COMBINED PRECEDENTS OF THE S.C.A. COLLEGE OF ARMS

The 1st Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (both years)


ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES


"When submission heralds are sending out an LoI with an armory change or release (devices or badges), please include a blazon of the armory being released or changed. The blazons are not always in the file with the prior submissions." (CL 10/20/91 p.1).


"This is the submitter's 'secondary' version of this submission... We do not normally consider different versions of submissions at the Laurel level. I am making an exception this one time because of the long amount of time in which the submitter, his College of Heralds, and the College of Arms have been working with this particular device." (LoAR 10/91 p.13).


"Generally, when there is a problem with a blazon in a LoI, that submission is pended by Laurel, not returned." (LoAR 12/91 p.12).


"It is poor practice for the submissions herald(s) of a kingdom to anticipate Laurel decisions before those decisions are made and published. Generally, when there is a problem with a blazon in a LoI, that submission is pended by Laurel, not returned." (LoAR 12/91 p.12).


"[The] request that this be treated as a hardship case is a difficult decision here. Certainly, if the client was not given all of the reasons for return by the kingdom herald(s), there is a problem. However, the full reasons for return were given in the LoAR by Laurel, and I am hesitant to begin granting hardship allowances where the information passed on to the client was incomplete (as opposed to more serious kinds of misfeasance). I have seen many instances of a client stating that he or she was not given all of the reasons for a return, and Laurel has no way of double-checking to determine the accuracy of the client's, or the herald's, sometimes selective memory. To allow registration of a only partial fix of the reasons of return leaves Laurel (and the College) open to far too many opportunities for registering items in violation of our Rules for Submissions and the standards we have set for names and armory for the reason that 'I wasn't told that {X} was a problem.' [the submission was returned]

I would like to remind the submissions heralds (or those designated to inform clients of Laurel's decisions on their proposal(s)) that it is their duty to inform the client of the complete reason(s) for any changes or returns which Laurel makes to their submissions. Sometimes problems with a submission are mentioned 'in passing', especially when there is a clear conflict or Rules violation, but these problems are as much a part of the 'reasons for return' as the obvious calls. Our clients deserve to be fully informed of these 'minor' problems, too." (LoAR 12/91 p.17).


"After carefully reviewing all of the commentary on the viability of <submitter's> 'blanket letter of permission to conflict', I have come to the conclusion that to begin (as Lady Harpy put it) 'customizing protection' is to set a bad precedent. While I appreciate <submitter's> willingness to grant such a broad permission to conflict, to allow such a blanket letter of permission would involve at the very least a modification to the Administrative Handbook and a separate notation in the A&O, and possibly changes to the Rules for Submission themselves. Like many of you, I am extremely reluctant to complicate the Rules or Handbook with exceptions which have to be remembered and kept track of without very good cause and a much sounder basis than this appears to have. I believe the benefits of having a single standard for all armory which local heralds can understand and which can be explained to our clients outweigh those which creating special exceptions to that standard would bring." (CL 2/12/92 p.5).


"The holding name formed at the Laurel meeting [had a conflict with a famous mundane person]. As this is an administrative holding name, rather than a registration, we can correct this situation here, and do so." (Errata Letter 2/12/92 p.1).


ARCHITECTURE


[A turreted bridge vs. a tower triple-towered and vs. a castle triple-towered] "Given evidence that no difference was granted in period between towers and castles and the very strong visual resemblance of this bridge to a castle, no ...CVD could be granted." (LoAR 9/90 p.13).


"Walls appear to be throughout, masoned, and embattled by default." (LoAR 10/90 p.10).


[A tower corked at the top] "The cork in the tower is really not period style, and is by itself sufficient grounds for return." (LoAR 1/91 p.27).


["A church tower"] The charge... is not drawn as a church tower known in heraldic texts, nor is it a recognizable representation of a church. The heraldic church tower is a tower with the pointed roof and cross, but without the windows and flying buttresses of this submission. A church would probably not have the flying buttresses. Please ask the client to clarify what he wants and to resubmit with a redrawing." (LoAR 5/92 p.25).


ARRANGEMENT


"[There is a CVD for] the arrangement of the charges (in saltire vs. three, two and one)." (LoAR 7/90 p.11).


[A compass star and a flower in bend vs. a single flower ] "There are two CVDs: one for addition of the compass star, and a second for moving the flower to sinister base (the rationale being that this move is not forced this way by the addition of the compass star; were the two charges in fess or in pale, which would be the normal placement of two charges alone on the field, this would not be the case)." (LoAR 8/90 p.12).


[Per bend sinister argent and gules, a gules charge in dexter chief ] "It was our feeling that since the gules <charge> could not overlie the gules portion of the field, that its position would be intuitively obvious and therefore did not need to be specifically blazoned." (LoAR 8/90 p.12).


[A cross, vs. a cross in chief between two gores] "There is a CVD for moving the cross to chief and another for the addition of the gores." [implying the move to chief isn't forced by adding the gores] (LoAR 9/90 p.1).


[Two swords in pile, hilts crossed, vs. two swords in saltire ] "There is another [CVD] for the arrangement of the swords (in pile vs. in saltire)." (LoAR 9/90 p.4).


[Wreath of violets in orle, blazoned as an orle of violets] "This was returned before in part because the orle of flowers was too similar to the restricted wreath of roses. This issue has not been addressed in the resubmission, and so this must be returned once again for this reason. It was suggested that if the submitter would clearly separate the individual flowers in orle, that this would probably remove the problem." (LoAR 9/90 p.13).


[<field> in base a <charge>, vs. the same <charge> used as a crest (cited from Fairbairn's Crests)] "There is one CVD, for fielded vs. fieldless, but nothing can be granted against a fieldless badge (which is what we have treated crests as) for position on the field." (LoAR 9/90 p.13).


[A bend sinister between two sets of three <charges> two and one] "While the specification of this particular arrangement of the secondaries is not a particularly good style, given that the submitter feels strongly about this specific arrangement of the charges, it was felt that the good will engendered by complying with his wishes would outweigh the negative effects of this one weirdness in the device." (LoAR 10/90 p.6).


[Per bend sinister counter-ermine and bendy sinister Or and sable, in dexter chief three roses Or] "It was felt that versus...Azure, three roses Or, there was a CVD for the change to the field and a second for the position of the roses on the field. Though the roses would have had poor contrast with part of the field in the standard two and one arrangement, perhaps even returnably so in the SCA, the change of placement to dexter chief is not necessarily forced by the change to the field." (LoAR 12/90 p.6).


[A unicorn argent and a dragon Or combattant] "Conflict with...a dragon rampant...Or...there is only one CVD for the addition of the unicorn." [This implies that adding a second charge to result in two combattant beasts/monsters is only one CVD as opposed to change in number + change in arrangement/half change in type/ etc.] (LoAR 1/91 p.20).


[An arrow bendwise sable] "Versus... four arrows fretted sable...There is one CVD for the number of arrows and a second for the arrangement (one bendwise vs. two bendwise and two bendwise sinister. Had the arrows on the [conflicting] badge all been bendwise, this would not have been the case)." (LoAR 2/91 p.3).


"Though the [charges] were blazoned in the LoI as three and two, this should be the normal distribution of five objects around a bend or bendwise objects(s)." (LoAR 2/91 p.14).


[Per pale gules and Or a morningstar and a flanged mace in saltire sable...] "The morningstar loses its identifiability against the low-contrast portion of the field. Were the two charges in saltire identical, this would be less problematic, but as it stands the eye expects both charges to be maces." [the device was returned for this reason only] (LoAR 2/91 p.18).


[Annulets of five mullets conjoined] "The clusters of stars (besides reminding everyone of nothing so much as a five-star general's insignia) are not period style and are intrusively modern." (LoAR 2/91 p.22).


[Four swords fretted] "Conflict with...four arrows fretted...There is one CVD, for changing the arrows to swords." (LoAR 3/91 p.7).


[Three piles in point and an overall charge, vs. 3 piles ] "Addition of the overall charge is only one CVD" [This implies no difference between piles and piles in point] (LoAR 4/91 p.13).


[On a gyrrony field, quatrefoils in annulo vs. crusilly counterchanged ] "There is a CVD for the type of charge and a CVD for their arrangement on the field. [The crusilly] is definitely a seme, with crosses overlying the lines of division and cut off by the edge of the shield." (LoAR 5/91 p.7).


[Per bend sinister argent and sable, in dexter chief a <sable charge> ] "Conflict with...Azure, <the same sable charge>. There is one CVD for the change to the field but nothing for the placement on the field since that is forced by the tincture change." (LoAR 7/91 p.23).


[Per saltire an <a> and a <b>] "Conflict with... an <a> [whose default is palewise]. There is one CVD for the addition of the <b>." [This implies that the change of a's posture from palewise to bendwise is forced by the design, and not an independent change.] (LoAR 8/91 p.14).


[A <charge> and a chevron abased] "Conflict with...a chevron. There is only one CVD for the addition of the <charge>." [This implies no difference for abasing the chevron] (LoAR 8/91 p.18).


[Per pale argent and Or fretty vert, in dexter a leaved branch issuant from chief proper and <a charged chief> ] "The device has several problems. The first is the profound appearance of dimidiated arms, which the addition of the charged chief does not serve to diminish. The device is also right at the very edge of our complexity limits having four types of charge in four tinctures. Given the unusual arrangement and unbalanced design this is simply too much." (LoAR 8/91 p.20).


[A quill pen and a rapier crossed in saltire, and overall a compass star] "[This] is a single group of three dissimilar charges, which violates RFS VIII.1.a." (LoAR 8/91 p.22).


[In pale a <charge> and <two other charges> in saltire ] "This is technically just not slot machine heraldry, but only because visually there are two charge 'groups' rather than one group fo three different charges." (LoAR 9/91 p.9).


[Two <charges> interlaced in bend sinister] "Versus...three <charges>... there is a CVD for changing the number of primary charges and a second for the change in position (and interlacing) of the remaining two." (LoAR 9/91 p.2).


"The use of two bendlets way up to one side [in sinister chief] severely unbalances the device. With four tinctures and four types of charge this is right at the limit of complexity. Combined with the use of what are normally central ordinaries as peripheral charges and the unusual treatment in the 'veiling' of the cross, this must be returned for complexity and for non-Period style." (LoAR 9/91 p.16).


[Four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center] "Because of the arrangement of the primaries, we cannot apply X.2 to grant sufficient difference between this arrangement of four fleurs-de-lys and the cross flory." (LoAR 9/91 p.17).


[Two bendlets, blazoned in LoI as enhanced, and in base a <charge> ] "Conflict with... two bendlets. There is one CVD only for addition of the <charge>. The enhancement of the bendlets would normally occur by adding a charge only in base." (LoAR 10/91 p.20).


"While commentary was somewhat split on this issue, the general feeling was that to modify the Rules to define half a group by line of division or as those charges on either side of an ordinary would only serve to encourage unbalanced armory. On the other hand, there are times when the visual impact of changes to charges which amount to 'less than half the group' should be granted more difference. As a consequence, we are adopting Lady Dolphin's (now Lady Crescent) suggestion of allowing two changes to the minority of a group (i.e., the 'lesser' half of a group of charges lying on either side of a line of field division or an ordinary) being sufficient for a Clear Difference. For example, 'Per bend sinister sable and Or, a decrescent moon Or and three fir trees proper' would be allowed two CDs from 'Per bend sinister azure and argent, a bear's head argent and three fir trees vert' with one CD for the field and another for the two changes to the charge in dexter chief." (CL 12/21/91 pps. 1-2).


[Four <charges> in cross, bases to center] "Versus...semy of <charges>, there is a CD for number and another for arrangement (in cross vs. all palewise)." (LoAR 11/91 p.6).


"As several commenters noted, having the unicorn [salient] and sword in saltire is not good style." [However, despite this and some artistic problems, the device was still registered] (LoAR 12/91 p.2).


[A hammer and tongs in saltire, overall a sword] "Contrary to opinion expressed in the LoI, this is indeed slot machine heraldry, in violation of RFS VIII.1.a. It contains three disparate charges in a standard heraldic arrangement." (LoAR 12/91 p.16).


[Per bend sinister, two scarpes enhanced] "The style of this badge is very unbalanced and obtrusively modern in design, in violation of RfS VIII.4.d." (LoAR 12/91 p.17).


[Two swords palewise, the dexter inverted, and two arrows fesswise, the topmost pointed to sinister, all fretted ] "The fretting of two different kinds of charge in four different directions is not Period style (see RfS VIII.4.d)." (LoAR 12/91 p.21).


[Gyronny of four issuant from dexter chief, three <charges> in dexter gyron ] "The placement of the <charges> on a single portion of the gyronny field is very unusual and not Period style (see RfS VIII.4.d)." (LoAR 12/91 p.21).


[Per pall, two ravens addorsed counterchanged, in chief an estoile in soleil between two sprigs of mistletoe ] "This is not Period style and is too close to slot machine heraldry, having three different types of charge in what could be considered a standard heraldic arrangement on a per pall field. The 'estoile in soleil' is not something I think we wish to encourage, nor is the mirror symmetry of the entire device." (LoAR 12/91 p.22).


"Three is the default for the number of objects (besides wheat) in a sheaf." (LoAR 2/92 p.14).


[On a trefoil slipped three hearts points to center] "The radial arrangement of the tertiary charges is not period style, and their placement makes this effectively 'a shamrock... voided...' which is not permissible because it becomes effectively 'thin-line' heraldry." (LoAR 2/92 p.20).


[Two <charges> in saltire surmounted by a column entwined by a snake ] "Laurel does not, however, buy the argument made that this is four layers - field, <charges>, column, snake. We do not believe such an argument to be reasonable. A charge entwined about another is more like a held charge than it is an tertiary." (LoAR 2/92 p.21).


[Gyronny of six per pale... three <charges> alternating with three <different charges> ] "Prior Laurel precedent has returned alternating charges on a gyronny field (September 1988 LoAR, p.18). The one example of this style noted by Lord Codex in Italian armory has semys rather than single charges in each gyron. Given the weakness of this evidence, we are hesitant to register a design which has the appearance of being modern style." (LoAR 2/92 p.21).


[A fess enhanced... in base <charges>] "Conflict with [a fess]. There is only one CD for the addition of the secondary <charges>. With the addition of charges only in base, a fess would normally be drawn enhanced slightly to allow the secondary group sufficient visual 'space' in base." (LoAR 4/92 p.22).


ARROW


[Four swords fretted] "Conflict with...four arrows fretted...There is one CVD, for changing the arrows to swords." (LoAR 3/91 p.7).


[A sheaf of arrows argent, fletched and barbed gules] "Versus... Gules, three bird-bolts in a parcel argent, banded azure, one in pale and two in saltire, there is a CD... for changing half the tincture of the charges. It should be noted that period arrows were drawn with grossly exaggerated heads and fletching for greater identifiability. This fact should be considered in tincture changes." (LoAR 1/92 p.6).


[Per pale... two arrows counterchanged] "Conflict with... two swords palewise... While there is a CD between swords and arrows, Laurel cannot in good conscience apply RfS X.2 to them." [This elaborates a precedent in LoAR of 3/91 p.7, in which the compared swords and arrows were fretted and might have their type obscured thereby] (LoAR 4/92 p.21).


"[There is] nothing... for the change in tincture of the fletching [of the arrows] only" [implying that barbingand fletching is necessary for the half tincture difference alluded to in the LoAR of 1/92 p.6] (LoAR 5/92 p.22).


AUGMENTATIONS


[Sable, in bend sinister an axe inverted reversed and an axe both bendwise sinister Or between two scarpes, overall a laurel wreath vert, for an augmentation, in chief three mullets argent] "Yes, this augmentation makes their arms much more complex. There are few augmentations (or for that matter arms to which augmentations could be added) which do not make the underlying arms much more complex. This augmentation did not seem to go beyond the bounds of allowable complexity for an augmentation." (LoAR 12/90 p.8).


"While the [augmentation has] a tendency to unbalance the device somewhat, it is Laurel's feeling that we need to loosen the application of our standards a little with regard to augmentations, which by their very nature will add complexity to and not infrequently serve to unbalance a device." (LoAR 2/91 p.9).


[Augmentation: Azure, a saltire sable rayonny argent and overall a mace inverted argent as an augmentation on an inescutcheon in honor point Or, a mullet of five greater and five lesser points between in pale a crown of three points sable and issuant from base a demi-sun gules.] "The only real issue which would prevent registration here is the complexity of the base device and the augmentation (total complexity count of 11: five tinctures - azure, sable, argent, Or, gules - and six charges - saltire, mace, inescutcheon mullet, crown, and demi-sun). Laurel has said before (LoAR December 1990 p.8) that augmentations by their very nature add complexity to a device, and augmented arms should not be held to comply to the same standards as unaugmented devices. {Indeed, Laurel finds a certain sense of appeal to Lord Codex' suggestion that augmentations consisting of separable units (such as a canton or inescutcheon) should be counted as a single charge for the purposes of the 'rule of thumb' of the complexity guidelines, ignoring the charges and tinctures upon the augmentation. Using such a standard here would give a complexity count of six with three tinctures - azure, sable and argent - and three charges - saltire, mace and inescutcheon. Counting the augmentation as a single charge and its primary tincture (here, Or) may also be a reasonable rule of thumb. Laurel makes no ruling on this suggestion, but recommends it, with thanks to Lord Codex, to the College for their consideration in the development of a more objective standard.}" (LoAR 4/92 pps. 2-3)


"For those commenters who suggested that this augmentation was presumptuous of Ansteorra, I would point out that by removing the laurel wreath and orle from the Ansteorran arms, this coat would be registerable as a device to any royal peer, as it has two CDs from Ansteorra. Yes, it is highly reminiscent (which I believe was the Crown's intent in granting this augmentation), but it is not, by our Rules, presumptuous of the Kingdom." (LoAR 4/92 p.3).


[An augmentation of an inescutcheon in honor point, bearing the arms of an SCA barony ] "While most of the College, and Laurel himself, has no problem with the use of an escutcheon as a vehicle for an augmentation {if I may quote Lady Harpy: 'the whole point of forbidding the charging of inescutcheons and cantons in a way that resembles an augmentation is so that you can do it when you want an augmentation.'} mundane and Society precedent reserve inescutcheons of actual arms to those legitimately claiming the right to those arms. In mundane usage, this augmentation is a claim that [the submitter] is married to the Baroness of [the barony used for the augmentation] and that their children will inherit it. This is an inappropriate heraldic claim, and violates the standards set by Corpora IV.C.3.a., that the standards set by the College of Arms 'shall be designed... [sic] to avoid the appearance... [sic] of false claims.'

{There is also some question whether an individual or a group can grant the right to their undifferenced arms for use by someone else. The use of letters of permission to conflict (which is what Laurel considers the petition by the members of the Barony [whose arms are used in the augmentation] to be) in the College has always been to allow a reduced standard of difference, not to allow the use of arms undifferenced. It is Laurel's belief that the only way the use of arms registered to one party may be granted undifferenced to another is to transfer those arms, with the appropriate letters signed by both parties transferring the arms and accepting them.}

A second issue is the use of a laurel wreath on arms registered to an individual. Laurel wreaths have always been reserved in the Society to branches of the Society, and may not be registered to an individual. (see, e.g., Baldwin of Erebor, LoAR of 10 March 1985, p.4) It is Laurel's belief, and that of many of the commenting heralds, that this restriction applies to augmentations as well as to devices, the same way that coronets and loops of chain, even as augmentations, have been restricted to those who may rightfully bear them.

As has been noted by prior Laurel precedent, no Crown may specify the form an augmentation (or arms, for that matter), may take. Relevant prior rulings on this are found in the Cover Letter of 28 January 1983, p.4; the Cover letter of 7 December 1986, pp. 3-4; and the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors of 24 January 1988, p.12.

It would seem that the simplest solution for this would be to make a resubmission of this and remove the laurel wreath from the augmentation. The augmentation would then be sufficiently different enough (with the 'letter of permission to conflict' from the Barony) from the arms of the Barony to avoid the problems of perceived presumption and at the same time to avoid the restriction on the registration of laurel wreaths." (LoAR 4/92 pps. 17-18).


AXE


[A double-bitted axe lying on a per pale counterchanged field] "There was some discussion regarding whether the axe fell under the ban on a long skinny charge counterchanged along its long axis. It was the consensus of the meeting...that the axe was clearly identifiable as an axe even though the haft was counterchanged." (LoAR 8/90 p.8).


[A woodaxe reversed argent] "Conflict with... a battle axe Or, headed argent, the edge to sinister... In each case there is... nothing for the change in tincture of the handle only." (LoAR 6/92 p.18).


BADGES


"We do not feel that the ban on fieldless badges containing disconnected charges of both metal and color, written into the old rules in AR13b, has been overturned by the new rules." (LoAR 8/90 p.17).


[<field> in base a <charge>, vs. the same <charge> used as a crest (cited from Fairbairn's Crests) ] "There is one CVD, for fielded vs. fieldless, but nothing can be granted against a fieldless badge (which is what we have treated crests as) for position on the field." (LoAR 9/90 p.13).


"The reason I place '{Fieldless}' at the beginning of the blazons of fieldless badges is to make it clear that the field tincture has not been left off in error. I do not consider '{Fieldless}' to be a part of the 'real' blazon, but an administrative notation which may sometimes prevent confusion or the belief that the lack of a field tincture is due to a typographical error. {Not that I ever make typogrephical erors, mined yu!}" (CL 11/5/90 p.3).


[(Fieldless) A charge between three other charges of a different type in pall inverted, all in same tincture class ] "It was felt that the overall design of this badge did not form a 'self-contained' design as within the meaning of RfS VIII.5." [The badge was returned for this reason] (LoAR 10/90 p.20).


[Azure, a <charge> Or] "This was submitted as '{Fieldless} Upon a hurt a <charge> Or'. As noted by Master Baldwin, fieldless badges should not have as their primary charge a charged convex geometric shape, as it then appears to be a display of arms...[quotes Master Baldwin from the 8 June 1986 LoAR p.7]...Accordingly, we have modified the blazon to better match the visual reality of this submission" [Also see LoAR 2/91 p.19] (LoAR 1/91 p.3).


"On and after June 1 of this year, the College will no longer register fieldless badges consisting of disconnected charges. This ban will include charges 'framing' another charge, unless such charges are conjoined...I do not believe that this ruling will require a change to the wording of the rules, since it is really only a stricter interpretation of the current wording of Rule VIII.5, Fieldless Style ('Ideally, a fieldless design will have all its elements linked together.')." (CL 3/8/91 p.1).


[Comparing two fieldless badges] "There is a CVD for fieldlessness." (LoAR 2/91 p.4).


"It is not possible to eclipse something 'of the field' on a fieldless badge." (LoAR 2/91 p.16).


[A quaver (musical note)] "In keeping with prior Laurel rulings on this issue, just as a badge may not consist solely of a single letter, neither may it consist solely of a single abstract symbol." (LoAR 2/91 p.16).


[(fieldless) on a delf Or a charge] "The precedent set by Master Baldwin in 1986 regarding the style of '{fieldless} on a (billet, roundel, delf, etc.)...' has not been abrogated by the new rules. This appears to be a display of arms... on a rectangle. The fact that such arms would be in conflict... is beside the point. A fieldless badge should not have a charge placed on a convex geometric shape which is used for armorial display." [the badge was returned] (LoAR 2/91 p.19).


[Fieldless, an ermine spot, drawn with "balls" not conjoined to the "tail" ] "It is Lord Laurel's considered opinion that an ermine spot should be considered a single charge, and so this does not fall under the ban on fieldless charges consisting of disconnected charges." (LoAR 8/91 p.13).


"Lord Laurel is confused by the misunderstanding some commenters seem to have regarding the difference between fieldless and tinctureless armory. Fieldless armory gets a CD for fieldlessness; tinctureless armory (SCA, not mundane) acquires one CD for fieldlessness - the other CD must come from a class other than tincture (RfS X.4.d). Japanese mon, while tinctureless, are not fieldless; thus, they cannot be granted the fieldlessness difference. Addition or removal of charges, field and charge divisions (since mon appear only to have used solid fields and solid charges), complex lines, all contribute difference from mon. Fieldlessness does not, unless the SCA armory being considered against it is fieldless, in which case the SCA armory, not the mon, gets a CD for fieldlessness." (LoAR 1/92 p.15).


[{Fieldless} A fleur-de-lis per pale] "Versus <mundane nobility>, {Fieldless} A fleur-de-lys, there is a CD for fieldlessness and another for the addition of a line of division on the charge. The assumption (until proven otherwise) is that mundane badges were displayed only in solid tinctures (including the furs). It is therefore reasonable that the addition of a line of division should count for difference, as here." (LoAR 2/92 p.10).


[{Fieldless} a bendlet crossed by two scarpes] "It is not possible to have ordinaries or diminutives of ordinaries on a fieldless badge. Blazoning them as couped will normally permit this; however, these cannot be blazoned as couped due to the unusual nature of the couping (horizontally.)" (LoAR 5/92 p.24).


"The Rules for Submissions, VIII.5. is revised to read:

VIII. 5. Fieldless Style - Fieldless armory must form a self-contained design. A fieldless design must have all its elements conjoined , like three feathers issuing from a crown used by the Heir Apparent to the throne of England. Since there is no field in such a design, it may not use charges that rely on the edges of the field to define their shape, such as bordures and orles, nor to cut off their ends, such as ordinaries or charges throughout.

The [italicized] phrase replaces 'Ideally, a fieldless design will have all its elements linked together.' " (CL 6/18/92 p.1).


BALANCE, ARMORIAL STYLE


[<field>, two charges in saltire, a dexter tierce, in chief three <other charges> counterchanged ] "It was the consensus of the commenters that this was not so excessively unbalanced a design as to warrant return, but it does come close." (LoAR 9/90 p.2).


"While the [augmentation has] a tendency to unbalance the device somewhat, it is Laurel's feeling that we need to loosen the application of our standards a little with regard to augmentations, which by their very nature will add complexity to and not infrequently serve to unbalance a device." (LoAR 2/91 p.9).


BASE


[Gules, on a chevron Or between a pair of <charges> and a base arched and indented argent, three <tertiaries> ] "Conflict with [Gules, on a chevron Or three <different tertiaries>]. There is a CVD for the addition of the secondaries, but nothing for the change of type only of tertiaries. Conflict also with [Gules, on a chevron Or between three <different secondaries> argent, three <different tertiaries> gules], with the same count." [This strongly implies that two charges in chief + a base are a single group of charges, two and one, rather than a group of charges in chief + a separate, "peripheral charge" group] (LoAR 8/90 p.14).


[A bimount + charged chief vs. charged chief alone on field ] "The bimount, as a peripheral charge, is not a 'primary charge' as defined in the Glossary of Terms, and thus X.1 and X.2 cannot be invoked." (LoAR 9/90 p.15).


[Comparing armory using a per chevron field with armory using a point pointed ] "There is a CVD for...modifying the line of division of the field from straight to 'ploy‚' or embowed to base". (LoAR 3/91 p.3).


[A fret conjoined in saltire with four mice tergiant sable] "The large number of suggested reblazons for the primary on this device (including a 'fret vermined') is indicative of its non-Period style. We have seen no evidence at all for a fret terminating in a beast of any kind." (LoAR 8/91 p.24).


"The use of two bendlets way up to one side [in sinister chief] severely unbalances the device. With four tinctures and four types of charge this is right at the limit of complexity. Combined with the use of what are normally central ordinaries as peripheral charges and the unusual treatment in the 'veiling' of the cross, this must be returned for complexity and for non-Period style." (LoAR 9/91 p.16).


[Per bend sinister, two scarpes enhanced] "The style of this badge is very unbalanced and obtrusively modern in design, in violation of RfS VIII.4.d." (LoAR 12/91 p.17).


[Sable, on a vested arm fesswise embowed issuant from dexter holding a sword argent, a compass star sable, in chief a lit candle argent] "The badge is very complex in that it is unbalanced and appears to have no cohesiveness or unity of design. As such it must be considered a non-period design." (LoAR 5/92 p.20).

[Charge blazoned as 'a flame issuant from base'] "Although the LoI noted the submitter has been advised to draw more yellow in the flame, this is effectively a 'base rayonny gules, fimbriated Or'. Similar charges tinctured in this fashion have been returned in the past. If he wishes to redraw it with areal base of flames (gules with yellow throughout as well as along the edges of the rayonny) we will be happy to reconsider this proposal." (LoAR 9/91 p.17).


[Per fess gules and argent, a fess counterchanged between a <charge> and a <different charge atop a mount> ] "Conflict with... per fess gules and argent, a fess counterchanged. There is one CD for the addition of the secondaries." [This implies that the mount is considered part of the same secondary group and the charges surrounding the fess, as opposed to a separate peripheral charge.] (LoAR 5/92 p.22)


"Just as one should not have a charge overlying a chief or flaunches, a charge overlying a base is not registrable." (LoAR 5/92 p.24).


BEAST


[Dormant lion vs. couchant Egyptian sphinx, both in chief on differing per fess fields] "There is only one CVD, for the change to the field [implying no type difference]." (LoAR 8/90 p.18).


[A beast tergiant, overall three barrulets indented] "This design (as is almost any 'road kill' heraldry) is obtrusively modern, in violation of RfS VIII.4." (LoAR 10/90 p.15).


[A bear sitting with its legs forward in the style of a teddy bear, blazoned as 'sitting' in the LoI and 'sejant erect' in the LoAR] "We felt that the depiction of the bear was within the limits of artistic variation for sejant erect, and did not feel that a new term ('sitting') was necessary for this posture." (LoAR 12/90 p.13).


[Winged lion-dragon passant guardant] "It was the opinion of those at the Laurel meeting that while X.2 could be invoked against [a lion passant guardant] (for the addition of the wings and change of lower half of the body), [a griffin passant] (for the change to head and tail), that the similarity of outline was not sufficient to apply X.2 against [a wyvern]. (The default posture for wyverns on the Continent is passant, hence there is no difference for posture.) Given that wyverns were sometimes emblazoned with feathered wings rather than bat-wings, this call became much trickier, with changes only to head and forelegs, the detailing of the lion vs. reptilian torso being of less visual weight. In the end we felt we had to say that while there was clearly a CVD for type, that not enough difference was there to apply X.2." (LoAR 10/90 pps.15-16).


"This is clear of <cited conflict>, but only just...We felt that given the normal depiction of squirrels, with very large, bushy tails, that a second CVD could be granted for type from ferrets." (LoAR 11/90 p.9).


[A request for change of blazon from domestic cat to catamount ] "The emblazon in the files clearly shows a domestic cat." [The blazon was not changed] (LoAR 11/90 p.16). [Yak vs. bull] "We cannot see granting [a CVD] for the 'hairiness' of the bull." (LoAR 11/90 p.17).


[Winged natural tiger rampant] "Clear by X.2 from...a lion rampant..." (LoAR 1/91 p.19).


"Because the most distinctive feature of the enfield, eagle's claws for forelegs, are lost against the [maintained charge], there are a number of conflicts with various foxes and wolves...There is only one CVD for the tincture of the beast. Conflict also with...a lion rampant [in same tinctures]...with one CVD for the type of beast." (LoAR 1/91 p.27).


[Reblazon of bat to reremouse] "Regarding the creature blazoned a 'bat' in the LoI, the Fool of Arms said it best, in Motley Heraldry: You may say to bats in a belfry 'You're bats.' They won't mind, 'cause they are; But you mustn't say 'Bats' to the ones in shields - You'd better be silent by far; For the bat in a shield is a reremouse (You may call him a flittermouse, too) And if you say 'Bats' to the reremice proud They'll answer, 'And bats to you!' " (LoAR 3/91 p.3).


"[At the Huntington Library, in Pasadena, CA] there was there a Spanish book printed in 1560 which had a very large drawing of what was quite clearly an American Bison." (LoAR 8/91 p.14).


"There is a CVD for changing the lamb to a sea-lamb but the consensus among the commenters was that X.2 does not apply here." (LoAR 8/91 p.17).


"The consensus of the commentary was that X.2 applies between ferrets and hedgehogs." (LoAR 9/91 p.2).


[A winged wolf] "Conflict with... a wolf... there is only one CVD for adding the wings." (LoAR 10/91 p.16).


[A horse's head couped argent maned gules fimbriated Or] "There are simply too many problems with the emblazon here to register this and tell the submitter to 'draw the X properly.' The greatest difficulty comes with the mane of the horse's head which, rather than being of flames proper, is gules, fimbriated Or. The mane is far too complex to fimbriate. (And there is some question as to whether 'maned of flames' is acceptable SCA style.) The suggestion by Lord Trefoil that we simply blazon the mane gules and tolerate its low contrast against the field as an artistic detail worth no heraldic difference will not work here. On this horse's head the mane is easily as significant as a pair of wings would be, and we would not allow them to break tincture either." (LoAR 10/91 p.17).


[Bats (in default displayed posture) vs. martlets (in default close posture)] "There are CDs for both the type and posture of the <charge group>" (LoAR 11/91 p.9).


[Two wingless griffins combattant] "Conflict with... two lions rampant combattant... The only difference in the large emblazon between these wingless griffins and lions is to the nose of the animal. If the submitter would use either griffins with wings, or male griffins (with the spikes), [there would be a CD for type]." (LoAR 1/92 p.17).


"While I do not believe that X.2 would apply between a dog and a sea-dog, I do not have a problem with granting a CD, especially given the separate heraldic existence of a sea-dog from any other kind of dog." (LoAR 2/92 p.9).


[Two horses forceny salient addorsed] "Versus... two levriers rampant addorsed... it is not at all clear that X.2 does apply between the two types of beast as is stated in the LoI. However, [another conflict] makes that question moot." (LoAR 5/92 p.23).


[A rabbit sejant guardant armed with a stag's attire] Conflict with... a coney. Given that the default posture for a rabbit is sejant, there is at best one CD, and many commenters did not find that much for the addition of the antlers." (LoAR 5/92 p.24).


[A cat sejant] "Conflict with... a fox sejant... There is one CD for the change to the type of primary, but X.2 does not apply here." (LoAR 6/92 p.14).


BILLET and DELF


"Commentary seemed generally favorable to allowing gemstones as charges, and since Lord Batonvert found period armory using a faceted gemstone, they will be permitted in SCA armory. However, no difference can be counted for them against delfs, billets, pillows, and other gemstones of any cut." (LoAR 12/90 p.6).


BIRD


[<field> a hawk displayed wings inverted, <tincture> vs. many cases of <different field> an eagle displayed <same tincture> ] "In each case, there is only one CVD, for the field." [implying no difference for hawk to eagle, or for inverting wings] (LoAR 7/90 pps. 11-12).


[(fieldless) a falcon sable jessed sable and Or vs. (various fields) an eagle close sable, a raven sable, a falcon sable hooded, lined and membered Or ] "In each case there is only one CVD, for fieldlessness." [implying no difference for bird types and/or accoutrements] (LoAR 9/90 p.13).


[Crane blazoned in LoAR as 'standing on one foot'] "The crane was blazoned in the LoI as 'in its vigilance', but that definiton includes a stone held in the raised foot of the bird, which was not present in the emblazon." (LoAR 10/90 p.7).


[Double flowered thistle] "Given the normal emblazon of thistles...wherein the leaves rather than the heads are the most visually prominent element, we could not see giving a CVD for the addition of the second head (not too dissimilarly to not granting a CVD for the difference between an eagle and a double-headed eagle)." (LoAR 10/90 p.14).


[Male American kestrels striking proper (Falco spaverius)] "The male American kestrels are mostly light buff and tan on the underside, and in this position have good contrast with the [purpure] bend sinister." (LoAR 11/90 p.4).


[A duck displayed guardant] "Conflict with [a dove displayed head elevated]...we could not in good conscience grant a CVD for type between two white birds in an identical position." (LoAR 11/90 p.16).


[Azure, a raven and a <peripheral charge> argent] "Conflict with...Azure, a goshawk argent. There is one CVD for the addition of the <peripheral charge>, but we could not see a second for the difference between a raven and a goshawk in an identical posture. Regarding the statement made in the return of [a submission in November 1990], it would have been clearer (and more accurate) had I said that there is no difference between two types of birds of similar shape or silhouette in identical postures. Thus this submission does not conflict with... Azure, a sheldrake argent, with CVDs for type of primary and addition of the secondary. (Even Laurel on one of his bad days can tell the difference between a raven and a duck!)." (LoAR 1/91 p.23).


[A dove volant wings addorsed, as only significant charge on device ] "Conflict with...a falcon volant... as cited in the LoI. There may possibly be a CVD for bird type here [see LoAR 1/91 p.23]...but certainly not the substantial kind of change required by X.2." (LoAR 1/91 p.24).


"It was felt that we could not in good conscience grant a CVD for the difference between a generic bird and an eagle." (LoAR 4/91 p.11).


"There appear to be some very strong feelings that birds should not be registered in quadrupeds' positions. As a consequence of this attitude (which Laurel has long shared): PRECEDENT: Henceforth, we will not accept rampant birds." (LoAR 5/91 p.5).


"In the device submission <field, in fess two falcons close sable>, the LoI counted difference versus...Or, two ravens in fess proper, for type of charge on the grounds that period heralds saw them as different charges. (Both devices have the birds in their default position, close.) However, in the SCA, we have to take into account, as Lady Dolphin noted, not only 'Clear Historical Differences', but 'Clear VISUAL Differences'. This issue is the flip-side, if you will, of the Estoile/Mullet question [also in CL 7/16/91]. Should we allow difference for two charges which look alike but which period heralds considered to be different (falcons and ravens, both sable), while not allowing difference for two charges which clearly look different but which period heralds did not treat as different (estoiles and mullets)? I would have a harder time explaining to a submitter that two birds which look almost exactly alike are really considered to be different heraldically than I would explaining to that same submitter that estoiles and mullets are really alike heraldically. Thank you, no." (CL 7/16/91 p.2).


"There are some fairly obvious differences to the head and body outline between doves and cocks; sufficient for a CVD." (LoAR 7/91 p.12).


[A hummingbird rising] "Conflict with...a falcon... There is a CVD for the change to type of bird but X.2 does not apply here." (LoAR 8/91 p.15).


[A griffin displayed] "Versus...a double headed eagle displayed... there is...[a CD] (barely) for the differences between a griffin and an eagle in this position. The primary visible differences between an eagle and a griffin in this position are the griffin's ears and tail, as the forelimbs are almost invisible against the wings." (LoAR 11/91 p.6).


[Bats (in default displayed posture) vs. martlets (in default close posture)] "There are CDs for both the type and posture of the <charge group>" (LoAR 11/91 p.9).


[Request for reblazon from "owl argent" to "snowy owl proper" ] "It has long been the practice of the College that when a standard blazon using heraldic tinctures is available that that blazon is preferable to using naturalistic propers. In this case, the only difference between the registered owl argent and the client's snowy owl proper is some of the internal detailing in sable. As this is exactly the level and kind of artistic detail that has always been left to the whim of the artist, we do not see sufficient reason to change the blazon here." (LoAR 2/92 p.19).


"There is more than sufficient documentation for the kleestengeln, which are representations of the wingbones found in German armory. They are blazonable, though they should probably not count for difference." (LoAR 4/92 p.16).


"Passant is not a bird position, so we have reblazoned the bird in the closest avian position, as 'rising, wings inverted and addorsed.' " [Actually, passantis a bird posture, and refers to a bird walking with one foot raised.] (LoAR 4/92 p.20).


[Firebird vs. Peacock] "After comparing the two emblazons, we found we could only grant one CD for the change to the posture [leaving no difference for type]" (LoAR 4/92 p.21).


[A bend charged with three martlets vs. a bend charged with three owls] "The change in type only from martlets to owls is insufficient to apply X.4.j.ii." (LoAR 5/92 p.20).


[Three martlets within a peripheral charge] "Conflict with... three parroquets... There is one CD for the addition of the <peripheral charge> but the differences between martlets and parroquets, which are more or less a generic bird, are too small to grant the necessary second." (LoAR 5/92 p.23).


[A martlet] "Conflict with... a falcon close... After a comparison of the emblazons we did not feel that a CD could be granted for type only of bird." (LoAR 6/92 p.16).


BLAZON


[Per bend sinister argent and gules, a gules charge in dexter chief ] "It was our feeling that since the gules <charge> could not overlie the gules portion of the field, that its position would be intuitively obvious and therefore did not need to be specifically blazoned." (LoAR 8/90 p.12).


"The reason I place '{Fieldless}' at the beginning of the blazons of fieldless badges is to make it clear that the field tincture has not been left off in error. I do not consider '{Fieldless}' to be a part of the 'real' blazon, but an administrative notation which may sometimes prevent confusion or the belief that the lack of a field tincture is due to a typographical error. {Not that I ever make typogrephical erors, mined yu!}" (CL 11/5/90 p.3).


[Spearhead, charge submitted as an arrowhead] "While the submitter documented the form of a Tudor arrowhead in this shape, most heralds would see it first as a spearhead, hence we have reblazoned it thus. Given the gross changes in outline between a spearhead and a standard heraldic pheon or broad arrow, we do not see calling conflict between this and any of several pieces of armory with pheons inverted." (LoAR 10/90 p.10).


[A delf ... pierced two and two] "There was a lot of discussion about the submitted blazon, which called the charge a weaving tablet. While several of the commenters recognized it (and the submitter has demonstrated its existence well within period), they tended to be those who had used weaving tablets. We have therefore modified the blazon to ensure reproducibility without specialized knowledge or experience in fiber arts." (LoAR 10/90 p.10).


[A request for change of blazon from domestic cat to catamount ] "The emblazon in the files clearly shows a domestic cat." [The blazon was not changed] (LoAR 11/90 p.16).


"Thistles are slipped and leaved by default in the SCA. A rose proper is gules, barbed vert, seeded Or. By using the heraldic defaults, we have been able to shorten the submitted blazon by six words, a substantial savings." (LoAR 12/90 p.6).


[Azure a <charge> Or] "This was submitted as '{Fieldless} Upon a hurt a <charge> Or'. As noted by Master Baldwin, fieldless badges should not have as their primary charge a charged convex geometric shape, as it then appears to be a display of arms...[quotes Master Baldwin from the 8 June 1986 LoAR p.7]...Accordingly, we have modified the blazon to better match the visual reality of this submission." (LoAR 1/91 p.3).


