Precedents of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme

[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Field Division - Vêtu) |Next Page (Fish - Dolphin)]


[A pall Or fimbriated of flame vs. a pall Or] The complex fimbriation of the pall is worth no difference. (Theodric Alastair Wulfricson, August, 1992, pg. 29)

[A pall between <charges>] This conflicts with [a pall fimbriated of flame]. There's a CD for the secondary charges, but the fimbriation is worth no difference (Marian Loresinger, August, 1992, pg. 31)

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)

It seems to me that, if roundels and lozenges were voided in period, then charges of comparable simplicity may likewise be voided. Of course, this begs the question of defining "simplicity" for purposes of voiding. (Which definition differs entirely from that of "simple geometric charge" for Rule X.4.j.ii, or "simple armory" for X.2...)

The arguments presented in [the] submission provide a rule of thumb we can use. We consider voiding to have the same visual weight as adding a tertiary charge --- i.e. Sable, a cross Or voided gules and Sable, a cross Or charged with another gules are interchangeable blazons, yielding the same emblazon. This view is supported by period heraldic treatises: e.g. Guillim's Display of Heraldrie, 1632, in discussing chevrons voided, says "if you say voided onely, it is ever understood that the field sheweth thorow the middle part of the charge voided. If the middle part of this chevron were of a different metall, colour, or furre from the Field, then should you Blazon it thus: A Chevron engrailed Or, surmounted of another, of such or such colour."

We can use the equivalence between voiding and adding tertiaries to determine when voiding is acceptable: if the voided charge can be reblazoned as On a [charge], another --- that is, if the inner line and the outer line of the voided charge are geometrically similar --- then it's simple enough to void.

For instance, in the illustrations below, figure A could equally well be blazoned a delf voided or a delf charged with a delf; either blazon is correct for that picture. Figures B and C, on the other hand, are definitely a griffin's head voided and a griffin's head charged with another, respectively; the emblazons are quite dissimilar, and the inner line of figure B is not the shape of a griffin's head. The delf voided, then, is acceptable, but the griffin's head voided is not.

square within square head voided head on head
Fig. A Fig. B Fig. C

By this guideline, mullets, hearts and triangles are all simple enough to be voided or fimbriated. This is only a rule of thumb, of course, not an ironclad law, but it helps us decide a thorny question, it's consistent with how we (and some period heralds) view voiding, and it eliminates the need to collect reams of case law. I shall be employing it henceforth. (15 January, 1992 Cover Letter (November, 1992 LoAR), pp. 2-3)

[A flame voided argent vs. A flame voided Or] Voiding can be considered equivalent to adding a tertiary charge; [the first] submission can be equally well reblazoned On a flame another argent, and [the second] badge reblazoned On a flame another Or. By those blazons, the conflict is clearer: Rule X.4.j does not grant a CD for change of tertiary tincture alone. (Alicia Kyra Avelin, December, 1992, pg. 15)

[Four hearts voided conjoined in cross, points outward] Per the new outlines of acceptability for voiding (LoAR cover letter of 15 Jan 93), these hearts may be considered equivalent to four hearts conjoined in cross ..., each charged with a heart .. .--- and therefore registerable. (Ali abd ar-Rashid, January, 1993, pg. 1)

[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Field Division - Vêtu) |Top of Page |Next Page (Fish - Dolphin)]

The keyhole is an accepted SCA charge. If we'd permit a keyhole charged with a keyhole, we should permit a keyhole voided. (College of Skeldergate, January, 1993, pg. 15)

Flames are an exception to the rule that complex charges cannot be voided: since a flame proper is defined in Society armory as "a flame Or voided gules" (on a dark field), by extension a "flame argent voided gules" should be equally acceptable. (Tegen Meanbh, January, 1993, pg. 21)

The 1984 Rules for Submission did not permit semy charges to be fimbriated, proper, or of divided tinctures (IX.2). While that specific clause is not found in the current Rules, those usages remain poor style, and in extreme cases may be grounds for return under Rule VIII.3. The submitter would be well advised to use single-tinctured rams in her semy, when she resubmits [device returned for using a charged canton]. (Aurora Ashland of Woolhaven, January, 1993, pg. 25)

Mullets of six or more points may be voided and interlaced (the Star of David, for instance, is perfectly acceptable). (Diego Mundoz, August, 1993, pg. 6)

[Per fess purpure and vert, a <charge> within a bordure argent charged with a tressure per fess purpure and vert, originally blazoned as an orle and a bordure] The submission caused us a few minutes of heartburn. The equal width of the outer three stripes, and the fact that the central stripe is of the field, gave this the appearance of a bordure voided, not of an orle within a bordure. Bordures voided and fimbriated have been disallowed since Aug 83. Playing with the widths a bit, to make this a bordure cotised, would be equally unacceptable. On the other hand, a bordure charged with a tressure is a perfectly legal design. In the end, we decided that the latter blazon is the most accurate and reproducible description of the submitted emblazon --- and since it appears to be legal, we've accepted it. It also guarantees the device to be clear of [Azure, a <same charge> within a double tressure argent]. (Lisette de Ville, August, 1993, pg. 10)


[A chevron rompu between three grenades vs. a chevron between three fireballs fired] There's a CD for making the chevron rompu, but not another for type of secondary charge. (Ragnar of Moonschadowe, September, 1992, pg. 41)

[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Field Division - Vêtu) |Top of Page |Next Page (Fish - Dolphin)]