Precedents of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme

[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Snowflake) |Next Page (Style - National)]

STYLE -- Modern

[Porsche Audi] Lord Crescent is correct when he states that there is no Rule explicitly banning intrusively modern names. Nonetheless, intrusive modernity is given as a reason for armorial return (VIII.4.b); it is given as a reason for not accepting mundane names, even under the Mundane Name Allowance (II.4); we may reasonably infer that intrusive modernity is unacceptable.

If a specific Rule must be cited, Rule I.1 requires all names to be "compatible with the period and domain of the Society"; moreover, even names formed from period elements can be returned if "they have been specifically declared incompatible by these rules, Laurel precedent, or a policy statement from the Board of Directors." Intrusive modernity has been declared sufficient reason for return in the past: Joe Westermark, the Artemisian Tank Corps, Rolling Thunder, and the Societas Historum Mortum have all been returned for modernity. The precedent is well-established, and therefore, by I.1 may be cited as reason for return.

The fact that this is a "joke name" is not, in and of itself, a problem. The College has registered a number of names, perfectly period in formation, that embodied humor: Drew Steele, Miles Long, and John of Somme Whyre spring to mind as examples. They may elicit chuckles (or groans) from the listener, but no more. Intrusively modern names grab the listener by the scruff of the neck and haul him, will he or nill he, back into the 20th Century. A name that, by its very presence, destroys any medieval ambience is not a name we should register. (Porsche Audi, August, 1992, pg. 28)

[A Scottish piper passant to sinister, in sinister chief three musical notes, two and one.] This runs afoul of the ban on overly pictorial design, Rule VIII.4.a: the musical notes hovering over the piper are a cartoon representation of music [device returned for this and other problems]. (Robert of Bohemia, October, 1992, pg. 24)

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.

[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Snowflake) |Top of Page |Next Page (Style - National)]

[A chevron inverted debased] The chevron inverted is definitely debased, so much that the fact must be blazoned; but no evidence has been presented chevrons (inverted or not) were blazoned or drawn "debased" in period. (Charles of the Painted Glen, November, 1992, pg. 15)

The use of ring-necked pheasants proper and garden roses, when both have honest heraldic equivalents, violates our strictures against excessive naturalism, as outlined in Rule VIII.4.c. (Wilhelmina Brant, December, 1992, pg. 20)

[Or, an anvil sable atop a mount invected vert, a chief enarched rayonny azure] There are two stylistic problems with the device. First, the chief combines two complex lines of division, which has been grounds for return ere now (LoAR of Dec 92, p.20). Second, the device has a strong appearance of landscapism, disallowed under Rule VIII.4.a. While each of these is not quite sufficiently bad enough for return --- the enarched line is one of the few that might be combined with other complex divisions, and the landscape effect is not as blatant as it could have been --- the combination of the two is enough to have this returned for non-heraldic style. Both problems might be solved by using a plain chief. (Boris Brighthill, January, 1993, pg. 30)

The College's ban on the international "no" symbol (a bend and bordure gules in combination) only applies when the combination is actually used as a "no" symbol: surmounting the symbol of whatever's being forbidden. The bend-bordure combination is not banned when there is no underlying charge. In this case [Vairy, a bend and a bordure gules], since vair isn't a charge, we find no stylistic problems here [device returned for conflict]. (Chryse Raptes, January, 1993, pg. 32)

[A wingless dragon "displayed"] The displayed posture is not applicable to non-winged creatures, just as rampant is no longer applicable to birds (LoAR of May 91). No other blazon adequately describes this posture (although if the dragon's back were to the viewer, instead of its belly, it might be tergiant).

Moreover, since the dragon's posture (however blazoned) is indistinguishable from tergiant, this conflicts with [a natural salamander tergiant] ...putting the dragon in this posture greatly reduces any difference to be granted for type of reptile. (Balthasar of Eastwick, March, 1993, pg. 22)

[A dragon couchant contourny, saddled and wings displayed argent, maintaining in its forepaws a harp, in chief a flute] this contains too many references to Pern, the world of Anne McCaffrey's Dragonrider series. Pern has a technology advanced well beyond that compatible with the SCA's period. The white dragon, saddled for a dragonrider, with the symbols of the Harper Hall, all combine to form an inescapable Pernish reference [returned for this reason and also for the non-heraldic position of the dragon]. (Gerome of Heyswyndon, March, 1993, pg. 26)

[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Snowflake) |Top of Page |Next Page (Style - National)]