[A German version of the gurges, a.k.a. a snail, a.k.a. (and finally blazoned as) a schneke ] "Given that the College of Arms has already adopted such German charges as the seeblatt and nesselblatt into its blazonry, we saw no reason not to accept the German blazon for this charge as well." (LoAR 1/91 p.7).


"While sympathetic with those who would blazon these as 'square weaver's tablets' or 'weaving cards', the existence of weaving tablets with five holes made Laurel less willing to do so, and so we have retained the 'delfs pierced two and two' of the earlier registration of this charge." (LoAR 1/91 p.11).


"We have no difficulty with blazoning the specific type of musket, though of course it would not count for difference from any other type of period musket." (LoAR 1/91 p.15).


"Blazoned in the LoI as 'Sable a <charge> argent and overall a fess counterchanged', an ordinary, when present, is normally considered the primary charge and should be blazoned first. Blazoned this way, it is much clearer that this is in conflict with...Sable, a fess argent, as noted in the LoI. In previous cases where a piece of armory could legitimately be blazoned in either of two ways, if either blazon had a conflict, the submission was returned." (LoAR 3/91 p.7).


[Reblazon of bat to reremouse] "Regarding the creature blazoned a 'bat' in the LoI, the Fool of Arms said it best, in Motley Heraldry: You may say to bats in a belfry 'You're bats.' They won't mind, 'cause they are; But you mustn't say 'Bats' to the ones in shields - You'd better be silent by far; For the bat in a shield is a reremouse (You may call him a flittermouse, too) And if you say 'Bats' to the reremice proud They'll answer, 'And bats to you!' " (LoAR 3/91 p.3).


[Per fess indented of five points] "Because the emblazon requires blazoning the number of points of the line of division of the field to make the design work, this is not particularly period style, but is not poor enough style to return." (LoAR 7/91 p.5).


"It should be noted that cotises follow the line of the ordinary they flank by default. When they do not (for example, a fess wavy cotised plain), it must be specifically blazoned." (LoAR 8/91 p.19).


[Per bend sinister paly azure and Or, and argent] "Though submitted as 'Per bend sinister azure and argent...' the above blazon much more closely follows the real visual impact of the design." (LoAR 11/91 p.17).


"Generally, when there is a problem with a blazon in a LoI, that submission is pended by Laurel, not returned." (LoAR 12/91 p.12).


[Per fess indented of two points] "It is not terribly good practice to blazon the number of points of the indented line, but seems within the bounds of SCA practice." (LoAR 1/92 p.8).


[A pale convex] "While the submitter has fixed one of the problems [of the previous return], the other remains. The notes made by Laurel in the file at that time state that 'a pale convex is not a heraldic charge.' The blazon submitted for it in the LoI, 'embowed', does not accurately describe the emblazon." (LoAR 1/92 p.18).


[Request for reblazon from "owl argent" to "snowy owl proper" ] "It has long been the practice of the College that when a standard blazon using heraldic tinctures is available that that blazon is preferable to using naturalistic propers. In this case, the only difference between the registered owl argent and the client's snowy owl proper is some of the internal detailing in sable. As this is exactly the level and kind of artistic detail that has always been left to the whim of the artist, we do not see sufficient reason to change the blazon here." (LoAR 2/92 p.19).


"Passant is not a bird position, so we have reblazoned the bird in the closest avian position, as 'rising, wings inverted and addorsed.' " [Actually, passant is a bird posture, and refers to a bird walking with one foot raised.] (LoAR 4/92 p.20).


"As a number of commenters noted, we normally do not blazon the number of traits in a paly field unless there is some overriding need to. Paly fields are most commonly of six or of eight, and neither needs to be blazoned." (LoAR 5/92 p.21).


[On a flame an <A> charged with a <B>] "Although this was blazoned as an <A> enflamed, the visual reality is as reblazoned above. A good, proper, Period enflamed has a few gouttes of flame scattered around the edge of the charge being enflamed. Where the flame completely surrounds an object, that object is said to be 'on a flame.' As a consequence this device has four layers: field, flame, <A> and <B>." (LoAR 5/92 p.26).


BOOK AND SCROLL


"The use of two similar but non-identical charges in a group has been cause for return many times in the past. A scroll is one kind of book and a book is another." (LoAR 7/91 p.24).


BORDURE


[A device using a bordure and a charged chief of the same tincture ] "A chief should not surmount a bordure (Parker p.112), nor should a chief be used with a bordure of the same tincture, which will have the visual effect of a bordure with a 'fat top'." (LoAR 1/91 p.27).


[A bordure parted bordurewise indented] "The bordure was blazoned as 'indented-in-point' in the LoI. The above blazon, though not quite as elegant, is believed to be clearer." (LoAR 2/91 p.12).


[A bordure triple-parted and fretted] "Bordures cannot be parted and fretted in this manner. (Picture doing it on a roundel, for example...Where would the fretting be?)." (LoAR 4/91 p.14).


[An impaled-style device, with a charged bordure] "There was some disagreement at the Laurel meeting as to whether the addition of a charged bordure removes the appearance of marshalling. That most of the commenters seem to think that it does or have said nothing leads us to believe that the College feels that the addition of a charged bordure does, in fact, remove the appearance of marshalling." (LoAR 7/91 p.4).


"In spite of the registration of a bordure and chief in the same tincture some time back noted in the LoI, a similar combination was disallowed in the LoAR for the January 1991 Laurel meeting [p.27]. It was noted there that a chief should not be used with a bordure of the same tincture as it will give the visual effect of a bordure with a fat top. Nor does period armory give much precedent for such a combination, as the vast majority of exemplars there go out of their way to demarcate the two charges by tincture, line of division, or both. As has often been noted, we follow the general practices, not the exceptions." (LoAR 10/91 p.17).


"Just as you may not have a compony bordure that shares a tincture with the field, neither may you have a plain bordure which shares the tincture with a gyronny field as here." (LoAR 10/91 p.20).


[Two <charges> in fess and a base] "This is clear of... three <charges>, with a change to the number of primaries and the addition of the subordinary. Peripheral charges such as chiefs, bordures, bases, flaunches etc. are not considered to be a part of the primary charge group." (LoAR 11/91 p.3).


"As has been stated many times in the past, Society practice follows the general rule, not the anomaly. While Lord Brigantia did find one instance of a mundane coat of arms which had a bordure and chief of the same tincture, the general rule appears to be that while bordures and chiefs are sometimes found, they are of different tinctures, and frequently have differing lines of division to further differentiate them. This is therefore returned for having the chief and bordure of the same tincture." (LoAR 11/91 p.20).


"Counterchanging the bordure over the flaunches is not good style." [The badge was registered] (LoAR 1/92 p.3).


[A gurges... overall on a sinister gore a <charge>] "This is four layers (field, gurges, gore <charge>). There is serious doubt as to whether peripheral charges (e.g., bordures, chiefs, gores, etc.) may be used as an overall charge in this manner. Certainly we would much prefer to see some evidence of its acceptability in Period before registering it in the SCA." (LoAR 2/92 p.18).


[Argent, vêtu ployé gules, a <charge> within a bordure] "As drawn, the emblazon shows the bordure overall. If the client would redraw this so that the corners of the vêtu are not cut off by the bordure, this design would be acceptable." (LoAR 2/92 p.20).


"The division of the bordure (per saltire) of two colors makes it very hard to recognize what is going on with the bordure. We would prefer some documentation that bordures were divided this way in Period before we register it in the SCA." (LoAR 4/92 p.17).


[A bordure gyronny vs. a bordure compony] "There is one CD for the posture of the primary" [which implies no difference for the bordure tincture] (LoAR 4/92 p.24).


CHARGE GROUPS


[...between a chevronel and a chevronel inverted braced, a <charge>... ] "The relative sizes of the charges, not to mention the fact that chevrons and their diminutives are ordinaries, clearly made the chevronels the primaries..." (LoAR 7/90 p.2).


"After much thought and discussion, it has been decided, for purposes of X.4.d, e and h of the Rules for Submission, that the bottommost of three charges, either on the field alone or around an ordinary, is defined as one-half of the group...multiple changes to the basemost of three charges under this definiton will be granted a maximum of one CVD." (CL 9/6/90 p.2).


[Gules, on a chevron Or between a pair of <charges> and a base arched and indented argent, three <tertiaries> ] "Conflict with [Gules, on a chevron Or three <different tertiaries>]. There is a CVD for the addition of the secondaries, but nothing for the change of type only of tertiaries. Conflict also with [Gules, on a chevron Or between three <different secondaries> argent, three <different tertiaries> gules], with the same count." [This strongly implies that two charges in chief + a base are a single group of charges, two and one, rather than a group of charges in chief + a separate, "peripheral charge" group] (LoAR 8/90 p.14).


"Consideration of the devices of [submitters] in this LoAR has helped to focus on some of the difficulties in reconciling a relatively simple set of rules with the 'realities' of a visual art. In view of the overwhelming support for [a submitter's] appeal by the commenters, I have been convinced that the wording of Rule X.4.j, 'Generally such changes must affect the whole group of charges to be considered visually significant...', gives us some leeway here. As a consequence, in certain particularly simple cases, changes to type or number plus change of tincture of one-half of tertiary charge(s) will be sufficient difference for a CVD. For now this will have to be considered on a case by case basis." (CL 10/16/90 p.1).


"After reviewing carefully what commentary there was on the change to X.2 proposed by Mistress Alisoun, X.2 will be changed as follows, effective immediately:

X.2 Difference of Primary Charges. Armory that consists of: (a) a charge or group of charges alone on the field; or (b) a charge or group of charges which may themselves be charged; or (c) a charge or group of charges accompanied only by a single group of identical charges upon the field; or (d) a charge or group of charges accompanied by a peripheral charge which may itself be charged - does not conflict with similarly simple, protected armory if the type of the primary charge is substantially changed.
This wording is a little longer than Laurel himself would have liked, but describes more clearly than a more abbreviated form would the various conditions under which X.2 will apply. Please note the careful placement of the word 'or' between the various subclauses: X.2 will not apply to two devices with secondaries and a charged chief, for instance. The change to the primary charge(s) must be substantial: type variants are not sufficient (a chevron vs. a chevron embattled is not a substantial change in type {both are, after all, the same type of charge, a chevron} for the purposes of this rule); some quadrupeds and crosses, for example, may be too close visually to apply this rule." (CL 10/16/90 pps. 1-2).

[A bimount + charged chief vs. charged chief alone on field ] "The bimount, as a peripheral charge, is not a 'primary charge' as defined in the Glossary of Terms, and thus X.1 and X.2 cannot be invoked." (LoAR 9/90 p.15).


"It is Laurel's position that a semy is a group of charges in and of itself, separate and distinct from any other charge or group of charges (the exception being where the semy and the other charge(s) are the same)." (LoAR 10/90 p.9).


[Three mullets in bend between a book and a sheaf of arrows ] "The device is visually confusing: were all of the charges the same, it would be blazoned simply as five mullets. As it is, in spite of blazoning the mullets in bend as primary charges, it looks like slot-machine heraldry, having three types of charge in a standard heraldic arrangement (in saltire), for which reason we are returning it." (LoAR 11/90 p.14).


[Gules, three piles in point Or, overall a centaur passant sable... ] "While this is a technical violation of VIII.2.b.i. regarding the necessity of overall charges having good contrast with the field rather than the charges they overlie, the fact that the overall charge was primarily on the piles led us to [believe] that in this case such technical violation would be permissible. This is not to be taken as a general precedent for violating VIII.2.b.i." (LoAR 12/90 p.9).


[Azure, within the horns of an increscent a <charge> argent ] "Conflict with...Azure a <charge> argent. There is only one CVD, for addition of the crescent. In the case...cited in the LoI, the sizes of the two charges were so disparate that the crescent overwhelmed the <central charge> and was visually the primary charge. Here, the size differential is such that the eye does not necessarily make the immediate evaluation that the crescent is the primary. In such a case, the charge at the visual center of the field will normally be so considered." (LoAR 12/90 p.18).


[A unicorn argent and a dragon Or combattant] "Conflict with...a dragon rampant...Or...there is only one CVD for the addition of the unicorn" [This implies that adding a second charge to result in two combattant beasts/monsters is only one CVD as opposed to change in number + change in arrangement/half change in type/ etc.] (LoAR 1/91 p.20).


"Blazoned in the LoI as 'Sable a <charge> argent and overall a fess counterchanged', an ordinary, when present, is normally considered the primary charge and should be blazoned first. Blazoned this way, it is much clearer that this is in conflict with...Sable, a fess argent, as noted in the LoI. In previous cases where a piece of armory could legitimately be blazoned in either of two ways, if either blazon had a conflict, the submission was returned." (LoAR 3/91 p.7).


[Sable, two <charges> argent and in base a three-towered castle Or ] "Clear of...Sable, a castle triple-towered Or, because the visual reality of this device is that the <charges> a clearly the primary charges here, with a diminutive castle in base." (LoAR 4/91 p.4).


[A mongoose and increscent in pale] "Conflict with <a single increscent>. There is one CVD for the addition of the mongoose." (LoAR 4/91 p.11).


[A sword bendwise sinister between dissimilar secondaries] "Because the sword does not visually dominate the field, this exceeds the complexity limits of VIII.1.a in using three different types of charge in what is visually the same 'group'." (LoAR 4/91 p.12).


[A sea-dragon and a label] "Clear of... a sea-dragon erect within a saltire parted and fretted argent. As Morgan's could just as well (or perhaps better) be blazoned Azure, a sea-dragon erect between two bendlets and two bendlets sinister fretted argent, we see two CVDs for changing the type and number of the secondaries." (LoAR 6/91 p.2).


[Two dolphins respectant environing an estoile] "Although the dolphins were blazoned as the primary charge, standard blazon practice would put the estoile first. (This is clearer if you think of adding an annulet... instead of the two dolphins.) Thus this is in conflict with...an estoile... with only one CVD for the addition of the dolphins." (LoAR 6/91 p.21).


"It is poor style to use two similar but non-identical charges in a a single group. For example, using a sword and two poinards in a sheaf... has been cause for return in the past. The use of two different types of gauntlets is likewise impermissible." (LoAR 7/91 p.21).


"The use of two similar but non-identical charges in a group has been cause for return many times in the past. A scroll is one kind of book and a book is another." (LoAR 7/91 p.24).


"Changing the tincture of the topmost of three charges one and two is insufficient for [a CVD]" (LoAR 8/91 p.18).


[A quill pen and a rapier crossed in saltire, and overall a compass star] "[This] is a single group of three dissimilar charges, which violates RFS VIII.1.a." (LoAR 8/91 p.22).


[In pale a <charge> and <two other charges> in saltire ] "This is technically just not slot machine heraldry, but only because visually there are two charge 'groups' rather than one group of three different charges." (LoAR 9/91 p.9).


[An owl passant brandishing an axe palewise] "The axe in this submission, nearly the length of the primary charge, is significant enough to contribute to difference." (LoAR 9/91 p.11).


[Three charges, one and two] "There is... [a CVD] for changing both the type and tincture of one [the topmost] of the group of three primary charges." [Note this expands the ruling on the CL 9/6/90 p.2, which only discusses the bottommost of three charges, two and one] (LoAR 10/91 p.6).


"While commentary was somewhat split on this issue, the general feeling was that to modify the Rules to define half a group by line of division or as those charges on either side of an ordinary would only serve to encourage unbalanced armory. On the other hand, there are times when the visual impact of changes to charges which amount to 'less than half the group' should be granted more difference. As a consequence, we are adopting Lady Dolphin's (now Lady Crescent) suggestion of allowing two changes to the minority of a group (i.e., the 'lesser' half of a group of charges lying on either side of a line of field division or an ordinary) being sufficient for a Clear Difference. For example, 'Per bend sinister sable and Or, a decrescent moon Or and three fir trees proper' would be allowed two CDs from 'Per bend sinister azure and argent, a bear's head argent and three fir trees vert' with one CD for the field and another for the two changes to the charge in dexter chief." (CL 12/21/91 pps. 1-2).


[Two <charges> in fess and a base] "This is clear of... three <charges>, with a change to the number of primaries and the addition of the subordinary. Peripheral charges such as chiefs, bordures, bases, flaunches etc. are not considered to be a part of the primary charge group." (LoAR 11/91 p.3).


[In bend a teasel slipped and leaved Or and a flax flower slipped and leaved argent ] "The use of two different types of plants in different orientations [one was somewhat out of the palewise true in the emblazon, although wasn't reflected in the blazon] and different tinctures is not period style. Prior Laurel precedent has indicated that we should not use two different kinds of charges of the same general type in a single charge group." (LoAR 11/91 p.21).


[Sable, a fess argent, overall a <charge> within an orle or rope counterchanged ] "Only the fact that the orle is considered a peripheral charge and thus not part of the same group as the <charge> prevents this from conflict with ...Sable a fess argent, by X4c." (LoAR 1/92 p.1).


[A gurges... overall on a sinister gore a <charge>] "This is four layers (field, gurges, gore <charge>). There is serious doubt as to whether peripheral charges (e.g., bordures, chiefs, gores, etc.) may be used as an overall charge in this manner. Certainly we would much prefer to see some evidence of its acceptability in Period before registering it in the SCA." (LoAR 2/92 p.18).


[On a spiderweb, a spider between three <charges> vs. a spiderweb ] "Spiderwebs are throughout by default and thus there cannot be a CD for 'throughoutness' here. A spiderweb is not like any of the other field treatments, in that no part of it reflects the same pattern as the whole. In this way it much more closely resembles a gurges, which is a charge. Thus, there is only one CD... for the addition of the overall charges." [Note: this implies that all overall charges are one group] (LoAR 2/92 p.20).


[Azure, on a bend between six <secondary charges> bendwise in bend, a <tertiary charge> palewise ] "No evidence was presented that this style of device follows any Period exemplars. Normal practice both in Period and since would have been for the tertiary to follow the line of the bend and the secondaries to be palewise. To deliberately reverse the normal defaults for both the secondaries and the tertiary gives this a very post-Period look." (LoAR 2/92 p.21).


[<field> a rose and on a gore a rose] "The use of two different sizes of the same charge (the primary and the tertiary) has been grounds for return in the past, as they make it harder to identify just what is going on on the field, belonging as they do to two different charge groups." [the main reason for return was non-period ermining on both primary and peripheral charge] (LoAR 3/92 p.15).


"Just as one should not have a charge overlying a chief or flaunches, a charge overlying a base is not registrable." (LoAR 5/92 p.24).


[A mermaid between three sealions] "This device barely avoids having to be returned for the use of two similar but different charges in the same group. It would be helpful if the client would draw the mermaid larger." (LoAR 6/92 p.5).


[In pale a dolphin embowed and a shark embowed to base contourny ] "The use of two very similar but different charges in the same group here is not Period style and is in fact not registerable by prior Laurel precedent (see, e.g., LoAR of 30 April 1989, p.6)." (LoAR 6/92 p.16).


CHEVRON


[Chevronels, drawn and blazoned 'enarched' in LoI, blazoned simply as chevronels in LoAR ] "The enarching of the chevronels is artistic. The 'chevron enarched' as shown in Parker has a normal straight chevron with an arch conjoined to the bottom edge, very much different from those here." (LoAR 11/91 p.1).


CHIEF


[A field-only device, per fess with a complex line of division ] "The SCA has long considered a per fess field division to be different from a field and a chief. It is Laurel's position...that our own traditions have to be considered as well as period mundane precedent in considering armory for registration." (LoAR 8/90 p.5).


"The field is not really chauss‚; it is not per chevron inverted, it is not a pile, it is not a chief triangular; being somewhere between all of these, we really don't know what it is. Chauss‚ issues from the corners of the chief and would touch the base point of the shield; per chevron inverted would issue from the sides of the field (rather than the chief corners); a pile would issue from farther in on the chief (rather [than] from the corners) and would almost touch the base point of the shield and would not have room for a charge beneath it; and a chief triangular would not descend the field nearly so far as the one here does. Please have them choose one and reemblazon it properly." [The device was returned for this problem alone] (LoAR 10/90 p.21).


[On a chief a demi-sun issuant from the line of division throughout ] "A demi-sun throughout on a chief must have good contrast with the charge upon which it lies (the chief). It will automatically by definition have poor contrast with the field which it adjoins (assuming that the field is not neutral). This will be permissible so long as the demi-sun is not of the same tincture as the field." (CL 11/30/90 p.1).


[A device using a bordure and a charged chief of the same tincture ] "A chief should not surmount a bordure (Parker p.112), nor should a chief be used with a bordure of the same tincture, which will have the visual effect of a bordure with a 'fat top'." (LoAR 1/91 p.27).


"In spite of the registration of a bordure and chief in the same tincture some time back noted in the LoI, a similar combination was disallowed in the LoAR for the January 1991 Laurel meeting [p.27]. It was noted there that a chief should not be used with a bordure of the same tincture as it will give the visual effect of a bordure with a fat top. Nor does period armory give much precedent for such a combination, as the vast majority of exemplars there go out of their way to demarcate the two charges by tincture, line of division, or both. As has often been noted, we follow the general practices, not the exceptions." (LoAR 10/91 p.17).


[Two <charges> in fess and a base] "This is clear of... three <charges>, with a change to the number of primaries and the addition of the subordinary. Peripheral charges such as chiefs, bordures, bases, flaunches etc. are not considered to be a part of the primary charge group." (LoAR 11/91 p.3).


"As has been stated many times in the past, Society practice follows the general rule, not the anomaly. While Lord Brigantia did find one instance of a mundane coat of arms which had a bordure and chief of the same tincture, the general rule appears to be that while bordures and chiefs are sometimes found, they are of different tinctures, and frequently have differing lines of division to further differentiate them. This is therefore returned for having the chief and bordure of the same tincture." (LoAR 11/91 p.20).


COMPLEXITY


[A chief charged with a <charge> between a decrescent and an increscent ] "The chief is poor style, and borders on 'slot machine heraldry'. Only the fact that the two outside charges are crescent variants keeps it from going beyond the pale of the permissible." (LoAR 7/90 p.10).


"The use of two types of alternating charges on a bordure is very poor style." [one of a number of anomalies leading to a return] (LoAR 8/90 p.17).


[Three mullets in bend between a book and a sheaf of arrows ] "The device is visually confusing: were all of the charges the same, it would be blazoned simply as five mullets. As it is, in spite of blazoning the mullets in bend as primary charges, it looks like slot-machine heraldry, having three types of charge in a standard heraldic arrangement (in saltire), for which reason we are returning it." (LoAR 11/90 p.14).


[A fess between a set of dissimilar secondaries and a nebuly bordure ] "This is too complex. It is right at the Rule of Thumb limit for charge types and tinctures, and the complex line of division on the bordure pushes it over the line of unacceptability." (LoAR 11/90 p.15).


[Per chevron Or and per pale sable and vert, two bunches of grapes purpure and a Jerusalem cross argent ] "While this is technically within the Rule of Thumb for charge types and tinctures, dividing part of a divided field with a different line of division pushes it over the edge of acceptable period style." (LoAR 11/90 p.17).


[Sable, in bend sinister an axe inverted reversed and an axe both bendwise sinister Or between two scarpes, overall a laurel wreath vert, for an augmentation, in chief three mullets argent] "Yes, this augmentation makes their arms much more complex. There are few augmentations (or for that matter arms to which augmentations could be added) which do not make the underlying arms much more complex. This augmentation did not seem to go beyond the bounds of allowable complexity for an augmentation." (LoAR 12/90 p.8).


"The badge has the problem of using two different types of the same charge (pawprints) which has been disallowed for some time (although usually we see this problem with different types of swords)." [the badge was returned for this reason alone] (LoAR 12/90 p.17).


[A complex device using mascles and a double tressure] "With four types of charges and four tinctures, tis is right at the upper limit of the rule of thumb for complexity. Given that most of the charges are then 'voided', the thin-line aspects of this device are enough to push it over the edge into unacceptability." [the device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 1/91 p.21).


"Placing two different charges in different tinctures on an ordinary is extremely poor style, and may be sufficient cause in and of itself for return." [The device was returned for this reason, conflict, and a general appearance of slot-machine heraldry] (LoAR 1/91 p.26).


[Per pale argent and sable, a <charge> counterchanged on a bordure per pale azure and argent an orle of lozenges conjoined counterchanged argent and gules] "The bordure with its counterchanging of different tinctures pushes at the limits of acceptable style." [The device was registered] (LoAR 2/91 p.3).


"While the [augmentation has] a tendency to unbalance the device somewhat, it is Laurel's feeling that we need to loosen the application of our standards a little with regard to augmentations, which by their very nature will add complexity to and not infrequently serve to unbalance a device." (LoAR 2/91 p.9).


[Azure, a bend sinister erminois between two open books bendwise sinister argent and on a chief Or three fireballs proper ] "Although this technically exceeds the rule of thumb as outlined in VIII.1.a., it holds together so extremely well visually through the use of identical charges on each side of the bend and identical charges on the chief that it may be registered." (LoAR 2/91 p.13). [Argent, three piles in point gules, overall an estoile, all within a bordure sable charged with the words 'honesto', 'dignidad', and 'vertud' between three crosses crosslet fitchy, points to center, argent] "While (marginally) simpler than the previous submission, this is still too complex. The rule of thumb outlined in RfS VIII.1.a is simply that, a rule of thumb. Some devices may be too complex by that rule of thumb and yet because of their visual unity be simple enough to register. Others may be 'simple enough' by that rule and still be visually too complex. This particular submission falls within the parameters of the rule of thumb only because the three different words on the bordure are treated as a single type of charge...

In the end, any armory submitted for registration by the College of Arms must be judged by SCA standards, not British, Scottish, French, German, Polish, Russian, Saracenic, or Japanese. This must be so because we do not register British, Scottish, etc. armory - we cannot. That is left by law to the Colleges of Arms of those respective nations. We are the Society for Creative Anachronism, and what we register is SCA heraldry, what we use and display is SCA heraldry, and what we have to use to determine appropriateness are SCA standards. Visually, this submission is still too complex." (LoAR 2/91 p.21).


[A sword bendwise sinister between dissimilar secondaries] "Because the sword does not visually dominate the field, this exceeds the complexity limits of VIII.1.a in using three different types of charge in what is visually the same 'group'." (LoAR 4/91 p.12).


"Proper is not a tincture - it is heraldic shorthand. The badgers' heads are argent, marked sable. That's two tinctures. While vair may be listed in the glossary under tinctures, the fact that it is a neutral fur is because it consists of both a metal and a color. Its visual complexity is such that it looks like two tinctures." [a 'complexity count' was made on the above premises] (LoAR 4/91 p.15).


[Two winged lions dormant respectant and a winged lion sejant affronty wings displayed, two and one ] "Several commenters felt that the mirrored orientation of the two lions in chief created a 'de facto' case of slot machine heraldry. While Laurel is personally sympathetic with this position, orienting charges this way has not been cause for return in the past." (LoAR 7/91 p.1).


[A dance overall a griffin segreant queue forché counterchanged ] "The counterchanging of the complex overall charge over the complex primary may be considered too much because it breaks up the outline of both charges to an excessive degree." (Device returned for this and administrative reasons.) (LoAR 7/91 p.19).


"It is poor style to use two similar but non-identical charges in a a single group. For example, using a sword and two poinards in a sheaf... has been cause for return in the past. The use of two different types of gauntlets is likewise impermissible." (LoAR 7/91 p.21).


"The use of two similar but non-identical charges in a group has been cause for return many times in the past. A scroll is one kind of book and a book is another." (LoAR 7/91 p.24).


"Counterchanging complex charges over an ordinary has been cause for return at times in the past. Were the mullet [of four greater and eight lesser points] truly overall [on the chevron throughout], that would very likely be the case here." (LoAR 8/91 p.19).


[Per pale argent and Or fretty vert, in dexter a leaved branch issuant from chief proper and <a charged chief> ] "The device has several problems. The first is the profound appearance of dimidiated arms, which the addition of the charged chief does not serve to diminish. The device is also right at the very edge of our complexity limits having four types of charge in four tinctures. Given the unusual arrangement and unbalanced design this is simply too much." (LoAR 8/91 p.20).


[A quill pen and a rapier crossed in saltire, and overall a compass star] "[This] is a single group of three dissimilar charges, which violates RFS VIII.1.a." (LoAR 8/91 p.22).


[In pale a <charge> and <two other charges> in saltire ] "This is technically just not slot machine heraldry, but only because visually there are two charge 'groups' rather than one group fo three different charges." (LoAR 9/91 p.9).


"The use of two bendlets way up to one side [in sinister chief] severely unbalances the device. With four tinctures and four types of charge this is right at the limit of complexity. Combined with the use of what are normally central ordinaries as peripheral charges and the unusual treatment in the 'veiling' of the cross, this must be returned for complexity and for non-Period style." (LoAR 9/91 p.16).


[In bend a teasel slipped and leaved Or and a flax flower slipped and leaved argent ] "The use of two different types of plants in different orientations [one was somewhat out of the palewise true in the emblazon, although wasn't reflected in the blazon] and different tinctures is not period style. Prior Laurel precedent has indicated that we should not use two different kinds of charges of the same general type in a single charge group." (LoAR 11/91 p.21).


[Per fess azure and argent, on a pale bretessed counterchanged in chief a mullet sable, all within a bordure counter-compony sable and Or ] "Though just within the guidelines of the rule of thumb for complexity, this is awfully busy." (LoAR 12/91 p.15).


[A hammer and tongs in saltire, overall a sword] "Contrary to opinion expressed in the LoI, this is indeed slot machine heraldry, in violation of RFS VIII.1.a. It contains three disparate charges in a standard heraldic arrangement." (LoAR 12/91 p.16).


[A falcon, in chief a comet fesswise, in base two barrulets engrailed and invected ] "Given that all of the charges have what amounts to the same visual 'weight', this is effectively 'slot machine heraldry', with three different types of charge in a standard heraldic arrangement." (LoAR 12/91 p.20).


[On a bend between a crescent bendwise sinister and a natural seahorse bendwise three trefoils palewise ] "The device is right at the very limits of the rule of thumb for complexity with four tinctures and four types of charge. That, in combination with the nonstandard posture of any of the charges (with the sole exception of the bend) pushes it over the edge of acceptability." (LoAR 12/91 p.20).


[Per pall, two ravens addorsed counterchanged, in chief an estoile in soleil between two sprigs of mistletoe ] "This is not Period style and is too close to slot machine heraldry, having three different types of charge in what could be considered a standard heraldic arrangement on a per pall field. The 'estoile in soleil' is not something I think we wish to encourage, nor is the mirror symmetry of the entire device." (LoAR 12/91 p.22).


[Checky argent and sable, an apple tree fructed proper and on a chief Or three apples gules ] "While this is technically over the rule of thumb for complexity with three types of charge and six tinctures (including the brown and vert of the tree), it holds together so well visually that we do not believe it exceeds the spirit of that rule." (LoAR 1/92 p.13).


[On a sun eclipsed a <charge>] "Because this is effectively '{Fieldless} on a sun... a [roundel] charged with a <charge>', the <charge> is effectively a quaternary charge, and therefore exceeds our layering limits." (LoAR 1/92 p.14).


[Per pale sable and argent, a <beast> between three decrescents and in chief a tower all counterchanged ] "This is just within the limits of complexity for counterchanging. It would be ever so much better without the tower." (LoAR 2/92 p.11).


[A gurges... overall on a sinister gore a <charge>] "This is four layers (field, gurges, gore <charge>). There is serious doubt as to whether peripheral charges (e.g., bordures, chiefs, gores, etc.) may be used as an overall charge in this manner. Certainly we would much prefer to see some evidence of its acceptability in Period before registering it in the SCA." (LoAR 2/92 p.18).


[Two <charges> in saltire surmounted by a column entwined by a snake ] "Laurel does not, however, buy the argument made that this is four layers - field, <charges>, column, snake. We do not believe such an argument to be reasonable. A charge entwined about another is more like a held charge than it is an tertiary." (LoAR 2/92 p.21).


[Argent, a pantheon salient purpure, estoilly Or, between in fess two crescents gules, within a bordure purpure semy-de-lys Or ] "Although this pushes the complexity limits of VIII.1.a, it holds together well enough visually to be allowable here. It would, though, be much better without the crescents." (LoAR 3/92 p.2).


[Argent, goutty gules, a rose sable, barbed and seeded proper, and on a chief engrailed gules a falchion reversed proper ] "Although a number of commenters noted that the number of types of charges plus tinctures exceeds the rule of thumb complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a., at least one of those tinctures (vert) comes from a part of the primary normally left to artistic license. In fact, the device holds together visually far better than many with complexity 'counts' of only 6 or 7, and hence certainly follows the spirit of the rule of thumb." (LoAR 3/92 p.9).


[Per pall inverted vert, argent and purpure, in chief two chevronels counterchanged and in base a rose between four crescents in cross argent. ] "Despite a rule of thumb 'complexity count' of 'only' six (with three types of charge and three tinctures), this device is extremely complex. It does not appear to follow any period style of armory that any of the commenters could find. The counterchanging in chief, along with the unusual field division, places it beyond acceptable style." (LoAR 3/92 p.11).


[Per bend sinister gules and sable, a bend sinister counterchanged fimbriated argent ] "If I may quote Lord Batonvert: 'This looks to be acceptable, by both SCA and period standards. A recent case (LoAR of Nov. 91, p.23) had a field party sable and gules, with a crescent counterchanged and fimbriated; that case was returned for (among other reasons) fimbriation of a non-ordinary. [This] submission does use an ordinary, for which there are period examples - notably the arms of Say, c. 1586 (Papworth 550), Per pale azure and gules, three chevrons counterchanged, fimbriated argent.

This is about the limit of complexity we should accept for this sort of motif; but it should be acceptable.'

Lord Laurel would note that he believes that this is at the limits of complexity we should accept for this motif, but given period examples of the motif and the College's allowance for the fimbriation of ordinaries, this proposal is registrable." (LoAR 4/92 p.2).


[Augmentation: Azure, a saltire sable rayonny argent and overall a mace inverted argent as an augmentation on an inescutcheon in honor point Or, a mullet of five greater and five lesser points between in pale a crown of three points sable and issuant from base a demi-sun gules.] "The only real issue which would prevent registration here is the complexity of the base device and the augmentation (total complexity count of 11: five tinctures - azure, sable, argent, Or, gules - and six charges - saltire, mace, inescutcheon mullet, crown, and demi-sun). Laurel has said before (LoAR December 1990 p.8) that augmentations by their very nature add complexity to a device, and augmented arms should not be held to comply to the same standards as unaugmented devices. {Indeed, Laurel finds a certain sense of appeal to Lord Codex' suggestion that augmentations consisting of separable units (such as a canton or inescutcheon) should be counted as a single charge for the purposes of the 'rule of thumb' of the complexity guidelines, ignoring the charges and tinctures upon the augmentation. Using such a standard here would give a complexity count of six with three tinctures - azure, sable and argent - and three charges - saltire, mace and inescutcheon. Counting the augmentation as a single charge and its primary tincture (here, Or) may also be a reasonable rule of thumb. Laurel makes no ruling on this suggestion, but recommends it, with thanks to Lord Codex, to the College for their consideration in the development of a more objective standard.}" (LoAR 4/92 pps. 2-3)


[Quarterly... a cross moline voided counterchanged] "This cross appears to be at the very limits of acceptability for voiding and counterchanging." (LoAR 4/92 p.7).


[Vert, two stags rampant addorsed argent and in chief a water bouget, on a chief Or a bar embattled to base sable] "This is at the very edge of acceptable complexity." (LoAR 5/92 p.3).


[Sable, on a vested arm fesswise embowed issuant from dexter holding a sword argent, a compass star sable, in chief a lit candle argent] "The badge is very complex in that it is unbalanced and appears to have no cohesiveness or unity of design. As such it must be considered a non-period design." (LoAR 5/92 p.20).


[On a flame an <A> charged with a <B>] "Although this was blazoned as an <A> enflamed, the visual reality is as reblazoned above. A good, proper, Period enflamed has a few gouttes of flame scattered around the edge of the charge being enflamed. Where the flame completely surrounds an object, that object is said to be 'on a flame.' As a consequence this device has four layers: field, flame, <A> and <B>." (LoAR 5/92 p.26).


"The opinion of the commenting heralds was unanimous that a maunch is too complex a charge to be counterchanged over an ordinary." (LoAR 5/92 p.27).


[A mermaid between three sealions] "This device barely avoids having to be returned for the use of two similar but different charges in the same group. It would be helpful if the client would draw the mermaid larger." (LoAR 6/92 p.5).


[Per chevron raguly Or and sable a raven displayed head to sinister counterchanged ] "On the device, the bird is probably just identifiable enough, but this is probably the absolute limit for counterchanging a complex charge over a complex line of division." (LoAR 6/92 p.9).


[In pale a dolphin embowed and a shark embowed to base contourny ] "The use of two very similar but different charges in the same group here is not Period style and is in fact not registerable by prior Laurel precedent (see, e.g., LoAR of 30 April 1989, p.6)." (LoAR 6/92 p.16).


COMPONY


"The precedents disallowing compony bordures sharing a tincture with the field are all fairly clear, the discussion during the Rules revision seemed in general to support the ban, and most of the examples cited by Brigantia in support of this submission relate to royal armory and are few enough that they may probably be considered exceptions ot the general rule. As stated by several of my precdecessors, we try to follow the general rule, not the exception. The reasons for the original ban on compony bordures sharing a tincture with the field, viz., visual confusion, appear to be more compelling than the reasons for allowing such bordures. The ban on compony bordures sharing a tincture with the field stands." (LoAR 8/90 p.16).


CONTRAST


"The precedents disallowing compony bordures sharing a tincture with the field are all fairly clear, the discussion during the Rules revision seemed in general to support the ban, and most of the examples cited by Brigantia in support of this submission relate to royal armory and are few enough that they may probably be considered exceptions ot the general rule. As stated by several of my precdecessors, we try to follow the general rule, not the exception. The reasons for the original ban on compony bordures sharing a tincture with the field, viz., visual confusion, appear to be more compelling than the reasons for allowing such bordures. The ban on compony bordures sharing a tincture with the field stands." (LoAR 8/90 p.16).


[On a chief a demi-sun issuant from the line of division throughout ] "A demi-sun throughout on a chief must have good contrast with the charge upon which it lies (the chief). It will automatically by definition have poor contrast with the field which it adjoins (assuming that the field is not neutral). This will be permissible so long as the demi-sun is not of the same tincture as the field." (CL 11/30/90 p.1).


[Male American kestrels striking proper (Falco spaverius)] "The male American kestrels are mostly light buff and tan on the underside, and in this position have good contrast with the [purpure] bend sinister." (LoAR 11/90 p.4).


[Gules, three piles in point Or, overall a centaur passant sable... ] "While this is a technical violation of VIII.2.b.i. regarding the necessity of overall charges having good contrast with the field rather than the charges they overlie, the fact that the overall charge was primarily on the piles led us to [believe] that in this case such technical violation would be permissible. This is not to be taken as a general precedent for violating VIII.2.b.i." (LoAR 12/90 p.9).


"The natural rainbow proper has extremely poor contrast with the sable field, enough so that its identifiability is significantly reduced." [returned for this and other reasons] (LoAR 1/91 p.20).


[Per chevron nebuly gules and purpure, three charges 2 and 1, not overlying the line of division ] "The complex line of division of the field was almost entirely unidentifiable at any range because of the extremely poor contrast between gules and purpure. This is a color combination which should be avoided when using a complex line of division." [the device was returned for this reason only] (LoAR 1/91 p.21).


[Per pale gules and Or a morningstar and a flanged mace in saltire sable... ] "The morningstar loses its identifiability against the low-contrast portion of the field. Were the two charges in saltire identical, this would be less problematic, but as it stands the eye expects both charges to be maces." [the device was returned for this reason only] (LoAR 2/91 p.18).


[Gyronny sable and argent, a saltire of chains vert] "The contrast between the vert chain and the sable portions of the field are marginal but because of the symmetry and high contrast against the argent portions of the field this is (just) registerable." (LoAR 7/91 p.1).


[Sable, a saltire dovetailed gyronny purpure and argent] "There are two problems with this device. One is that the combination of a dovetailed line on a gyronny saltire is pretty clearly post-Period style... The second problem is RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability. The purpure portions of the saltire, with its complex line of division, fade so badly into the sable field that the identification of the primary charge is lost." (LoAR 9/91 p.16).


[A horse's head couped argent maned gules fimbriated Or] "There are simply too many problems with the emblazon here to register this and tell the submitter to 'draw the X properly.' The greatest difficulty comes with the mane of the horse's head which, rather than being of flames proper, is gules, fimbriated Or. The mane is far too complex to fimbriate. (And there is some question as to whether 'maned of flames' is acceptable SCA style.) The suggestion by Lord Trefoil that we simply blazon the mane gules and tolerate its low contrast against the field as an artistic detail worth no heraldic difference will not work here. On this horse's head the mane is easily as significant as a pair of wings would be, and we would not allow them to break tincture either." (LoAR 10/91 p.17).


"Just as you may not have a compony bordure that shares a tincture with the field, neither may you have a plain bordure which shares the tincture with a gyronny field as here." (LoAR 10/91 p.20).


[Per chevron nebuly sable and purpure, in base a <charge> argent ] "The complex line of division on the large emblazon was impossible to define at any distance. The very best we could tell was that it was not a plain line of division. RFS VIII.3 requires that all armorial elements be identifiable. The complex line of division here is not." (LoAR 3/92 p.14).


COTISES


[a charged bend sinister cotised] "Versus [a charged bend cotised] there is a CVD for the orientation of the primary and another for the orientation of the secondaries (the cotises)." (LoAR 10/90 p.6).


"It should be noted that cotises follow the line of the ordinary they flank by default. When they do not (for example, a fess wavy cotised plain), it must be specifically blazoned." (LoAR 8/91 p.19).


"Several commenters questioned whether there was any documentation for cotising multiple ordinaries. Without such documentation we are hesitant to introduce yet another post-Period practice into SCA heraldry." [The device, with two chevronels cotised, was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 8/91 p.20).


