior to the current Rules, that the change was forthcoming: "Primary charges should not be `demoted' when a charge is placed overall: in mundane usage it is the charge overall which is considered to have been added for cadency, just as are the secondaries around the primary charge. The blazon represents reality: the primary charge will remain the charge which lies closest to the center of the field in the plane closest to the field." [AmCoE, 26 April 87, p.10] Currently, the addition of overall charges is explicitly deemed worth only a single CD, per Rule X.4.c; it is not Sufficient Difference, as the addition of a primary charge would be.
Neither of these policy extremes is a perfect approximation to period style. But I'd be hard-pressed to devise a policy on overall charges that was a better approximation --- or if I could, it would likely be so complicated as to be unusable. And given the frequency of overall charges in Society heraldry, some policy we must have. The current policy --- that overall charges are secondaries, and underlying charges primaries --- has at least one advantage: it doesn't unduly encourage the addition of overall charges, which was at best a rare practice in period. I'm always open to suggestions, but for now, I'm enclined to let the current policy stand. (22 February, 1993 Cover Letter (December, 1992 LoAR), pp. 3-4)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Charge - Maintained) |Top of Page |Next Page (Charge - Peripheral)]
[Or, a bend sinister, overall a bear] ...this is clear of [Or, a bear]. By our current Rules, the overall charge is considered a secondary, and the underlying charge a primary; Rule X.1 brings this clear (Conrad Erich von Brixen, January, 1993, pg. 6)
[A compass star, overall a decrescent] It had been announced (LoAR cover letter of 3 Aug 92) that, starting with this meeting, we would no longer register fieldless badges using overall charges. Except for designs with long, skinny charges (e.g. a sword, blade surmounted by an anvil), in general that ban is still in effect. In this particular case, it takes a very careful arrangement of the crescent and mullet to guarantee the identifiability of both; and any design that depends on the exact proportions of its charges is generally not good style. (James Adare MacCarthaigh of Derrybawn, January, 1993, pg. 24)
[Two spears in saltire argent hafted proper, surmounted by a serpent in annulo, with a head at either end argent.] The overall charge is acceptable in this design, per the LoAR cover letter of 15 Jan 93: the charges are slender, and the area of intersection small [badge returned for unidentifiably drawn spears] (Christof Gately, January, 1993, pg. 31)
[Two quill pens in saltire sable surmounted by a butterfly argent] The overall charge renders the pens unidentifiable, in violation of Rule VIII.3. Indeed, this submission is a textbook example of why I suggested a ban on overall charges in fieldless badges, in my cover letter of 3 Aug 92: the pens, far from being identifiable as pens, instead look like extensions of the butterfly's wings. The visual effect would be blazoned A butterfly argent, wings tipped sable; and therefore, this conflicts with [A butterfly argent, wings tipped gules]. (Sidonia of Seven Oaks, January, 1993, pg. 32)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Charge - Maintained) |Top of Page |Next Page (Charge - Peripheral)]
[Two wooden staves in saltire proper surmounted by a palmer's scrip or] This is acceptable under our current standards for overall charges in fieldless badges: the underlying charges are long and skinny, and readily identifiable. (Sean ua Neill the Staffmaker, March, 1993, pg. 17)
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)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Charge - Maintained) |Top of Page |Next Page (Charge - Peripheral)]
[A feather palewise surmounted by a gryphon's head] Fieldless badges may no longer use overall charges, except in cases where the overlap area is small; this is usually restricted to long, skinny charges such as a sword (LoAR cover letter of 15 Jan 93). As drawn [the feather is a wide as the gryphon's head minus the beak and ears], the feather in this badge doesn't meet that standard. (Order of the Golden Feather (Principality of Artemisia), May, 1993, pg. 14)
[Sable, a bend sinister argent, overall a wolf's head caboshed, grasping in its mouth an arrow fesswise reversed counterchanged, a bordure embattled argent] The counterchanging of the complex charges over the ordinary is visually confusing, and disallowed per Rule VIII.3. This interpretation has been in force since April 90; it was most recently reaffirmed in the case of the Shire of Blackmoor Keep, LoAR of Oct 92.
This submission is an appeal of a return by the Atlantian College of Heralds. The submitter has been informed of the abovementioned policy; his appeal is based on two period examples, each showing a lion counterchanged over an ordinary. One example, from King René's Tournament Book, mid-15th Century, seems to have been invented for illustration purposes; while it might be argued to be acceptable style (by its inclusion in the book), it might also be argued to be obviously nonsensical style (to show that it's not real armory). King René's illustration is therefore inconclusive evidence.
The other example is a device found in the Mandeville Roll, c.1450 (Dictionary of British Arms 218): Azure, a lion argent and a bend counterchanged. No owner was named for this armory; we might reasonably assume it to have been an actual coat, but it's a weak example on which to overturn our present policy.
Moreover, the current submission isn't of comparable simplicity to the example in the Mandeville Roll. The latter had a single ordinary, with a single counterchanged charge. The current submission has two counterchanged charges plus an additional bordure, increasing its visual complexity. (We also note that the bend surmounts the bordure, which is a further anomaly. It isn't reason for return in this case; as both the bend and bordure are argent, they'll tend to blend together in any case. However, should he resubmit with this motif, please instruct the submitter to have the bordure surmount the bend.)
To sum up: by longstanding policy, the College disallows complex charges counterchanged over other charges. The examples given in this appeal don't apply to this case: the submitted device has more counterchanged charges than the examples, and an anomalous bordure as well. Even were the submission as simple as the examples, the latter are too nebulous (neither being attributable to a specific historical person) to warrant overturning our policy. This must be returned; he might consider making the bend Or and the wolf's head argent, assuming no conflicts. (Grethfurth Wulfstan, May, 1993, pg. 15)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Charge - Maintained) |Top of Page |Next Page (Charge - Peripheral)]