[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Flaunch) |Next Page (Flower - Miscellaneous)]
[A chevron azure charged with three fleurs-de-lys Or] The use of multiple gold fleurs-de-lys on blue is not permitted in SCA armory: it is too strongly suggestive of a claim of connection to French royalty. This ban covers both blue fields and blue charges, and has been in force for many years: "This color-semy combination may not be used in the SCA." [WvS, 15 March 82] "A bordure of France (ancient or modern) may not be used in SCA heraldry." [BoE, 20 Oct 85]
The prohibition is supported by period practice. Examples of armory using blue charges with gold fleurs include de St.Remi de Valois, Bastard of France, c.1520 (Argent, on a fess azure three fleurs-de-lys Or); John, Earl of Cornwall, brother to the claimant of the French throne, d.1336 (Gules, three leopards in pale Or, a bordure azure semy-de-lys Or); Medici, Dukes of Urbino, who bore an augmentation from the French crown c.1500 (Or, in annulo six roundels gules, the one in chief azure, charged with three fleurs-de-lys Or); Matthieu, Grand Bastard of Bourbon, d.1505 (Argent, on a bend azure semy-de-lys Or, a bendlet gules); and Jean de Rochefort, another Bastard of Bourbon, d.1444 (Argent, on a canton azure semy-de-lys Or, a bendlet gules). All claimed connection to French royalty, either by an augmentation therefrom or through blood; all bore a blue charge with gold fleurs-de-lys -- usually blazoned a [charge] of France.
It's not unreasonable to assume that a chevron of France makes a similar claim. The chevron was used this way for other dynastic houses: Philippe de Someldyck, bastard son of Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, c.1500, bore Or, a chevron of Burgundy.
The period examples are so numerous that I feel I must uphold the Society's ban on gold fleurs-de-lys on blue backgrounds --- and make it explicit. Neither France Ancient (Azure semy-de-lys Or) nor France Modern (Azure, three fleurs-de-lys Or) may be used in SCA heraldry, either as the field (or part thereof) or on a charge. To do so constitutes a claim to connection to French royalty, prohibited under Rule XI.1. (Raoul de Chenonceaux, July, 1992, pg. 23)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Flaunch) |Top of Page |Next Page (Flower - Miscellaneous)]
[Quarterly gules and azure, the whole seme-de-lys Or, a <charge>] The use of Azure, semy-de-lys Or has been reason for return for the last ten years; it was reaffirmed on the LoAR of July 92. This must be returned for use of a prohibited treatment (Connor Malcolm O'Maoilbhreanainn, September, 1992, pg. 52)
The use of azure semy-de-lys Or has been prohibited in Society armory for many years; it is too strongly suggestive of a claim to a French royal connection. The prohibition was reaffirmed on the LoAR of July 92, p.23. The bordure azure semy-de-lys Or has been specifically disallowed: "A bordure of France (ancient or modern) may not be used in SCA heraldry." [LoAR of 20 Oct 85] (Rhiannon Saint Chamberlayne, November, 1992, pg. 16)
The flory counter-flory line is not correctly drawn here. While the treatment was applied to ordinaries in period (e.g. the double tressures of the arms of Scotland), I've found no period instances of its use as a complex field division. The closest analogies are the trefly counter-trefly division of von Hillinger and the per fess indented, points flory division of Woodmerton. Both of these models require the flory counter-flory line to be drawn with demi-fleurs, as shown here.
As drawn in this submission, the "complex line" is actually a group of charges, counterchanged across the field division, with half of them inverted. This is not readily blazonable, and doesn't fit the period pattern for complex lines of division. (The illustration from Fox-Davies' Complete Guide to Heraldry, from which the submitter's emblazon is taken, is cited in no dated armory.) (Miriam de Xaintrailles, January, 1993, pg. 24)
[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)
There is indeed a CD between a cinquefoil and a shamrock. (Principality of Lochac, July, 1992, pg. 14)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Flaunch) |Top of Page |Next Page (Flower - Miscellaneous)]
[A garden rose slipped and leaved vs. a cinquefoil] I agree there's no CDs between cinquefoil and (heraldic) rose; and no CDs between (heraldic) rose and garden rose; and no CDs between garden rose and garden rose slipped and leaved. But as Lord Crux Australis notes, conflict isn't necessarily a transitive operation; "A conflicts with B" and "B conflicts with C" doesn't guarantee that, by logical concatenation, "A must conflict with C". Thank Deity I don't have to decide the issue just now...[device returned for other conflict] (Roselynd Ælfricsdottir, August, 1992, pg. 32)
Legh, 1568, mentions the octofoil ("double quaterfoyle"), though citing no examples of its use. Given that it was described in period, I'm willing to grant a CD between it and a cinquefoil. (Sibylla Penrose of Netherhay, October, 1992, pg. 2)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Flaunch) |Top of Page |Next Page (Flower - Miscellaneous)]