[A pile cotised] "The cotisses should meet in base" (LoAR 2/92 p.9).


COUNTERCHANGING


[Per chevron gules and Or, upon a sun a laurel wreath all counterchanged, within a bordure... ] "The charges here are on the very edge of unidentifiability because of the counterchanging. Only the clarity of the laurel wreath in this design kept it from going beyond the bounds." (LoAR 7/90 p.1).


[A double-bitted axe lying on a per pale counterchanged field ] "There was some discussion regarding whether the axe fell under the ban on a long skinny charge counterchanged along its long axis. It was the consensus of the meeting...that the axe was clearly identifiable as an axe even though the haft was counterchanged." (LoAR 8/90 p.8).


[A dance overall a griffin segreant queue forché counterchanged ] "The counterchanging of the complex overall charge over the complex primary may be considered too much because it breaks up the outline of both charges to an excessive degree." [Device returned for this and administrative reasons.] (LoAR 7/91 p.19).


"Counterchanging complex charges over an ordinary has been cause for return at times in the past. Were the mullet [of four greater and eight lesser points] truly overall [on the chevron throughout], that would very likely be the case here." [The armory was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 8/91 p.19).


[An ermine field, a Celtic uncial T counterchanged] "Additionally, the counterchanging of the ermine spots over the edges of the charge significantly reduces its identifiability." [Returned primarily for use of a single letter or abstract symbol.] (LoAR 8/91 p.24).


[Bendy sinister of eight,a sword bendwise inverted counterchanged ] "The counterchanging of the sword on the field renders its identifiability extremely problematical. The silhouette is so broken up by the counterchanging across the bendy field that it becomes extremely difficult to identify, defeating one of the basic principles of period-style heraldry, quick identification." (LoAR 11/91 p.18).


[Per pale argent and azure, on a cross a lion rampant maintaining a sword, overall a bordure embattled counterchanged ] "The device is counterchanged within an inch of its life. Though only of two tinctures, the entire device is broken up into 19 pieces (the bordure into ten, the field into four, the cross into two and the lion and sword into three). And much of this counterchanging is across a complex line of division. The overall effect is simply too much." [The device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 11/91 p.23).


[Per bend sable and gules, a crescent bendwise counterchanged, fimbriated argent ] "There are a couple of problems with this proposal. First, for some time now the College has been drawing closer and closer to mundane armorial practices of only allowing ordinaries to be fimbriated. Second, fimbriating a crescent which is counterchanged of the (low contrast) field across the line of division becomes confusing visually, which the non-standard (though acceptable) orientation of the crescent only exacerbates. This proposal is, as Lord Dragon noted, 'basically thin line heraldry with some confusing counterchanging going on in the background.' " [The device was returned for these reasons] (LoAR 11/91 p.23).


[Quarterly, an increscent within four mullets of four points in cross counterchanged ] "The counterchanging of the primary and secondary charges is excessive, and reduces their identifiability to an unacceptable degree." (LoAR 12/91 p.17).


"Counterchanging the bordure over the flaunches is not good style." [The badge was registered] (LoAR 1/92 p.3).


[A bend sinister, overall a lion rampant guardant contourny within a bordure fleury counterchanged ] "Counterchanging an animate charge over an ordinary greatly diminishes its identifiability. That in conjunction with the counterchanging of the complex bordure is simply too much." [The device was returned] (LoAR 1/92 p.14).


[Per pale sable and argent, a <beast> between three decrescents and in chief a tower all counterchanged ] "This is just within the limits of complexity for counterchanging. It would be ever so much better without the tower." (LoAR 2/92 p.11).


[Per pale, a saltire engrailed counterchanged debruised by a <charge> between in pale two <other charges> Or ] "The counterchanging, hidden as it is by the <charges> makes it difficult to recognize quickly what is going on with the field and saltire in this device. However, we felt that it was just within acceptable limits." (LoAR 2/92 p.13).


[Quarterly... a mascle counterchanged] "The device is right at the very edge of acceptability, being highly reminiscent of a modern 'op art' style." (LoAR 2/92 p.15).


"Counterchanging a semy over an ordinary appears to be modern and not Period style." (LoAR 2/92 p.23).


[Per pall inverted vert, argent and purpure, in chief two chevronels counterchanged and in base a rose between four crescents in cross argent. ] "Despite a rule of thumb 'complexity count' of 'only' six (with three types of charge and three tinctures), this device is extremely complex. It does not appear to follow any period style of armory that any of the commenters could find. The counterchanging in chief, along with the unusual field division, places it beyond acceptable style." (LoAR 3/92 p.11).


[Per bend sinister gules and sable, a bend sinister counterchanged fimbriated argent ] "If I may quote Lord Batonvert: 'This looks to be acceptable, by both SCA and period standards. A recent case (LoAR of Nov. 91, p.23) had a field party sable and gules, with a crescent counterchanged and fimbriated; that case was returned for (among other reasons) fimbriation of a non-ordinary. [This] submission does use an ordinary, for which there are period examples - notably the arms of Say, c. 1586 (Papworth 550),Per pale azure and gules, three chevrons counterchanged, fimbriated argent.

This is about the limit of complexity we should accept for this sort of motif; but it should be acceptable.'

Lord Laurel would note that he believes that this is at the limits of complexity we should accept for this motif, but given period examples of the motif and the College's allowance for the fimbriation of ordinaries, this proposal is registrable." (LoAR 4/92 p.2).


[Quarterly... a cross moline voided counterchanged] "This cross appears to be at the very limits of acceptability for voiding and counterchanging." (LoAR 4/92 p.7).


[Per pale and per chevron argent and azure, on an eagle displayed a kleestengeln counterchanged sable and argent... ] "The counterchanging of the eagle breaks up the outline to such an extent that identifiability becomes problematical. We believe the counterchanging here to be excessive per RfS VIII.3." (LoAR 4/92 p.16).


"The opinion of the commenting heralds was unanimous that a maunch is too complex a charge to be counterchanged over an ordinary." (LoAR 5/92 p.27).


[Per chevron raguly Or and sable a raven displayed head to sinister counterchanged ] "On the device, the bird is probably just identifiable enough, but this is probably the absolute limit for counterchanging a complex charge over a complex line of division." (LoAR 6/92 p.9).


[Per bend sable and gules, a crescent bendwise counterchanged, fimbriated argent ] "There are a couple of problems with this proposal. First, for some time now the College has been drawing closer and closer to mundane armorial practices of only allowing ordinaries to be fimbriated. Second, fimbriating a crescent which is counterchanged of the (low contrast) field across the line of division becomes confusing visually, which the non-standard (though acceptable) orientation of the crescent only exacerbates. This proposal is, as Lord Dragon noted, 'basically thin line heraldry with some confusing counterchanging going on in the background.' " [The device was returned for these reasons] (LoAR 11/91 p.23).


COUPED/THROUGHOUT


"There is no difference between [an ordinary] and [the same ordinary] couped on fieldless armory." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.3).


[A cat's head couped sable as only charge] "Conflicts with... <different field> a lion's head erased sable...there is only one CVD, for the changes to the field." [implies no difference for cat to lion, or for couping vs. erasing] (LoAR 8/90 p.17).


"There is no heraldic difference between vetu and a lozenge or lozenge throughout." (LoAR 2/91 p.17).


[A fret vert within a bordure gules] "Conflict...with... a fret couped [vert] within a bordure sable, with but a single CVD...for...changing [the bordure's] tincture." [implying that couping the fret isn't sufficient for a CVD] (LoAR 2/91 p.21).


CREST


[<field>, in base a <charge>, vs. the same <charge> used as a crest (cited from Fairbairn's Crests) ] "There is one CVD, for fielded vs. fieldless, but nothing can be granted against a fieldless badge (which is what we have treated crests as) for position on the field." (LoAR 9/90 p.13 - overruled CL 3/21/91 p.1).


[Boar's heads resting on torses as charges] "The fact that each boar's head rests on a torse makes each one a crest [and thus unregisterable, quoting Master Wilhelm LoAR 26 May 1983 p.19]." (LoAR 1/91 p.26).


"It has been decided that we will NOT check for conflicts against mundane crests. The reasons for this are (not necessarily in order of importance): although the English College of Arms registers crests, and the SCA has in the past treated them like fieldless badges, they are a 'limited use' type of badge (they are not used to identify retainers and property, but are most often seen in an achievement of arms, along with the coat of arms, supporters, etc.); given that identical or nearly identical crests are registered to apparently unrelated families (eleven different families have a Saracen's head for a crest, for example), they do not appear to be a strong mark of specific or familial identity or cognizance (the intent of the conflict rules is to avoid identity. Where there is no apparent strong correlation between a crest and identity, the need to avoid that identity is greatly reduced - conflict checking does not need to occur where the chance for presumption does not exist); there was a reasonably strong consensus among the commenters that while we might consider checking fieldless badges against crests, there was no reason to think that fielded armory ought to conflict (and it might be noted that all of the pended items on this issue were fielded armory), and Laurel does not believe that complicating the rules with a special class of conflict checking is worth the possible benefit that might come from doing so." (CL 3/21/91 p.1)


CRESCENT


[Per bend sable and gules, a crescent bendwise counterchanged, fimbriated argent ] "There are a couple of problems with this proposal. First, for some time now the College has been drawing closer and closer to mundane armorial practices of only allowing ordinaries to be fimbriated. Second, fimbriating a crescent which is counterchanged of the (low contrast) field across the line of division becomes confusing visually, which the non-standard (though acceptable) orientation of the crescent only exacerbates. This proposal is, as Lord Dragon noted, 'basically thin line heraldry with some confusing counterchanging going on in the background.' " [The device was returned for these reasons] (LoAR 11/91 p.23).


CROSS


"A cross clechy is a CVD from a cross flory." (LoAR 7/90 p.6).


[Cross pointed vs. cross moline] "There is a CVD for type of cross, but with all the good will we could muster, we could not find sufficient difference between these two crosses." [That is, X.2 does not apply between moline and pointed] (LoAR 8/90 p.15).


[Three latin crosses clechy, as primary charges] "Several possible conflicts were cited by a number of commenters, noting primarily that clechy is a later term and that this would conflict with a number of '(field), three crosses formy/paty argent.' It was the consensus of the meeting that the combination of the pointed ends of the cross combined with the longer lower arm was sufficient for a CVD here." (LoAR 9/90 p.1).


"The tertiary was blazoned in the LoI as 'a cross resarcelly', which term is not very well defined in the standard heraldic texts, so we have modified the blazon to the closest acceptable form [a cross moline voided]." (LoAR 9/90 p.6).


[A cross of four anchors, as only charge on the device] "Most of the commenters, and Laurel, have no serious problem applying the provisions of X.2 to very different types of crosses. Indeed, applying this standard, we can see this submission clear of [same field, a cross crosslet of the same tincture]. However, we believe that the standards to be applied in X.2 are somewhat stronger than those applied to obtain a CVD between charges. As a consequence, we cannot in good conscience call this clear of [same field, a cross potent of the same tincture] (we see one CVD for the change to type of cross) or [different field, a cross of Calatrava of the same tincture] (with one CVD for the change to the field, but less than a CVD for the change to the type of cross)." (LoAR 9/90 p.16).


"Evidence was presented that period heralds saw no difference between crosses and crosses fitched, nor did the modification of the bottommost limb of four appear to give adequate visual difference to grant a CVD." (LoAR 10/90 p.14).


"[There is] not enough difference between a maltese cross and a cross patonce for [a CVD]." (LoAR 1/91 p.23).


[A tau cross double-crossed, potent at the foot] "[Conflict with] a double-cross (Doppelkreuz)...(it is a Latin cross double-crossed). While we can see granting a CVD with no problem, we do not believe that X.2 can apply in this case." (LoAR 2/91 p.22).


[On a gyronny field, quatrefoils in annulo vs. crusilly counterchanged ] "There is a CVD for the type of charge and a CVD for their arrangement on the field. [The crusilly] is definitely a seme, with crosses overlying the lines of division and cut off by the edge of the shield." (LoAR 5/91 p.7).


[Four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center] "Because of the arrangement of the primaries, we cannot apply X.2 to grant sufficient difference between this arrangement of four fleurs-de-lys and the cross flory." (LoAR 9/91 p.17).


[Quarterly gules and argent, in bend two <As> argent and in bend sinister two <Bs> vert, overall a cross sable ] "Given that crosses overall were not infrequently used in marshalled arms in period, this has every appearance of the marshalled arms of [Gules, an <A> argent, and Argent, a <B> vert]." [The submission was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 11/91 p.16).


[A cross couped gules irradiated Or] "The badge conflicts with the insignia of the International Red Cross, not by our rules, but by theirs. As stated in Corpora Appendix A, 'the Society recognizes the absolute precedence of law issued by civil authorities over any of its internal rules.' International treaty severely restricts the use of a cross couped gules, and this takes precedence over any of the Rules for Submission, including those for difference, of the SCA." (LoAR 2/92 p.20).


[Quarterly... a cross moline voided counterchanged] "This cross appears to be at the very limits of acceptability for voiding and counterchanging." (LoAR 4/92 p.7).


"A cross crosslet and a cross bottony are only artistic variations of the same charge, and were used interchangeably in period, so no difference may be granted between them." (LoAR 4/92 p.22).


[A Celtic cross] "Conflict with... {fieldless} an equal armed Celtic cross... There is one CD for fieldlessness, but that is all." [implying equal-arming is worth no difference from standard latinate] (LoAR 5/92 p.23).


"The use of a cross couped gules should probably no longer be allowed in SCA heraldry because of the international treaties and federal law which protect that charge and restrict its use to the International Red Cross (and as a trademark to those who were using it before those treaties went into effect.)" (LoAR 5/92 p.25).


CROWN


"As noted on the cover letter of December 2, 1984, and the LoAR of December 15, 1985, 'There is no 'standard' viscomital coronet, either as a physical entity or an heraldic convention.' Viscounts and Viscountesses may use the default heraldic coronet (a crown indented of three points) if they so choose." (LoAR 11/91 p.20).


CUP


"A goblet is not a simple geometric charge under X.4.j.ii." (LoAR 7/91 p.20).


"[There is a CD] for the change to type of charge (tankard to cup)." (LoAR 1/92 p.4).


DEFAULT


"Cobras have their hoods expanded by default." (LoAR 8/90 p.7).


"Walls appear to be throughout, masoned, and embattled by default." (LoAR 10/90 p.10).


"In the SCA, thistles are slipped and leaved by default." (LoAR 11/90 p.11).


"Thistles are slipped and leaved by default in the SCA. A rose proper is gules, barbed vert, seeded Or. By using the heraldic defaults, we have been able to shorten the submitted blazon by six words, a substantial savings." (LoAR 12/90 p.6).


"Though the [charges] were blazoned in the LoI as three and two, this should be the normal distribution of five objects around a bend or bendwise objects(s)." (LoAR 2/91 p.14).


"It should be noted that cotises follow the line of the ordinary they flank by default. When they do not (for example, a fess wavy cotised plain), it must be specifically blazoned." (LoAR 8/91 p.19).


[Bats (in default displayed posture) vs. martlets (in default close posture)] "There are CDs for both the type and posture of the <charge group>" (LoAR 11/91 p.9).


"Sewing needles are point to base by SCA default." (LoAR 2/92 p.5)


"Three is the default for the number of objects (besides wheat) in a sheaf." (LoAR 2/92 p.14).


[Azure, on a bend between six <secondary charges> bendwise in bend, a <tertiary charge> palewise ] "No evidence was presented that this style of device follows any Period exemplars. Normal practice both in Period and since would have been for the tertiary to follow the line of the bend and the secondaries to be palewise. To deliberately reverse the normal defaults for both the secondaries and the tertiary gives this a very post-Period look." (LoAR 2/92 p.21).


[A rabbit sejant guardant armed with a stag's attire] Conflict with... a coney. Given that the default posture for a rabbit is sejant, there is at best one CD, and many commenters did not find that much for the addition of the antlers." (LoAR 5/92 p.24).


DIFFERENCE - Armory


"No difference can be granted for the difference between standard mullets and mullets of seven points: they do not appear to have been considered as separate charges in period, nor are they different enough in outline to be so considered by the College." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.3).


"There is no difference between [an ordinary] and [the same ordinary] couped on fieldless armory." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.3).


"[There is not a CVD] between a rivenstar and a standard compass star." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.3).


"Argent, ermined gules, is a CVD from ermine." (LoAR 7/90 p.6).


"A cross clechy is a CVD from a cross flory." (LoAR 7/90 p.6).


[Spiral trumpet vs. a hunting horn] "...there is a CVD for the type of horn; here, circular vs. crescent-shaped." (LoAR 7/90 p.8).


[Five eagle's heads vs. three griffin's heads] "There is only one CVD for number of charges." [implying no difference between griffin's heads and eagle's heads] (LoAR 7/90 p.11).


[<field> a hawk displayed wings inverted, <tincture> vs. many cases of <different field> an eagle displayed <same tincture> ] "In each case, there is only one CVD, for the field" [implying no difference for hawk to eagle, or for inverting wings] (LoAR 7/90 pps. 11-12).


[An arrow inverted vs. a stag lodged to sinister] "...Laurel is inclined to allow a CVD...for orientation (palewise vs. fesswise)." (LoAR 7/90 pps. 12-13).


[A mullet vs. a mullet of five greater and five lesser points ] "The removal of the lesser points of the mullet, particularly given the fact of near unidentifiability of the mullet on the [poor contrast] portions of the gyronny field, are not worth the...CVD." (LoAR 7/90 p.13).


[Clenched gauntlet aversant vs. default dexter gauntlet ] "There is only one CVD for addition of the <secondary group>." [implying no difference for clenching] (LoAR 7/90 p.14).


"Evidence has been presented that 'a fret' and 'fretty' were considered interchangeable in period, so no difference can be granted between them." (LoAR 7/90 p.16).


"There is a CVD for the difference in type between an heraldic dolphin and a generic fish." (LoAR 8/90 p.1).


[A field-only device, per fess with a complex line of division ] "The SCA has long considered a per fess field division to be different from a field and a chief. It is Laurel's position...that our own traditions have to be considered as well as period mundane precedent in considering armory for registration." (LoAR 8/90 p.5).


[Marlin vs. default fish or vs. salmon] "We could not see giving another [CVD] for type of fish." (LoAR 8/90 p.14).


[Gules, on a chevron Or between a pair of <charges> and a base arched and indented argent, three <tertiaries> ] "Conflict with [Gules, on a chevron Or three <different tertiaries>]. There is a CVD for the addition of the secondaries, but nothing for the change of type only of tertiaries. Conflict also with [Gules, on a chevron Or between three <different secondaries> argent, three <different tertiaries> gules], with the same count." [This strongly implies that two charges in chief + a base are a single group of charges, two and one, rather than a group of charges in chief + a separate, "peripheral charge" group] (LoAR 8/90 p.14).


[A winged serpent displayed vs. a wyvern, wings displayed, as primary charges ] "The overwhelming visual similarities between this winged serpent and a wyvern (removing the legs and changing the wings from 'bat-like' to feathered), in the same position, are too much to grant another [CVD]." (LoAR 8/90 p.15).


[Cross pointed vs. cross moline] "There is a CVD for type of cross, but with all the good will we could muster, we could not find sufficient difference between these two crosses." [That is, X.2 does not apply between moline and pointed] (LoAR 8/90 p.15).


[A cross pointed charged with a mullet vs. a square-pierced cross moline] There is no difference for the changes to type of 'tertiary.'" (LoAR 8/90 p.15).


[Mullet of nine points vs. compass star] "[difference for changes to other things] but nothing for the change to the mullet." (LoAR 8/90 p.16. [A cat's head couped sable as only charge] "Conflicts with... <different field> a lion's head erased sable...there is only one CVD, for the changes to the field." [implies no difference for cat to lion, or for couping vs. erasing] (LoAR 8/90 p.17).


[<field> A heliotrope palewise affronty between two others cojoined in base purpure slipped and leaved vert ] "Conflict with ....<same field> a basil flower purpure, slipped and leaved vert, with only one CVD for change of number, and with...<different field> a sprig of three roses of Sharon flowers purpure, slipped and leaved vert, with only one CVD for field." (LoAR 8/90 p.18).


[Dormant lion vs. couchant Egyptian sphinx, both in chief on differing per fess fields] "There is only one CVD, for the change to the field [implying no type difference]." (LoAR 8/90 p.18).


"Consideration of the devices of [submitters] in this LoAR has helped to focus on some of the difficulties in reconciling a relatively simple set of rules with the 'realities' of a visual art. In view of the overwhelming support for [a submitter's] appeal by the commenters, I have been convinced that the wording of Rule X.4.j, 'Generally such changes must affect the whole group of charges to be considered visually significant...', gives us some leeway here. As a consequence, in certain particularly simple cases, changes to type or number plus change of tincture of one-half of tertiary charge(s) will be sufficient difference for a CVD. For now this will have to be considered on a case by case basis." (CL 10/16/90 p.1).


"After reviewing carefully what commentary there was on the change to X.2 proposed by Mistress Alisoun, X.2 will be changed as follows, effective immediately:

X.2 Difference of Primary Charges. Armory that consists of: (a) a charge or group of charges alone on the field; or (b) a charge or group of charges which may themselves be charged; or (c) a charge or group of charges accompanied only by a single group of identical charges upon the field; or (d) a charge or group of charges accompanied by a peripheral charge which may itself be charged - does not conflict with similarly simple, protected armory if the type of the primary charge is substantially changed.
This wording is a little longer than Laurel himself would have liked, but describes more clearly than a more abbreviated form would the various conditions under which X.2 will apply. Please note the careful placement of the word 'or' between the various subclauses: X.2 will not apply to two devices with secondaries and a charged chief, for instance. The change to the primary charge(s) must be substantial: type variants are not sufficient (a chevron vs. a chevron embattled is not a substantial change in type {both are, after all, the same type of charge, a chevron} for the purposes of this rule); some quadrupeds and crosses, for example, may be too close visually to apply this rule." (CL 10/16/90 pps. 1-2).

[Three latin crosses clechy, as primary charges] "Several possible conflicts were cited by a number of commenters, noting primarily that clechy is a later term and that this would conflict with a number of '(field), three crosses formy/paty argent.' It was the consensus of the meeting that the combination of the pointed ends of the cross combined with the longer lower arm was sufficient for a CVD here." (LoAR 9/90 p.1).


[A cross, vs. a cross in chief between two gores] "There is a CVD for moving the cross to chief and another for the addition of the gores." [implying the move to chief isn't forced by adding the gores] (LoAR 9/90 p.1).


[Two swords in pile, hilts crossed, vs. two swords in saltire] "There is another [CVD] for the arrangement of the swords (in pile vs. in saltire)." (LoAR 9/90 p.4).


[(fieldless) a falcon sable jessed sable and Or vs. (various fields) an eagle close sable, a raven sable, a falcon sable hooded, lined and membered Or ] "In each case there is only one CVD, for fieldlessness." [implying no difference for bird types and/or accoutrements] (LoAR 9/90 p.13).


[<field>, in base a <charge>, vs. the same <charge> used as a crest (cited from Fairbairn's Crests) ] "There is one CVD, for fielded vs. fieldless, but nothing can be granted against a fieldless badge (which is what we have treated crests as) for position on the field." (LoAR 9/90 p.13 - overruled CL 3/21/91 p.1).


[A turreted bridge vs. a tower triple-towered and vs. a castle triple-towered ] "Given evidence that no difference was granted in period between towers and castles and the very strong visual resemblance of this bridge to a castle, no ...CVD could be granted." (LoAR 9/90 p.13).


"The differences between a buck's skull and a buck's head cabossed are nearly non-existent." (LoAR 9/90 p.15).


"The visual resemblance between an edelweiss flower and an estoile is overwhelming." [note: there was a peripheral charge, so there is no CVD for the difference here] (LoAR 9/90 p.16).


"There is not really any visual difference between quatrefoils and cinquefoils." (LoAR 9/90 p.16).


[A cross of four anchors, as only charge on the device] "Most of the commenters, and Laurel, have no serious problem applying the provisions of X.2 to very different types of crosses. Indeed, applying this standard, we can see this submission clear of [same field, a cross crosslet of the same tincture]. However, we believe that the standards to be applied in X.2 are somewhat stronger than those applied to obtain a CVD between charges. As a consequence. We cannot in good conscience call this clear of [same field, a cross potent of the same tincture] (we see one CVD for the change to type of cross) or [different field, a cross of Calatrava of the same tincture] (with one CVD for the change to the field, but less than a CVD for the change to the type of cross)." (LoAR 9/90 p.16).


[A charged bend sinister cotised] "Versus [a charged bend cotised] there is a CVD for the orientation of the primary and another for the orientation of the secondaries (the cotises)." (LoAR 10/90 p.6).


[Ypotryll dormant] "Versus [a dragon with the head and wings of an eagle couchant, wings displayed and addorsed], we believe that X.2 can be applied, even with the 'meatloaf' position here, owing to the very marked changes between the monsters." (LoAR 10/90 p.9).


[Spearhead, charge submitted as an arrowhead] "While the submitter documented the form of a Tudor arrowhead in this shape, most heralds would see it first as a spearhead, hence we have reblazoned it thus. Given the gross changes in outline between a spearhead and a standard heraldic pheon or broad arrow, we do not see calling conflict between this and any of several pieces of armory with pheons inverted." (LoAR 10/90 p.10).


"Evidence was presented that period heralds saw no difference between crosses and crosses fitched, nor did the modification of the bottommost limb of four appear to give adequate visual difference to grant a CVD." (LoAR 10/90 p.14).


[Double flowered thistle] "Given the normal emblazon of thistles...wherein the leaves rather than the heads are the most visually prominent element, we could not see giving a CVD for the addition of the second head (not too dissimilarly to not granting a CVD for the difference between an eagle and a double-headed eagle)." (LoAR 10/90 p.14).


"The difference between raguly and embattled is not sufficient for the second [CVD]." (LoAR 10/90 p.15).


[Winged lion-dragon passant guardant] "It was the opinion of those at the Laurel meeting that while X.2 could be invoked against [a lion passant guardant] (for the addition of the wings and change of lower half of the body), [a griffin passant] (for the change to head and tail), that the similarity of outline was not sufficient to apply X.2 against [a wyvern]. (The default posture for wyverns on the Continent is passant, hence there is no difference for posture.) Given that wyverns were sometimes emblazoned with feathered wings rather than bat-wings, this call became much trickier, with changes only to head and forelegs, the detailing of the lion vs. reptilian torso being of less visual weight. In the end we felt we had to say that while there was clearly a CVD for type, that not enough difference was there to apply X.2." (LoAR 10/90 pps.15-16).


[Paly gules and Or, <a charge group>] "While extremely reminiscent of Aragon, blazoned as either Gules, four pallets Or or Paly gules and Or, this is clear by change of field and change of type, number and tincture of the primary charges from the former and, per X.1, by the addition of primary charge from the latter." (LoAR 11/90 p.3).


"While we do not consider one type of generic fish to be different from another for purposes of difference, the existence of an heraldic dolphin as a separate and distinct charge is well-documented. Hence [there is a CVD] for type of [fish]." (LoAR 11/90 p.7).


"This is clear of <cited conflict>, but only just...We felt that given the normal depiction of squirrels, with very large, bushy tails, that a second CVD could be granted for type from ferrets." (LoAR 11/90 p.9).


"We feel that the second CVD can be gained from the change from courant to passant [should be statant as in blazon], as it changes dramatically the position of all the legs. (Much as a CVD is granted for the change from statant to couchant, which effectively only removes the legs.)" (LoAR 11/90 p.9).


[A bend potenty on the lower edge] "Conflict with [a plain bend]. Were the ordinary in this proposal potenty on both sides, it would be clear, but the majority of the commenters (and Laurel) did not feel that difference should be granted for this non-period treating of only one (and that the less visually important) side of an ordinary. The only period examples of treating one side of an ordinary which were noted was that of embattling the upper edge of an ordinary." (LoAR 11/90 p.15).


[A duck displayed guardant] "Conflict with [a dove displayed head elevated]...we could not in good conscience grant a CVD for type between two white birds in an identical position." (LoAR 11/90 p.16).


[Yak vs. bull] "We cannot see granting [a CVD] for the 'hairiness' of the bull." (LoAR 11/90 p.17).


[Six roses as primaries vs. six cinquefoils as primaries ] "The visual similarity between roses and cinquefoils is too strong to grant the...necessary CVD." (LoAR 11/90 p.18).


"The following is a revised version of X.4.j. of the Rules for Submissions...The type of substantial change required for this new provision X.4.j.ii to apply is the same general standard in the recently revised X.2...

X.4.j Changes to Charges on Charges.

i. Making two or more visually significant changes to the same group of charges placed entirely on other charges is one clear difference.

Changes of type, number, tincture, posture, or independent changes of arrangement may each count as one of the two changes. Generally, such changes must affect the whole group of charges to be considered visually significant, since the size of these elements and their visual impact are considerably diminished. For example, changing the tincture of the wings of such a charge would not be enough of a tincture difference to be one of the two. Charges held or maintained by other charges are generally too insignificant to count towards difference at all.

ii. In simple cases, a clear difference can be obtained from change to type only of charges entirely on other charges. On armory that consists of:
a) an ordinary or similarly simple geometric charge alone on the field; or
b) an ordinary or similarly simple geometric charge accompanied only by a single group of identical charges upon the field; or
c) an ordinary or similarly simple geometric charge accompanied by an uncharged peripheral charge; or
d) an uncharged charge or group of identical charges accompanied only by a peripheral charge which is charged;
Substantially changing the type of all of a group of charges entirely on the ordinary, similarly simple geometric charge, or, in case (d), peripheral charge is one clear difference. In any case changes to a single group of charges on charges cannot be more than one clear difference.

For example, (a) Sable, on a pale Or two swords sable has one clear difference from Sable, on a pale Or two oak leaves sable. (b) Argent, on a fess azure between two pine trees vert, a spear argent has one clear difference from Argent, on a fess azure between two pine trees vert, a rose argent. (c) Azure, on a roundel Or a tree azure, a bordure Or has one clear difference from Azure, on a roundel Or a bear statant azure, a bordure Or. (d) Argent, a lion rampant and on a chief gules three fleurs-de-lys argent has one clear difference from Argent, a lion rampant and on a chief gules three crosses crosslet argent." (CL 1/4/91 pps. 2-3).

[Per bend sinister counter-ermine and bendy sinister Or and sable, in dexter chief three roses Or ] "It was felt that versus...Azure, three roses Or, there was a CVD for the change to the field and a second for the position of the roses on the field. Though the roses would have had poor contrast with part of the field in the standard two and one arrangement, perhaps even returnably so in the SCA, the change of placement to dexter chief is not necessarily forced by the change to the field." (LoAR 12/90 p.6).


"Commentary seemed generally favorable to allowing gemstones as charges, and since Lord Batonvert found period armory using a faceted gemstone, they will be permitted in SCA armory. However, no difference can be counted for them against delfs, billets, pillows, and other gemstones of any cut." (LoAR 12/90 p.6).


"Even were a pile inverted negligibly different from per chevron throughout (and this is most frequently the case), this is clear [for other reasons]." (LoAR 12/90 p.11).


[A default azure feather vs. a proper peacock plume ] "There is one CVD...for the change in type of feather. The peacock plume...is quite distinct in shape, with a prominent 'eye', and some difference in coloration from a solid azure feather." (LoAR 12/90 p.11).


[Rounded trees proper vs. gules leaved vert] "We did not find the difference between a red trunk and a brown trunk to be worth a CVD." (LoAR 12/90 p.14).


"There is...nothing for the change to erased contourny from trian aspect to sinister, which is, after all, only a slight turn of the head." (LoAR 12/90 p.15).


"The only real difference between herissony and passant is the arch of the back and position of one paw, so [there is no CVD]." (LoAR 12/90 p.16).


[Azure, fretty Or, in bend sinister <two charges> vs. Azure fretty Or ] "Since fretty has been shown to be a charge rather than a field treatment in period, X.1 does not apply. There is only one CVD, for the addition of the <charges>." (LoAR 12/90 p.17).


[Azure, within the horns of an increscent a <charge> argent ] "Conflict with...Azure a <charge> argent. There is only one CVD, for addition of the crescent. In the case...cited in the LoI, the sizes of the two charges were so disparate that the crescent overwhelmed the <central charge> and was visually the primary charge. Here, the size differential is such that the eye does not necessarily make the immediate evaluation that the crescent is the primary. In such a case, the charge at the visual center of the field will normally be so considered." (LoAR 12/90 p.18).


"The difference between a pile and chauss‚ is blazonable, but is worth nothing in terms of difference." (LoAR 12/90 p.18).


[Per bend sinister paly gules and argent and <another tincture> ] "Conflict with... Paly of ten argent and gules, as cited in the LoI. Rule X.4.a.ii specifies that a change to the line of division is worth a CVD; this is an addition of a line of division, which is forced by the change to the tincture of half the field and thus cannot be counted separately." (LoAR 12/90 p.18).


"The default helmet appears to be more akin to the classic barrel helm, and we could see a CVD between that and a morion helm." (LoAR 1/91 p.4).


"We have no trouble granting a CVD between a quatrefoil knot and a triquetra." (LoAR 1/91 p.6).


"We have no difficulty with blazoning the specific type of musket, though of course it would not count for difference from any other type of period musket." (LoAR 1/91 p.15).


[A saltire triple-parted and fretted] "Clear of...<a fretty only device>, with [a CVD] for the positioning of the 'laths'. While a medieval fretty field generally had three laths along each diagonal, they were evenly spaced out. The proximity of those here clearly make them a saltire. Also clear of [a saltire parted and fretted]...we can see [a CVD] for the difference between two laths on each diagonal and three" (LoAR 1/91 p.17).


"The passion nails were blazoned on the LoI as fusils, but (i) fusils do not have an independent existence as a charge, and (ii) the asymmetry of the charges here made them to clearly be passion nails." (LoAR 1/91 p.17).


[Winged natural tiger rampant] "Clear by X.2 from...a lion rampant..." (LoAR 1/91 p.19).


[A unicorn argent and a dragon Or combattant] "Conflict with...a dragon rampant...Or...there is only one CVD for the addition of the unicorn." [This implies that adding a second charge to result in two combattant beasts/monsters is only one CVD as opposed to change in number + change in arrangement/half change in type/ etc.] (LoAR 1/91 p.20).


"[There is] not enough difference between a maltese cross and a cross patonce for [a CVD]." (LoAR 1/91 p.23).


[Azure, a raven and a <peripheral charge> argent ] "Conflict with...Azure, a goshawk argent. There is one CVD for the addition of the <peripheral charge>, but we could not see a second for the difference between a raven and a goshawk in an identical posture. Regarding the statement made in the return of [a submission in November 1990], it would have been clearer (and more accurate) had I said that there is no difference between two types of birds of similar shape or silhouette in identical postures. Thus this submission does not conflict with... Azure, a sheldrake argent, with CVDs for type of primary and addition of the secondary. (Even Laurel on one of his bad days can tell the difference between a raven and a duck!)." (LoAR 1/91 p.23).


[A dove volant wings addorsed, as only significant charge on device ] "Conflict with...a falcon volant... as cited in the LoI. There may possibly be a CVD for bird type here [see LoAR 1/91 p.23]...but certainly not the substantial kind of change required by X.2." (LoAR 1/91 p.24).


[A dragon vs. a unicorn-headed dragon with lion's forepaws ] "The visual similarities of the dragon and [the other] monster (changes to head and forepaws only) are simply too great [for there to be a CVD]." (LoAR 1/91 p.24).


[Garden roses in saltire gules slipped and leaved proper ] "Conflict with...a rose gules barbed and seeded proper...There is a CVD for the number of primary charges, but neither the slipping nor the difference between heraldic and garden roses has been considered a CVD before." [Note: this seems partially overruled by a ruling in the LoAR 5/91 p.5 in which the slip of a garden rose was considered half the charge. However, this ruling is more in accordance with previous precedent.] (LoAR 1/91 p.24).


"There is no difference between a bear's paw and a bear's jambe." (LoAR 1/91 p.25).


"Because the most distinctive feature of the enfield, eagle's claws for forelegs, are lost against the [maintained charge], there are a number of conflicts with various foxes and wolves...There is only one CVD for the tincture of the beast. Conflict also with...a lion rampant [in same tinctures]...with one CVD for the type of beast." (LoAR 1/91 p.27).


[An arrow bendwise sable] "Versus... four arrows fretted sable...There is one CVD for the number of arrows and a second for the arrangement (one bendwise vs. two bendwise and two bendwise sinister. Had the arrows on the [conflicting] badge all been bendwise, this would not have been the case)." (LoAR 2/91 p.3).


[Comparing two fieldless badges] "There is a CVD for fieldlessness." (LoAR 2/91 p.4).


"There is no heraldic difference between vetu and a lozenge or lozenge throughout." (LoAR 2/91 p.17).


"There was a consensus that, particularly in relatively simple armory, that the addition of wings to a beast which is a primary charge should be worth a CVD." (LoAR 2/91 p.14).


[Three chevronels braced, flory at the points, with charges in chief ] "Conflict with...three chevrons interlaced...There is a CVD for the addition of the secondaries in chief, but the addition of the three fleurs to the points of the chevronels, being visually equivalent to 'held' charges, is insufficient for the second." (LoAR 2/91 p.16).


[A sheaf of arrows inverted between a group of secondary charges ] "Conflict with...a sheaf of three arrows...There is only one CVD, for the addition of the [secondaries]." [Implying that inverting the sheaf of arrows is worth no difference] (LoAR 2/91 p.17).


[a keythong (male griffin's) head vs. an eagle's head ] "I do not believe that X.2, which requires substantial difference, can apply in this case." (LoAR 2/91 p.19).


[A fret vert within a bordure gules] "Conflict...with...a fret couped [vert] within a bordure sable, with but a single CVD...for...changing [the bordure's] tincture." [implying that couping the fret isn't sufficient for a CVD] (LoAR 2/91 p.21).


[A tau cross double-crossed, potent at the foot] "[Conflict with] a double-cross (Doppelkreuz)...(it is a Latin cross double-crossed). While we can see granting a CVD with no problem, we do not believe that X.2 can apply in this case." (LoAR 2/91 p.22).


"It has been decided that we will NOT check for conflicts against mundane crests. The reasons for this are (not necessarily in order of importance): although the English College of Arms registers crests, and the SCA has in the past treated them like fieldless badges, they are a 'limited use' type of badge (they are not used to identify retainers and property, but are most often seen in an achievement of arms, along with the coat of arms, supporters, etc.); given that identical or nearly identical crests are registered to apparently unrelated families (eleven different families have a Saracen's head for a crest, for example), they do not appear to be a strong mark of specific or familial identity or cognizance (the intent of the conflict rules is to avoid identity. Where there is no apparent strong correlation between a crest and identity, the need to avoid that identity is greatly reduced - conflict checking does not need to occur where the chance for presumption does not exist); there was a reasonably strong consensus among the commenters that while we might consider checking fieldless badges against crests, there was no reason to think that fielded armory ought to conflict (and it might be noted that all of the pended items on this issue were fielded armory), and Laurel does not believe that complicating the rules with a special class of conflict checking is worth the possible benefit that might come from doing so." (CL 3/21/91 p.1).


"After carefully reviewing the research of Lords Crescent, Batonvert, and Yale, I have come to the conclusion that we are going to have to treat mundane mon as tinctureless armory for purposes of conflict checking. I do not do this lightly (or even happily), but the unescapable conclusion from the research is that mundane mon were treated in period as tinctureless: that is to say, they could legitimately have been displayed in any color/metal combination. Because the purpose of our conflict rules is to avoid identity, and because a mon which is black and white in a book could legitimately be displayed and used in any contrasting tincture combination (by our definition, tinctureless), I do not believe that we can allow difference for tincture. (Any other course would leave us open to someone taking the mon of, say, Tokugawa, submitting it in Or and vert, and getting it registered. Yet any Japanese would see it only as Tokugawa, not differenced at all.)." (CL 3/21/91 p.1) [Comparing armory using a per chevron field with armory using a point pointed] "There is a CVD for...modifying the line of division of the field from straight to 'ploy‚' or embowed to base." (LoAR 3/91 p.3).


[Four swords fretted] "Conflict with...four arrows fretted...There is one CVD, for changing the arrows to swords." (LoAR 3/91 p.7).


"Blazoned in the LoI as 'Sable a <charge> argent and overall a fess counterchanged', an ordinary, when present, is normally considered the primary charge and should be blazoned first. Blazoned this way, it is much clearer that this is in conflict with...Sable, a fess argent, as noted in the LoI. In previous cases where a piece of armory could legitimately be blazoned in either of two ways, if either blazon had a conflict, the submission was returned." (LoAR 3/91 p.7).


[A charged mullet of four points] "Per X.4.j.ii [there is a CVD] for changing the type of tertiary" (LoAR 4/91 p.2).


"The principal difference between a mantyger and a manticore... is the manticore has a scorpion's sting for a tail. It is doubtful that there is a CVD for the difference, but it is a blazonable distinction." (LoAR 4/91 p.3).


[Sable, two <charges> argent and in base a three-towered castle Or ] "Clear of...Sable, a castle triple-towered Or, because the visual reality of this device is that the <charges> are clearly the primary charges here, with a diminutive castle in base." (LoAR 4/91 p.4).


"The weight of the commentary was clearly in favor of granting a CVD between an heraldic panther's head and a lion's head." (LoAR 4/91 p.10).


[A mongoose and increscent in pale] "Conflict with <a single increscent>. There is one CVD for the addition of the mongoose." (LoAR 4/91 p.11).


"It was felt that we could not in good conscience grant a CVD for the difference between a generic bird and an eagle." (LoAR 4/91 p.11).


[Demons vs. griffins] "The overwhelming similarities between the two types of 'winged monsters', right down to their positions, were such that we do not feel that X.2 can be applied here." (LoAR 4/91 p.12).


[Three piles in point and an overall charge, vs. 3 piles] "Addition of the overall charge is only one CVD." [This implies no difference between piles and piles in point] (LoAR 4/91 p.13).


