[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Counterchanging) |Next Page (Delf)]
[A pair of angles fesswise interlaced in pale vs. a chevronel interlaced with another inverted] [There is a CD] for ...type of "chevronel" --- just as there's a CD between a cross (throughout) and a cross annuletted. (September, 1992, pg. 33)
[Three crosses crosslet fitchy vs. three crosses botonny] There's ...no difference for fitching the crosses, and no difference for crosslet vs. botonny. (Geoffroi de la Marche, September, 1992, pg. 39)
[A Celtic cross vs. a Celtic cross equal-armed, quarterly pierced and throughout] There is no heraldic difference for the charge being throughout, or not. However, there's a CD ...for the quarter-piercing, which is visually equivalent to adding a tertiary delf. (Toirrdelbach Ua Máel Doraid, October, 1992, pg. 16)
[A Maltese star cross] While SCA-variant charges are often considered acceptable ("period-compatible", as it were), we draw the line at variants of SCA-variants. This submission is a case in point: the star-cross is a Society invention, unattested in medieval armory. While it's still acceptable for SCA use, variations of it are two steps removed from medieval armory, which is an unacceptably broad leap of faith. Without evidence of period compatibility, the Maltese star-cross is unacceptable [see also Elgar of Stonehaven, January 1993 LoAR, pg. 23]. (Elgar of Stonehaven, November, 1992, pg. 14)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Counterchanging) |Top of Page |Next Page (Delf)]
We can certainly see granting a CD between a cross moline and a cross patonce. (Dyryke Raleigh, November, 1992, pg. 19)
[On an amphora azure, a crux stellata argent] Lords Hund and Crux Australis had protested this badge when it was previously submitted, and have done so again for the current submission. They feel this infringes on the flag of the Eureka Stockade rebellion of 1854: Azure, a crux stellata argent. The Eureka rebellion was evidently a turning point in Australian history, and our Lochac colleagues opine that the motif itself is uniquely associated with it.
I sympathize with their concerns; but I can neither agree with their arguments of exclusivity nor consider this an infringement on the Eureka flag.
The argument for exclusivity --- that the motif of a white crux stellata on a blue background is uniquely associated with the Eureka Stockade --- is weakened by Crux Australis' citations of its use by modern Australian trade unions and the Australian Republican movement, and by Hund's citation of its use by the Australian Army Pay Corps. With so many Australian institutions using the motif, it can be considered no more exclusive than, say, a black swan naiant on a gold background (the badge of Western Australia).
Arguments for infringement or presumption require us to consider the amphora (or, for the other Southkeep badge submitted on this LOI, the tower) as a medium for heraldic display --- equivalent to an escutcheon, a lozenge, or a ship's sail. No evidence has been presented to support such a radical change in our policy. We didn't consider a hand argent charged with a rose gules, registered to Eglentyne Merryweather last month, to be a display of the arms of the Princes of Lippe (Argent, a rose gules); we didn't consider a crescent per fess gules and sable, charged [with] a fess argent, registered to Yngvar the Dismal in June 92, to be a display of the flag of the Pan-Arab Union of 1917 (Per fess gules and sable, a fess argent).
Many other examples could be found in the A&O of mundane armory "displayed" on some charge: an escallop, an eagle, whatever. Those charges, and the vast majority of charges, are not considered oddly-shaped shields; when bearing tertiary charges, they do not become displays of arms with the tertiaries seen as primaries. To do otherwise is to effectively ban the use of tertiary charges.
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 cannot infringe on the flag of the Eureka Stockade rebellion. Our policy doesn't disparage this symbol from Australian history; rather, we set it on the same level of protection as any other armory. [Badge pended for missing a blazon]. (Southkeep Brewers and Vintners Guild (Shire of Southkeep), December, 1992, pg. 23)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Counterchanging) |Top of Page |Next Page (Delf)]
The Norse sun cross had at one time been treated as an alphanumeric symbol (that of the planet Earth), and so unacceptable for use in SCA devices. Under the current Rules, such symbols are now acceptable; indeed, a Norse sun cross was registered to Etain MacDhomhnuill on the LoAR of April 90. (Kenneth MacQuarrie of Tobermory, January, 1993, pg. 12)
[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. It also conflicts with [six sets of arrow fletchings in annulo, points conjoined]. Again, the visual similarity is too great to permit a CD to be granted. (Elgar of Stonehaven, January, 1993, pg. 23)
[A cross swallowtailed] I'd grant a CD between this cross and a cross flory or a cross patonce (which were considered the same charge by medieval heralds). I might not have granted difference against a Maltese cross or a cross fourchy, but no conflicts were cited containing such crosses. (Donata Ivanovna Basistova, March, 1993, pg. 17)
[A cross "formy convexed"] This badge had been returned on the LoAR of May 92 for lack of documentation on the type of cross. (It had been blazoned in the previous submission as a cross formy globate, which term we couldn't find in any of our references.) The submitter has appealed that return, providing evidence of this cross as an artistic motif on a suit of armor c.1630. The term "convexed", referring to the bulge of the outer edges of the cross's limbs, is documented in Elvin's Dictionary of Heraldry.
Unfortunately, my main concerns about this cross remain unaddressed. It's not readily blazonable: as drawn, it resembles a roundel with four semi-elliptical notches, not a variant of a cross formy. It's been documented only to within our 50-year "grey area", and only as an artistic motif, not an heraldic charge. The only terms that adequately describe it are found in a 19th Century work, compiled by an author whose lack of scholarship is legend. I simply have no grounds for believing this cross to be compatible with period heraldic style.
This cross has been submitted before, and returned for the above reasons; v. Jamys Ellyn Rothesay of Bannatyne Hall, LoAR of Sept 92, p.49. I'm tempted, I admit, to simply give the cross its own SCA name. (In the immortal words of Baldwin of Erebor, "Spring is in the air, and the fit is upon me; let me name but one cross before I die!") But this would do no service to the heralds and scribes who will follow us; we need some assurance that any blazon we devised would be reconstructable. In this case, at the very least we'd need to find this cross mentioned by name in some accessible reference. Failing that, or better evidence that it's a period motif, I must continue to return it. (Stanislaw Jan Ossolinski, March, 1993, pg. 28)
[Four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center] The previous return (LoAR of Sept 91) determined that there was not Sufficient Difference between this arrangement of fleurs-de-lys and a cross flory. Had it been intended that the difference be negligible, however, I suspect the then-Laurel would have come out and said so. I believe there is a CD for type of primary charge group in this case. (Cara Michelle DuValier, August, 1993, pg. 6)
The phrase cross of Cleves is synonymous with "Latin cross flory". We will accept whichever blazon is submitted. (Jonathus of Santiago de Compostela, August, 1993, pg. 8)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Counterchanging) |Top of Page |Next Page (Delf)]