"Mullets of four points, mullets of five points, and possibly mullets of six points may be considered 'simple geometric charges' for the purposes of this rule. (Mind you, I also consider mullets of four, five, and possibly six points to be the outer limit of acceptable complexity to be considered a 'simple geometric charge'." (CL 6/13/91 p.2).


[Whale] "There is a CVD for hauriant embowed vs. hauriant." (LoAR 5/91 p.1).


"Some lines of division such as embattled/raguly/dovetailed , not being significantly different, are granted no difference." (LoAR 5/91 p.4).


[As tertiaries, a garden rose gules slipped and leaved vert vs. a gules castle ] "[there is a CVD for change in] type and change of half the tincture of the tertiary." [Overrules previous precedent on LoAR 1/91 p.24 and before] (LoAR 5/91 p.5).


[On a gyronny field, quatrefoils in annulo vs. crusilly counterchanged ] "There is a CVD for the type of charge and a CVD for their arrangement on the field. [The crusilly] is definitely a seme, with crosses overlying the lines of division and cut off by the edge of the shield." (LoAR 5/91 p.7).


"[There is] nothing for the difference between seme of roses and seme of cinquefoils." (LoAR 5/91 p.10).


"The issue of whether to register or return this proposal fell upon whether or not we are to grant difference between a mullet and an estoile. Lord Batonvert presented ample evidence that the two were considered equivalent throughout our period of study by all heraldic jurisdictions which used both.

While Lord Laurel (a secret sympathizer of the dreaded Authenticity Police) can see much educational and re-creative benefit to doing SCA heraldry in such a way as to most closely follow period heraldry, he honestly believes that there are very few heralds in the Known World who would be willing to look a person submitting a device in the face and tell them that a five pointed star and a six-rayed estoile are the same thing...

I believe that there are times when the visual reality (the '20th Century visual reality', if you will, but we are dealing with people untrained in any other century for the most part) is so strong as to overcome period heraldic practice, whether it be in granting difference or in permitting none. I also believe this to be one of those instances. Hence this submission is clear of <submitter's> device with one CVD for tincture and another for type of the primary charge." (CL 7/16/91 pps. 1-2).


"In the device submission <field, in fess two falcons close sable>, the LoI counted difference versus...Or, two ravens in fess proper, for type of charge on the grounds that period heralds saw them as different charges. (Both devices have the birds in their default position, close.) However, in the SCA, we have to take into account, as Lady Dolphin noted, not only 'Clear Historical Differences', but 'Clear VISUAL Differences'. This issue is the flip-side, if you will, of the Estoile/Mullet question [also in CL 7/16/91]. Should we allow difference for two charges which look alike but which period heralds considered to be different (falcons and ravens, both sable), while not allowing difference for two charges which clearly look different but which period heralds did not treat as different (estoiles and mullets)? I would have a harder time explaining to a submitter that two birds which look almost exactly alike are really considered to be different heraldically than I would explaining to that same submitter that estoiles and mullets are really alike heraldically. Thank you, no." (CL 7/16/91 p.2).


[Sable a fess gules fimbriated between a <secondary group> argent ] "Conflict with...Sable, a fess gules. There is one CVD for the addition of the secondaries." [this implies that the interior color is the main color of the fess: see related ruling on p.20 of this LoAR] (LoAR 6/91 p.17).


[Rounded trees vs. fir trees] "There is only one CVD, for the change to type of the primary charges. X.2 (Sufficient Difference) cannot apply between two types of trees." (LoAR 6/91 p.18).


[Gules, a latin cross pomelly sable fimbriated and an <overall charge> Or ] "Conflict with...Gules, a cross pommetty voided Or. There is a CVD for the addition of the overall charge, but changing the tincture only of what is effectively a tertiary charge (the voided area of the cross) is insufficient for the second." (LoAR 6/91 p.20).


[Two dolphins respectant environing an estoile] "Although the dolphins were blazoned as the primary charge, standard blazon practice would put the estoile first. (This is clearer if you think of adding an annulet...instead of the two dolphins.) Thus this is in conflict with...an estoile... with only one CVD for the addition of the dolphins." (LoAR 6/91 p.21).


"Based on the commentary, for purposes of X.4.j.ii, we are specifically adding a sun as an underlying charge which qualifies for a CVD to change of type only of a tertiary." [overruled CL 1/6/92 p.1] (LoAR 7/91 p.8).


"It is Lord Laurel's contention that a mullet of five points qualifies as a simple geometric charge under [X.4.j.ii]. (It is also Lord Laurel's contention that a mullet is probably the most complex charge which will so qualify.)"[overruled CL 1/6/92 p.1] (LoAR 7/91 p.11).


"There are some fairly obvious differences to the head and body outline between doves and cocks; sufficient for a CVD." (LoAR 7/91 p.12).


[A daffodil slipped and leaved argent] "Versus..an Easter lily flower, slipped and leaved proper [argent, slipped and leaved vert], fimbriated Or, there is one CVD for fieldlessness and a second for the change to the slipping and leaving which on both flowers amounts to half the charge." (LoAR 7/91 p.15).


[Maidenhair Fern proper (vert, stemmed sable)] "Conflict with... a slip of three leaves vert and with...a sprig of parsley vert." [no type difference was given.] (LoAR 7/91 p.18).


"There was some disagreement among the commenters as to whether or not the heart is a simple geometric charge which would qualify under X.4.j.ii, allowing change of type only to a tertiary to grant a second CVD." [Returned for conflict, implying no X.4.j.ii-qualification for hearts, and for other reasons of pretense.] (LoAR 7/91 p.19).


[A drakkar sailing to sinister proper, sailed gules] "Conflict with...a galley proper." [Discussion of addition of secondaries implies that there is no tincture difference or posture difference given here.] (LoAR 7/91 p.20).


"A goblet is not a simple geometric charge under X.4.j.ii." (LoAR 7/91 p.20).


"X.2 (Sufficient Difference) cannot apply between two types of trees." [the specific trees in the ruling were oak and fir] (LoAR 7/91 p.21).


[Per pale vert and azure, a sea-fan argent] "Conflict with <the mon> A military fan bendwise. There is one CVD for orientation of the charge, but nothing for the tincture. Conflict also with <another mon> A military fan within an annulet, with only one CVD for the addition of the annulet." [This ruling confirms that not even the "fieldless difference" applies to mon.] (LoAR 7/91 p.22).


[Per bend sinister argent and sable, in dexter chief a <sable charge> ] "Conflict with...Azure, <the same sable charge>. There is one CVD for the change to the field but nothing for the placement on the field since that is forced by the tincture change." (LoAR 7/91 p.23).


[A drinking horn, compared to a bugle horn or a straight trumpet ] "There is a CVD for type of horn, but there is not enough difference between the two for X.2." (LoAR 7/91 p.23).


[A winged hammer] "Conflict with...a hammer crowned... There is a CVD for the addition of the wings, but deletion of the small crown is insufficient for the second." [Note that the difference between a winged natural tiger and a lion was given X.2 difference in the LoAR 1/91 p.19.] (LoAR 7/91 p.23).


[A shamrock bendwise] "Conflict with...a cinquefoil...There is one CVD for the change to type of the primary, but we are not certain that X.2 can be applicable in this case of difference between types of foils." (LoAR 7/91 p.24).


[Per saltire an <a> and a <b>] "Conflict with... an <a> [whose default is palewise]. There is one CVD for the addition of the <b>." [This implies that the change of a's posture from palewise to bendwise is forced by the design, and not an independent change.] (LoAR 8/91 p.14).


"The commentary was very nearly unanimous that there is not a CVD between a bison's head and a bull's head." (LoAR 8/91 p.14).


[A hummingbird rising] "Conflict with...a falcon... There is a CVD for the change to type of bird but X.2 does not apply here." (LoAR 8/91 p.15).


"There is not [a CVD] for the enarching of the fess." (LoAR 8/91 p.16).


"There is a CVD for changing the lamb to a sea-lamb but the consensus among the commenters was that X.2 does not apply here." (LoAR 8/91 p.17).


[A <charge> and a chevron abased] "Conflict with...a chevron. There is only one CVD for the addition of the <charge>." [This implies no difference for abasing the chevron] (LoAR 8/91 p.18).


"Changing the tincture of the topmost of three charges one and two is insufficient for [a CVD]" (LoAR 8/91 p.18).


"The differences between a cockatrice and a sea-cockatrice are nearly non-existent, consisting primarily of the detailing of the tail." (LoAR 8/91 p.19).


[Cat herissony guardant vs. lion passant guardant, lion statant, etc.] "[There is] nothing for the minor changes in posture." (LoAR 8/91 p.20).


[Mullet of eight greater and lesser points vs. mullet of ten points] "There is not a CVD between the two mullets." (LoAR 8/91 p.21).


"Antelopes and yales are almost identical [no CVD was given]. (See for example Dennys' Heraldic Imagination, pages 148 and 165)." (LoAR 8/91 p.21).


"[There is] nothing for the difference between Caucasian proper and argent." (LoAR 8/91 p.21).


"Commentary was running nearly 100% against the proposal to grant a CVD versus mundane armory as we do for fieldless. Therefore, this idea will not be put into practice.

I would like to address one issue, however. The question of what should have been considered 'important royal armory', which would have been left as exceptions to the CVD for mundane armory. Some commenters seemed to think that this would have been a long list, causing much angst and gnashing of teeth among the members of the College. To my mind, such a list should include only England, France, Scotland, Ireland, The Holy Roman Empire, Leon, Castile, Aragon, Granada, and perhaps the Kingdom of Jerusalem. And national flags. End of list. End of statement." (CL 10/20/91 p.1)."


"The consensus of the commentary was that X.2 applies between ferrets and hedgehogs." (LoAR 9/91 p.2).


[Two <charges> interlaced in bend sinister] "Versus...three <charges>... there is a CVD for changing the number of primary charges and a second for the change in position (and interlacing) of the remaining two." (LoAR 9/91 p.2).


[A harp reversed] "Versus...a Greek Lyre...there is [a CVD] (just) for the difference in type of primary charge." (LoAR 9/91 p.7).


[An owl passant brandishing an axe palewise] "The axe in this submission, nearly the length of the primary charge, is significant enough to contribute to difference." (LoAR 9/91 p.11).


"Versus...a chevron raguly of two bastons couped at the top.. there is... [a CVD] for the difference between a chevron embattled (throughout its length) and one with 'two bastons couped at the top.'" (LoAR 9/91 p.14).


[A bend vs. a bend fimbriated] "[There is] nothing for the fimbriation of the bend." (LoAR 9/91 p.15).


[A fox's head contourny erased vs. a gazelle's head contourny erased] "There is one CVD for the change to the type of the critter's head, but X.2 cannot be applied here." (LoAR 9/91 p.15).


[Three hawk's legs couped contourny] "Conflict with... three eagle's legs erased.. There is one CVD for [a different change - implying that no difference between a bird's leg and a bird's leg contourny.]" (LoAR 9/91 p.16).


[Four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center] "Because of the arrangement of the primaries, we cannot apply X.2 to grant sufficient difference between this arrangement of four fleurs-de-lys and the cross flory." (LoAR 9/91 p.17).


[A thistle 'flexed-reflexed, head to dexter' vs. a default thistle ] "The posture of the thistle is nearly identical [no difference given] with the exception of some waviness of the thistle's stem on the [flexed-reflexed device]." (LoAR 9/91 p.19).


"The Grandfather clause cannot apply in cases where the submitted arms have a conflict to which the original device would not be subject. Since his father's arms do not conflict with <name>, but only his own [arms conflict], the grandfather clause cannot be applied here." (LoAR 9/91 p.20).


"Engrailed, Invected and Indented. The period evidence regarding whether or not heralds granted difference between these three lines of division is not entirely clear. It would appear that certainly in early heraldic history that indented and engrailed were used interchangeably. However, invected is a later period line of division, apparently considered different from engrailed and indented. There is also some evidence that in late period engrailed and indented had achieved separate identities. As a consequence, I feel it behooves us to continue granting a Difference between engrailed, invected and indented lines of division." (CL 11/12/91 p.12).


"The SCA has always 'picked and chosen' from among what period heralds did to apply to our own 'game'... Nor do my readings of the history of period heralds and heraldry lead me to believe that they had an integrated, codified 'system' of heraldry. The development of heraldry in period seems to me from my readings to have been every bit as haphazard as the development of heraldry in the SCA, and in some ways even more so. I do not see that our re-creation becomes any more 'pure' by closing off certain avenues of difference solely on the basis that period heralds did not recognize things to be different. One of the biggest examples of this that I can think of is the SCA practice of granting difference for reversing a charge. We currently grant a Difference between 'Gules, a lion rampant' and 'Gules a lion rampant contourny'. But that Difference would not have been granted in period. It would simply have been the 'other side of the {barded} horse' or the other side of the banner. Should we then no longer grant difference for reversing charges? Solely in the interest of 'purifying' our system of heraldry? If we are not ready to refuse difference for reversing charges, then why continue to cavil that 'the College {read: Laurel} is adopting a visual standard' for determining difference while ignoring period determination of difference. This is, and will continue to be, true only in a few limited instances and only with what I believe to be good and adequate cause." (CL 11/12/91 pps. 2-3).


"Give that tenné is one of the standard heraldic stains, we believe that it should be granted the same difference from Or and gules as purpure is from gules and azure." (LoAR 10/91 p.1).


"There is [a CVD]... for the difference between griffin's heads and eagle's heads." [overruling an implied precedent on the LoAR 7/90 p.11). (LoAR 10/91 p.1).


[Per pale indented, the points ending in mullets, vs. per pale indented ] "There is... [a CVD] for modifying the line of division with the mullets." [see related ruling LoAR 2/91 p.16]. (LoAR 10/91 p.3).


[(Fieldless) A fountain] "Versus... barry wavy argent and azure, this does not appear to fall under the ban on arms of pretence in XI.4 of the Rules of Submission. The fountain is a clearly defined heraldic charge in and of itself and as such would not appear to be in conflict." (LoAR 10/91 p.5).


[Three charges, one and two] "There is... [a CVD] for changing both the type and tincture of one [the topmost] of the group of three primary charges." [Note this expands the ruling on the CL 9/6/90 p.2, which only discusses the bottommost of three charges, two and one] (LoAR 10/91 p.6).


"There is...[a CVD] for the difference between a keythong [male griffin] and a griffin." (LoAR 10/91 p.9).


[A winged wolf] "Conflict with... a wolf... there is only one CVD for adding the wings." (LoAR 10/91 p.16).


[A charged mullet of six points] "Changing the type only of the tertiary is insufficient here. Lord Brigantia assumed too much from Laurel's June 17 Cover Letter statement that 'possibly mullets of six points may be considered simple geometric charges' for purposes of X.4.j.ii. That we do not distinguish between mullets of five points and mullets of six points when counting conflict is not the point here. We do distinguish between them on stylistic issues." (LoAR 10/91 p.18).


[A square knot of thorn] "Conflict with... {Fieldless} A Bourchier knot. There is one CVD for fieldlessness, but nothing for tincture or the difference between rope and thorns." (LoAR 10/91 p.19).


[Two bendlets, blazoned in LoI as enhanced, and in base a <charge> ] "Conflict with... two bendlets. There is one CVD only for addition of the <charge>. The enhancement of the bendlets would normally occur by adding a charge only in base." (LoAR 10/91 p.20).


"While commentary was somewhat split on this issue, the general feeling was that to modify the Rules to define half a group by line of division or as those charges on either side of an ordinary would only serve to encourage unbalanced armory. On the other hand, there are times when the visual impact of changes to charges which amount to 'less than half the group' should be granted more difference. As a consequence, we are adopting Lady Dolphin's (now Lady Crescent) suggestion of allowing two changes to the minority of a group (i.e., the 'lesser' half of a group of charges lying on either side of a line of field division or an ordinary) being sufficient for a Clear Difference. For example, 'Per bend sinister sable and Or, a decrescent moon Or and three fir trees proper' would be allowed two CDs from 'Per bend sinister azure and argent, a bear's head argent and three fir trees vert' with one CD for the field and another for the two changes to the charge in dexter chief." (CL 12/21/91 pps. 1-2).


[Two <charges> in fess and a base] "This is clear of... three <charges>, with a change to the number of primaries and the addition of the subordinary. Peripheral charges such as chiefs, bordures, bases, flaunches etc. are not considered to be a part of the primary charge group." (LoAR 11/91 p.3).


[A griffin displayed] "Versus...a double headed eagle displayed... there is...[a CD] (barely) for the differences between a griffin and an eagle in this position. The primary visible differences between an eagle and a griffin in this position are the griffin's ears and tail, as the forelimbs are almost invisible against the wings." (LoAR 11/91 p.6).


[Oak leaves vs. leaves of Ladies Mantle] "There is a CD... for type." (LoAR 11/91 p.6).


[Four <charges> in cross, bases to center] "Versus...semy of <charges>, there is a CD for number and another for arrangement (in cross vs. all palewise)." (LoAR 11/91 p.6).


[A griffin displayed] "Versus...a double headed eagle displayed... there is...[a CD] (barely) for the differences between a griffin and an eagle in this position. The primary visible differences between an eagle and a griffin in this position are the griffin's ears and tail, as the forelimbs are almost invisible against the wings." (LoAR 11/91 p.6).


[Bats (in default displayed posture) vs. martlets (in default close posture)] "There are CDs for both the type and posture of the <charge group>" (LoAR 11/91 p.9).


[A morning glory slipped and leaved] "Versus... a daffodil slipped and leaved... there is a CD... (just) for the type of flower." (LoAR 11/91 p.14).


[A beast sejant erect] "The difference in posture here from rampant is essentially moving one hind paw. This is insufficient for the necessary [CD]." (LoAR 11/91 p.17).


[A three-headed, five-tailed, bird winged dragon] "Conflict with... a dragon. It could reasonably be argued that the cumulative changes to the number of heads and tail plus the type of wings could allow as much as one CD. However, we need two." (LoAR 11/91 p.18).


[In the case of a mon] "[There is no difference] for tincture (since mundane mon are essentially tinctureless) nor for fieldlessness (since mon are not fieldless badges. Mon have fields; their tinctureless makes them omnifielded for all practical purposes.)" (LoAR 11/91 p.19).


[A galley proper vs. a ship reversed proper sails gules ] "There is one CD for the field, but nothing for the orientation of the ship ." (LoAR 11/91 p.20).


[An anvil issuant therefrom to chief flames vs. an anvil enflamed ] "The only difference is between fully enflaming the anvil and enflaming it only to chief: a single CD at best." (LoAR 11/91 p.21).


[A pine tree vs. a blasted tree] "While there is clearly a CD for the difference between types of trees, X.2 does not apply between trees. That X.2 should not apply between blasted and regular trees should be even more apparent given that in period many trees were drawn with empty branches each terminating in a single oversized leaf, rather than the 'cotton candy' form of leafy foliage we see more commonly today." (LoAR 11/91 p.22).


[A ram's head affronty] "Conflict with...a dragon's head cabossed... While there is a CD for type of primary charge, X.2 does not apply here." (LoAR 11/91 p.23).


"The commentary on [X.4.j.ii] seemed to be reasonably clear. As a consequence, the application of X.4.j.ii. for the granting of a Clear Difference for substantial change of type of a tertiary will be applicable only to tertiaries on an ordinary or simple, geometric shape such as a lozenge, delf or roundel. It will not be applied to charges on mullets, suns or hearts." [Overrules precedents of 7/91 pps. 8 and 11.)(CL 1/6/92 p.1).


[A four leaved shamrock] "Versus...a cinquefoil... there is a CD for the type of primary." [may overrule a ruling in the LoAR 9/90 p.16] (LoAR 12/91 p.9).


"There is not [a CD] for enflaming the blade of the sword [used as a primary charge]." (LoAR 12/91 p.17).


"There is no difference for the change from a pike to a sturgeon." (LoAR 12/91 p.19).


[A water lily slipped and leaved vs. a touch-me-not flower slipped and leaved ] "There is a CD for type of flower, but after comparison of the emblazons we did not feel that we could in good faith apply X.2." (LoAR 12/91 p.20).


[Sable, a fess argent, overall a <charge> within an orle of rope counterchanged ] "Only the fact that the orle is considered a peripheral charge and thus not part of the same group as the <charge> prevents this from conflict with ...Sable a fess argent, by X4c." (LoAR 1/92 p.1).


"[There is a CD] for the change to type of charge (tankard to cup)." (LoAR 1/92 p.4).


"There is a CD... for the differences between a sea-griffin and a griffin." (LoAR 1/92 p.6).


[A sheaf of arrows argent, fletched and barbed gules] "Versus... Gules, three bird-bolts in a parcel argent, banded azure, one in pale and two in saltire, there is a CD... for changing half the tincture of the charges. It should be noted that period arrows were drawn with grossly exaggerated heads and fletching for greater identifiability. This fact should be considered in tincture changes." (LoAR 1/92 p.6).


[On a chief, three linden trees proper] "Versus... on a chief argent a grove of seven fir trees proper, there is... [a CD] for the change of both type and number of the tertiaries." (LoAR 1/92 p.9).


"Lord Laurel is confused by the misunderstanding some commenters seem to have regarding the difference between fieldless and tinctureless armory. Fieldless armory gets a CD for fieldlessness; tinctureless armory (SCA, not mundane) acquires one CD for fieldlessness - the other CD must come from a class other than tincture (RfS X.4.d). Japanese mon, while tinctureless, are not fieldless; thus, they cannot be granted the fieldlessness difference. Addition or removal of charges, field and charge divisions (since mon appear only to have used solid fields and solid charges), complex lines, all contribute difference from mon. Fieldlessness does not, unless the SCA armory being considered against it is fieldless, in which case the SCA armory, not the mon, gets a CD for fieldlessness." (LoAR 1/92 p.15).


[A mullet charged with a lynx's face] "Conflict with...on a mullet... a fox's mask... The change in type only of the tertiary, particularly since they are both animal's heads in the same position, is not sufficient for [a CD]." (LoAR 1/92 p.16).


[Two wingless griffins combattant] "Conflict with... two lions rampant combattant... The only difference in the large emblazon between these wingless griffins and lions is to the nose of the animal. If the submitter would use either griffins with wings, or male griffins (with the spikes), [there would be a CD for type]." (LoAR 1/92 p.17).


"The badge, which would more properly be blazoned '[fieldless] a mullet of eight points...charged with a <charge>', conflicts with...on a mullet a <different charge>, and... on a mullet of six points throughout...a <different charge>. In each case there is one CD for the fieldless difference, but X.4.j.ii does not apply to tertiaries on mullets, nor is there any difference for the various number of points to the mullets." (LoAR 1/92 p.17).


"While I do not believe that X.2 would apply between a dog and a sea-dog, I do not have a problem with granting a CD, especially given the separate heraldic existence of a sea-dog from any other kind of dog." (LoAR 2/92 p.9).


[{Fieldless} A fleur-de-lis per pale] "Versus <mundane nobility>, {Fieldless} A fleur-de-lys, there is a CD for fieldlessness and another for the addition of a line of division on the charge. The assumption (until proven otherwise) is that mundane badges were displayed only in solid tinctures (including the furs). It is therefore reasonable that the addition of a line of division should count for difference, as here." (LoAR 2/92 p.10).


[Three roses two and one, only charge group on field] "Conflict with... three cinquefoils... There is... nothing for the minor change between cinquefoils and roses." (LoAR 2/92 p.19).


[On a spiderweb, a spider between three <charges> vs. a spiderweb ] "Spiderwebs are throughout by default and thus there cannot be a CD for 'throughoutness' here. A spiderweb is not like any of the other field treatments, in that no part of it reflects the same pattern as the whole. In this way it much more closely resembles a gurges, which is a charge. Thus, there is only one CD... for the addition of the overall charges." [Note: this also implies that all overall charges are one group] (LoAR 2/92 p.20).


[A cross couped gules irradiated Or] "The badge conflicts with the insignia of the International Red Cross, not by our rules, but by theirs. As stated in Corpora Appendix A, 'the Society recognizes the absolute precedence of law issued by civil authorities over any of its internal rules.' International treaty severely restricts the use of a cross couped gules, and this takes precedence over any of the Rules for Submission, including those for difference, of the SCA." (LoAR 2/92 p.20).


[Barry and per pale gules and checky sable and argent] "Conflict with ... barry of six argent and gules, per pale counterchanged. There is one CD only for the change from argent to checky sable and argent." (LoAR 2/92 p.22).


[Snowflake vs. Escarbuncle] "[There is] one CD... for the difference in the type." (LoAR 4/92 p.10).


There is more than sufficient documentation for the kleestengeln, which are representations of the wingbones found in German armory. They are blazonable, though they should probably not count for difference." (LoAR 4/92 p.16).


"We do not see [a CD] for inverting the serpent [glissant palewise/erect]" (LoAR 4/92 p.18).


[Firebird vs. Peacock] "After comparing the two emblazons, we found we could only grant one CD for the change to the posture [leaving no difference for type]" (LoAR 4/92 p.21).


[Per pale... two arrows counterchanged] "Conflict with... two swords palewise... While there is a CD between swords and arrows, Laurel cannot in good conscience apply RfS X.2 to them." [This elaborates a precedent in LoAR of 3/91 p.7, in which the compared swords and arrows were fretted and might have their type obscured thereby] (LoAR 4/92 p.21).


[Mullet of eight points eclipsed, charged with a <charge>, compared to a sun eclipsed charged with an identical <charge>] "There is at very best one CD for change of type of primary, and it is questionable whether we should even allow that much for the difference between a mullet of eight points and a sun." (LoAR 4/92 p.22).


"A cross crosslet and a cross bottony are only artistic variations of the same charge, and were used interchangeably in period, so no difference may be granted between them." (LoAR 4/92 p.22).


[A bordure gyronny vs. a bordure compony] "There is one CD for the posture of the primary" [which implies no difference for the bordure tincture] (LoAR 4/92 p.24).


"We do not believe we can grant any difference between a cupping glass and an inescutcheon, as the cupping glass is in exact outline of one of the standard escutcheon shapes." (LoAR 4/92 p.24)


"An inescutcheon, or a cupping glass, is not an ordinary or similarly simple geometric charge for the purposes of [X.4.j.ii]." (LoAR 4/92 p.24).


[Compass star] "Versus... a mullet of four points distilling a goutte, there is...[a CD] for the difference between a mullet of four points and a compass star. Given the recognized independent heraldic existence of a compass star in the SCA, noted by its separate name, Laurel sees no problem in granting a CD between them, especially when used as the primary charge. Versus... a mullet of five greater and five lesser points distilling gouttes, the same reasoning and point count applies." (LoAR 5/92 p.5).


"[There is a CD] for the difference between a compass star (a well-defined SCA charge with a distinctive outline) and a sun." (LoAR 5/92 p.5).


[A bend charged with three martlets vs. a bend charged with three owls] "The change in type only from martlets to owls is insufficient to apply X.4.j.ii." (LoAR 5/92 p.20).


[Per fess wavy azure and argent, a bar wavy azure, overall <a charge group> ] "The visual effect of the bottom half of the field (which is drawn as less than half the field) is of a field per fess wavy azure barry wavy argent and azure. Blazoned this way this is a conflict with <charge group>, with one CD for the field." (LoAR 5/92 p.20).


[Per fess gules and argent, a fess counterchanged between a <charge> and a <different charge atop a mount> ] "Conflict with... per fess gules and argent, a fess counterchanged. There is one CD for the addition of the secondaries." [This implies that the mount is considered part of the same secondary group and the charges surrounding the fess, as opposed to a separate peripheral charge.] (LoAR 5/92 p.22)


"[There is] nothing... for the change in tincture of the fletching [of the arrows] only" [implying that barbingand fletching is necessary for the half tincture difference alluded to in the LoAR of 1/92 p.6] (LoAR 5/92 p.22).


[A dolphin urinant contourny proper] "Conflict with... a dolphin urinant vert... There is... nothing for reversing the fish in this position, or for the difference between 'vert', and 'vert, marked gules.'" (LoAR 5/92 p.22).


[Sable a <charge> sinister facing and on a chief argent three trefoils vert ] "Conflict with... Sable a <charge> and on a chief argent three trees eradicated proper... there is one CD for the orientation of the primary charge but the change to type only of the tertiaries is not great enough to apply X.4.j.ii, and comparing the two emblazons graphically demonstrated the overwhelming visual similarity between these two devices." (LoAR 5/92 p.23).


[Three martlets within a peripheral charge] "Conflict with... three parroquets... There is one CD for the addition of the <peripheral charge> but the differences between martlets and parroquets, which are more or less a generic bird, are too small to grant the necessary second." (LoAR 5/92 p.23).


[A Celtic cross] "Conflict with... {fieldless} an equal armed Celtic cross... There is one CD for fieldlessness, but that is all." [implying equal-arming is worth no difference from standard latinate] (LoAR 5/92 p.23).


[Two horses forceny salient addorsed] "Versus... two levriers rampant addorsed... it is not at all clear that X.2 does apply between the two types of beast as is stated in the LoI. However, [another conflict] makes that question moot." (LoAR 5/92 p.23).


[A rabbit sejant guardant armed with a stag's attire] Conflict with... a coney. Given that the default posture for a rabbit is sejant, there is at best one CD, and many commenters did not find that much for the addition of the antlers." (LoAR 5/92 p.24).


[Three cranes' heads couped and conjoined at the beaks ] "Conflict with... sable three swan's heads... there is one CD for the arrangement of the primaries, but nothing for the change to type." (LoAR 5/92 p.24).


[A comet bendwise sinister, head to chief] "Conflict with... an eight pointed estoile... There is one CD for the change to the primary, but we cannot in good conscience apply RfS X.2." (LoAR 5/92 p.27).


[Semy of butterflies] "Versus... semy of bees... the majority of the commenters did not have a problem applying X.2 between butterflies and bees here." (LoAR 6/92 p.9).


[A cat sejant] "Conflict with... a fox sejant... There is one CD for the change to the type of primary, but X.2 does not apply here." (LoAR 6/92 p.14).


[(Fieldless) A roundel barry wavy vert and argent] "Conflict with... Barry wavy vert and argent. The precedent cited [LoAR 10/91 p.5] does not apply here because this roundel does not have an independent heraldic existence the way a fountain does. Therefore, the ban on fieldless roundels as being presumptuous as a display of other armory applies." (LoAR 6/92 p.14).


"As drawn in the large emblazon the primary is not really recognizable as an astrolabe. It has cutouts in it through which the field shows which are not found on a real astrolabe. Drawn correctly as an astrolabe, this conflicts with...[a roundel, with] nothing for the internal diapering of the primary (similar to the conflict between a moon in her plenitude and a plate.)" (LoAR 6/92 p.15).


[A martlet] "Conflict with... a falcon close... After a comparison of the emblazons we did not feel that a CD could be granted for type only of bird." (LoAR 6/92 p.16).


[A two-tailed scorpion] "Conflict with... a lobster displayed... The visual similarity between this scorpion and a lobster is too great to grant a [CD]." (LoAR 6/92 p.16).


[In pale a dolphin embowed and a shark embowed to base contourny ] "The use of two very similar but different charges in the same group here is not Period style and is in fact not registerable by prior Laurel precedent (see, e.g., LoAR of 30 April 1989, p.6)." (LoAR 6/92 p.16).


"[There is no difference] between a wyvern and a dragon. (This overturns the precedent of December 1989, which granted a CD between the two charges on the bases of SCA historical distinction. It appears that the terms 'dragon' and 'wyvern' were used interchangeably throughout Europe through most of our period of study, and this distinction in the SCA does not appear to be well founded.)" (LoAR 6/92 p.17).


[A woodaxe reversed argent] "Conflict with... a battle axe Or, headed argent, the edge to sinister... In each case there is... nothing for the change in tincture of the handle only." (LoAR 6/92 p.18)


DIFFERENCE - Names


"<Given Name> the Breton should no more conflict with <same Given Name>, Duke of Brittany, than Richard the Englishman would with Richard, King of England." [Note that this overturns a precedent of Master Baldwin's regarding Wladislaw Poleski] (LoAR 10/90 p.2).


"Applying what I have come to term the 'Auda/'Ali' test, Arian <bynames> should be sufficiently different from Aron <same bynames>." [the submitter had a Letter of Permission not mentioned in LoAR but mentioned in the Letter of Intent] (LoAR 10/90 p.5).


[<Given name> Skala-Bjornsson] "This is sufficiently different from <given name> Bjornsson by the addition of an element. This is functionally and aurally equivalent to '<given name>, son of Bjorn the Bald." (LoAR 11/90 p.7).


"The name is in conflict with the period site from which it was documented. Were the group actually located in the Barony of Duffer, County Down, Ireland, they would be able to use this name." (LoAR 11/90 p.17).


"To respond to Lord Trefoil's... request for clarification of the registration of <given name> Skala-Bjornsson, I was applying V.2, Addition of One Phrase, versus <given name> Bjornsson. It was my feeling that since both names consisted of three phrases or less and <given name> Bald Bjornsson would not be considered to conflict with <given name> Bjornsson in English that the same standard should apply in Norse (or any other language), subject of course to audial conflict and correct grammar for the language." (CL 1/4/91 p.3, referring to the LoAR of 11/90 p.7).


[Wulf Thorunsson] "This is clear of Wulf Thoraldsson...There is a significantly sufficient change in the pronunciation of the patronymic to consider these clear." (LoAR 12/90 p.12).


[Katriona an Brionna] "There is...an aural conflict with the registered Caitriona ni Bhriain." (LoAR 12/90 p.16).


[<given name> the <epithet>] "Conflict with the submitter's legal name, <given name> <epithet>. Society names should not be the same as the members' legal names. (See Administrative Handbook, Protected Items I.) Addition of the article 'the' is insufficient. (See RfS, V.4.) Addition of a given, surname, adjective or adjectival phrase would clear this." (LoAR 1/91 p.23).


[Morgan de Grey] "Aural conflict with the registered name of Morton the Grey." (LoAR 1/91 p.25).


[Gryffn <bynames>] "Aural conflict with the already registered Tryffin <bynames>." (LoAR 2/91 p.21).


[Gerard <bynames>] "While Laurel has some qualms about this versus the already registered Gerald <bynames>, the majority of the commenters felt it passed the 'Auda-'Ali test' by changing the 'l' to an 'r' and accenting the second syllable of the given." (LoAR 4/91 p.3).


"While the submitter's name conflicts with his documentation, Lady Harpy properly notes that unless the historical <name> is demonstrated to be important enough to protect that we do not have a reason to return this name simply because it duplicates the documentation." (LoAR 7/91 p.4).


"Submitted as <name> Griffith of Gwynedd, we have dropped the problematic locative. As submitted the name appears to be a claim of descent from Gruffudd, King of Gwynedd to 1137. Rule V.5 disallows any such claim." (LoAR 7/91 p.15).


"The pronunciation of the SCA [name] is insufficiently different from the submitter's mundane [name] to be considered registerable by the College (Administrative Handbook, Protected Items I). If the submitter would consider nearly any change (for instance, adding 'de' in front of <the locative>), this would be sufficient." [Note that the Administrative Handbook only requires non-identity, not non-identical pronunciation. Also note a previous ruling in the LoAR 1/91 p.23 where addition of the article "the" in between the given name and surname was not enough to prevent conflict with a mundane name.] (LoAR 7/91 p.20).


[<name> Winterskye] "Conflict with <name> of Skye... because of the way that the Rules for Submission are worded. The only consistent interpretation that we could make was to consider Winterskye to be the addition of an adjective to the noun Skye (or sky)." (LoAR 7/91 p.24).


[Sean <surname>] "Conflict with Shauna <surname>." (LoAR 7/91 p.24).


[Colleen <name>] "The name as submitted seems sufficiently different from that of Sir Colin <name>." (LoAR 8/91 p.1)


"Lord Laurel still has serious doubts as to the propriety of registering a name this close to a well known book title, whether or not that title is actually copyrighted, but the weight of the commentary from the rest of the College overrides his feelings in this matter." (LoAR 8/91 p.11).


[Caelainn <name>] "The bulk of the commentary favored registration of this name as being sufficiently different from Caitilin <name>. Lord Laurel agrees that if correctly pronounced the two names are indeed sufficiently different. The problem, however, is the consistent mispronounciation of names in the SCA, not just by heralds... but by the submitters themselves. Given the overwhelming support of the commenters in the College, I am registering this in spite of my personal qualms about how each submitter (and the heralds in their respective areas) is pronouncing each name." (LoAR 9/91 p.12).


[<name> of <place>] "The name is effectively identical to the submitter's use name outside the Society, <name> <place>." [The name was returned] (LoAR 9/91 p.17).


"Part V of the Rules for Submission states 'Names need to be distinguished from each other both in their written form and when heard in announcements.' Morgan and Morton, de and the, are not sufficiently distinguishable when heard in announcements. RfS V.4.a notes that spelling variants, however radical, which do not substantially change the pronunciation are not sufficient for difference... A number of commenters appear to believe that if two names are derived from different roots, then they do not conflict no matter how much alike they may sound when pronounced. If I may quote Lord Batonvert: 'It has absolutely nothing to do with any linguistic connections between the names; if they sound too similar, they conflict, and their etymology is irrelevant." (LoAR 9/91 p.18).


[Blackmoore] "The Administrative Handbook Protected Items F notes that locations which play a significant role in the action of the modern literary work (of any genre) in which they appear will be protected. As a consequence, in spite of the five English Blackmoors, we are having to return this for conflict with the TSR entity." (LoAR 9/91 p.18).


[Katriona] "Conflict with Caiterina... if given proper Gaelic pronunciations, this conflicts under the rules." (LoAR 10/91 p.16).


[Richard the Chicken-Hearted] "This is not only a joke name, but a parody of Richard the Lion-Hearted. As was the case with Decrease Mather (a parody of Increase Mather), which was returned on the LoAR of May 12, 1985, this name 'alludes strongly enough to the historical character to constitute infringement.' " (LoAR 10/91 p.18).


[<Given name> of the <adjective-object>] "Regarding the question of presumption versus the <Kingdom> Order of the Olde <adjective-object>, deletion of both the words 'Order of the' and 'Olde' should be sufficient to remove the appearance of presumption." (LoAR 11/91 p.2).


[Mark Phillipsson] "Some commenters were concerned that this name was claiming a relationship to Mark Phillips, currently a member of the English Royal family. Were Captain Phillips' first name Phillips, this might be an issue. As it is, the client is claiming to be 'Phillip's son' not 'Mark Phillip's son'." (LoAR 11/91 p.9).


[<Name> of <place>shire] "Conflict with <name> of <place>. Addition of the designator 'shire' is not sufficient." (LoAR 11/91 p.18).


[Isle of the Blue Mists] "Conflict with Barony of the Isles. Of the Blue mists is a single adjectival phrase modifying the noun Isle. Adding a collection of adjectives after a noun is no different than adding a collection of adjectives before a noun for purposes of RFS V.2. {Arguendo, if the noun is Mists, then Isle of the Blue is the adjectival phrase, and the name conflicts with the Principality of the Mists. I don't really believe this argument, but either way we have a conflict.}" (LoAR 11/91 p.23).


[<name> Lietuvos, meaning <name> the Lithuanian> ] "While prior Laurel precedent has returned the form '{Name} the {Nationality}', we do not find this presumptuous of the ruler of the country in the same way or to the same degree that, say, '{Name} of {Nation}' would. Hence, we do not find that this name conflicts with <name>, King of Lithuania." (LoAR 12/91 p.12).


"The holding name formed at the Laurel meeting [had a conflict with a famous mundane person]. As this is an administrative holding name, rather than a registration, we can correct this situation here, and do so." (Errata Letter 2/12/92 p.1).


[Order of the Legion of the Sword of Honor] "The order name here does not appear to follow any Period order name that anyone could find. The use of multiple nouns modifying other nouns creates a semantic nightmare. Depending on how one interprets the structure of the various phrases in its name, this could be considered to conflict with the Order of the Sword or with the Legion of Honor." (LoAR 1/92 p.14).


"Because this name differs only by adding an 'e' to the surname, this is technically in conflict with her legal use name, per the Administrative Handbook part I, Protected Items I, which states in pertinent part that 'no item will be registered to a submitter if it is identical with an item used by the submitter legally or in common use outside the Society.' It may not be the name she commonly uses, but it is legally available to her to be used at any time, and is therefore (one of her) legal name(s)." (LoAR 1/92 p.19).


[House <Place>] "<Place> is a real place in the middle ages and should not be registered to a single individual in the SCA." [It is unclear if this means we are protecting every mundane place, or whether <Place> was considered famous enough to protect, and the ruling did not mention the fact] (LoAR 2/92 p.20).


[Order of the <astrological sign>] "The name conflicts with the very well-known astronomical constellation and astrological sign." [This implies such things are protected] (LoAR 2/92 p.22).


[Patrick MacManus] "Conflict with Patrick F. McManus, a well-known modern writer of humor. His name is apparently too recent to appear yet in any of our standard sources, but he is clearly well known enough to warrant protection. (Even Lord Laurel who has read none of his works, is familiar with all the titles mentioned by the commenters.) [The] statement that 'there is no problem with conflict' because of the middle initial 'F' is in error. We do protect against legal use names. In this specific case a legal name for the author is indeed Patrick McManus: this is a conflict." (LoAR 3/92 p.14).


[Order of Black Widows] "Despite the contention in the LoI to the contrary, this name is indeed a conflict with Widow's Abbey per RfS V.2. Addition of an adjective is insufficient difference. Since we can grant no difference for the identifying designator (per V.4.d.), this is a conflict. As noted by Lord Batonvert, 'Abbey' in Widow's Abbey performs the same function as the word 'household' in the same position would. If the word 'household' is the designator in 'Widow's Household', 'abbey' is the designator in 'Widow's Abbey'.

As for the argument in the LoI that a black widow is 'a thing, a critter, a two word noun', if the College were to have to consider this submission on those grounds alone this would have to be returned, since the name 'black widow' was not given to the spider until early in the 20th century (the earliest citation is 1927), well after the Society's 1600 cut-off date. (The arachnid is not itself native to the Americas, but was brought into this hemisphere in the late 19th or early 20th century from the Far East.) (LoAR 4/92 p.24).


DIFFERENCE - Permission to Conflict


"Principal Heralds may give permission for submitted items to conflict with heraldic items registered to their kingdom, though it is strongly recommended that they consult with the Crown to obtain their consent (whether written or verbal) as well before doing this." (LoAR 6/91 p.4).


"After carefully reviewing all of the commentary on the viability of <armory owner's> 'blanket letter of permission to conflict', I have come to the conclusion that to begin (as Lady Harpy put it) 'customizing protection' is to set a bad precedent. While I appreciate <armory owner's> willingness to grant such a broad permission to conflict, to allow such a blanket letter of permission would involve at the very least a modification to the Administrative Handbook and a separate notation in the A&O, and possibly changes to the Rules for Submission themselves. Like many of you, I am extremely reluctant to complicate the Rules or Handbook with exceptions which have to be remembered and kept track of without very good cause and a much sounder basis than this appears to have. I believe the benefits of having a single standard for all armory which local heralds can understand and which can be explained to our clients outweigh those which creating special exceptions to that standard would bring." (CL 2/12/92 p.5).


[A Barony's arms, proposed as an augmentation for an individual ] "{There is also some question whether an individual or a group can grant the right to their undifferenced arms for use by someone else. The use of letters of permission to conflict (which is what Laurel considers the petition by the members of the Barony [whose arms are used in the augmentation] to be) in the College has always been to allow a reduced standard of difference, not to allow the use of arms undifferenced. It is Laurel's belief that the only way the use of arms registered to one party may be granted undifferenced to another is to transfer those arms, with the appropriate letters signed by both parties transferring the arms and accepting them.}" (LoAR 4/92 pps. 17-18.)


ERMINE SPOT


[Fieldless, an ermine spot, drawn with "balls" not conjoined to the "tail" ] "It is Lord Laurel's considered opinion that an ermine spot should be considered a single charge, and so this does not fall under the ban on fieldless charges consisting of disconnected charges." (LoAR 8/91 p.13).


FIELD DIVISION


"Charges should not overlie chap‚ lines of division." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.3).


"...the chap‚ comes too far down the sides of the shield to truly be considered chap‚ (not to mention the fact that the chap‚ portions of the field should not be charged). It is visually 'per chevron throughout', so we have reblazoned it thus." (LoAR 7/90 p.7).


"...the SCA considers chap‚ to be a field division [as does Woodward]." (LoAR 7/90 p.14).


[A field-only device, per fess with a complex line of division ] "The SCA has long considered a per fess field division to be different from a field and a chief. It is Laurel's position...that our own traditions have to be considered as well as period mundane precedent in considering armory for registration." (LoAR 8/90 p.5).


"The field is not really chauss‚; it is not per chevron inverted, it is not a pile, it is not a chief triangular; being somewhere between all of these, we really don't know what it is. Chauss‚ issues from the corners of the chief and would touch the base point of the shield; per chevron inverted would issue from the sides of the field (rather than the chief corners); a pile would issue from farther in on the chief (rather [than] from the corners) and would almost touch the base point of the shield and would not have room for a charge beneath it; and a chief triangular would not descend the field nearly so far as the one here does. Please have them choose one and reemblazon it properly." [The device was returned for this problem alone] (LoAR 10/90 p.21).


[Paly gules and Or, <a charge group>] "While extremely reminiscent of Aragon, blazoned as either Gules, four pallets Or or Paly gules and Or, this is clear by change of field and change of type, number and tincture of the primary charges from the former and, per X.1, by the addition of primary charge from the latter." (LoAR 11/90 p.3).


"Even were a pile inverted negligibly different from per chevron throughout (and this is most frequently the case), this is clear [for other reasons]." (LoAR 12/90 p.11).


"The difference between a pile and chauss‚ is blazonable, but is worth nothing in terms of difference." (LoAR 12/90 p.18).


[Per bend sinister paly gules and argent and <another tincture> ] "Conflict with... Paly of ten argent and gules, as cited in the LoI. Rule X.4.a.ii specifies that a change to the line of division is worth a CVD; this is an addition of a line of division, which is forced by the change to the tincture of half the field and thus cannot be counted separately." (LoAR 12/90 p.18).


"There is no heraldic difference between vetu and a lozenge or lozenge throughout." (LoAR 2/91 p.17).


[Comparing armory using a per chevron field with armory using a point pointed ] "There is a CVD for...modifying the line of division of the field from straight to 'ploy‚' or embowed to base." (LoAR 3/91 p.3).


[Gyronny sable and argent, a saltire of chains vert] "The contrast between the vert chain and the sable portions of the field are marginal but because of the symmetry and high contrast against the argent portions of the field this is (just) registerable." (LoAR 7/91 p.1).


[Sable, a saltire dovetailed gyronny purpure and argent ] "There are two problems with this device. One is that the combination of a dovetailed line on a gyronny saltire is pretty clearly post-Period style. Even though the SCA has long allowed the use of dovetailed as compatible with our style, and has allowed the use of saltires gyronny, the combination seems obtrusively modern. (See RfS VIII.4.d.: 'Generally modern style in the depiction of individual elements or the total design may not be registered.') The second problem is RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability. The purpure portions of the saltire, with its complex line of division, fade so badly into the sable field that the identification of the primary charge is lost." (LoAR 9/91 p.16).


"Just as you may not have a compony bordure that shares a tincture with the field, neither may you have a plain bordure which shares the tincture with a gyronny field as here." (LoAR 10/91 p.20).


[Lozengy gules and Or, on a pile gules a <tertiary charge> ] "This particular design is just acceptable. Because of the nearly parallel lines of the lozengy field and the pile, the outline of the primary is almost too badly broken up to be identifiable. The best analogy for allowing this is an ordinary counter-compony or checky sharing a tincture with the field. But it would have been better on a field whose division lines did not so closely follow the line of the ordinary." (LoAR 11/91 p.9).


[Per bend sinister paly azure and Or, and argent] "Though submitted as 'Per bend sinister azure and argent, five pallets Or issuant from the line of division' the above blazon much more closely follows the real visual impact of the design." (LoAR 11/91 p.17).


[Gyronny of four issuant from dexter chief, three <charges> in dexter gyron ] "The placement of the <charges> on a single portion of the gyronny field is very unusual and not Period style (see RfS VIII.4.d)." (LoAR 12/91 p.21).


[Per pale embattled barry sable and Or and vert, drawn with each bar fitting exactly into each segment of the embattling ] "The matching up of the bars with the embattlements of the per pale line is so unusual as to be disconcerting. Please inform the submitter that it is unlikely that someone else drawing this device from the blazon would match them quite so precisely." [The device was passed] (LoAR 1/92 p.5).


[Per pall inverted checky argent and azure, argent, and vert, in pale <two different charges> ] "The style of this device is sufficiently modern to be grounds for return. The triply parted field, one of whose divisions is itself parted, is modern in appearance and unbalanced." (LoAR 1/92 p.15).


"Lord Laurel is unsure of the propriety of registering a dovetailed line of division on a chaussé field." [He registered it and solicited comment] (LoAR 2/92 p.9).


[{Fieldless} A fleur-de-lis per pale] "Versus <mundane nobility>, {Fieldless} A fleur-de-lys, there is a CD for fieldlessness and another for the addition of a line of division on the charge. The assumption (until proven otherwise) is that mundane badges were displayed only in solid tinctures (including the furs). It is therefore reasonable that the addition of a line of division should count for difference, as here." (LoAR 2/92 p.10).


[Argent, vêtu ployé gules, a <charge> within a bordure] "As drawn, the emblazon shows the bordure overall. If the client would redraw this so that the corners of the vêtu are not cut off by the bordure, this design would be acceptable." (LoAR 2/92 p.20).


[Gyronny of six per pale... three <charges> alternating with three <different charges> ] "Prior Laurel precedent has returned alternating charges on a gyronny field (September 1988 LoAR, p.18). The one example of this style noted by Lord Codex in Italian armory has semys rather than single charges in each gyron. Given the weakness of this evidence, we are hesitant to register a design which has the appearance of being modern style." (LoAR 2/92 p.21).


[Barry and per pale gules and checky sable and argent] "Conflict with ... barry of six argent and gules, per pale counterchanged. There is one CD only for the change from argent to checky sable and argent." (LoAR 2/92 p.22).


[Per bend Or and sable, in pale two linden leaves stems issuant from the line of division between in bend sinister two crosses of five lozenges all counterchanged...] "Although this line of division has been documented (and registered in the SCA) previously, every period instance that we could find lacked other charges. Given the problems demonstrated here in the distortion of the leaves, we can understand why. This line of division with charges on the field appears to be non-Period style." (LoAR 3/92 p.15).


"The division of the bordure (per saltire) of two colors makes it very hard to recognize what is going on with the bordure. We would prefer some documentation that bordures were divided this way in Period before we register it in the SCA." (LoAR 4/92 p.17).


[Purpure, on a cross quarter-pierced argent four lilies pendant checky purpure and argent slipped and leaved vert ] "The identifiability of the flowers is severly hampered by the checky treatment of the blossoms. (See RfS VIII.3. Armorial Identifiability.)" [The device was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 4/92 p.23).


[A bordure gyronny vs. a bordure compony] "There is one CD for the posture of the primary" [which implies no difference for the bordure tincture] (LoAR 4/92 p.24).


[Per fess wavy azure and argent, a bar wavy azure, overall <a charge group> ] "The visual effect of the bottom half of the field (which is drawn as less than half the field) is of a field per fess wavy azure barry wavy argent and azure. Blazoned this way this is a conflict with <charge group>, with one CD for the field." (LoAR 5/92 p.20).


"As a number of commenters noted, we normally do not blazon the number of traits in a paly field unless there is some overriding need to. Paly fields are most commonly of six or of eight, and neither needs to be blazoned." (LoAR 5/92 p.21).


[A sword per chevron] "A long skinny charge may not be divided per chevron in this manner. The line of division is not identifiable, thus falling afoul of RfS VII.7.a." (LoAR 5/92 p.24).


"The precedent disallowing the use of the field of Bavaria (Lozengy bendwise azure and argent) of the LoAR of 17 January 1984, p.9, appears to have been based on the use of the field by corporations in Bavaria 'as a sign of the fact that they were in Bavaria.' It does not seem to me that this is sufficient grounds for a restriction on the use of this field similar to that of, say, France Ancient, which is so closely associated with the French ruling house. I am therefore withdrawing the restriction on the use of a field lozengy bendwise or lozengy bendwise sinister argent and azure, so long as there is otherwise sufficient difference from Bavaria." (LoAR 6/92 p.4).


[Per pale lozengy Or and vert, and lozengy argent and purpure ] "Using two completely different pairs of tinctures on opposite sides of the per pale line of division seems to go well beyond Period practice here... We need documentation that this many colors on a field is a Period style before we may register it." (LoAR 6/92 p.14).


FIELD TREATMENT

(see also FRET/FRETTY)


[A field Argent, honeycombed vert, vs. a field Or ] "The field treatment here is a part of the field and not considered the addition of a group of secondaries to the field." (LoAR 9/90 p.14).


[A chief of mail] "Previous submissions of ordinaries of mail (a pall, a bend sinsiter) have been justified on the basis of period examples of ordinaries of chain (most notably navarre, with a cross, saltire and orle of chain all conjoined). That analogy does not apply here. One could have a chain fesswise in chief. One could not have a chief of chain." [the device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 6/91 p.20).


"Ordinaries of Mail. Commentary on this issue ran mostly between discouraging the practice to banning it. No one seemed to feel that the existence of ordinaries of chain in period were an adequate precedent for allowing ordinaries of mail. As a consequence, ordinaries of mail will no longer be registered by the College." (CL 11/12/91 p.2).


"Maily. There was almost no discussion at all as to whether to continue or ban the registration of the SCA field treatment 'maily'. As a consequence, I am having to assume that the vast majority of commenters have no really strong negative feelings about this, and will continue to allow maily as a field treatment in SCA armory." (CL 11/12/91 p.2).


[On a spiderweb, a spider between three <charges> vs. a spiderweb ] "Spiderwebs are throughout by default and thus there cannot be a CD for 'throughoutness' here. A spiderweb is not like any of the other field treatments, in that no part of it reflects the same pattern as the whole. In this way it much more closely resembles a gurges, which is a charge. Thus, there is only one CD... for the addition of the overall charges." [Note: this implies that all overall charges are one group] (LoAR 2/92 p.20).


FIRE and FLAME


[Charge blazoned as 'a flame issuant from base'] "Although the LoI noted the submitter has been advised to draw more yellow in the flame, this is effectively a 'base rayonny gules, fimbriated Or'. Similar charges tinctured in this fashion have been returned in the past. If he wishes to redraw it with areal base of flames (gules with yellow throughout as well as along the edges of the rayonny) we will be happy to reconsider this proposal." (LoAR 9/91 p.17).


[A horse's head couped argent maned gules fimbriated Or ] "There are simply too many problems with the emblazon here to register this and tell the submitter to 'draw the X properly.' The greatest difficulty comes with the mane of the horse's head which, rather than being of flames proper, is gules, fimbriated Or. The mane is far too complex to fimbriate. (And there is some question as to whether 'maned of flames' is acceptable SCA style.) The suggestion by Lord Trefoil that we simply blazon the mane gules and tolerate its low contrast against the field as an artistic detail worth no heraldic difference will not work here. On this horse's head the mane is easily as significant as a pair of wings would be, and we would not allow them to break tincture either." (LoAR 10/91 p.17).


[Charges blazoned as flames voided in the LoI and emblazoned as gouttes voided ] "The gouttes of flame are too complex to void. Voiding (and fimbriation) have been pretty much restricted to ordinaries or similarly simple charges for some time now." (LoAR 10/91 p.18).


[An anvil issuant therefrom to chief flames vs. an anvil enflamed ] "The only difference is between fully enflaming the anvil and enflaming it only to chief: a single CD at best." (LoAR 11/91 p.21).


"There is not [a CD] for enflaming the blade of the sword [used as a primary charge]." (LoAR 12/91 p.17).


[On a flame an <A> charged with a <B>] "Although this was blazoned as an <A> enflamed, the visual reality is as reblazoned above. A good, proper, Period enflamed has a few gouttes of flame scattered around the edge of the charge being enflamed. Where the flame completely surrounds an object, that object is said to be 'on a flame.' As a consequence this device has four layers: field, flame, <A> and <B>." (LoAR 5/92 p.26).


FISH


"There is a CVD for the difference in type between an heraldic dolphin and a generic fish." (LoAR 8/90 p.1).


[Marlin vs. default fish or vs. salmon] "We could not see giving another [CVD] for type of fish." (LoAR 8/90 p.14).


"While we do not consider one type of generic fish to be different from another for purposes of difference, the existence of an heraldic dolphin as a separate and distinct charge is well-documented. Hence [there is a CVD] for type of [fish]." (LoAR 11/90 p.7).


[Whale] "There is a CVD for hauriant embowed vs. hauriant." (LoAR 5/91 p.1).


"There is no difference for the change from a pike to a sturgeon." (LoAR 12/91 p.19).


[A dolphin urinant contourny proper] "Conflict with... a dolphin urinant vert... There is... nothing for reversing the fish in this position, or for the difference between 'vert', and 'vert, marked gules.'" (LoAR 5/92 p.22).


[A two-tailed scorpion] "Conflict with... a lobster displayed... The visual similarity between this scorpion and a lobster is too great to grant a [CD]." (LoAR 6/92 p.16).


[In pale a dolphin embowed and a shark embowed to base contourny ] "The use of two very similar but different charges in the same group here is not Period style and is in fact not registerable by prior Laurel precedent (see, e.g., LoAR of 30 April 1989, p.6)." (LoAR 6/92 p.16).


FLAUNCHES


[Two <charges> in fess and a base] "This is clear of... three <charges>, with a change to the number of primaries and the addition of the subordinary. Peripheral charges such as chiefs, bordures, bases, flaunches etc. are not considered to be a part of the primary charge group." (LoAR 11/91 p.3).


"Counterchanging the bordure over the flaunches is not good style." [The badge was registered] (LoAR 1/92 p.3).


FLEUR-DE-LYS


[Four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center] "Because of the arrangement of the primaries, we cannot apply X.2 to grant sufficient difference between this arrangement of four fleurs-de-lys and the cross flory." (LoAR 9/91 p.17).


FLOWER


[<field> A heliotrope palewise affronty between two others cojoined in base purpure slipped and leaved vert ] "Conflict with ....<same field> a basil flower purpure, slipped and leaved vert, with only one CVD for change of number, and with...<different field> a sprig of three roses of Sharon flowers purpure, slipped and leaved vert, with only one CVD for field." (LoAR 8/90 p.18).


[Wreath of violets in orle, blazoned as an orle of violets ] "This was returned before in part because the orle of flowers was too similar to the restricted wreath of roses. This issue has not been addressed in the resubmission, and so this must be returned once again for this reason. It was suggested that if the submitter would clearly separate the individual flowers in orle, that this would probably remove the problem." (LoAR 9/90 p.13).


[A double rose argent and sable] "Visual conflict with the Tudor Rose, A double rose argent and gules. While there is just enough technical difference, with one CVD for fieldlessness and another for changing half the tincture of the combined charge, the overwhelming visual similarity to this very famous badge is just too much." (LoAR 9/90 p.15).


"The visual resemblance between an edelweiss flower and an estoile is overwhelming." [note: there was a peripheral charge, so there is no CVD for the difference here] (LoAR 9/90 p.16).


"There is not really any visual difference between quatrefoils and cinquefoils." (LoAR 9/90 p.16).


[Double flowered thistle] "Given the normal emblazon of thistles...wherein the leaves rather than the heads are the most visually prominent element, we could not see giving a CVD for the addition of the second head (not too dissimilarly to not granting a CVD for the difference between an eagle and a double-headed eagle)." (LoAR 10/90 p.14).


"In the SCA, thistles are slipped and leaved by default." (LoAR 11/90 p.11).


[Six roses as primaries vs. six cinquefoils as primaries ] "The visual similarity between roses and cinquefoils is too strong to grant the...necessary CVD." (LoAR 11/90 p.18).


"Thistles are slipped and leaved by default in the SCA. A rose proper is gules, barbed vert, seeded Or. By using the heraldic defaults, we have been able to shorten the submitted blazon by six words, a substantial savings." (LoAR 12/90 p.6).


[Garden roses in saltire gules slipped and leaved proper ] "Conflict with...a rose gules barbed and seeded proper...There is a CVD for the number of primary charges, but neither the slipping nor the difference between heraldic and garden roses has been considered a CVD before." [Note: this seems partially overruled by a ruling in the LoAR 5/91 p.5 in which the slip of a garden rose was considered half the charge. However, this ruling is more in accordance with previous precedent.] (LoAR 1/91 p.24).


[As tertiaries, a garden rose gules slipped and leaved vert vs. a gules castle ] "[there is a CVD for change in] type and change of half the tincture of the tertiary." [Overrules previous precedent on LoAR 1/91 p.24 and before] (LoAR 5/91 p.5).


[On a gyrony field, quatrefoils in annulo vs. crusilly counterchanged ] "There is a CVD for the type of charge and a CVD for their arrangement on the field. [The crusilly] is definitely a seme, with crosses overlying the lines of division and cut off by the edge of the shield." (LoAR 5/91 p.7).


"[There is] nothing for the difference between seme of roses and seme of cinquefoils." (LoAR 5/91 p.10).


[A daffodil slipped and leaved argent] "Versus..an Easter lily flower, slipped and leaved proper [argent, slipped and leaved vert], fimbriated Or, there is one CVD for fieldlessness and a second for the change to the slipping and leaving which on both flowers amounts to half the charge." (LoAR 7/91 p.15).


[A shamrock bendwise] "Conflict with...a cinquefoil...There is one CVD for the change to type of the primary, but we are not certain that X.2 can be applicable in this case of difference between types of foils." (LoAR 7/91 p.24).


[Four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center] "Because of the arrangement of the primaries, we cannot apply X.2 to grant sufficient difference between this arrangement of four fleurs-de-lys and the cross flory." (LoAR 9/91 p.17).


[A thistle 'flexed-reflexed, head to dexter' vs. a default thistle ] "The posture of the thistle is nearly identical [no difference given] with the exception of some waviness of the thistle's stem on the [flexed-reflexed device]." (LoAR 9/91 p.19).


[A morning glory slipped and leaved] "Versus... a daffodil slipped and leaved... there is a CD... (just) for the type of flower." (LoAR 11/91 p.14).


"A shamrock is too complex a charge to fimbriate." (LoAR 11/91 p.16).


[In bend a teasel slipped and leaved Or and a flax flower slipped and leaved argent ] "The use of two different types of plants in different orientations [one was somewhat out of the palewise true in the emblazon, although wasn't reflected in the blazon] and different tinctures is not period style. Prior Laurel precedent has indicated that we should not use two different kinds of charges of the same general type in a single charge group." (LoAR 11/91 p.21).


[A four leaved shamrock] "Versus...a cinquefoil... there is a CD for the type of primary." [may overrule a ruling in the LoAR 9/90 p.16] (LoAR 12/91 p.9).


[A water lily slipped and leaved vs. a touch-me-not flower slipped and leaved ] "There is a CD for type of flower, but after comparison of the emblazons we did not feel that we could in good faith apply X.2." (LoAR 12/91 p.20).


[Three roses two and one, only charge group on field] "Conflict with... three cinquefoils... There is... nothing for the minor change between cinquefoils and roses." (LoAR 2/92 p.19).


[On a trefoil slipped three hearts points to center] "The radial arrangement of the tertiary charges is not period style, and their placement makes this effectively 'a shamrock... voided...' which is not permissible because it becomes effectively 'thin-line' heraldry." (LoAR 2/92 p.20).


[Purpure, on a cross quarter-pierced argent four lilies pendant checky purpure and argent slipped and leaved vert ] "The identifiability of the flowers is severly hampered by the checky treatment of the blossoms. (See RfS VIII.3. Armorial Identifiability.)" [The device was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 4/92 p.23).


[Sable a <charge> sinister facing and on a chief argent three trefoils vert ] "Conflict with... Sable a <charge> and on a chief argent three trees eradicated proper... there is one CD for the orientation of the primary charge but the change to type only of the tertiaries is not great enough to apply X.4.j.ii, and comparing the two emblazons graphically demonstrated the overwhelming visual similarity between these two devices." (LoAR 5/92 p.23).


FRET/FRETTY


"Evidence has been presented that 'a fret' and 'fretty' were considered interchangeable in period, so no difference can be granted between them." (LoAR 7/90 p.16).


[Azure, fretty Or, in bend sinister <two charges> vs. Azure fretty Or ] "Since fretty has been shown to be a charge rather than a field treatment in period, X.1 does not apply. There is only one CVD, for the addition of the <charges>." (LoAR 12/90 p.17).


[A saltire triple-parted and fretted] "Clear of...<a fretty only device>, with [a CVD] for the positioning of the 'laths'. While a medieval fretty field generally had three laths along each diagonal, they were evenly spaced out. The proximity of those here clearly make them a saltire." (LoAR 1/91 p.17).


[A catamount couchant guardant, head lowered...] "The primary here is not in a heraldic posture. Nearly every commenter noted that it appeared in a very naturalistic position, crouched upon an (invisible) rock...Nor was the bordure truly fretty, but a kind of semy of lozenges [no interlace lines]. Were there only one of these problems, we would very likely have registered it and told the submitter to 'draw the X correctly'; as it is we felt that a new emblazon is in order." (LoAR 2/91 p.18).


[A fret vert within a bordure gules] "Conflict...with... a fret couped [vert] within a bordure sable, with but a single CVD...for...changing [the bordure's] tincture." [implying that couping the fret isn't sufficient for a CVD] (LoAR 2/91 p.21).


[A bordure triple-parted and fretted] "Bordures cannot be parted and fretted in this manner. (Picture doing it on a roundel, for example...Where would the fretting be?)." (LoAR 4/91 p.14).


[A sea-dragon and a label] "Clear of...a sea-dragon erect within a saltire parted and fretted argent. As Morgan's could just as well (or perhaps better) be blazoned Azure, a sea-dragon erect between two bendlets and two bendlets sinister fretted argent, we see two CVDs for changing the type and number of the secondaries." (LoAR 6/91 p.2).


[Two swords palewise, the dexter inverted, and two arrows fesswise, the topmost pointed to sinister, all fretted ] "The fretting of two different kinds of charge in four different directions is not Period style (see RfS VIII.4.d)." (LoAR 12/91 p.21).


FRUIT, VEGETABLE and SPICE


"Cloves 'proper' are hereby defined as being dark brown." (LoAR 7/90 p.1).


FUR


"Argent, ermined gules, is a CVD from ermine." (LoAR 7/90 p.6).


"Proper is not a tincture - it is heraldic shorthand. The badgers' heads are argent, marked sable. That's two tinctures. While vair may be listed in the glossary under tinctures, the fact that it is a neutral fur is because it consists of both a metal and a color. Its visual complexity is such that it looks like two tinctures." [a 'complexity count' was made on the above premises] (LoAR 4/91 p.15).


[An ermine field, a Celtic uncial T counterchanged] "Additionally, the counterchanging of the ermine spots over the edges of the charge significantly reduces its identifiability." [Returned primarily for use of a single letter or abstract symbol.] (LoAR 8/91 p.24).


["Ermine, a rose sable, barbed and seeded proper and on a gore azure ermined argent a rose argent, barbed and seeded proper ] "While this submission did indeed come out before the institution of the ban on charged gores, the commentary was nearly unanimous that the use of ermining on both the field and the peripheral charge was very complex and not period style." (LoAR 3/92 p.15).


GORE AND GUSSET


[A cross, vs. a cross in chief between two gores ] "There is a CVD for moving the cross to chief and another for the addition of the gores." [implying the move to chief isn't forced by adding the gores] (LoAR 9/90 p.1).


"The gores are incorrectly drawn, even for a roundel-shaped field: they would not be symmetrical along the fess line, but would touch in base." [The device was returned because of conflict and, perhaps, because of this problem] (LoAR 10/90 p.15).


"On and after June 1, 1991, the College will no longer register charged sides or tierces." (CL 3/8/91 p.1).


"Based on the consensus of those commenting on this issue, the College will ban the use of charged gores and charged gussets, matching the ban on charged tierces. Uncharged gores, gussets and tierces will continue to be registerable. Any charged gores or gussets currently pending at Laurel will be processed as having been 'in the pipeline' before the ban went into effect. Therefore, after March 1, 1992, we will no longer register charged gores or gussets." (CL 12/21/91 p.2).


[A gurges... overall on a sinister gore a <charge> ] "This is four layers (field, gurges, gore <charge>). There is serious doubt as to whether peripheral charges (e.g., bordures, chiefs, gores, etc.) may be used as an overall charge in this manner. Certainly we would much prefer to see some evidence of its acceptability in Period before registering it in the SCA." (LoAR 2/92 p.18).


GOUTTE


[Charges blazoned as flames voided in the LoI and emblazoned as gouttes voided ] "The gouttes of flame are too complex to void. Voiding (and fimbriation) have been pretty much restricted to ordinaries or similarly simple charges for some time now." (LoAR 10/91 p.18).


GURGES


"It is our understanding that whirlpools or gurges are used as a single, throughout charge on a field, and thus inappropriate for use as multiple secondaries." (LoAR 10/90 p.19).


[A German version of the gurges, a.k.a. a snail, a.k.a. (and finally blazoned as) a schneke ] "Given that the College of Arms has already adopted such German charges as the seeblatt and nesselblatt into its blazonry, we saw no reason not to accept the German blazon for this charge as well." (LoAR 1/91 p.7).


[A gurges... overall on a sinister gore a <charge> ] "This is four layers (field, gurges, gore <charge>). There is serious doubt as to whether peripheral charges (e.g., bordures, chiefs, gores, etc.) may be used as an overall charge in this manner. Certainly we would much prefer to see some evidence of its acceptability in Period before registering it in the SCA." (LoAR 2/92 p.18).


HAND AND GAUNTLET


[Clenched gauntlet aversant vs. default dexter gauntlet ] "There is only one CVD for addition of the [secondary group]." [implying no difference for clenching] (LoAR 7/90 p.14).


"It is poor style to use two similar but non-identical charges in a a single group. For example, using a sword and two poinards in a sheaf... has been cause for return in the past. The use of two different types of gauntlets is likewise impermissible." (LoAR 7/91 p.21).


HEAD


[Five eagle's heads vs. three griffin's heads] "There is only one CVD for number of charges." [implying no difference between griffin's heads and eagle's heads] (LoAR 7/90 p.11).


[A cat's head couped sable as only charge] "Conflicts with... <different field> a lion's head erased sable...there is only one CVD, for the changes to the field." [implies no difference for cat to lion, or for couping vs. erasing] (LoAR 8/90 p.17).


"The differences between a buck's skull and a buck's head cabossed are nearly non-existent." (LoAR 9/90 p.15).


[Spearhead, charge submitted as an arrowhead] "While the submitter documented the form of a Tudor arrowhead in this shape, most heralds would see it first as a spearhead, hence we have reblazoned it thus. Given the gross changes in outline between a spearhead and a standard heraldic pheon or broad arrow, we do not see calling conflict between this and any of several pieces of armory with pheons inverted." (LoAR 10/90 p.10).


[Double flowered thistle] "Given the normal emblazon of thistles...wherein the leaves rather than the heads are the most visually prominent element, we could not see giving a CVD for the addition of the second head (not too dissimilarly to not granting a CVD for the difference between an eagle and a double-headed eagle)." (LoAR 10/90 p.14).


"There was nothing about the skull which would make it identifiable as a lemming's skull, or indeed as necessarily a rodent's skull of any kind. Given the paucity of small animals' skulls in the Armorial and Ordinary, we question the appropriateness of such a charge." [The device was returned for this reason alone] (LoAR 11/90 p.15).


"The default helmet appears to be more akin to the classic barrel helm, and we could see a CVD between that and a morion helm." (LoAR 1/91 p.4).


[A keythong (male griffin's) head vs. an eagle's head ] "I do not believe that X.2, which requires substantial difference, can apply in this case." (LoAR 2/91 p.19).


[A ferret's head couped affronty proper] "There were two problems here: one is the identifiability of the 'ferret's' head as distinct from any other kind of beast's head in this position. The other is that ferrets appear to have no single defined 'proper' tincture, but can vary according to the season, etc." (LoAR 2/91 p.19).


"The weight of the commentary was clearly in favor of granting a CVD between an heraldic panther's head and a lion's head." (LoAR 4/91 p.10).


"While there appears to be no problem with a Jewish hat per se, the emblazoned hats on the device do not match either the submitter's own documentation or other documentation presented by Lords Batonvert and Habicht. That documentation shows almost all Jewish hats to have a ball atop the spike of the hat. If the submitter would be willing to redraw his hats so that they match the documented form for Jewish hats we see no bar to registration." (LoAR 7/91 p.22).


"The commentary was very nearly unanimous that there is not a CVD between a bison's head and a bull's head." (LoAR 8/91 p.14).


[A fox's head contourny erased vs. a gazelle's head contourny erased] "There is one CVD for the change to the type of the critter's head, but X.2 cannot be applied here." (LoAR 9/91 p.15).


"There is [a CVD]... for the difference between griffin's heads and eagle's heads." [overruling an implied precedent on the LoAR 7/90 p.11). (LoAR 10/91 p.1).


[A horse's head couped argent maned gules fimbriated Or ] "There are simply too many problems with the emblazon here to register this and tell the submitter to 'draw the X properly.' The greatest difficulty comes with the mane of the horse's head which, rather than being of flames proper, is gules, fimbriated Or. The mane is far too complex to fimbriate. (And there is some question as to whether 'maned of flames' is acceptable SCA style.) The suggestion by Lord Trefoil that we simply blazon the mane gules and tolerate its low contrast against the field as an artistic detail worth no heraldic difference will not work here. On this horse's head the mane is easily as significant as a pair of wings would be, and we would not allow them to break tincture either." (LoAR 10/91 p.17).


[A ram's head affronty] "Conflict with...a dragon's head cabossed... While there is a CD for type of primary charge, X.2 does not apply here." (LoAR 11/91 p.23).


[A mullet charged with a lynx's face] "Conflict with...on a mullet... a fox's mask... The change in type only of the tertiary, particularly since they are both animal's heads in the same position, is not sufficient for [a CD]." (LoAR 1/92 p.16).


[Three cranes' heads couped and conjoined at the beaks ] "Conflict with... sable three swan's heads... there is one CD for the arrangement of the primaries, but nothing for the change to type." (LoAR 5/92 p.24).


HEART


"There was some disagreement among the commenters as to whether or not the heart is a simple geometric charge which would qualify under X.4.j.ii, allowing change of type only to a tertiary to grant a second CVD." [Returned for conflict, implying no X.4.j.ii-qualification for hearts, and for other reasons of pretense.] (LoAR 7/91 p.19).


"The commentary on [X.4.j.ii] seemed to be reasonably clear. As a consequence, the application of X.4.j.ii. for the granting of a Clear Difference for substantial change of type of a tertiary will be applicable only to tertiaries on an ordinary or simple, geometric shape such as a lozenge, delf or roundel. It will not be applied to charges on mullets, suns or hearts." (CL 1/6/92 p.1).


IDENTIFIABILITY


[Per chevron gules and Or, upon a sun a laurel wreath all counterchanged, within a bordure... ] "The charges here are on the very edge of unidentifiability because of the counterchanging. Only the clarity of the laurel wreath in this design kept it from going beyond the bounds." (LoAR 7/90 p.1).


[A double-bitted axe lying on a per pale counterchanged field ] "There was some discussion regarding whether the axe fell under the ban on a long skinny charge counterchanged along its long axis. It was the consensus of the meeting...that the axe was clearly identifiable as an axe even though the haft was counterchanged." (LoAR 8/90 p.8).


"Another reason for not registering this particular badge, completely aside from the marshalling/dimidiation question, is the lack of identifiability of the charges, per VIII.3, which requires that 'elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability'. As many of the commenters noted, at least some of the charges on this dimidiated submission are almost totally unidentifiable." (LoAR 10/90 p.16).


"There was nothing about the skull which would make it identifiable as a lemming's skull, or indeed as necessarily a rodent's skull of any kind. Given the paucity of small animals' skulls in the Armorial and Ordinary, we question the appropriateness of such a charge." [The device was returned for this reason alone] (LoAR 11/90 p.15).


[Per chevron nebuly gules and purpure, three charges 2 and 1, not overlying the line of division ] "The complex line of division of the field was almost entirely unidentifiable at any range because of the extremely poor contrast between gules and purpure. This is a color combination which should be avoided when using a complex line of division." [the device was returned for this reason only] (LoAR 1/91 p.21).


[A unicorn rampant guardant] "The unicorn is unidentifiable as such in a guardant posture, as its most unique identifying feature, the horn, is entirely lost against the head." (LoAR 1/91 p.25).


[A ferret's head couped affronty proper] "There were two problems here: one is the identifiability of the 'ferret's' head as distinct from any other kind of beast's head in this position. The other is that ferrets appear to have no single defined 'proper' tincture, but can vary according to the season, etc." (LoAR 2/91 p.19).


[A bend sinister wavy azure on a vairy en point argent and sable field ] "The complex line of division of the primary is nearly impossible to identify on the multi-tinctured field." [the device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 4/91 p.11).


[A dance overall a griffin segreant queue forché counterchanged ] "The counterchanging of the complex overall charge over the complex primary may be considered too much because it breaks up the outline of both charges to an excessive degree." (Device returned for this and administrative reasons.) (LoAR 7/91 p.19).


[An ermine field, a Celtic uncial T counterchanged] "Additionally, the counterchanging of the ermine spots over the edges of the charge significantly reduces its identifiability." [Returned primarily for use of a single letter or abstract symbol.] (LoAR 8/91 p.24).


[Sable, a saltire dovetailed gyronny purpure and argent ] "There are two problems with this device. One is that the combination of a dovetailed line on a gyronny saltire is pretty clearly post-Period style. Even though the SCA has long allowed the use of dovetailed as compatible with our style, and has allowed the use of saltires gyronny, the combination seems obtrusively modern. (See RfS VIII.4.d.: 'Generally modern style in the depiction of individual elements or the total design may not be registered.') The second problem is RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability. The purpure portions of the saltire, with its complex line of division, fade so badly into the sable field that the identification of the primary charge is lost." (LoAR 9/91 p.16).


[Lozengy gules and Or, on a pile gules a <tertiary charge> ] "This particular design is just acceptable. Because of the nearly parallel lines of the lozengy field and the pile, the outline of the primary is almost too badly broken up to be identifiable. The best analogy for allowing this is an ordinary counter-compony or checky sharing a tincture with the field. But it would have been better on a field whose division lines did not so closely follow the line of the ordinary." (LoAR 11/91 p.9).


[Bendy sinister of eight,a sword bendwise inverted counterchanged ] "The counterchanging of the sword on the field renders its identifiability extremely problematical. The silhouette is so broken up by the counterchanging across the bendy field that it becomes extremely difficult to identify, defeating one of the basic principles of period-style heraldry, quick identification." (LoAR 11/91 p.18).


[Two spurs fesswise conjoined at the rowel] "The identifiability of the spurs conjoined in this manner is marginal." [The armory was registered] (LoAR 12/91 p.9).


[Quarterly, an increscent within four mullets of four points in cross counterchanged ] "The counterchanging of the primary and secondary charges is excessive, and reduces their identifiability to an unacceptable degree." (LoAR 12/91 p.17).


[A sword palewise transfixing five rabbits] "Although the rabbit and sword combination charge was drawn much larger on the full size emblazon, and hence were more easily identifiable than on the mini-emblazon, the identifiability of these charges is just within the range of acceptability." (LoAR 1/92 p.11).


[A bend sinister, overall a lion rampant guardant contourny within a bordure fleury counterchanged ] "Counterchanging an animate charge over an ordinary greatly diminishes its identifiability. That in conjunction with the counterchanging of the complex bordure is simply too much." [The device was returned] (LoAR 1/92 p.14).


[Per pale, a saltire engrailed counterchanged debruised by a <charge> between in pale two <other charges> Or ] "The counterchanging, hidden as it is by the <charges> makes it difficult to recognize quickly what is going on with the field and saltire in this device. However, we felt that it was just within acceptable limits." (LoAR 2/92 p.13).


[Per chevron nebuly sable and purpure, in base a <charge> argent ] "The complex line of division on the large emblazon was impossible to define at any distance. The very best we could tell was that it was not a plain line of division. RFS VIII.3 requires that all armorial elements be identifiable. The complex line of division here is not." (LoAR 3/92 p.14).


[...on a pile rayonny argent a sea-ounce sable, its head argent marked sable, crested and finned azure ] "The identifiability of the 'sea-ounce' is severely reduced by both the azure 'crest' and the fact that the head is primarily argent on the argent pile. It thus does not meet the requirements of RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability." (LoAR 3/92 p.15).


[<field> a rose and on a gore a rose] "The use of two different sizes of the same charge (the primary and the tertiary) has been grounds for return in the past, as they make it harder to identify just what is going on on the field, belonging as they do to two different charge groups." [the main reason for return was non-period ermining on both primary and peripheral charge] (LoAR 3/92 p.15).


"The majority of the commenters seemed to feel that squirrels' hides are as identifiable as any other kind of hide." (LoAR 4/92 p.12)


[Two sprays of ripe barleycorn and fructed olive proper, shaped like a wreath ] "Nearly every commenter found the wreath of barleycorn and olive to be too much like the required laurel wreath for branch arms. Additionally, combining two different types of charge into a single visual unit, as is done here with the barleycorn and olive, is visually confusing and poor practice." [The badge was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 4/92 p.16).


[Per pale and per chevron argent and azure, on an eagle displayed a kleestengeln counterchanged sable and argent... ] "The counterchanging of the eagle breaks up the outline to such an extent that identifiability becomes problematical. We believe the counterchanging here to be excessive per RfS VIII.3." (LoAR 4/92 p.16).


[Purpure, on a cross quarter-pierced argent four lilies pendant checky purpure and argent slipped and leaved vert ] "The identifiability of the flowers is severly hampered by the checky treatment of the blossoms. (See RfS VIII.3. Armorial Identifiability.)" [The device was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 4/92 p.23).


[A sword per chevron] "A long skinny charge may not be divided per chevron in this manner. The line of division is not identifiable, thus falling afoul of RfS VII.7.a." (LoAR 5/92 p.24).


INSECT


"It seems to be the consensus of the College that a fly rampant and clad in motley exceeds the informal 'Rule of two Weirdnesses' and given the College's feelings about birds in a rampant position it is unlikely that a rampant insect would be any more acceptable." (LoAR 5/91 p.11).


[Argent, semy of cockroaches sable...] "This is being returned under RfS I.2, Offense. This general principle states that 'no submission will be registered that is detrimental to the educational purposes or good name of the Society, or the enjoyment of its participants because of offense that may be caused, intentionally or unintentionally, by its use.' Given the universally negative reaction of the commenters to this semy charge, it is believed that a significant percentage of the populace of the SCA will find this device so offensive as to reduce their enjoyment of and participation in SCA activities." (LoAR 12/91 p.19).


"As for the argument in the LoI that a black widow is 'a thing, a critter, a two word noun', if the College were to have to consider this submission on those grounds alone this would have to be returned, since the name 'black widow' was not given to the spider until early in the 20th century (the earliest citation is 1927), well after the Society's 1600 cut-off date. (The arachnid is not itself native to the Americas, but was brought into this hemisphere in the late 19th or early 20th century from the Far East.)" (LoAR 4/92 p.24).


[Semy of butterflies] "Versus... semy of bees... the majority of the commenters did not have a problem applying X.2 between butterflies and bees here." (LoAR 6/92 p.9).


[A two-tailed scorpion] "Conflict with... a lobster displayed... The visual similarity between this scorpion and a lobster is too great to grant a [CD]." (LoAR 6/92 p.16).


INSTRUMENTS


"When registered in February 1984, the secondaries were blazoned as 'weaver's sleas', which term has since appeared to be incorrect, weaver's sleas being a much more squared off charge. In the interests of accuracy and consistency...we are reblazoning the secondaries on Marta [Marina's] device [as stick shuttles]." [Note: this was the defining instance] (LoAR 9/90 p.4).


[A delf ... pierced two and two] "There was a lot of discussion about the submitted blazon, which called the charge a weaving tablet. While several of the commenters recognized it (and the submitter has demonstrated its existence well within period), they tended to be those who had used weaving tablets. We have therefore modified the blazon to ensure reproducibility without specialized knowledge or experience in fiber arts." (LoAR 10/90 p.10).


"While sympathetic with those who would blazon these as 'square weaver's tablets' or 'weaving cards', the existence of weaving tablets with five holes made Laurel less willing to do so, and so we have retained the 'delfs pierced two and two' of the earlier registration of this charge." (LoAR 1/91 p.11).


"Lord Batonvert has documented double-pointed knitting needles as having been used in the time of the Roman empire." (LoAR 7/91 p.2).


"The majority of the commenters favored changing the blazon of these charges from delfs pierced two and two to square weaver's tablets. This then is the defining example of square weaver's tablets (with four holes, one in each corner). There are examples of weaver's tablets in other shapes and with other numbers of holes. If used, these other forms must be specifically blazoned." [This supersedes a ruling on the LoAR 10/90 p.10] (LoAR 9/91 p.10).


"Sewing needles are point to base by SCA default." (LoAR 2/92 p.5)


KNOT


"We have no trouble granting a CVD between a quatrefoil knot and a triquetra." (LoAR 1/91 p.6).


[A square knot of thorn] "Conflict with... {Fieldless} A Bourchier knot. There is one CVD for fieldlessness, but nothing for tincture or the difference between rope and thorns." (LoAR 10/91 p.19).


[A reef knot bendwise sinister throughout between two <charges> ] "We would have preferred to see some documentation that knots throughout are a Period style, but since none of the commenters mentioned any problems with this we did not feel comfortable returning it for modern style at this time." (LoAR 6/92 p.5).


LAMP


"The lantern with its transparent 'glass' is not done in a period manner. As was noted in the commentary, the College has a long history of disallowing transparent objects." (LoAR 8/91 p.22).


LEAF


[Oak leaves vs. leaves of Ladies Mantle] "There is a CD... for type." (LoAR 11/91 p.6).


[Per bend Or and sable, in pale two linden leaves stems issuant from the line of division between in bend sinister two crosses of five lozenges all counterchanged...] "Although this line of division has been documented (and registered in the SCA) previously, every period instance that we could find lacked other charges. Given the problems demonstrated here in the distortion of the leaves, we can understand why. This line of division with charges on the field appears to be non-Period style." (LoAR 3/92 p.15).


LEG and FOOT


"There is no difference between a bear's paw and a bear's jambe." (LoAR 1/91 p.25).


[Three hawk's legs couped contourny] "Conflict with... three eagle's legs erased.. There is one CVD for [a different change - implying that no difference between a bird's leg and a bird's leg contourny.]" (LoAR 9/91 p.16).


LETTERS AND ABSTRACT SYMBOLS


[A letter 'fleury'] "It was the concensus of the commenters that the ban on 'initial' badges by Mistress Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane (LoAR of 25 January 1987, p.16) should be maintained, whatever the 'typeface' or style of the initial." (LoAR 11/90 p.13).


[A quaver (musical note)] "In keeping with prior Laurel rulings on this issue, just as a badge may not consist solely of a single letter, neither may it consist solely of a single abstract symbol." (LoAR 2/91 p.16).


LINES OF PARTITION


"The difference between raguly and embattled is not sufficient for the second [CVD]." (LoAR 10/90 p.15).


[A fess between a set of dissimilar secondaries and a nebuly bordure ] "This is too complex. It is right at the Rule of Thumb limit for charge types and tinctures, and the complex line of division on the bordure pushes it over the line of unacceptability." (LoAR 11/90 p.15).


[A bend potenty on the lower edge] "Conflict with [a plain bend]. Were the ordinary in this proposal potenty on both sides, it would be clear, but the majority of the commenters (and Laurel) did not feel that difference should be granted for this non-period treating of only one (and that the less visually important) side of an ordinary. The only period examples of treating one side of an ordinary which were noted was that of embattling the upper edge of an ordinary." (LoAR 11/90 p.15).


[Per chevron nebuly gules and purpure, three charges 2 and 1, not overlying the line of division ] "The complex line of division of the field was almost entirely unidentifiable at any range because of the extremely poor contrast between gules and purpure. This is a color combination which should be avoided when using a complex line of division." [the device was returned for this reason only] (LoAR 1/91 p.21).


[A bordure parted bordurewise indented] "The bordure was blazoned as 'indented-in-point' in the LoI. The above blazon, though not quite as elegant, is believed to be clearer." (LoAR 2/91 p.12).


[Three chevronels braced, flory at the points, with charges in chief ] "Conflict with...three chevrons interlaced...There is a CVD for the addition of the secondaries in chief, but the addition of the three fleurs to the points of the chevronels, being visually equivalent to 'held' charges, is insufficient for the second." (LoAR 2/91 p.16).


[Comparing armory using a per chevron field with armory using a point pointed ] "There is a CVD for...modifying the line of division of the field from straight to 'ploy‚' or embowed to base." (LoAR 3/91 p.3).


[A bend sinister wavy azure on a vairy en point argent and sable field ] "The complex line of division of the primary is nearly impossible to identify on the multi-tinctured field." [the device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 4/91 p.11).


"Some lines of division such as embattled/raguly/dovetailed , not being significantly different, are granted no difference." (LoAR 5/91 p.4).


"The chevron is not drawn fracted as blazoned (truly fracted, the 'broken' section's lower edge would touch the upper edge of the 'unbroken' portions of the chevron). As drawn it is not really blazonable and thus not registerable." (LoAR 5/91 p.10).


[Per fess indented of five points] "Because the emblazon requires blazoning the number of points of the line of division of the field to make the design work, this is not particularly period style, but is not poor enough style to return." (LoAR 7/91 p.5).


"There is not [a CVD] for the enarching of the fess." (LoAR 8/91 p.16).


"The bend invected on one edge [upper] and engrailed on the other is not very good style, though it is probably within the parameters of acceptability for the SCA." (LoAR 9/91 p.4).


"Versus...a chevron raguly of two bastons couped at the top.. there is... [a CVD] for the difference between a chevron embattled (throughout its length) and one with 'two bastons couped at the top.'" (LoAR 9/91 p.14).


[Sable, a saltire dovetailed gyronny purpure and argent ] "There are two problems with this device. One is that the combination of a dovetailed line on a gyronny saltire is pretty clearly post-Period style. Even though the SCA has long allowed the use of dovetailed as compatible with our style, and has allowed the use of saltires gyronny, the combination seems obtrusively modern. (See RfS VIII.4.d.: 'Generally modern style in the depiction of individual elements or the total design may not be registered.') The second problem is RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability. The purpure portions of the saltire, with its complex line of division, fade so badly into the sable field that the identification of the primary charge is lost." (LoAR 9/91 p.16).


"Engrailed, Invected and Indented. The period evidence regarding whether or not heralds granted difference between these three lines of division is not entirely clear. It would appear that certainly in early heraldic history that indented and engrailed were used interchangeably. However, invected is a later period line of division, apparently considered different from engrailed and indented. There is also some evidence that in late period engrailed and indented had achieved separate identities. As a consequence, I feel it behooves us to continue granting a Difference between engrailed, invected and indented lines of division." (CL 11/12/91 p.12).


[Per pale indented, the points ending in mullets, vs. per pale indented ] "There is... [a CVD] for modifying the line of division with the mullets." [see related ruling LoAR 2/91 p.16]. (LoAR 10/91 p.3).


[Chevronels, drawn and blazoned 'enarched' in LoI, blazoned simply as chevronels in LoAR ] "The enarching of the chevronels is artistic. The 'chevron enarched' as shown in Parker has a normal straight chevron with an arch conjoined to the bottom edge, very much different from those here." (LoAR 11/91 p.1).


[A fess bretessed] "Please tell the client that the fess should have at least three embrasures, as opposed to the two on the emblazon." (LoAR 12/91 p.2).


"Submitted on the LoI as 'wavy bretessy', a better blazon would be 'wavy counter-wavy'. However neither really describes this non-Period treatment of a bend nor has such a treatment been previously found to be compatible with Period practice (see RfS VII.2 and VII.6)." (LoAR 12/91 p.21).


[Per pale embattled barry sable and Or and vert, drawn with each bar fitting exactly into each segment of the embattling ] "The matching up of the bars with the embattlements of the per pale line is so unusual as to be disconcerting. Please inform the submitter that it is unlikely that someone else drawing this device from the blazon would match them quite so precisely." [The device was passed] (LoAR 1/92 p.5).


[Per fess indented of two points] "It is not terribly good practice to blazon the number of points of the indented line, but seems within the bounds of SCA practice." (LoAR 1/92 p.8).


[A pale convex] "While the submitter has fixed one of the problems [of the previous return], the other remains. The notes made by Laurel in the file at that time state that 'a pale convex is not a heraldic charge.' The blazon submitted for it in the LoI, 'embowed', does not accurately describe the emblazon." (LoAR 1/92 p.18).


"Lord Laurel is unsure of the propriety of registering a dovetailed line of division on a chaussé field." [He registered it and solicited comment] (LoAR 2/92 p.9).


"The 'saxonized' line of partition on the primary is a modern invention which has not been deemed compatible with SCA practice." (LoAR 3/92 p.13).


[Per chevron nebuly sable and purpure, in base a <charge> argent ] "The complex line of division on the large emblazon was impossible to define at any distance. The very best we could tell was that it was not a plain line of division. RFS VIII.3 requires that all armorial elements be identifiable. The complex line of division here is not." (LoAR 3/92 p.14).


[Per bend Or and sable, in pale two linden leaves stems issuant from the line of division between in bend sinister two crosses of five lozenges all counterchanged...] "Although this line of division has been documented (and registered in the SCA) previously, every period instance that we could find lacked other charges. Given the problems demonstrated here in the distortion of the leaves, we can understand why. This line of division with charges on the field appears to be non-Period style." (LoAR 3/92 p.15).


MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES


"While there was some discussion regarding whether or not valknuts were thin-line heraldry, by definition they look like this, and it was our feeling that they should not then fall under the ban on thin-line heraldry in the same way that, say, a compass star voided would." (LoAR 8/90 p.9).


"We are dubious of the acceptability of the 'Moorish hair brooch' as an heraldic charge. The only extant registration was in 1975 to Alysse of Graedon." [The submissions using this charge were returned, but also were returned for name reasons] (LoAR 8/90 p.15).


"There is really no 'proper' for a jester's bauble (or motley)." [Superceded on LoAR 1/91 p.13] (LoAR 9/90 p.17).


"A spiderweb is not a field treatment, it is a charge." (LoAR 10/90 p.12).


"Commentary seemed generally favorable to allowing gemstones as charges, and since Lord Batonvert found period armory using a faceted gemstone, they will be permitted in SCA armory. However, no difference can be counted for them against delfs, billets, pillows, and other gemstones of any cut." (LoAR 12/90 p.6).


[A default azure feather vs. a proper peacock plume ] "There is one CVD...for the change in type of feather. The peacock plume...is quite distinct in shape, with a prominent 'eye', and some difference in coloration from a solid azure feather." (LoAR 12/90 p.11).


"A jester's bauble proper would have a white face and brown stick, with the vesting tinctures blazoned specifically." [superceding comments on LoAR 9/90 p.17] (LoAR 1/91 p.13).


"We have no difficulty with blazoning the specific type of musket, though of course it would not count for difference from any other type of period musket. We believe, however, that a 'musket proper' would have a brown wood stock and black metal parts." (LoAR 1/91 p.15).


"The passion nails were blazoned on the LoI as fusils, but (i) fusils do not have an independent existence as a charge, and (ii) the asymmetry of the charges here made them to clearly be passion nails." (LoAR 1/91 p.17).


"The natural rainbow proper has extremely poor contrast with the sable field, enough so that its identifiability is significantly reduced." [returned for this and other reasons] (LoAR 1/91 p.20).


"There is no problem with the fess conjoined to a demi-pale; it is definitely a period charge." (LoAR 1/91 p.24).


"There is no heraldic difference between vetu and a lozenge or lozenge throughout." (LoAR 2/91 p.17).


"A single 10-year old instance of the prior registration of a 'Celtic Triquetrum brooch' is not sufficient precedent to demonstrate either its compatibility or reproducibility. There is serious question about the recovery of the emblazon from the blazon." [the device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 6/91 p.17).


[A sash in annulo, knotted in base, sable] "The sash is not a recognized heraldic charge. Additionally, the submitter's form indicates that the precise form of sash is to be 'a karate belt with the white stripes'. We need evidence that this belt has not only been earned by the submitter, but that it is a Period charge." [overruled in the LoAR 5/92 p.19] (LoAR 9/91 p.20).


[Two spurs fesswise conjoined at the rowel] "The identifiability of the spurs conjoined in this manner is marginal." [The armory was registered] (LoAR 12/91 p.9).


"No evidence was presented that a sai is a period artifact, and it is likely that it is a post-period artifact." [The main reason for return was conflict] (LoAR 12/91 p.22).


[Quarterly... a mascle counterchanged] "The device is right at the very edge of acceptability, being highly reminiscent of a modern 'op art' style." (LoAR 2/92 p.15).


[On a spiderweb, a spider between three <charges> vs. a spiderweb ] "Spiderwebs are throughout by default and thus there cannot be a CD for 'throughoutness' here. A spiderweb is not like any of the other field treatments, in that no part of it reflects the same pattern as the whole. In this way it much more closely resembles a gurges, which is a charge. Thus, there is only one CD... for the addition of the overall charges." [Note: this implies that all overall charges are one group] (LoAR 2/92 p.20).


"As Lord Trefoil noted, the 'lion's pelt' does not appear to meet the identification and reconstruction requirements of VII.7.a and b in the Rules for Submission. Pelts are normally displayed as hides rather than like a fleece, as here. Yet we could not bring ourselves to allow an invented new charge, the 'lion's fleece'. And calling it a lion would not help because of the very unusual 'posture' of the beast (which is essentially unblazonable. The closest anyone could suggest was 'herissony', which really doesn't describe it." (LoAR 2/92 p.24).


[Snowflake vs. Escarbuncle] "[There is] one CD... for the difference in the type." (LoAR 4/92 p.10).


"The majority of the commenters seemed to feel that squirrels' hides are as identifiable as any other kind of hide." (LoAR 4/92 p.12)


[A device using three points] "Although all three 'points' are mentioned in heraldic tracts, in practice only the base one appears to have been used; and even in the tracts, the dexter and sinister points are described as abatements of honor, to be used separately, and not in conjunction." [The device was returned for this reason in conjunction with complexity and a difficult-to-identify semy] (Loar 4/92 p.19).


"We do not believe we can grant any difference between a cupping glass and an inescutcheon, as the cupping glass is in exact outline of one of the standard escutcheon shapes... (An inescutcheon, or a cupping glass, is not an ordinary or similarly simple geometric charge for the purposes of [X.4.j.ii])" (LoAR 4/92 p.24).


"Despite Lord Laurel's (and Lord Batonvert's) remaining questions regarding the use of a sash as a Period heraldic charge, nearly all of the other commenters wholeheartedly supported the appeal to allow its use." [overruling the LoAR 9/91 p.20] (LoAR 5/92 p.19).


[Per fess wavy azure and argent, a bar wavy azure, overall <a charge group> ] "The visual effect of the bottom half of the field (which is drawn as less than half the field) is of a field per fess wavy azure barry wavy argent and azure. Blazoned this way this is a conflict with <charge group>, with one CD for the field." (LoAR 5/92 p.20).


"The opinion of the commenting heralds was unanimous that a maunch is too complex a charge to be counterchanged over an ordinary." (LoAR 5/92 p.27).


"The commentary was nearly unanimous that the charge of a 'dragon's eye' is no longer acceptable for registration in the SCA." (LoAR 6/92 p.14).


"As drawn in the large emblazon the primary is not really recognizable as an astrolabe. It has cutouts in it through which the field shows which are not found on a real astrolabe. Drawn correctly as an astrolabe, this conflicts with...[a roundel, with] nothing for the internal diapering of the primary (similar to the conflict between a moon in her plenitude and a plate.)" (LoAR 6/92 p.15).


MODERN STYLE


[Je Nell, a mundane given name, used as an SCA middle name ] "While the addition of Je Nell was somewhat intrusive, it was not sufficiently so to cause return of the name." (LoAR 9/90 p.5).


[The name "Joe <Barony name>"] "The formation of the entire name brought modern connotations of 'Joe Cool' to nearly every commenter. As a consequence, we felt that given this overwhelming reaction, that we had to return this for obtrusive modernity." (LoAR 9/90 p.17).


[Sunblocker] "Nearly every commenter remarked on the modern connotations of the epithet, hence we are dropping it because of obtrusive modernity." (LoAR 10/90 p.8).


[A beast tergiant, overall three barrulets indented] "This design (as is almost any 'road kill' heraldry) is obtrusively modern, in violation of RfS VIII.4." (LoAR 10/90 p.15).


[A mask of comedy, between hands, in a particular style... ] "The style of this badge is obtrusively modern. {I mean, c'mon, a smiling face sticking its tounge out at the viewer with its thumbs in its ears waggling its fingers?!}" (LoAR 10/90 p.17).


[A tower corked at the top] "The cork in the tower is really not period style, and is by itself sufficient grounds for return." (LoAR 1/91 p.27). [<territory> Tank Corps] "The name here is intrusively modern. The fact that the individual elements may be period (though with different meanings than the submitters are desirous of) is overwhelmed by the modern connotations of the phrase." (LoAR 2/90 p.17).


[A catamount couchant guardant, head lowered...] "The primary here is not in a heraldic posture. Nearly every commenter noted that it appeared in a very naturalistic position, crouched upon an (invisible) rock...Nor was the bordure truly fretty, but a kind of semy of lozenges [no interlace lines]. Were there only one of these problems, we would very likely have registered it and told the submitter to 'draw the X correctly'; as it is we felt that a new emblazon is in order." (LoAR 2/91 p.18).


[Annulets of five mullets conjoined] "The clusters of stars (besides reminding everyone of nothing so much as a five-star general's insignia) are not period style and are intrusively modern." (LoAR 2/91 p.22).


"The 'sea serpent ondoyant emergent' has been returned before for non-period style' (LoAR of June 1990, p.13)."


[Rolling Thunder] "That the natural phenomenon of 'a long drawn-out thunderclap' existed in period has never been an issue in previous returns of this name; the modern connotations of the name have been. The OED does not cite instances of 'roll' with either drums or thunder until well after period (1688 and 1700, respectively). The name is not period style but is obtrusively modern." (LoAR 4/91 p.13).


"It is poor style to use two similar but non-identical charges in a a single group. For example, using a sword and two poinards in a sheaf... has been cause for return in the past. The use of two different types of gauntlets is likewise impermissible." (LoAR 7/91 p.21).


"The use of two similar but non-identical charges in a group has been cause for return many times in the past. A scroll is one kind of book and a book is another." (LoAR 7/91 p.24).


[Two chevronels, one sable and one azure, between secondary charges ] "[In addition to the conflict problem,] there is also the problem that we have no evidence that multi-colored diminutives of ordinaries were ever used in Period." (LoAR 8/91 p.14).


[Two chevronels cotised] "Several commenters questioned whether there was any documentation for cotising multiple ordinaries. Without such documentation we are hesitant to introduce yet another post-Period practice into SCA heraldry." [The device was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 8/91 p.20).


[Wovenwood] "No documentation was presented to show that it was constructed on a Period pattern per RfS II.2." (LoAR 8/91 p.20).


"The lantern with its transparent 'glass' is not done in a period manner. As was noted in the commentary, the College has a long history of disallowing transparent objects." (LoAR 8/91 p.22).


"The problem is that 'Newest South Wales' [the translation of the submitted place] presupposes a 'New South Wales', which is a provably post-period place." (LoAR 8/91 p.24).


[A fret conjoined in saltire with four mice tergiant sable ] "The large number of suggested reblazons for the primary on this device (including a 'fret vermined') is indicative of its non-Period style. We have seen no evidence at all for a fret terminating in a beast of any kind." (LoAR 8/91 p.24).


"While the English term 'iceberg' is clearly post-Period, given the large number of cognates in so many northern European languages we feel that the name is probably acceptable." (LoAR 9/91 p.10).


[Latin Household name, meant to mean "Dead Historian's Society" ] "In addition to the name being, even in Latin, an obtrusively modern take-off of a movie title and not Period in style, the grammar is incorrect...(All this leaving aside the question, of course, as to whether the household's members are all dead.)" (LoAR 9/91 p.15).


"The use of two bendlets way up to one side [in sinister chief] severely unbalances the device. With four tinctures and four types of charge this is right at the limit of complexity. Combined with the use of what are normally central ordinaries as peripheral charges and the unusual treatment in the 'veiling' of the cross, this must be returned for complexity and for non-Period style." (LoAR 9/91 p.16).


[Sable, a saltire dovetailed gyronny purpure and argent ] "There are two problems with this device. One is that the combination of a dovetailed line on a gyronny saltire is pretty clearly post-Period style. Even though the SCA has long allowed the use of dovetailed as compatible with our style, and has allowed the use of saltires gyronny, the combination seems obtrusively modern. (See RfS VIII.4.d.: 'Generally modern style in the depiction of individual elements or the total design may not be registered.') The second problem is RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability. The purpure portions of the saltire, with its complex line of division, fade so badly into the sable field that the identification of the primary charge is lost." (LoAR 9/91 p.16)


"Moonsea is not a period style name. Barring documentation of similarly constructed names in English, this must be returned." (LoAR 9/91 p.18).


[Four stafford knots in saltire tassels inward between four crescents in cross horns inward ] "The four-fold symmetry of the submission is not period style and violates the strictures of Rules for Submission VIII.4. and VIII.4.d., Obtrusive Modernity." (LoAR 10/91 p.16).


[A horseshoe inverted each end ensigned with a fool's cap ] "Aside from its general shape, there is nothing to distinguish this horseshoe from the letter 'U'. {Ensigned with fool's caps, that would make this a 'fooled U'.} We would prefer to see some evidence that this is period style, rather than modern, before we register it." (LoAR 10/91 p.16).


[Willowind Manor] "We have also dropped the 'coined place name'. We need some kind of documentation that Willowind is formed in a period manner or otherwise based in period practice." (LoAR 11/91 p.14).


"With not one but two artistic problems with the device, we did not feel comfortable in registering it with the instruction that the submitter draw the 'X' properly." (LoAR 11/91 p.17).


"Lynnea is a post-period Swedish name from the surname Linnæus." (LoAR 11/91 p.18).


"RFS II.4 states that 'elements of the submitter's legal name may be used as the corresponding part of the Society name if such elements are not excessively obtrusive and do not violate other sections of these rules.' Unfortunately, Deyrni is 'excessively obtrusive', owing at least in part to the great popularity of Kathrine Kurtz's Deryni series. (That she is well known as a Countess in the SCA doesn't help, either). Nearly every commenter who had anything to say about this name noted the problem of reading the given as 'Deryni'." (LoAR 11/91 p.19).


[In pale three triangles inverted each within a triangle voided ] "Though apparently based on Japanese 'fish scales' (Hawley, p.86), the overall design is obtrusively modern (see RFS VIII.4.d). A much better design would have the three charges two and one on the field, or one and two. Placing them in pale makes them look like a modern corporate logo rather than a form of heraldic display, either European or Japanese." (LoAR 11/91 p.20).


[In bend a teasel slipped and leaved Or and a flax flower slipped and leaved argent ] "The use of two different types of plants in different orientations [one was somewhat out of the palewise true in the emblazon, although wasn't reflected in the blazon] and different tinctures is not period style. Prior Laurel precedent has indicated that we should not use two different kinds of charges of the same general type in a single charge group." (LoAR 11/91 p.21).


[A beast statant affronty] "The <beast> is in an heraldically unusual position; that, combined with the three-dimensionality of the charge as drawn, pushes it beyond the informal Rule of Two Weirdnesses." [The badge was returned] (LoAR 11/91 p.21).


"No documentation at all was submitted to demonstrate that Willowspoon makes sense as an occupational byname or that it is formed in a period manner or follows period name construction practices, as required by RfS II.3." [The name was returned for this reason] (LoAR 11/91 p.23).


"As several commenters noted, having the unicorn [salient] and sword in saltire is not good style." [However, despite this and some artistic problems, the device was still registered] (LoAR 12/91 p.2).


[A three-eared coney rampant holding a stick palewise ensigned with a reremouse displayed ] "The 'bat-kabob' is a serious 'weirdness', which the three-eared bunny almost pushes over the edge of acceptability." (LoAR 12/91 p.11).


[the Stonewise] "We have modified the name to drop the questionable byname. No documentation was presented for either this epithet or for a pattern of similar epithets." (LoAR 12/91 p.14).


[Per bend sinister, two scarpes enhanced] "The style of this badge is very unbalanced and obtrusively modern in design, in violation of RfS VIII.4.d." (LoAR 12/91 p.17).


"While 'Sea' is a reasonable byname element, there is nothing given in the LoI to indicate that 'Seawalker' is reasonable or formed in a Period manner. Would the client consider the byname 'Gobythesea', formed in the manner of Period exemplars found in Reaney's origins, p.289?" [the epithet was returned] (LoAR 12/91 p.18).


[Two swords palewise, the dexter inverted, and two arrows fesswise, the topmost pointed to sinister, all fretted ] "The fretting of two different kinds of charge in four different directions is not Period style (see RfS VIII.4.d)." (LoAR 12/91 p.21).


[Gyronny of four issuant from dexter chief, three <charges> in dexter gyron ] "The placement of the <charges> on a single portion of the gyronny field is very unusual and not Period style (see RfS VIII.4.d)." (LoAR 12/91 p.21).


[Per pall, two ravens addorsed counterchanged, in chief an estoile in soleil between two sprigs of mistletoe ] "This is not Period style and is too close to slot machine heraldry, having three different types of charge in what could be considered a standard heraldic arrangement on a per pall field. The 'estoile in soleil' is not something I think we wish to encourage, nor is the mirror symmetry of the entire device." (LoAR 12/91 p.22).


"No evidence was presented that a sai is a period artifact, and it is likely that it is a post-period artifact." [The main reason for return was conflict] (LoAR 12/91 p.22).


[Order of the Legion of the Sword of Honor] "The order name here does not appear to follow any Period order name that anyone could find. The use of multiple nouns modifying other nouns creates a semantic nightmare. Depending on how one interprets the structure of the various phrases in its name, this could be considered to conflict with the Order of the Sword or with the Legion of Honor." (LoAR 1/92 p.14).


[Per pall inverted checky argent and azure, argent, and vert, in pale <two different charges> ] "The style of this device is sufficiently modern to be grounds for return. The triply parted field, one of whose divisions is itself parted, is modern in appearance and unbalanced." (LoAR 1/92 p.15).


[<Norse name> "the Runesayer"] "The name has been modified to drop the intrusively modern epithet. 'The Runesayer' is not a Norse expression nor does it appear to be formed on a Period exemplar. Runes are not something that needed 'saying,' and the byname appears to be a modern fantasy idiom." (LoAR 2/92 p.1).


[The Foehammer] "The name has been modified to drop the epithet. Foehammer is not formed in the same pattern as the period names 'Bloodaxe' or 'Longsword.' Such epithets were normally formed along fairly literal lines; he carries a 'bloody (or blooded) axe', or carries a 'long sword.' This byname does not follow that pattern." (LoAR 2/92 p.7).


[Quarterly... a mascle counterchanged] "The device is right at the very edge of acceptability, being highly reminiscent of a modern 'op art' style." (LoAR 2/92 p.15).


[On a trefoil slipped three hearts points to center] "The radial arrangement of the tertiary charges is not period style, and their placement makes this effectively 'a shamrock... voided...' which is not permissible because it becomes effectively 'thin-line' heraldry." (LoAR 2/92 p.20).


[Azure, on a bend between six <secondary charges> bendwise in bend, a <tertiary charge> palewise ] "No evidence was presented that this style of device follows any Period exemplars. Normal practice both in Period and since would have been for the tertiary to follow the line of the bend and the secondaries to be palewise. To deliberately reverse the normal defaults for both the secondaries and the tertiary gives this a very post-Period look." (LoAR 2/92 p.21).


[Gyronny of six per pale... three <charges> alternating with three <different charges> ] "Prior Laurel precedent has returned alternating charges on a gyronny field (September 1988 LoAR, p.18). The one example of this style noted by Lord Codex in Italian armory has semys rather than single charges in each gyron. Given the weakness of this evidence, we are hesitant to register a design which has the appearance of being modern style." (LoAR 2/92 p.21).


[A bull courant affronty] "The primary is not in an heraldic position. The effect is of a bull charging out from the shield, which is a very modern style. If we might suggest the client consider 'statant affronty'?" (LoAR 2/92 p.22).


"Counterchanging a semy over an ordinary appears to be modern and not Period style." (LoAR 2/92 p.23).


[Per pall inverted vert, argent and purpure, in chief two chevronels counterchanged and in base a rose between four crescents in cross argent. ] "Despite a rule of thumb 'complexity count' of 'only' six (with three types of charge and three tinctures), this device is extremely complex. It does not appear to follow any period style of armory that any of the commenters could find. The counterchanging in chief, along with the unusual field division, places it beyond acceptable style." (LoAR 3/92 p.11).


[Stormcrow] "No justification or period precedent was included in the documentation for combining two surnames in this manner. (Smith and Jones appear in Reaney's dictionary of British Surnames, too, but we would not then register Jonesmith.) (LoAR 3/92 p.12).


"The 'saxonized' line of partition on the primary is a modern invention which has not been deemed compatible with SCA practice." (LoAR 3/92 p.13).


[Per bend Or and sable, in pale two linden leaves stems issuant from the line of division between in bend sinister two crosses of five lozenges all counterchanged...] "Although this line of division has been documented (and registered in the SCA) previously, every period instance that we could find lacked other charges. Given the problems demonstrated here in the distortion of the leaves, we can understand why. This line of division with charges on the field appears to be non-Period style." (LoAR 3/92 p.15).


["Ermine, a rose sable, barbed and seeded proper and on a gore azure ermined argent a rose argent, barbed and seeded proper ] "While this submission did indeed come out before the institution of the ban on charged gores, the commentary was nearly unanimous that the use of ermining on both the field and the peripheral charge was very complex and not period style." (LoAR 3/92 p.15).


[A rampant monster overlapping a bar in base so it appears to be standing on it, were it drawn in 3-d perspective ] "The biggest problem here is the partial overlaying of the primary charge on the bar. Medieval armory does not show perspective in this fashion." [The device was returned for this reason in combination with borderline complexity and the use of the forceny posture]. (LoAR 4/92 p.16).


"Sunhair is not a period style epithet, in that it does not appear to be formed in a Period manner. The closest that anyone could find for a similar epithet is Sherlock." (LoAR 4/92 p.19)


[Argent, a saltire quarter-pierced vert, overall a cross crosslet within a mascle sable ] "The very precise placement of the overall charges as well as their very thin line nature gives a very modern look to the entire device, bringing this afoul of RfS VIII.4.d, Modern Style. (If drawn to a proper size, however, the mascle and cross become cramped and hard to recognize, losing identifiability.)" (LoAR 4/92 p.24).


[Sable, on a vested arm fesswise embowed issuant from dexter holding a sword argent, a compass star sable, in chief a lit candle argent ] "The badge is very complex in that it is unbalanced and appears to have no cohesiveness or unity of design. As such it must be considered a non-period design." (LoAR 5/92 p.20).


"'Fire-lock' does not appear to be an epithetical name constructed on Period patterns of naming. Most descriptive epithets are much more literal, such as Dustiberd. As noted by one commenter, 'fire-hair' would appear to describe a cooking accident much more than a hair color." (LoAR 5/92 p.21).


[A reef knot bendwise sinister throughout between two <charges> ] "We would have preferred to see some documentation that knots throughout are a Period style, but since none of the commenters mentioned any problems with this we did not feel comfortable returning it for modern style at this time." (LoAR 6/92 p.5).


[Per pale lozengy Or and vert, and lozengy argent and purpure ] "Using two completely different pairs of tinctures on opposite sides of the per pale line of division seems to go well beyond Period practice here... We need documentation that this many colors on a field is a Period style before we may register it." (LoAR 6/92 p.14).


[In pale a dolphin embowed and a shark embowed to base contourny ] "The use of two very similar but different charges in the same group here is not Period style and is in fact not registerable by prior Laurel precedent (see, e.g., LoAR of 30 April 1989, p.6)." (LoAR 6/92 p.16).


MONSTER


[A winged serpent displayed vs. a wyvern, wings displayed, as primary charges ] "The overwhelming visual similarities between this winged serpent and a wyvern (removing the legs and changing the wings from 'bat-like' to feathered), in the same position, are too much to grant another [CVD]." (LoAR 8/90 p.15).


"The 'unicorn' is not a unicorn but a 'unicornate horse', which has been disallowed for some time." [one of a number of reasons for return] (LoAR 8/90 p.17).


[Dormant lion vs. couchant Egyptian sphinx, both in chief on differing per fess fields] "There is only one CVD, for the change to the field [implying no type difference]." (LoAR 8/90 p.18).


[Ypotryll dormant] "Versus [a dragon with the head and wings of an eagle couchant, wings displayed and addorsed], we believe that X.2 can be applied, even with the 'meatloaf' position here, owing to the very marked changes between the monsters." (LoAR 10/90 p.9).


[Double flowered thistle] "Given the normal emblazon of thistles...wherein the leaves rather than the heads are the most visually prominent element, we could not see giving a CVD for the addition of the second head (not too dissimilarly to not granting a CVD for the difference between an eagle and a double-headed eagle)." (LoAR 10/90 p.14).


[Winged lion-dragon passant guardant] "It was the opinion of those at the Laurel meeting that while X.2 could be invoked against [a lion passant guardant] (for the addition of the wings and change of lower half of the body), [a griffin passant] (for the change to head and tail), that the similarity of outline was not sufficient to apply X.2 against [a wyvern]. (The default posture for wyverns on the Continent is passant, hence there is no difference for posture.) Given that wyverns were sometimes emblazoned with feathered wings rather than bat-wings, this call became much trickier, with changes only to head and forelegs, the detailing of the lion vs. reptilian torso being of less visual weight. In the end we felt we had to say that while there was clearly a CVD for type, that not enough difference was there to apply X.2." (LoAR 10/90 pps.15-16).


[A dragon vs. a unicorn-headed dragon with lion's forepaws ] "The visual similarities of the dragon and [the other] monster (changes to head and forepaws only) are simply too great [for there to be a CVD]." (LoAR 1/91 p.24).


[A horned and winged demon] "There are two issues which came up in the commentary. The first is reproducibility of emblazon. Despite its appearance in the Armorial (one registered in 1978, the second used for a cant), there is some dispute as to whether there really is a standard heraldic depiction of a 'demon', with the majority of those commenting feeling that the wide variety of 'demons' in period art make the reproduction of the emblazon unlikely. The second issue is compatability and offensiveness. It would appear that demon imagery was symbolic of evil in every period religion which used it at all. All in all, the submitter would be better advised to use a different charge." [The device was returned for these reasons] (LoAR 10/90 p.18).


[A "troll", i.e. a headless tailed humanoid with a face in its belly ] "There were...a number of questions about the reproducibility of the emblazon from the blazon as there are a number of artistic variants of trolls." [The main reason for return being conflict] (LoAR 10/90 p.21).


[A monster composed of the body of a naked man and the head, wings and tail of a dragon ] "While this is within the bounds of permissibility (Lord Batonvert came up with some research documenting similar-looking demons and their usage in period heraldry), a number of commenters felt it was pushing at the limits of acceptability." (LoAR 12/90 p.12) "The 'sea serpent ondoyant emergent' has been returned before for non-period style' (LoAR of June 1990, p.13)." (LoAR 11/90 p.16).


[Winged natural tiger rampant] "Clear by X.2 from...a lion rampant..." (LoAR 1/91 p.19).


[A unicorn rampant guardant] "The unicorn is unidentifiable as such in a guardant posture, as its most unique identifying feature, the horn, is entirely lost against the head." (LoAR 1/91 p.25).


"Because the most distinctive feature of the enfield, eagle's claws for forelegs, are lost against the [maintained charge], there are a number of conflicts with various foxes and wolves...There is only one CVD for the tincture of the beast. Conflict also with...a lion rampant [in same tinctures]...with one CVD for the type of beast." (LoAR 1/91 p.27).


"There was a consensus that, particularly in relatively simple armory, that the addition of wings to a beast which is a primary charge should be worth a CVD." [If not more difference: see the LoAR 1/91 p.19] (LoAR 2/91 p.14).


"Gargoyles do not have a standardized heraldic form and hence cannot be registered." (LoAR 2/91 p.23).


"The principal difference between a mantyger and a manticore... is the manticore has a scoripion's sting for a tail. It is doubtful that there is a CVD for the difference, but it is a blazonable distinction." (LoAR 4/91 p.3).


[Demons vs. griffins] "The overwhelming similarities between the two types of 'winged monsters', right down to their positions, were such that we do not feel that X.2 can be applied here." (LoAR 4/91 p.12). "There is no heraldic monster called a Kirin. There is a similar Chinese charge called a ch'ilin (Chinese unicorn) but it doesn't look all that similar to the submission. As a consequence the blazon does not reproduce the emblazon making this unregisterable." (LoAR 6/91 p.20).


[A "troll": a headless humanoid with a devil's tail and a face in its belly ] "This resubmission...does not address the issue... noted at the time of return regarding the reproducibility of the emblazon from the blazon. This particular charge has been blazoned by mundane heralds two different ways, as both a troll and a devil, adding to the problem. Furthermore, it appears that the only instance of this charge in Volborth is post-Period, leaving us with the problem of its compatability with SCA heraldry." [the device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 6/91 p.20).


[A winged hammer] "Conflict with...a hammer crowned... There is a CVD for the addition of the wings, but deletion of the small crown is insufficient for the second." [Note that the difference between a winged natural tiger and a lion was given X.2 difference in the LoAR 1/91 p.19.] (LoAR 7/91 p.23).


"There is a CVD for changing the lamb to a sea-lamb but the consensus among the commenters was that X.2 does not apply here." (LoAR 8/91 p.17).


"The differences between a cockatrice and a sea-cockatrice are nearly non-existent, consisting primarily of the detailing of the tail." (LoAR 8/91 p.19).


"Antelopes and yales are almost identical [no CVD was given]. (See for example Dennys' Heraldic Imagination, pages 148 and 165)." (LoAR 8/91 p.21).


"There is...[a CVD] for the difference between a keythong [male griffin] and a griffin." (LoAR 10/91 p.9).


"There is also some question as to the propriety of registering a seahorse to someone with the name Rhiannon, given the long-standing ban on registering horses in combination with the name Rhiannon." [Note, the sea-horse was white, and Rhiannon was a middle name. The main reason for return was conflict] (LoAR 10/91 p.16).


[A winged wolf] "Conflict with... a wolf... there is only one CVD for adding the wings." (LoAR 10/91 p.16).


[A horse's head couped argent maned gules fimbriated Or ] "There are simply too many problems with the emblazon here to register this and tell the submitter to 'draw the X properly.' The greatest difficulty comes with the mane of the horse's head which, rather than being of flames proper, is gules, fimbriated Or. The mane is far too complex to fimbriate. (And there is some question as to whether 'maned of flames' is acceptable SCA style.) The suggestion by Lord Trefoil that we simply blazon the mane gules and tolerate its low contrast against the field as an artistic detail worth no heraldic difference will not work here. On this horse's head the mane is easily as significant as a pair of wings would be, and we would not allow them to break tincture either." (LoAR 10/91 p.17).


"In the September 1991 LoAR we registered a charge blazoned 'a devil decapitated statant affronty, his head affronty on his chest'. It has been pointed out to me that I should have made some comment about it, especially as regards its acceptability in the SCA. The weight of the research and commentary lead me to believe that this monster is compatible with period-style armory (based on period citations of the Acephali, a mythical people who had their faces in their chests) and other documentation which indicated that this particular charge is probably period. It is thus allowable for registration in the SCA." [This overrules returns of this charge most recently in the LoAR 6/91 p.20] (CL 12/21/91 p.3).


[A griffin displayed] "Versus...a double headed eagle displayed... there is...[a CD] (barely) for the differences between a griffin and an eagle in this position. The primary visible differences between an eagle and a griffin in this position are the griffin's ears and tail, as the forelimbs are almost invisible against the wings." (LoAR 11/91 p.6).


[A three-headed, five-tailed, bird winged dragon] "Conflict with... a dragon. It could reasonably be argued that the cumulative changes to the number of heads and tail plus the type of wings could allow as much as one CD. However, we need two." (LoAR 11/91 p.18).


[Unicorn/Horse Hybrids] "The sparseness of commentary on this issue was somewhat worrisome - I dislike making decisions on limited commentary. However, what commentary there is seemed pretty well in agreement. Thus, we will retain the ban on unicornate horses, unicornate seahorses, and unicornate pegasi. (Winged unicorns are considered allowable, so long as they are drawn as unicorns with wings, not the modern 'winged unicornate horse.')" (CL 1/6/91 p.2).


"There is no defined volant posture for quadrupeds." (LoAR 12/91 p.22).


"There is a CD... for the differences between a sea-griffin and a griffin." (LoAR 1/92 p.6).


[Two wingless griffins combattant] "Conflict with... two lions rampant combattant... The only difference in the large emblazon between these wingless griffins and lions is to the nose of the animal. If the submitter would use either griffins with wings, or male griffins (with the spikes), [there would be a CD for type]." (LoAR 1/92 p.17).


"While I do not believe that X.2 would apply between a dog and a sea-dog, I do not have a problem with granting a CD, especially given the separate heraldic existence of a sea-dog from any other kind of dog." (LoAR 2/92 p.9).


[...on a pile rayonny argent a sea-ounce sable, its head argent marked sable, crested and finned azure ] "The identifiability of the 'sea-ounce' is severely reduced by both the azure 'crest' and the fact that the head is primarily argent on the argent pile. It thus does not meet the requirements of RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability." (LoAR 3/92 p.15).


[Butterfly-winged woman] "Butterfly winged creatures have been disallowed since the LoAR of 26 May 1983, when Laurel returned a butterfly winged Bengal tiger." (LoAR 4/92 p.20).


[A rabbit sejant guardant armed with a stag's attire] Conflict with... a coney. Given that the default posture for a rabbit is sejant, there is at best one CD, and many commenters did not find that much for the addition of the antlers." (LoAR 5/92 p.24).


"Given that the piping beast is registered only twice in the SCA (both registrations dated August 1979 - can you say 'Heraldicon'?), we do not believe this charge to be any more appropriate for registration than the many variant norse twisty beasties that have been disallowed." (LoAR 5/92 p.26).


[A mermaid between three sealions] "This device barely avoids having to be returned for the use of two similar but different charges in the same group. It would be helpful if the client would draw the mermaid larger." (LoAR 6/92 p.5).


"[There is no difference] between a wyvern and a dragon. (This overturns the precedent of December 1989, which granted a CD between the two charges on the bases of SCA historical distinction. It appears that the terms 'dragon' and 'wyvern' were used interchangeably throughout Europe through most of our period of study, and this distinction in the SCA does not appear to be well founded.)" (LoAR 6/92 p.17).


MOTLEY


"There is really no 'proper' for a jester's bauble (or motley)." (LoAR 9/90 p.17).


"A jester's bauble proper would have a white face and brown stick, with the vesting tinctures blazoned specifically." [superceding comments on LoAR 9/90 p.17] (LoAR 1/91 p.13).


MULLET


"No difference can be granted for the difference between standard mullets and mullets of seven points: they do not appear to have been considered as separate charges in period, nor are they different enough in outline to be so considered by the College." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.3).


"[There is not a CVD] between a rivenstar and a standard compass star." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.3).


[A mullet vs. a mullet of five greater and five lesser points ] "The removal of the lesser points of the mullet, particularly given the fact of near unidentifiability of the mullet on the [poor contrast] portions of the gyronny field, are not worth the...CVD." (LoAR 7/90 p.13).


"Despite Laurel's personal feelings on the matter, in formal and informal polls taken by a number of heralds (including Laurel) of both heralds and general populace members a significant percentage of Society members (in my poll, over half) had problems with the pentacle on the grounds of offensiveness because of association with black magic and 'Satanism', especially given the recent publicity in relation to events in California in which inverted pentacles (only a 38-degree rotation of the charge) were prominently displayed in a number of newspapers and news magazines. Negative reactions ranged from being uncomfortable with the charge to a forthright 'If I had to face that on the field I would not fight.' As a consequence, I believe that a significant percentage of the populace finds the charge offensive and so cannot register it." [NOTE: further discussions on this topic are found under OFFENSE - Armory] (LoAR 8/90 p.16).


[Mullet of nine points vs. compass star] "[difference for changes to other things] but nothing for the change to the mullet." (LoAR 8/90 p.16).


"The visual resemblance between an edelweiss flower and an estoile is overwhelming" [note: there was a peripheral charge, so there is no CVD for the difference here] (LoAR 9/90 p.16).


[A (standard, six-rayed) estoile] "Conflict with...an eight-pointed estoile... There is one CVD for the addition of the bordure." [implying no difference for change of type] (LoAR 4/91 p.12).


[A charged mullet of four points] "Per X.4.j.ii [there is a CVD] for changing the type of tertiary" (LoAR 4/91 p.2).


"Mullets of four points, mullets of five points, and possibly mullets of six points may be considered 'simple geometric charges' for the purposes of this rule. (Mind you, I also consider mullets of four, five, and possibly six points to be the outer limit of acceptable complexity to be considered a 'simple geometric charge'." (CL 6/13/91 p.2).


"The issue of whether to register or return this proposal fell upon whether or not we are to grant difference between a mullet and an estoile. Lord Batonvert presented ample evidence that the two were considered equivalent throughout our period of study by all heraldic jurisdictions which used both.

While Lord Laurel (a secret sympathizer of the dreaded Authenticity Police) can see much educational and re-creative benefit to doing SCA heraldry in such a way as to most closely follow period heraldry, he honestly believes that there are very few heralds in the Known World who would be willing to look a person submitting a device in the face and tell them that a five pointed star and a six-rayed estoile are the same thing...

I believe that there are times when the visual reality (the '20th Century visual reality', if you will, but we are dealing with people untrained in any other century for the most part) is so strong as to overcome period heraldic practice, whether it be in granting difference or in permitting none. I also believe this to be one of those instances. Hence this submission is clear of <submitter's> device with one CVD for tincture and another for type of the primary charge." (CL 7/16/91 pps. 1-2).


"It is Lord Laurel's contention that a mullet of five points qualifies as a simple geometric charge under [X.4.j.ii]. (It is also Lord Laurel's contention that a mullet is probably the most complex charge which will so qualify.)" [overruled CL 1/6/92 p.1] (LoAR 7/91 p.11).


"Counterchanging complex charges over an ordinary has been cause for return at times in the past. Were the mullet [of four greater and eight lesser points] truly overall [on the chevron throughout], that would very likely be the case here." (LoAR 8/91 p.19).


[Mullet of eight greater and lesser points vs. mullet of ten points] "There is not a CVD between the two mullets." (LoAR 8/91 p.21).


"The 'rivenstars' were drawn so offset as to be nearly unrecognizable as such, and several commenters questioned the acceptability of this charge for use by anyone besides the Barony of Rivenstar." [The main reason for return was conflict] (LoAR 9/91 p.19).


[A charged mullet of six points] "Changing the type only of the tertiary is insufficient here. Lord Brigantia assumed too much from Laurel's June 17 Cover Letter statement that 'possibly mullets of six points may be considered simple geometric charges' for purposes of X.4.j.ii. That we do not distinguish between mullets of five points and mullets of six points when counting conflict is not the point here. We do distinguish between them on stylistic issues." (LoAR 10/91 p.18).


"The commentary on [X.4.j.ii] seemed to be reasonably clear. As a consequence, the application of X.4.j.ii. for the granting of a Clear Difference for substantial change of type of a tertiary will be applicable only to tertiaries on an ordinary or simple, geometric shape such as a lozenge, delf or roundel. It will not be applied to charges on mullets, suns or hearts." (CL 1/6/92 p.1).


[Per pall, two ravens addorsed counterchanged, in chief an estoile in soleil between two sprigs of mistletoe ] "This is not Period style and is too close to slot machine heraldry, having three different types of charge in what could be considered a standard heraldic arrangement on a per pall field. The 'estoile in soleil' is not something I think we wish to encourage, nor is the mirror symmetry of the entire device." (LoAR 12/91 p.22).


"The badge, which would more properly be blazoned '[fieldless] a mullet of eight points...charged with a <charge>', conflicts with...on a mullet a <different charge>, and... on a mullet of six points throughout...a <different charge>. In each case there is one CD for the fieldless difference, but X.4.j.ii does not apply to tertiaries on mullets, nor is there any difference for the various number of points to the mullets." (LoAR 1/92 p.17).


"The charges... are not estoiles but rather eight-armed asterisks. If the client would redraw them as estoiles [then this might be registerable]" (LoAR 2/92 p.21).


"A number of commenters questioned the acceptability of a 'mullet of three points', noting that it is in outline much nearer to a caltrap with a 'leg' missing than it is to any kind of mullet. That it has only been registered once before lends weight to this argument. It is Laurel's opinion that the 'mullet of three points' should be added to those charges no longer registered by the College." (LoAR 3/92 p.15).


"Most of the commenters felt that a mullet of eight points was too complex a charge to void or fimbriate." [The device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 4/92 p.21).


[Mullet of eight points eclipsed, charged with a <charge>, compared to a sun eclipsed charged with an identical <charge>] "There is at very best one CD for change of type of primary, and it is questionable whether we should even allow that much for the difference between a mullet of eight points and a sun." (LoAR 4/92 p.22).


[Compass star] "Versus... a mullet of four points distilling a goutte, there is...[a CD] for the difference between a mullet of four points and a compass star. Given the recognized independent heraldic existence of a compass star in the SCA, noted by its separate name, Laurel sees no problem in granting a CD between them, especially when used as the primary charge. Versus... a mullet of five greater and five lesser points distilling gouttes, the same reasoning and point count applies." (LoAR 5/92 p.5).


"[There is a CD] for the difference between a compass star (a well-defined SCA charge with a distinctive outline) and a sun." (LoAR 5/92 p.5).


[A comet bendwise sinister, head to chief] "Conflict with... an eight pointed estoile... There is one CD for the change to the primary, but we cannot in good conscience apply RfS X.2." (LoAR 5/92 p.27).


[A mullet of seven points charged with another] "Several commenters noted that the primary charge is effectively a mullet fimbriated and that under RfS VIII.3 a mullet of seven points is too complex a charge to fimbriate." (LoAR 6/92 p.15).


MUSICAL INSTRUMENT


[Spiral trumpet vs. a hunting horn] "...there is a CVD for the type of horn; here, circular vs. crescent-shaped." (LoAR 7/90 p.8).


"Documentation was submitted with the device of [previous submitter] demonstrating the violin to be within the period of study of the SCA, although in very late period." (LoAR 8/90 p.4).


[A drinking horn, compared to a bugle horn or a straight trumpet ] "There is a CVD for type of horn, but there is not enough difference between the two for X.2." (LoAR 7/91 p.23).


[A harp reversed] "Versus...a Greek Lyre...there is [a CVD] (just) for the difference in type of primary charge." (LoAR 9/91 p.7).


"The primaries as drawn are not lutes: they are mandolins, a post-period artifact... This must be returned." (LoAR 10/91 p.16).


NAMES - Arabic


"The use of a matronymic in Arabic [was not] documented. (Laurel believes that the two instances he could find, that of 'Isa ibn Maryam {Jesus the son of Mary, clearly a unique case} and one other instance noted in The Fihrist of al-Nadim do not establish a pattern of general usage. We would prefer to see more examples before allowing this exception to the rule of the use of patronymics in Arabic)." [The name was returned for this reason and for the non-documentability of a byname] (LoAR 10/90 p.16).


"Submitted as <given name> bint-Aamir, we have deleted the obtrusive hyphen. Aamir (pronounced AH-mir) is not the same as the restricted alternate title Amir (pronounced ah-Meer)." (LoAR 12/90 p.5).


[<Hebrew female given name> bint <Hebrew man's name> <Arabic epithet> ] "Period instances of Jews in Muslim Spain combining Hebrew names with the Arabic patronymic give credence to this form." (LoAR 9/91 p.7).


NAMES - Bynames (including Surnames, Epithets, Locatives etc.)


"The Scottish patronymic particle [Mac] was sometimes used with an English given name." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium pps. 1-2).


"We do not normally register names with phrases in them like 'called X'. In this case, we have modified the name as the submitter's forms allowed to register the epithet...to him." (LoAR 9/90 p.4).


"Submitted as <given name> <locative> of <locative>, such a form (X of X, or X of that Ilk) is a claim not only to chieftanship of a clan but implies overlordship of a territory, and rank and title. Such a claim is improper in the SCA." (LoAR 9/90 p.7).


[Hagarson] "Regarding the matronymic, sufficient examples were presented by various commenters to show a 'pattern of use' of forming patronymics and matronymics in Scandinavian and English languages from Biblical names that we feel we have to allow this. (Mind you, we do not like helping to perpetuate a misconception that 'Hagar' is a Norse name simply because of the popularity of a certain comic strip which prominently features a 'Viking' named Hagar.)" (LoAR 9/90 p.7).


"Submitted as <given name> Sinclair of Wick, we have dropped the locative to avoid the appearance of presumption that the submitter is the clan chief of the Sinclairs, Earls of Caithness, whose stronghold is Girnigoe Castle, just north of Wick in Caithness." (LoAR 10/90 p.2).


"<Given Name> the Breton should no more conflict with <same Given Name>, Duke of Brittany, than Richard the Englishman would with Richard, King of England." [Note that this overturns a precedent of Master Baldwin's regarding Wladislaw Poleski] (LoAR 10/90 p.2).


[<given name> of Orange] "While William of Orange did appear to be the most famous member of the House, given the facts that there is a town of that name in France and that no evidence was presented that the House of Orange was strictly a royal household in the manner of the Hohenstauffens, but something more along the lines of the families of York and Lancaster, we felt that this name was acceptable." (LoAR 10/90 p.4).


[Sunblocker] "Nearly every commenter remarked on the modern connotations of the epithet, hence we are dropping it because of obtrusive modernity." (LoAR 10/90 p.8).


[<given name> ap Gryffydd ap Cynan o'r Wyddfa] "The name is a claim to descent from Gryffydd ap Cynan, king of Gwenedd of which y Wyddfa is the highest point." (LoAR 10/90 p.21).


[Clan Stewart of <place>] "There is in the name 'Stewart of <place>' an implication of title, but not of landedness (since <place> does not exist as a place). See Scots Heraldry by Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, pp. 203-205, for a fuller discussion of 'Territorial Designations'." [The clan name was registered] (LoAR 11/90 p.6).


"Submitted as <given names> an Bheac in Bh in, 'of the White Mushroom' is simply not a reasonable epithet in any language. We have therefore dropped it." (LoAR 11/90 p.7).


[<Given name> Skala-Bjornsson] "This is sufficiently different from <given name> Bjornsson by the addition of an element. This is functionally and aurally equivalent to '<given name>, son of Bjorn the Bald." (LoAR 11/90 p.7).


[Samhioldanach] "There was a question as to whether the byname is unique to the god Lugh, but given the lack of documentation for this objection, we are giving the submitter the benefit of the doubt." (LoAR 11/90 p.9).


"Submitted as <given name> of Sableswan, the byname does not appear to be a reasonably formed placename. As it is a reasonable epithet, we have dropped the 'of' to register the name." (LoAR 11/90 p.9).


" 'Acquaintance traveller' is not a reasonable epithet or byname in any language we could think of." (LoAR 11/90 p.14).


" 'Of Many Blue Waters' was not considered by any commentary to be a reasonable placename or byname." (LoAR 11/90 p.14).


" 'Of Sunshine' does not seem to be a reasonable epithet in any language, including Hebrew." (LoAR 11/90 p.16).


[Guild of the Enchanted Needle] "We have serious qualms about registering 'enchanted' anythings. See RfS VI.2., Names Claiming Powers." [Guild name returned also because no given name present] (LoAR 11/90 p.16).


"To respond to Lord Trefoil's... request for clarification of the registration of <given name> Skala-Bjornsson, I was applying V.2, Addition of One Phrase, versus <given name> Bjornsson. It was my feeling that since both names consisted of three phrases or less and <given name> Bald Bjornsson would not be considered to conflict with <given name> Bjornsson in English that the same standard should apply in Norse (or any other language), subject of course to audial conflict and correct grammar for the language." (CL 1/4/91 p.3, referring to the LoAR of 11/90 p.7).


[Huscarl] "Huscarl is not a restricted title, any more than is 'the Apprentice', or, perhaps more appropriately, 'the Fighter'." (LoAR 12/90 p.8).


[Wulf Thorunsson] "This is clear of Wulf Thoraldsson... There is a significantly sufficient change in the pronunciation of the patronymic to consider these clear." (LoAR 12/90 p.12).


[Lairdragyn] "The locative does not make sense as constructed. Does she perhaps want 'Dragynlair'?" (LoAR 12/90 p.15).


[an Brionna] "One cannot be 'the Dream', even in Irish Gaelic. This is not an epithet that would have been given one in period." (LoAR 12/90 p.16).


"While it is not particularly common for the descriptive to precede the given name, it is not unheard of." (LoAR 1/91 p.2).


"Submitted as <names> of the Rose, the byname implies membership in the Order of the Rose as much as 'of the Laurel', 'of the Chivalry', or 'of the Pelican' imply membership in those orders. We have dropped the byname..." (LoAR 1/91 p.10).


"Submitted as <names> of Starfyre, the byname was not something that a person could be 'of' or 'from', so we have dropped it on order to register the name." (LoAR 1/91 p.18).


"Submitted as <names> of Moonshaven, the locative does not appear to be a place that a human may be 'of', so we have dropped it to register the name and device." (LoAR 1/91 p.18).


[Armuin, submitted as a given name] "The submitter's own documentation is very clear that 'armuin' is a title meaning 'steward', 'warrior', or 'hero.' It is not a given name." (LoAR 1/91 p.20).


"The name MacLeer ('son of Leer') should not be used in connection with sea symbology because it will appear to be a claim to descent from the sea god Lir." (LoAR 1/91 p.27).


"Although Levesque means 'bishop', which is a restricted title in the SCA, it is also a documentable period surname. It is Laurel's opinion that Levesque should be registrable under the same general restrictions as Regina; that is, so long as it is not used in such a way as to appear like a title." (LoAR 3/91 p.5).


[Of the Fretted Mind] "The epithet does not make sense in any of the meanings given in period from the OED." (LoAR 4/91 p.11).


[<name> de Navarre] "We have historically registered ' 'name' of 'Kingdom' ' so long as the given name was not identical to that of one of the rulers of 'Kingdom'. The only exception Laurel remembers offhand to this is the name Hohenstaufen which name was only used by the ruling family." (LoAR 5/91 p.2).


[de Spenser] "Although derived from the French 'le Despencer', Reaney in his The Origin of English Surnames, p.158, notes a son of Hugh le Despencer was called Hugh de Spencer (thirteenth century). Thus, this form of the name should be fine." (LoAR 5/91 p.4).


[Forgalwoman] "Submitted as <name> Forgal's Woman, we have modified the name to follow period practice in forming this sort of byname, which appears not to use the possessive 'X's' ('Tomwyf, 'Smythwyf', both noted in the LoI). While a number of commenters noted that they would much prefer a form which smacked less of 'property', Lord Lanner notes that the OED dates 'woman' as meaning 'wife' in 1450, so if 'wife' is acceptable, so is 'woman'." (LoAR 6/91 p.5).


[of Windsor] "As the locative is that of a place in England from which a number of people could be, and only comparatively recently adopted as a dynastic name, it is not seen as presumptuous to the ruling family of England." (LoAR 6/91 p.13).


[of Coeur Cri] "We have deleted the village name because no evidence was presented that French place names were ever formed in this manner." (LoAR 7/91 p.5).


[of Wyvernsreach] "The place name Drakelow in Ekwall lends credence to the locative." (LoAR 7/91 p.7).


[Stormbrand] "This combination of words in English appears to have no real meaning." (LoAR 7/91 p.9).


[le Fey] "The appeal of this name has sufficiently documented the use of le Fey as a surname by people well within Period. The surname le Fey is acceptable for registration provided there are no other allusions to elves or faerie in the name or armory." (LoAR 7/91 p.9).


"Submitted as <name> Griffith of Gwynedd, we have dropped the problematic locative. As submitted the name appears to be a claim of descent from Gruffudd, King of Gwynedd to 1137. Rule V.5 disallows any such claim." (LoAR 7/91 p.15).


"Submitted as <name> Braumeister von <place>, we have modified the name to drop the problematical Braumeister. 'Occupation' of 'Placename' name construction has for some years been held to be returnable." (LoAR 7/91 p.16).


[<name> Winterskye] "Conflict with <name> of Skye... because of the way that the Rules for Submission are worded. The only consistent interpretation that we could make was to consider Winterskye to be the addition of an adjective to the noun Skye (or sky)." (LoAR 7/91 p.24).


[de Wolfe] "Dauzat, p.201, notes Dewolf as a Flemish name, giving credence to this formation." (LoAR 8/91 p.2).


[Durmast] "Although the citation for Durmast dates only as far back as 1791, Lord Dragon makes a good case for it as a constructed name from period elements." (LoAR 8/91 p.5).


[Baumaris] "Several commenters noted that they could only find Beaumaris, but the submitter's photocopied documentation clearly has Baumaris." (LoAR 8/91 p.9).


[the Runt] "While the sense of 'runt' probably intended by the client is clearly post-Period, the meaning dated to 1614 of 'an ignorant, uncouth, or uncultivated person' falls within our 'grey area'." (LoAR 8/91 p.12).


"CuáRuadh Keep does not appear to follow the pattern of using an anglicized Irish name in an English style place name (such would much more likely be something akin to Conroe Keep)." (LoAR 8/91 p.17).


"The meaning for Mordacious in the OED is dated to 1650 which is at the outer limits of our 'grey area'. Could you interest the submitter in the documentably Period term 'Mordant'?" [The name was returned primarily for administrative reasons.] (LoAR 8/91 p.19).


[Wovenwood] "No documentation was presented to show that it was constructed on a Period pattern per RfS II.2." (LoAR 8/91 p.20).


"The problem is that 'Newest South Wales' [the translation of the submitted place] presupposes a 'New South Wales', which is a provably post-period place." (LoAR 8/91 p.24).


"While the English term 'iceberg' is clearly post-Period, given the large number of cognates in so many northern European languages we feel that the name is probably acceptable." (LoAR 9/91 p.10).


[de Winterhawke] "The locative is highly improbable. Dropping the particle 'de' would probably be sufficient to answer the problem." (LoAR 9/91 p.19).


[Runamagi, meaning "Rune-belly"] "A pattern of usage of similar epithets in Norse, particularly Hrísmagi ('brushwood stomach'), lends credence to this formation. It was pointed out, however, that Orramagi ('scarbelly') would have been much more likely." (LoAR 10/91 p.1).


[Avalon] "Although Master Wilhelm when he was Laurel disallowed the use of Avalon as a place from which humans could be, Lady Harpy notes the French town of Avallon in Stephens p.671, which would appear to make this acceptable." (LoAR 10/91 p.5).


[Eisfalke] "The period name Eisvogel (1418) lends credence to the byname here."[the names translate to ice-falcon and ice-bird] (LoAR 10/91 p.5).


"By the submitter's own documentation Kennaquhair is 'Scottish for a place which does not exist; a name for some imaginary place.' This does not appear to be a place from which a person could be." (LoaR 10/91 p.10).


[Willmark] "Several commenters noted that 'dweller at the well border' did not appear to make much sense. However, Ekwall notes that 'well' also means 'spring' or 'stream', making the locative reasonable." (LoAR 10/91 p.12).


[Longeye] "Lord Badger has been able to find support for the byname as a placename. Old English places that ended in 'eg' or 'haeg' ('island') had their spelling changed over the years to 'ey'. Thus, as <name> from 'Long Island' (Longeye), this name becomes quite reasonable." (LoAR 10/91 p.13).


[of Snow Roses] "The byname is not a reasonable locative. As Lord Badger noted, while each of the two parts of the byname were used in period, they were not used in the same kinds of bynames. To be used in a period manner, snow would have to be a reasonable descriptive adjective to apply to roses. Barring documentation of such a use in period, this must be returned." (LoAR 10/91 p.17).


"No evidence whatsoever was presented to demonstrate that Stoirm (meaning 'storm') is a reasonable epithet. We need evidence that Stoirm is similar to other Gaelic epithets before we can register this." (LoAR 10/91 p.18).


[Richard the Chicken-Hearted] "This is not only a joke name, but a parody of Richard the Lion-Hearted. As was the case with Decrease Mather (a parody of Increase Mather), which was returned on the LoAR of May 12, 1985, this name 'alludes strongly enough to the historical character to constitute infringement.' " (LoAR 10/91 p.18).


[Strongfire] "No one was able to show that fires were ever considered to be 'strong': large, hot, etc., yes, but not 'strong' in any way." (LoAR 10/91 p.20).


[Starlake] "Given the existence of Starr as a surname in period (Reaney's dbs p.332), a locative based on 'Starr's lake' makes the locative much more plausible." (LoAR 11/91 p.4).


[Willowind Manor] "We have also dropped the 'coined place name'. We need some kind of documentation that Willowind is formed in a period manner or otherwise based in period practice." (LoAR 11/91 p.14).


[<Name> of <place>shire] "Conflict with <name> of <place>. Addition of the designator 'shire' is not sufficient." (LoAR 11/91 p.18).


[Vitki] "The byname is disallowed under RFS VI.2, Names Claiming Powers. You may not style yourself 'the wizard' in the Society." (LoAR 11/91 p.18).


"No documentation at all was submitted to demonstrate that Willowspoon makes sense as an occupational byname or that it is formed in a period manner or follows period name construction practices, as required by RfS II.3." [The name was returned for this reason] (LoAR 11/91 p.23).


"'The Oxhandler' appears a little unlikely as a period epithet, but is not entirely implausible. However, Oxeman, Oxhirde, and Oxdrover are all documented period bynames which would serve the client better." [The epithet was registered as submitted] (LoAR 12/91 p.1).


"The citation in Dauzat for 'Loch' by itself lends credence to the use of Loch with the article 'de'." (LoAR 12/91 p.5).


[de Heather] "Citations in Reaney (Dictionary of British Surnames) of de Brome, de Birches, and de Ayssh, all lend credence to this byname." (LoAR 12/91 p.11).


[<name> Lietuvos, meaning <name> the Lithuanian> ] "While prior Laurel precedent has returned the form '{Name} the {Nationality}', we do not find this presumptuous of the ruler of the country in the same way or to the same degree that, say, '{Name} of {Nation}' would. Hence, we do not find that this name conflicts with <name>, King of Lithuania." (LoAR 12/91 p.12).


[the Stonewise] "We have modified the name to drop the questionable byname. No documentation was presented for either this epithet or for a pattern of similar epithets." (LoAR 12/91 p.14).


[of the Mist] "Barring documentation for a place named 'the Mist', this byname is not a reasonable locative." (LoAR 12/91 p.16).


"While 'Sea' is a reasonable byname element, there is nothing given in the LoI to indicate that 'Seawalker' is reasonable or formed in a Period manner. Would the client consider the byname 'Gobythesea', formed in the manner of Period exemplars found in reaney's origins, p.289?" [the epithet was returned] (LoAR 12/91 p.18).


"Löwenstein and Löwenthal do not appear to be sufficient precedent for allowing Löwenstahl. 'Lion-rock' and 'Lion-valley' are clearly toponymics; 'Lion-steel' is not." (LoAR 12/91 p.19).


[Asbjarnarson] "Submitted as... Asbjornson. The name has been modified to correct the grammar of the patronym. Laurel is hesitant to extend the allowance made for Bjornsson to include compound names without more period evidence for support." [ overruled LoAR 3/92 p.4] (LoAR 1/92 p.5).


[Silverswan] "Given the documented bynames Whitehors, Blaklamb, Grelamb, Gragris, and Whitecou (this last meaning grey swan), we believe that a pattern of such names has been shown to be established." (LoAR 1/92 p.9).


[<Norse name> "the Runesayer"] "The name has been modified to drop the intrusively modern epithet. 'The Runesayer' is not a Norse expression nor does it appear to be formed on a Period exemplar. Runes are not something that needed 'saying,' and the byname appears to be a modern fantasy idiom." (LoAR 2/92 p.1).


[Nunneschild] "Lord Dragon has documented this kind of formation for the byname." (LoAR 2/92 p.3).


[The Foehammer] "The name has been modified to drop the epithet. Foehammer is not formed in the same pattern as the period names 'Bloodaxe' or 'Longsword.' Such epithets were normally formed along fairly literal lines; he carries a 'bloody (or blooded) axe', or carries a 'long sword.' This byname does not follow that pattern." (LoAR 2/92 p.7).


[de la Mañana] "The name has been modified to remove the unlikely epithet. 'Of the morning' is not a reasonable epithet in any language." (LoAR 2/92 p.16).


"While there was some concern that the byname 'de Lorraine' could be considered presumptuous, the citation in Reaney of 'de Lorreyne' (dated 1333) lends support to the belief that the locative was not restricted solely to members of the Ducal House of Lorraine." (LoAR 3/92 p.3).


"Lord Treblerose... documented Norse patronymics in period using the genitive 's' as well as their more 'correct' genitive forms. Thus Bjarnisson is as acceptable as the technically more correct Bjarnasson." [overruling LoAR 1/92 p. 5] (LoAR 3/92 p.4).


"The documented 'atte Raven' from Reaney's dictionary of British Surnames does not necessarily lend support to 'de Raven' [The 'de' was dropped from the name] (LoAR 3/92 p.6).


[<given name> bena Cato, bena meant to be Irish for "wife of" ] "The byname is improperly constructed. It contains mixed languages that do not appear to have combined this way in period. (Also, according to Lord Dragon the particle should be 'ben' rather than 'bena'.)" (LoAR 3/92 p.12).


[Stormcrow] "No justification or period precedent was included in the documentation for combining two surnames in this manner. (Smith and Jones appear in Reaney's dictionary of British Surnames, too, but we would not then register Jonesmith.) (LoAR 3/92 p.12).


[the Dragoon] "The name has been modified to drop the post-Period byname. (LoAR 4/92 p.1)


"Sunhair is not a period style epithet, in that it does not appear to be formed in a Period manner. The closest that anyone could find for a similar epithet is Sherlock." (LoAR 4/92 p.19)


"'Darkmoon' as an epithet style byname is much more likely than 'of Darkmoon' as a locative byname." [The "of" was dropped from the name] (LoAR 5/92 p.12).


"The biggest problem, however, is the combination of a Merlin-variant name with 'of the oak' in any language is an excessive reference to the Merlin of Arthurian legend." (LoAR 5/92 p.21).


"'Fire-lock' does not appear to be an epithetical name constructed on Period patterns of naming. Most descriptive epithets are much more literal, such as Dustiberd. As noted by one commenter, 'fire-hair' would appear to describe a cooking accident much more than a hair color." (LoAR 5/92 p.21).


"The Schwarzwald in German is not a generic 'black wood', but is a specific and very well known place and requires the article. If we might suggest he could change the article von to vom, a contraction of von dem; a change we would have made had he allowed changes." (LoAR 6/92 p.19).


NAMES - Chinese


"Lord Yale's discussion of the Wade-Giles and Pinyin transliteration systems for Chinese convinced us that the name would be better if spelled in only one or the other rather than a hybrid which used parts of each. Accordingly, we have used the Pinyin transliteration system as that was closest to the form submitted." (LoAR 10/90 p.9).


NAMES - Egyptian


[Ancient Egyptian name] "While a number of commenters argued that ancient Egypt (and ancient Egyptian names) is outside the scope of the Society, unless and until the Board of Directors places an early cutoff date, we must continue to consider names such as this one legitimate submissions." (LoAR 5/92 p.22).


NAMES - Elvish


"There was much discussion [on a particular submission] regarding the propriety of continuing the registration of Elvish names of any kind. Mistress Alisoun, shortly before stepping down as Laurel, expanded the allowance of Elvish from Sindarin only to include Quenya as well. The overwhelming majority of recent commentary on this issue by the College, however, was in favor of banning the registration of any Elvish names in the future. I am therefore proposing such a ban, to become effective as of the February, 1992 Laurel meeting. Unless a significant number of the members of the College (or the Society as a whole) feel differently, and write to tell me about it, on and after that date we will no longer register Elvish names." (CL 10/91 p.2).


NAMES - German


[Eisenweber] "Submitted as <given name> Eisen Weber, normal German construction would combine the epithet into a single word, which we have done here." [Eisen = iron, Weber = weaver] (LoAR 11/90 p.4).


"Documentation provided by Lords Habicht and Badger indicate that the use of 'aus' is as acceptable as the more common 'von'." (LoAR 11/91 p.13).


NAMES - Given


"The name Olwen may not be combined with the use of trefoils on armory." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.1) "There is some evidence of Bruce being used as a given name in period (Sir Bruce sans Pit‚ in Malory's Morte d'Arthur)." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.1).


"Geirr Bassi, p.10, notes Garthr (with a thorn), which in common practice would drop the final 'r', making Garth a reasonable form. This is a departure from previous rulings, based on new documentation." (LoAR 7/90 p.5).


"Unfortunately, no one could document Candace as other than a name which became a title for Ethiopian queens. We need evidence that it was used as a name in period by others before it can be registered." (LoAR 7/90 p.13).


"Sufficient similar exemplars were given in the documentation to convince us that Rosabel is formed in a period manner." (LoAR 8/90 p.12).


[Thor, used to form the byname Thorsen] "No documentation was presented supporting the use of Thor, by itself, as a given name in period. All of the examples found by commenters used it as part of a compound (Thorvald, Thorbjorn etc.)" (LoAR 8/90 p.16).


"Thanks to Lady Ensign for her assistance in documenting Louise in period." (LoAR 9/90 p.2).


"Although some evidence was submitted that Maleah may be a modern Arabic name, its existence as a word in Hebrew prevents its being considered a made-up name, and no other evidence was presented that it is either a period Arabic name or that it follows the rules for constructing names in Arabic." [the name Maleah was dropped from the registered name] (LoAR 9/90 p.3).


"Enough evidence was presented of a pattern of t/c switch in Latin that Valencia appears to be a very reasonable form of Valentia (the latter being noted in Morlet (Vol. II, p.115)." (LoAR 9/90 p.4).


[Je Nell, a mundane given name, used as an SCA middle name ] "While the addition of Je Nell was somewhat intrusive, it was not sufficiently so to cause return of the name." (LoAR 9/90 p.5).


"No additional evidence was given to demonstrate that Vanessa either was a period name or that it should be considered SCA-compatible." [the name was returned] (LoAR 9/90 p.14).


"No evidence has been presented that Joe is not a period diminutive of Joseph, and its extensive use post-period [sic] and there is certainly a common pattern of English diminutives formed this way; hence it should be as registerable as any other English diminutive (e.g., Will)." (LoAR 9/90 p.17).


"Submitted as Cairistrena <surname>, the given did not appear to be a reasonable variant of the documented Caristiona, so we have substituted the form documented by the submitter." (LoAR 10/90 p.2).


"Applying what I have come to term the 'Auda/'Ali' test, Arian <bynames> should be sufficiently different from Aron <same bynames>." [the submitter had a Letter of Permission not mentioned in LoAR but mentioned in the Letter of Intent] (LoAR 10/90 p.5).


[Aynia] "Considering that the given is found with this spelling in the submitter's documentation, it seemed acceptable. (That it is most likely a variant of Aine is noted in the documentation.)" (LoAR 10/90 p.7).


[Cainwen] "Lady Harpy found additional documentation for this name." (LoAR 10/90 p.8).


"Submitted as Chantal <surname>, the submitter was requesting a compromise of the mundane name allowance to permit a less obtrusive spelling of her mundane given name. The bulk of the commentary on this issue was not in favor of such a relaxation of the mundane name allowance, especially given that 'Chantal' was a placename in period." (LoAR 10/90 p.11).


"Shala is a reasonable transliteration of the Arabic name often transliterated as Shahlaa." (LoAR 10/90 p.16).


"Samia could be considered as an acceptable alternative to the name Samihah." (LoAR 10/90 p.16).


[Rob Roy <Surname>] "After much consideration and discussion, it was determined that 'Rob Roy' is so well known and closely associated with Rob Roy McGregor that it must be considered a unique name. 'Rob' is fine, and so is 'Roy', but 'Rob Roy' is not." (LoAR 10/90 p.17).


[Keriwyn] "The given is not a reasonable variant of Keridwen. No one could demonstrate that the 'd' would have been dropped in any variant of the name." (LoAR 10/90 p.21).


[Nichelle, documented as a combination of Nicole and Michelle ] "One cannot take various name elements at random and combine them to form a new name. Such a practice does not follow the naming conventions of most languages. Given its modern use in the name of Nichelle ('Lt. Uhura') Nichols we need better documentation that this construction is reasonable in period French." (LoAR 11/90 p.14).


"Samrah is not a reasonable alternate of Sameera/SamŒrah, since the 'ee' is a long vowel and is the accented syllable here and would not be dropped." (LoAR 11/90 p.16).


[Lora Leigh] "It was our feeling that the registration of Lora Leigh <surname> (from which this name is sufficiently different by the Rules) established a precedent in not calling conflict with the classical Lorelei, more so since there were no allusions to Lorelei in the armory." (LoAR 12/90 p.4).


"Submitted as <given name> bint-Aamir, we have deleted the obtrusive hyphen. Aamir (pronounced AH-mir) is not the same as the restricted alternate title Amir (pronounced ah-Meer)." (LoAR 12/90 p.5).


[Katriona an Brionna] "There is... an aural conflict with the registered Caitriona ni Bhriain." (LoAR 12/90 p.16).


"Pandora appears to be a unique name, borne only by the half-human heroine of myth. Barring documentation that the name was given to people in period, we cannot register it. [re: the device] The chest was... too great an allusion to the mythical Pandora (along with the anchor, the symbol of hope, the last thing to be released from Pandora's box)." (LoAR 12/90 p.16).


[Armuin, submitted as a given name] "The submitter's own documentation is very clear that 'armuin' is a title meaning 'steward', 'warrior', or 'hero.' It is not a given name." (LoAR 1/91 p.20).


[Morgan de Grey] "Aural conflict with the registered name of Morton the Grey." (LoAR 1/91 p.25).


"While it was a surname in period, Lynne is also a diminutive of a given name. Hence we felt that II.4 (Legal Names) could be applied here." (LoAR 2/91 p.1).


[Rhiannon of the Hollow Lands] "The name is simply too evocative of the Welsh Goddess Rhiannon, who rode out of the Gorsedd Arberth, a hill (resumably hollow) with supernatural properties." (LoAR 2/91 p.20).


[Gryffn] "There seems to be no justification in dropping the second vowel in Gryffin; it does not appear that this would be done in Welsh." (LoAR 2/91 p.21).


[Gryffn <bynames>] "Aural conflict with the already registered Tryffin <bynames>." (LoAR 2/91 p.21).


"Submitted as Reina de <place>, that form of the name takes on the aspect of a title 'Queen of <place>.' We have deleted the article 'of' in order to remove the appearance of presumption and to register the name." (LoAR 3/91 p.5).


[Arafel] "The name was submitted as invented by C.J. Cherryh (in The Dreamstone). However, the name there was used only by an elf (the last living one in that world), and hence not suitable for humans. The purported derivation by Cherryh of Arafel from Aoibheil seems extremely unlikely. And although the two themes of the name, 'ara' and 'fel', appear in Searle's Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum (pp. 72 and 240, respectively), the fact that they appear without any examples of their use in actual names (and that they are not in his extensive list of themes on pp. xv-xix) makes them suspect, to say the least. (Searle seems to indicate that '-fel' may be a misreading of '-wulf', and 'ara' revers the reader to 'Haraldus', where it is more clearly not a protheme.)" [the name was returned] (LoAR 3/91 p.7).


[Gerard <bynames>] "While Laurel has some qualms about this versus the already registered Gerald <bynames>, the majority of the commenters felt it passed the 'Auda-'Ali test' by changing the 'l' to an 'r' and accenting the second syllable of the given." (LoAR 4/91 p.3).


"Given that Gandalfr is cited in Geirr Bassi as a name clearly given to a human in period, and that there are no other references to Gandalf the Gray, I can see no real bar to registering the name. It seems to me to be in the same class as the name Conan, which may have very strong associations for many people with one specific character, but which is none the less an acceptable Society name." (LoAR 4/91 p.4).


"Kveldulf is a unique name, applied to the grandfather of Egil Skallagrimsson, given to him because he came alive only at night and apparently had werewolf-like tendencies. As a unique name, its use in a patronymic form is a claim to relationship, which is disallowed by RfS V.5." (LoAR 4/91 p.14). [Jackline] "The presence of Jacklin and Jakelina in Withycombe lend credence to this spelling of the given name." (LoAR 6/91 p.3).


"Barring evidence that Terwyn is not period, we are giving the submitter the benefit of the doubt." (LoAR 6/91 p.3).


[Roseanna] "The presence of Rosianno in Morlet lends credence to this combination of Rose and Anna." (LoAR 6/91 p.10).


"While Brandon is a surname in period, it is also a documented variant spelling of Brendan (also, Brandan), so this spelling is allowable in a given name." (LoAR 7/91 p.1).


"Lady...Harpy presented evidence that Ceidrych is probably a reasonable compounded name." (LoAR 7/91 p.7).


"Glyn appears to be a placename and a surname in period, but not a given name. We will need evidence of its use as a given name in period before we can register it." (LoAR 7/91 p.24).


[Sean <surname>] "Conflict with Shauna <surname>." (LoAR 7/91 p.24).


[Colleen <name>] "The name as submitted seems sufficiently different from that of Sir Colin <name>." (LoAR 8/91 p.1)


[Irwyn] "Reaney's dictionary of British Surnames notes Irwine as a given name in 1185. This form should be acceptable." (LoAR 8/91 p.2).


[Tyrell] "The submitter's documentation from Bardsley states 'there can be no doubt as to the personal or baptismal origin of the surname.' " (LoAR 8/91 p.4).


[Barrett] "It may be that not every name in Withycombe is documented as well as it should be as a given name in Period. The given here is one example of that. Lord Laurel is, however, extremely reluctant to start going through all of our standard names sources making lists of exceptions, which lists will never be as widely distributed as the source books are. (Look at the trouble we have getting people to stop using entire books, like Kolatch, and it might give you an idea of the magnitude of the problem as I see it.)" [Note: this decision does not necessarily seem compatible with current or past precedent: note the decision on 'Tirion' on the LoAr of 8/91 p.16] (LoAR 8/91 p.7).


"Though there was some question regarding the construction of Tanarian, several commenters noted that 'Arian' is found (as a protheme) in Welsh, and that this construction did not seem unreasonable." (LoAR 8/91 p.13).


The lack of a date in the citation in Gruffudd and the fact that Tirion is documented as a placename in Period in celtic Remains, combined with the lack of any evidence of Tir- as an element in compound names forces us to request Period documentation of Tirion as a given before we can register it." (LoAR 8/91 p.16).


Cairenn as spelled here appears to be a unique name, that of the mother of Niall of the Nine Hostages." (LoAR 8/91 p.17).


[Caelainn <name>] "The bulk of the commentary favored registration of this name as being sufficiently different from Caitilin <name>. Lord Laurel agrees that if correctly pronounced the two names are indeed sufficiently different. The problem, however, is the consistent mispronounciation of names in the SCA, not just by heralds... but by the submitters themselves. Given the overwhelming support of the commenters in the College, I am registering this in spite of my personal qualms about how each submitter (and the heralds in their respective areas) is pronouncing each name." (LoAR 9/91 p.12).


[Nanette] "Several commenters questioned whether or not the given is a period name. Barring strong evidence that it is not, we felt it best to give the submitter the benefit of the doubt." (LoAR 10/91 p.1).


"Rowen is a later form of the old English name Hrodwen, and is perfectly acceptable as such." (LoAR 10/91 p.2).


[Katriona] "Conflict with Caiterina... if given proper Gaelic pronunciations, this conflicts under the rules." (LoAR 10/91 p.16).


[Just <given name>] "Lord Dragon has found evidence from period for the given name Justus and Juste, as well as <given name> as a surname, so this name can be justified as a perfectly legitimate construction." (LoAR 11/91 p.3).


[Kelwin] "Lady Harpy suggests a logical derivation from the Anglo-Saxon Ceolwine." (LoAR 11/91 p.5).


"Lorraine is the submitter's legal given name. Especially given the modern-day use of Lorraine as a feminine given name, I am extremely hesitant to refuse to register it, even given the region Lorraine's position in the history of Europe (which probably helped lead to its use as a personal name). Lorraine does not seem nearly so obtrusive a usage as, say, 'England' or 'Italia' would." (LoAR 11/91 p.7).


"Lynnea is a post-period Swedish name from the surname Linnæus." [The name was returned for this reason] (LoAR 11/91 p.18).


"RFS II.4 states that 'elements of the submitter's legal name may be used as the corresponding part of the Society name if such elements are not excessively obtrusive and do not violate other sections of these rules.' Unfortunately, Deyrni is 'excessively obtrusive', owing at least in part to the great popularity of Kathrine Kurtz's Deryni series. (That she is well known as a Countess in the SCA doesn't help, either). Nearly every commenter who had anything to say about this name noted the problem of reading the given as 'Deryni'." (LoAR 11/91 p.19).


"Hamish is not a name. It is a phonetic rendering of the Gaelic name Seumas in the vocative case, and only became misconsidered a given name by mistake by non-Gaelic speakers in post-period times. It is no more a given than would be the possessive James'. If the submitter would consider the given Seumas, this would work." (LoAR 11/91 p.19).


[Pryddwyn] "The Welsh experts in the College find this dithematic name to be highly unlikely. Even were it a likely combination, it would most likely be Prytddwyn. Additionally, it remains too close in appearance to the name of King Arthur's boat, which has previously been disallowed." (LoAR 11/91 p.22).


"Additional evidence for the deterotheme -far was found in Searle, lending more support for the construction Balfar." (LoAR 12/91 p.6).


[Luna] "The LoI established 'a strong pattern of use of a class of words {in this case the names of Roman deities} as given names' (see RfS II.3.b). Based on this pattern we believe Luna to be acceptable. While the use of the decrescent with the given name is allusive, we do not believe that the name and charge combination is so excessively allusive as to require return." (LoAR 12/91 p.7).


[Bres] "Though O'Corráine and Maguire note that Bres 'is always borne by mythological or legendary characters in Irish literature', Dauzat cites it as a popular form of St. Brictius." (LoAR 12/91 p.12).


[Cwenhere] "The given mixes a feminine prototheme with a masculine deterotheme. Such a construction is impossible by the rules by which Old English names were constructed." (LoAR 12/91 p.16).


[Ffiona] "Given the acceptance (admittedly, on a special basis) of Fiona, we did not feel that we could reasonably disallow this variant." (LoAR 2/92 p.8)


[Sapphira] "As I have been loath to do with Withycombe and other of our 'standard' names sources, I do not wish to start going through the Bible and making lists of exceptions to the names documented therefrom. Yes, as a number of commenters noted, the name Sapphira has sufficient negative connotations in the Bible itself that it is unlikely to have been used as a name in Period. The fact remains, however, that it was in the 'pool' of available Biblical names, and it should remain available to members of the SCA until and unless proven 'guilty' of sufficient impossibility or sufficient offense to warrant banning it." (LoAR 2/92 p.10).


[Cwenwyn] "Given the many attestations of 'Cwen' both alone and as a protheme in Period, I believe that we should give it the same allowance that we do the name Regina: so long as it is not used in a name in such a way as to imply landedness, it will be acceptable for registration." (LoAR 2/92 p.12).


"Dona is not the same as the title Doña, and therefore is not subject to restriction as a title." (LoAR 2/92 p.15).


[Russell] "Lady Ensign supplied documentation for Russell as a given name in Period." (LoAR 2/92 p.17).


[Aradia] "The name has been modified to drop the problematical Aradia, which appears to be a unique name." (LoAR 3/92 p.9).


"Lempriére shows Amalthea as the daughter of Melissus, King of Crete. Given this documentation (of a human bearing the name), we believe Amalthea to be registerable in the SCA." (LoAR 4/92 p.6)


[Kiera] "Given the presence of Saint Kiara circa 680 from Ireland, the spelling Kiera seems a reasonable and allowable variant." (LoAR 4/92 p.11).


[Beaune] "Several commenters questioned whether or not Beaune can be used as a given name here; it appears in this spelling as a given name in the submitter's documentation." (LOAR 5/92 p.3)


[Styvyn] "Lord Dragon found some documentation in both middle and late period England which tends to support the client's requested spelling of the given name." (LoAR 5/92 p.19).


"The biggest problem, however, is the combination of a Merlin-variant name with 'of the oak' in any language is an excessive reference to the Merlin of Arthurian legend." (LoAR 5/92 p.21).


[Jaspyr] "The name has been modified to match the documented form [Jasper]. No documentation was presented that a y/e change is a reasonable variant." (LoAR 6/92 p.7).


[Culhwch] "All of the documentation indicates that Culhwch is a unique, probably allegorical name. Since it is not constructed of elements that appear in other names, we cannot even argue for it as a constructed name."[The name was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 6/92 p.14).


NAMES - Groups [including Households]


[Leornung-has] "This is an appropriate Anglo-Saxon alternate for 'College'." (LoAR 7/90 p.4).


[Gaesatae, used as the group designator for a household ] "It seems unclear from the commentary whether the Gaesatae were a specific clan of Celtic nobility or a specific tribe (noted primarily for the use of the spear and going naked into battle). Either way it is not appropriate for registration." (LoAR 7/90 p.13).


[Entertainer's Guild] "It was felt that the name was too generic to be registered to a single group." (LoAR 10/90 p.21).


[Rolling Thunder] "That the natural phenomenon of 'a long drawn-out thunderclap' existed in period has never been an issue in previous returns of this name; the modern connotations of the name have been. The OED does not cite instances of 'roll' with either drums or thunder until well after period (1688 and 1700, respectively). The name is not period style but is obtrusively modern." (LoAR 4/91 p.13).


"The name is in conflict with the period site from which it was documented. Were the group actually located in the Barony of Duffer, County Down, Ireland, they would be able to use this name." (LoAR 11/90 p.17).


"Submitted as Company of the Chequered Shield of <Barony name>, the geographic name was dropped since it implied that the Company was an official group of the <Barony>. Were it such, the name should be registered to the Barony and not to an individual who happens to reside there." (LoAR 1/91 p.6).


"We have strong doubts about the propriety of the College registering an unofficial designation like 'borough' to an SCA group, past registration notwithstanding. If it's a household, let's call it a household and register it to the head of the household. If it's a geographic group like a canton or shire, let's register it as a canton or shire." (LoAR 1/91 p.24).


[Elmeston] "While one root meaning for -ton is 'farm,' the much more common meaning is the geographic designator 'town.' 'Town' is not a suitable designator for a 'household', particularly one based on geography. Might we suggest 'House Elmeston'?" [The household name was returned.] (LoAR 6/91 p.19).


"Although Midhaven appears to be an actual medieval place, it is not a 'significant geographical location outside the Society' as defined in the Administrative Handbook, Protected Items, E." (LoAR 7/91 p.1).


"While in the past arms have been registered to the regions of Ansteorra and Calontir, a number of commenters questioned whether this is a precedent we should still follow. In a discussion with the Chairman of the Board of Directors, she recommended against the registration of the names and armory of regions. Might we suggest that the region send in the paperwork for a change in status to that of principality?" (LoAR 7/91 p.18).


"Personal households may not incorporate the name of an SCA branch in their name." (LoAR 7/91 p.22).


"The problem is that 'Newest South Wales' [the translation of the submitted place] presupposes a 'New South Wales', which is a provably post-period place." (LoAR 8/91 p.24).


"[In addition to the conflict problem] a more serious problem is that registration would imply the acceptance by the Society of an order, membership in which is based on gender. If we are not willing to accept an order all of whose members could only be male, we should not give our 'stamp of approval' to one whose members can only be female." (LoAR 8/91 p.25).


[Latin Household name, meant to mean "Dead Historian's Society" ] "In addition to the name being, even in Latin, an obtrusively modern take-off of a movie title and not Period in style, the grammar is incorrect...(All this leaving aside the question, of course, as to whether the household's members are all dead.)" (LoAR 9/91 p.15).


[Blackmoore] "The Administrative Handbook Protected Items F notes that locations which play a significant role in the action of the modern literary work (of any genre) in which they appear will be protected. As a consequence, in spite of the five English Blackmoors, we are having to return this for conflict with the TSR entity." (LoAR 9/91 p.18).


"Moonsea is not a period style name. Barring documentation of similarly constructed names in English, this must be returned." (LoAR 10/91 p.15).


"The problem with this name is the designator Maschio. The primary meanings in the submitter's own documentation are 'male, manly, masculine, virile'. Several commenters had questions regarding its propriety as an alternate designator for 'stronghold.'" [Returned for this reason] (LoAR 10/91 p.18).


[<Given name> of the <adjective-object>] "Regarding the question of [the personal name's] presumption versus the <Kingdom> Order of the Olde <adjective-object>, deletion of both the words 'Order of the' and 'Olde' should be sufficient to remove the appearance of presumption." (LoAR 11/91 p.2).


[Isle of the Blue Mists] "Conflict with Barony of the Isles. Of the Blue Mists is a single adjectival phrase modifying the noun Isle. Adding a collection of adjectives after a noun is no different than adding a collection of adjectives before a noun for purposes of RFS V.2. {Arguendo, if the noun is Mists, then Isle of the Blue is the adjectival phrase, and the name conflicts with the Principality of the Mists. I don't really believe this argument, but either way we have a conflict.}" (LoAR 11/91 p.23).


[Order of the Legion of the Sword of Honor] "The order name here does not appear to follow any Period order name that anyone could find. The use of multiple nouns modifying other nouns creates a semantic nightmare. Depending on how one interprets the structure of the various phrases in its name, this could be considered to conflict with the Order of the Sword or with the Legion of Honor." (LoAR 1/92 p.14).


"The 'Barony of Dragon' does not make sense in German or English. At the very least it needs an article. As the clients allowed no changes, we are having to return this." (LoAR 2/92 p.19).


[House <Place>] "<Place> is a real place in the middle ages and should not be registered to a single individual in the SCA." [It is unclear if this means we are protecting every mundane place, or whether <Place> was considered famous enough to protect, and the ruling did not mention the fact] (LoAR 2/92 p.20).


[Order of the <astrological sign>] "The name conflicts with the very well-known astronomical constellation and astrological sign." [This implies such things are protected] (LoAR 2/92 p.22).


[Household Crystal Scroll] "The household name is not one that would have been used in Period by any standards of name construction that we could find. Scrolls are not something that could be made from crystal. This is a fantasy-style name." (LoAR 4/92 p.17).


[Order of Black Widows] "Despite the contention in the LoI to the contrary, this name is indeed a conflict with Widow's Abbey per RfS V.2. Addition of an adjective is insufficient difference. Since we can grant no difference for the identifying designator (per V.4.d.), this is a conflict. As noted by Lord Batonvert, 'Abbey' in Widow's Abbey performs the same function as the word 'household' in the same position would. If the word 'household' is the designator in 'Widow's Household', 'abbey' is the designator in 'Widow's Abbey'.

As for the argument in the LoI that a black widow is 'a thing, a critter, a two word noun', if the College were to have to consider this submission on those grounds alone this would have to be returned, since the name 'black widow' was not given to the spider until early in the 20th century (the earliest citation is 1927), well after the Society's 1600 cut-off date. (The arachnid is not itself native to the Americas, but was brought into this hemisphere in the late 19th or early 20th century from the Far East.)" (LoAR 4/92 p.24).


NAMES - Holding


[Submitter appealing and suggesting, if appeal fails, that the existing holding name be changed ] "Regarding the proposed change of the holding name, even while knowing the submitter's desires and the reasons therefore, Laurel had to agree with Trefoil that changing an existing holding name at the request of the submitter sets a bad precedent, and it is believed would be tantamount to a name change, which would require the submitter to pay for her next name (re)submission. In the interests of fairness to all submitters, the holding name...remains unchanged." (LoAR 9/90 p.14).


NAMES - Indian


"While several commenters questioned the compatability factors of allowing names from the Indian subcontinent in the SCA, it was the Portuguese who in the 15th and 16th Centuries broke the Arabian monopoly on the Indian Ocean trade and established a number of settlements in India. Given the historical facts, Laurel doubts the propriety of disallowing Indian names as being incompatible." (LoAR 4/92 p.7).


NAMES - Irish and Scots


"The Scottish patronymic particle [Mac] was sometimes used with an English given name." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium pps. 1-2).


"Submitted as <given name> <locative> of <locative>, such a form (X of X, or X of that Ilk) is a claim not only to chieftanship of a clan but implies overlordship of a territory, and rank and title. Such a claim is improper in the SCA." (LoAR 9/90 p.7).


"The use of a clan name with an actual place in Scotland implies landedness in the possession of a feudal barony. See Scots Heraldry by Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, pp. 203-205, for a fuller discussion of 'Territorial Designations'." (LoAR 11/90 p.17).


"The use of the Gaelic patronymic is inappropriate with an anglicization of the patronymic name." [the name was returned: note that this is may be anomalous as it is contrary to later acceptances in LsoAR of 1/91, 2/91, which allowed combinations such as nic Lowry, nic Andrew and nic Bryan] (LoAR 12/90 p.14).


"CuáRuadh Keep does not appear to follow the pattern of using an anglicized Irish name in an English style place name (such would much more likely be something akin to Conroe Keep)." (LoAR 8/91 p.17).


"No evidence was presented that Scots Gaelic feminized masculine names by adding 'a'." (LoAR 11/91 p.16).


"While there are a number of Scottish patronymics formed from Old Norse personal names, no evidence was presented that the reverse ever occurred. This makes sense as the migration of settlers appears to have been pretty much one-way, from Scandinavia to Britain." (LoAR 11/91 p.17).


[<given name> bena Cato, bena meant to be Irish for "wife of" ] "The byname is improperly constructed. It contains mixed languages that do not appear to have combined this way in period. (Also, according to Lord Dragon the particle should be 'ben' rather than 'bena'.)" (LoAR 3/92 p.12).


NAMES - Jewish


[<Hebrew female given name> bint <Hebrew man's name> <Arabic epithet> ] "Period instances of Jews in Muslim Spain combining Hebrew names with the Arabic patronymic give credence to this form." (LoAR 9/91 p.7).


NAMES - Mundane Name Allowance

[Je Nell, a mundane given name, used as an SCA middle name] "While the addition of Je Nell was somewhat intrusive, it was not sufficiently so to cause return of the name." (LoAR 9/90 p.5).

"There was...some discussion about the Mundane Name Allowance (not the 'Mundane Name Loophole'). Such allowance is neither 'vile' nor purposeless; it is a courtesy we extend to those who wish to use a single given name within and without the Society. If someone who wishes us to remove this courtesy from the Rules for Submissions can present evidence that the occasional abuse which is made of it heavily outweighs the benefits of good public relations and simplifying the lives of those members who choose to use it, we will discuss the possibility of rescinding it. Until such time as that, however, the Allowance remains." (CL 11/5/90 p.3).


"Submitted as Chantal <surname>, the submitter was requesting a compromise of the mundane name allowance to permit a less obtrusive spelling of her mundane given name. The bulk of the commentary on this issue was not in favor of such a relaxation of the mundane name allowance, especially given that 'Chantal' was a placename in period." (LoAR 10/90 p.11).


[<given name> the <epithet>] "Conflict with the submitter's legal name, <given name> <epithet>. Society names should not be the same as the members' legal names. (See Administrative Handbook, Protected Items I.) Addition of the article 'the' is insufficient. (See RfS, V.4.) Addition of a given, surname, adjective or adjectival phrase would clear this." (LoAR 1/91 p.23).


"While it was a surname in period, Lynne is also a diminutive of a given name. Hence we felt that II.4 (Legal Names) could be applied here." (LoAR 2/91 p.1).


"The pronunciation of the SCA [name] is insufficiently different from the submitter's mundane [name] to be considered registerable by the College (Administrative Handbook, Protected Items I). If the submitter would consider nearly any change (for instance, adding 'de' in front of <the locative>), this would be sufficient." [Note that the Administrative Handbook only requires non-identity, not non-identical pronunciation. Also note a previous ruling in the LoAR 1/91 p.23 where addition of the article "the" in between the given name and surname was not enough to prevent conflict with a mundane name.] (LoAR 7/91 p.20).


[<name> of <place>] "The name is effectively identical to the submitter's use name outside the Society, <name> <place>." [The name was returned] (LoAR 9/91 p.17).


"Rule II.4 states that 'elements of a submitter's name may be used as the corresponding part of a Society name.' The subtext goes on to explain that 'corresponding elements are defined by their type, not solely their position in the name.' The submitter's middle name... is a surname by type. It may not therefore be used as a given name in the SCA." (LoAR 10/91 p.19).


"Lorraine is the submitter's legal given name. Especially given the modern-day use of Lorraine as a feminine given name, I am extremely hesitant to refuse to register it, even given the region Lorraine's position in the history of Europe (which probably helped lead to its use as a personal name). Lorraine does not seem nearly so obtrusive a usage as, say, 'England' or 'Italia' would." (LoAR 11/91 p.7).


"RFS II.4 states that 'elements of the submitter's legal name may be used as the corresponding part of the Society name if such elements are not excessively obtrusive and do not violate other sections of these rules.' Unfortunately, Deyrni is 'excessively obtrusive', owing at least in part to the great popularity of Kathrine Kurtz's Deryni series. (That she is well known as a Countess in the SCA doesn't help, either). Nearly every commenter who had anything to say about this name noted the problem of reading the given as 'Deryni'." (LoAR 11/91 p.19).


"Because this name differs only by adding an 'e' to the surname, this is technically in conflict with her legal use name, per the Administrative Handbook part I, Protected Items I, which states in pertinent part that 'no item will be registered to a submitter if it is identical with an item used by the submitter legally or in common use outside the Society.' It may not be the name she commonly uses, but it is legally available to her to be used at any time, and is therefore (one of her) legal name(s)." (LoAR 1/92 p.19).


[Patrick MacManus] "Conflict with Patrick F. McManus, a well-known modern writer of humor. His name is apparently too recent to appear yet in any of our standard sources, but he is clearly well known enough to warrant protection. (Even Lord Laurel who has read none of his works, is familiar with all the titles mentioned by the commenters.) [The] statement that 'there is no problem with conflict' because of the middle initial 'F' is in error. We do protect against legal use names. In this specific case a legal name for the author is indeed Patrick McManus: this is a conflict." (LoAR 3/92 p.14).


NAMES - Old English


[Cwenhere] "The given mixes a feminine prototheme with a masculine deterotheme. Such a construction is impossible by the rules by which Old English names were constructed." (LoAR 12/91 p.16).


[Cwenwyn] "Given the many attestations of 'Cwen' both alone and as a protheme in Period, I believe that we should give it the same allowance that we do the name Regina: so long as it is not used in a name in such a way as to imply landedness, it will be acceptable for registration." (LoAR 2/92 p.12).


[<Name> Gildwynsson] "<Name> is a feminine given name and could not be used in a mixed gender name (in other words, she cannot be Gildwyn's son)." [Note that does not seem consistent with practices that would register, for example, 'Ann Williamson.' The implication is that because the name is entirely Old English, the patronymic would not have been an inherited surname of Gildwynsson (which is gender-neutral because it is inherited), but would have actually translated to <Name>, Gildwyn's daughter.] (LoAR 6/92 p.20).


NAMES - Russian


"Submitted as [name, with accent marks], the accent marks in Unbegaun are simply a guide to pronunciation, and not a part of the written name, so we have removed them." (LoAR 9/90 p.6).


[Female name formed with a feminine given, a masculine given, and a masculine surname ] "This is not a correctly formed Russian name. Russian naming practices are very strict and do not have the leeway given many other languages. The correct form would appear to be <given name, feminine patronymic, feminine surname>. However, since the submitter allowed no changes at all we were unable to correct the grammar to register the name." (LoAR 10/91 p.15).


[Masculine name formed with two masculine given names] "While acceptable in this form (with a second given name as a byname), the name would be better formed with a patronymic." (LoAR 12/91 p.8).


NAMES - Scandinavian


"While there are a number of Scottish patronymics formed from Old Norse personal names, no evidence was presented that the reverse ever occurred. This makes sense as the migration of settlers appears to have been pretty much one-way, from Scandinavia to Britain." (LoAR 11/91 p.17).


[Asbjarnarson] "Submitted as... Asbjornson. The name has been modified to correct the grammar of the patronym. Laurel is hesitant to extend the allowance made for Bjornsson to include compound names without more period evidence for support." [overruled 3/92 p.4] (LoAR 1/92 p.5).


"Lord Treblerose... documented Norse patronymics in period using the genitive 's' as well as their more 'correct' genitive forms. Thus Bjarnisson is as acceptable as the technically more correct Bjarnasson." [Supersedes LoAR of 1/92 p.5] (LoAR 3/92 p.4).


NAMES - Style


[The byname von An Tir] "The languages of the locative do not match (German and Welsh)." [The submission was returned solely for this reason. This ruling implies that SCA places are not entirely part of the "lingua franca" and are subject to the style rules for linguistic consistency] (LoAR 8/90 p.14).


[Mont Saint Michel] "It is Laurel's belief that the presence or absence of hyphens in the name is not, considering most period (and even much post-period) orthography, a real issue." (LoAR 9/90 p.10).


"Submitted as Elspeth Isabeau <byname>, the given names are two variants of Elizabeth. We have dropped the second in order to register the name." (LoAR 10/90 p.12).


[the epithet al-Bodmani, an Arabic-style locative formed from a British town ] "I can do little better than to quote Mistress Alisoun...'...the fact that the structure is compatible with Arabic naming practise makes the name admissible'. That the locative is extremely unlikely...does not make it unregisterable. It is formed in a manner consistent with Arabic practice." (LoAR 12/90 p.3).


"Submitted as <given name> bint-Aamir, we have deleted the obtrusive hyphen." (LoAR 12/90 p.5).


"The combination of a Russian given with a Norse patronymic ending was so unlikely as to be disallowed by the Rules for Submission III.2.a and Laurel precedent." (LoAR 12/90 p.7).


"The use of the Gaelic patronymic is inappropriate with an anglicization of the patronymic name." [the name was returned: note that this is may be anomalous as it is contrary to later acceptances in LsoAR of 1/91, 2/91, which allowed combinations such as nic Lowry, nic Andrew and nic Bryan] (LoAR 12/90 p.14).


[Re: '<name> daughter of...'] "Admittedly, <name> is a masculine name, and has not been documented as a feminine given name in period. However, Mistress Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane (LoAR of 25 January 1987, p.7) noted that 'cross-gender names are so well-established a tradition in the Society that it would be pedantic to object' when she registered a masculine byname form with a feminine given. As a consequence of this long-standing acceptance of cross-gender names, I felt I could not but register this name." (CL 3/21/91 p.2).


[FitzMungo] "The documented names FitzNeill and Fitzpatrick, as only two examples of mixed Norman/Gaelic patronymics, lend credence to this usage." (LoAR 3/91 p.1).


[MacGunther] "Given the citation from Forssner's Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England of Gunter, Gonther, and Gonter as given names, this usage with a Scots patronymic becomes much more reasonable." [the name was registered] (LoAR 4/91 p.8).


"Technically the first 'E' in Eire should have the fada. However, it is commonly written in English without it so we are registering Eire without change." (LoAR 5/91 p.6).


"There was a little commentary regarding a request for a 'standard transliteration' for the benefit of those without all of the 'fancy characters' in their word processors. It was noted that 'the only ones who really need to have printers that can do all the strange stuff are Laurel and Free Trumpet Press West'. {Laurel wants to know if that commenter plans on buying the Laurel office a printer that will do all those fancy characters, then since his printer will not do them all?} Laurel does not feel any overwhelming need to dictate a 'standard' transliteration for each non-standard character from Norse or any other language. We do not require a standardized transliteration system for Chinese, Japanese, Mongol, Persian, or Arabic; I fail to see why we should mandate one for Norse. As a general rule I will use the 'fancy characters' if my word processor will do them, but for some, particularly thorns and edhs, will generally use 'th' or 'd', depending on the specific name." (CL 11/12/91 p.2).


"The transliteration as submitted of the patronymic was not reasonable, combining as it did two different transliteration systems in a single name element, which serves only to distort the pronunciation." [It was modified to a consistent transliteration] (LoAR 10/91 p.1).


"As Mistress Alisoun also noted when she was Laurel, while temporal inconsistency in a name is sometimes notable, in a society where an Elizabethan lady can sit at the table next to an early Viking, requiring temporal consistency in a name seems to be asking more than is necessary." (LoAR 10/91 p.7).


"The use of a Greek adjective (as opposed to a Greek name element) in the middle of an Irish/English name seems unlikely. We would prefer to see some evidence of at least a pattern of similar naming practices in period." [The name was returned for this reason] (LoAR 11/91 p.19).


"The citation in Dauzat for 'Loch' by itself lends credence to the use of Loch with the article 'de'." (LoAR 12/91 p.5).


[Castell Daibhidh] "The name mixes languages in a single phrase, and no evidence was presented that it is possible to mix English and Scottish Gaelic in this way." (LoAR 12/91 p.16).


"A term which has been receiving more use lately in some commentary regarding names is 'temporal compatibility', especially regarding names which use elements from different centuries (though from the same general language or at least compatible ones). The argument is that since we do not allow names to combine elements from widely disparate cultures, neither should we allow names from disparate centuries.

A problem that I have with this argument is that it is harder to prove that a name combination is unreasonable or incompatible when the gap between the elements is temporal rather than geographical. Only one example of this is the use of a Roman or Roman-derived given with a late-period English surname. It is easy to look at such a name and state that there was no way those two cultures could have had contact and therefore argue for banning the name combination, until one looks further into the situation and finds that English Renaissance parents not infrequently named their children after classical Romans, at which point Julius Leigh or Calpurnia Haverhill become much more reasonable as they follow a documented period name formation practice. And while many of our sources give early dates for when we might expect the first documented use of a name, none of them purport to give us the last documented use.

In most (perhaps all) cultures naming customs tend to be very conservative. (How many parents today still use biblical names for their children, no matter what their religious orientation? How many still name their children with names first popularized in the early Renaissance? 'John' is still one of the most popular boys' names in this country - how long ago did it originate?)

As a consequence, unless someone can convince the College that there is some compelling reason for disallowing names that our clients want simply on the grounds that they are unlikely because of a temporal gap, and that banning such temporally inconsistent names is of greater benefit to the Society than giving our clients the greatest possible leeway in selecting their Society names, I will continue to act as if the College is here to help our clients and not just build higher and higher hurdles for them to scale in the effort to register a Society-acceptable name." (CL 2/12/92 pps. 5-6).


[Vnycornes] "We would prefer to register the standard orthography (Unycorne; the i/y switch is not a problem) for greater consistency in filing and conflict checking in the future. The policy here would be similar to that of our registration of the fully-spelled out 'Saint' rather than the scribal abbreviation 'St.'. The client may certainly use it with an initial 'v', as that was a fairly common usage in period, but for consistency's sake we would register the standard form." (LoAR 2/92 p.24).


[Ancient Egyptian name] "While a number of commenters argued that ancient Egypt (and ancient Egyptian names) is outside the scope of the Society, unless and until the Board of Directors places an early cutoff date, we must continue to consider names such as this one legitimate submissions." (LoAR 5/92 p.22).


NAMES - Swedish


[Fran] "The submitter wished the correct Swedish for 'of', and so we have given him what appears to be the most likely form." (LoAR 12/90 p.7).


NAMES - Welsh


"The use of 'ap' in a feminine name is late period usage and not all that common, but not unheard of." (LoAR 11/90 p.5) "Lady Harpy lent some support for the use of a Welsh patronymic particle with the Old English Ulfin." [the name was registered] (LoAR 11/90 p.5).


[<name1> priod o <name2>] "Lady Harpy presented evidence of several period names formed in this manner. However, a more common and possibly more correct form would be <name1> gwraic <name2>." [Lady Harpy only presented evidence for the formation <name> priod <name>. Lord Laurel inferred the acceptability of the form <name> priod o <name>] (LoAR 12/91 p.13).


NATIONAL STYLE


[A German version of the gurges, a.k.a. a snail, a.k.a. (and finally blazoned as) a schneke ] "Given that the College of Arms has already adopted such German charges as the seeblatt and nesselblatt into its blazonry, we saw no reason not to accept the German blazon for this charge as well." (LoAR 1/91 p.7).


"After carefully reviewing the research of Lords Crescent, Batonvert, and Yale, I have come to the conclusion that we are going to have to treat mundane mon as tinctureless armory for purposes of conflict checking. I do not do this lightly (or even happily), but the unescapable conclusion from the research is that mundane mon were treated in period as tinctureless: that is to say, they could legitimately have been displayed in any color/metal combination. Because the purpose of our conflict rules is to avoid identity, and because a mon which is black and white in a book could legitimately be displayed and used in any contrasting tincture combination (by our definition, tinctureless), I do not believe that we can allow difference for tincture. (Any other course would leave us open to someone taking the mon of, say, Tokugawa, submitting it in Or and vert, and getting it registered. Yet any Japanese would see it only as Tokugawa, not differenced at all.)" [Note that personal communications with Laurel have established that this ruling really does mean no tincture differences at all will be counted: this means there is no "fieldless difference" as there would be in tinctureless S.C.A. armory] (CL 3/21/91 p.1)


[Argent, three piles in point gules, overall an estoile, all within a bordure sable charged with the words 'honesto', 'dignidad', and 'vertud' between three crosses crosslet fitchy, points to center, argent ] "While (marginally) simpler than the previous submission, this is still too complex...

In considering 'appropriateness' to have more value than 'arbitrary standards' as requested in the LoI, this device is appropriate for a man displaying Marshalled arms during the Spanish Renaissance (Husband's arms: Argent, three piles in point gules, overall an estoile sable. Wife's arms: Sable, crucilly fitchy, the words 'honesto', 'dignidad', and 'vertud' argent). The wavy-armed estoile is not a Spanish charge, but an English one. No evidence has been produced to show that piles in point were used in Spanish armory in period, and the use of mottos then was extremely limited. In other words, it isn't truly Spanish armory, though it is designed with a Spanish influence.

In the end, any armory submitted for registration by the College of Arms must be judged by SCA standards, not British, Scottish, French, German, Polish, Russian, Saracenic, or Japanese. This must be so because we do not register British, Scottish, etc. armory - we cannot. That is left by law to the Colleges of Arms of those respective nations. We are the Society for Creative Anachronism, and what we register is SCA heraldry, what we use and display is SCA heraldry, and what we have to use to determine appropriateness are SCA standards. Visually, this submission is still too complex." (LoAR 2/91 p.21).


"I have not seen any examples yet of 'Saracenic' heraldry which combined script and charges. There are hundreds of examples of armory with charges, and hundreds of examples of 'armory' consisting only of script, but none which combined the two." [The device was returned for complexity reasons] (LoAR 2/91 p.22).


[Per pale vert and azure, a sea-fan argent] "Conflict with <the mon> A military fan bendwise. There is one CVD for orientation of the charge, but nothing for the tincture. Conflict also with <another mon> A military fan within an annulet, with only one CVD for the addition of the annulet." [This ruling strongly implies that not even the "fieldless difference" applies to mon.] (LoAR 7/91 p.22).


[In the case of a mon] "[There is no difference] for tincture (since mundane mon are essentially tinctureless) nor for fieldlessness (since mon are not fieldless badges. Mon have fields; their tinctureless makes them omnifielded for all practical purposes.)" (LoAR 11/91 p.19).


"We share Lord Trefoil's doubts regarding dismissing conflicts from the Matsuya Piece Goods Store on a 'pick and choose' basis. As we have said before regarding some of the names in Withycombe or armory in Fabulous Heraldry, we are unwilling to start making lists of exceptions to standard references. The [other problem with the armory] simplifies matters this time; however, unless and until Matsuya can be shown to be unreliable in a manner similar to, say, Loughead, we will continue to use it for conflict checking." (LoAR 11/91 p.21).


"Lord Laurel is confused by the misunderstanding some commenters seem to have regarding the difference between fieldless and tinctureless armory. Fieldless armory gets a CD for fieldlessness; tinctureless armory (SCA, not mundane) acquires one CD for fieldlessness - the other CD must come from a class other than tincture (RfS X.4.d). Japanese mon, while tinctureless, are not fieldless; thus, they cannot be granted the fieldlessness difference. Addition or removal of charges, field and charge divisions (since mon appear only to have used solid fields and solid charges), complex lines, all contribute difference from mon. Fieldlessness does not, unless the SCA armory being considered against it is fieldless, in which case the SCA armory, not the mon, gets a CD for fieldlessness." (LoAR 1/92 p.15).


OFFENSE - Armory


"Despite Laurel's personal feelings on the matter, in formal and informal polls taken by a number of heralds (including Laurel) of both heralds and general populace members a significant percentage of Society members (in my poll, over half) had problems with the pentacle on the grounds of offensiveness because of association with black magic and 'Satanism', especially given the recent publicity in relation to events in California in which inverted pentacles (only a 38 degree rotation of the charge) were prominently displayed in a number of newspapers and news magazines. Negative reactions ranged from being uncomfortable with the charge to a forthright 'If I had to face that on the field I would not fight.' As a consequence, I believe that a significant percentage of the populace finds the charge offensive and so cannot register it." (LoAR 8/90 p.16).


"I feel it incumbent upon myself to answer as best I may Lord Dragon's comments...regarding the return of the device of [submitter using pentacle within a circle] (August 1990 LoAR, p.16). I will state outright that this was NOT returned under IX.2 ('Magical or religious symbolism that is excessive or mocks the belief of others will not be registered.') I do not find that a single symbol of a religion on a device to be excessive in any sense of the word. Nor does it in any way 'mock the beliefs of others'. It was not returned 'solely because hers is a minority religion whose symbols arouse unusually strong feelings in some members of the populace (Lord Dragon's words, emphasis mine). In polls which I myself and which others took, not just of heralds but of the general populace, a significant percentage of those responding found a pentacle to have modern connotations which they found offensive. Not just a small, or even significant, minority: In the poll I took of the populace in Dallas1 (a relatively cosmopolitan area), the percentage ran well over 60%. A percentage that large is NOT just 'some members of the populace'; it is too large a percentage to ignore or discount.

That a Wiccan symbol has been adopted (inverted, admittedly, but on a five-pointed object that requires a rotation of only 36 degrees) by so-called 'Satanist' groups and has received a lot of publicity as being a symbol used by those groups is very unfortunate2. But when a symbol shows up on the front pages of major daily newspapers, and in Newsweek and Time magazines, labelled as symbols used by 'Satanic cults' in 'evil rituals' it creates an atmosphere which all of the good will and attempts at educating the populace (within and without the SCA) simply cannot overcome.

Arguments that use of the symbol was 'tantamount to casting a spell' were not even considered in the return of this device. Arguments on religious grounds were not considered. I personally consulted with the submitter last April before this resubmission was made, and I have written her since the return. I have a lot of sympathy for her position, and wish it could be otherwise. (I am not going to say that 'some of my best friends are pagans', though I have a number of friends who happen to be such.) (I did note in the LoAR that the device was being returned in spite of my personal feelings, too.) but to ask me to register something which more than half the general populace finds disturbing or offensive because of the 20th century connotations it has acquired is asking more than I can in good conscience do.

When I took the poll in Dallas, I informed the populace at a general meeting that I had a submission which was in controversy and which I desired their opinion of. Did they have a problem with it? I did not tell them what about the submission was in controversy, and was scrupulous not to 'coach' answers in any way.

That a perfectly good form of cross used in cultures the world over in period has received some extremely negative 'bad press' through association with a single political group is also unfortunate, but we are not going to register fylfots (or swastikas), no matter which direction they rotate, because of the negative associations they have for a significant percentage of the populace. Based on the surveys which I and others took, pentacles (inverted or not) are in a similar situation." (CL 11/5/90 pps.2-3). [note that the Board of Direction declined to overturn this ruling in their meeting of 4/20/91: discussion can be found in the CL 5/13 p.2].


[A horned and winged demon] "There are two issues which came up in the commentary... The second issue is compatibility and offensiveness. It would appear that demon imagery was symbolic of evil in every period religion which used it at all. All in all, the submitter would be better advised to use a different charge." [The device was returned for these reasons] (LoAR 10/90 p.18).


[A scythe surmounted by a savage's head couped distilling goutes de sang ] "The effect of the combination of scythe, severed head, and blood issuing from the neck are simply too much." [The badge was returned for this reason only] (LoAR 11/90 p.16).


[A monster composed of the body of a naked man and the head, wings and tail of a dragon ] "While this is within the bounds of permissibility (Lord Batonvert came up with some research documenting similar-looking demons and their usage in period heraldry), a number of commenters felt it was pushing at the limits of acceptability." (LoAR 12/90 p.12)


[Argent, semy of cockroaches sable...] "This is being returned under RfS I.2, Offense. This general principle states that 'no submission will be registered that is detrimental to the educational purposes or good name of the Society, or the enjoyment of its participants because of offense that may be caused, intentionally or unintentionally, by its use.' Given the universally negative reaction of the commenters to this semy charge, it is believed that a significant percentage of the populace of the SCA will find this device so offensive as to reduce their enjoyment of and participation in SCA activities." (LoAR 12/91 p.19).


OFFENSE - Names


"It was felt that Maggiesbane was marginal, but was only one 'weirdness'." [the epithet was registered] (LoAR 7/90 p.4).


"[In addition to the conflict problem] a more serious problem is that registration would imply the acceptance by the Society of an order, membership in which is based on gender. If we are not willing to accept an order all of whose members could only be male, we should not give our 'stamp of approval' to one whose members can only be female." (LoAR 8/91 p.25).


[Nunneschild] "Lord Dragon has documented this kind of formation for the byname." (LoAR 2/92 p.3).


[Re: an order where it was noted in submission that membership was only open to one gender ] "Regarding the 'imposition' (as stated in the LoI) 'of mundane political values on the medieval functions of the Society'... it must be reiterated that the Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc. is a 20th Century non-profit, educational corporation which has to obey a lengthy list of national, state, and local regulations before it can begin to impose its own rules upon its members. (Appendix A to Corpora notes that 'The SCA, Inc. as a corporate person, along with all of its members as citizens, must obey the law of whatever jurisdictions apply to them in exactly the same fashion as all other corporations or citizens of those jurisdictions.') As an officer of that corporation, the Director of Heraldic Research for the SCA, Inc.does have certain responsibilities to ensure that his actions in fulfilling the duties of his office do not accept for the Corporation or imply acceptance by the Corporation of the actions or statements of any of its subdivisions (of which the <submitting area> is one) which would knowingly violate any of those laws, including anti-discrimination laws.

As applied to this particular case, two written statements by the Corporation seem particularly on point: In the General Principles of the Rules for Submissions of the College of Arms it is stated that 'no submission will be registered that is detrimental to the educational purposes or good name of the Society, or the enjoyment of its participants because of offense that may be caused, intentionally or unintentionally, by its use.' The second is a reiteration of the Society's long-standing nondiscrimination policy made in the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors held January 12, 1992: 'The Board affirmed that the Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc., has no policy whatsoever of denial of membership or participation based on reasons of race, age, creed, color, gender or sexual preference.'... The stated purposes of the submitted 'order' are in violation of that policy... This was verified in a conversation on this submission with the Steward of the Society, who noted that 'the SCA specifically does not limit things by gender', and that such an order is 'not appropriate to our non-profit status'. The Director of Heraldic Research of the SCA, Inc. cannot in good conscience, unless specifically told to do so by his 'boss', the Board of Directors of the SCA Inc., register this...

The submitting herald should note that continuing to use an Order name which has been returned by Laurel violates Corpora (VII.B.2 and VII.B.3), which states in pertinent part that 'the names and insignia of these awards and orders {both armigerous and non-armigerous} must be ratified by the Laurel Sovereign of Arms.' " (LoAR 4/92 pps. 24-25).


PAWPRINT


"The badge has the problem of using two different types of the same charge (pawprints) which has been disallowed for some time (although usually we see this problem with different types of swords)." [the badge was returned for this reason alone] (LoAR 12/90 p.17).


PIERCING


[A cross pointed charged with a mullet vs. a square-pierced cross moline] There is no difference for the changes to type of 'tertiary'." (LoAR 8/90 p.15).


PILE


"The field is not really chauss‚; it is not per chevron inverted, it is not a pile, it is not a chief triangular; being somewhere between all of these, we really don't know what it is. Chauss‚ issues from the corners of the chief and would touch the base point of the shield; per chevron inverted would issue from the sides of the field (rather than the chief corners); a pile would issue from farther in on the chief (rather [than] from the corners) and would almost touch the base point of the shield and would not have room for a charge beneath it; and a chief triangular would not descent the field nearly so far as the one here does. Please have them choose one and reemblazon it properly." [The device was returned for this problem alone] (LoAR 10/90 p.21).


[Gules, three piles in point Or, overall a centaur passant sable... ] "While this is a technical violation of VIII.2.b.i. regarding the necessity of overall charges having good contrast with the field rather than the charges they overlie, the fact that the overall charge was primarily on the piles led us to [believe] that in this case such technical violation would be permissible. This is not to be taken as a general precedent for violating VIII.2.b.i." (LoAR 12/90 p.9).


"Even were a pile inverted negligibly different from per chevron throughout (and this is most frequently the case), this is clear [for other reasons]." (LoAR 12/90 p.11).


"The difference between a pile and chauss‚ is blazonable, but is worth nothing in terms of difference." (LoAR 12/90 p.18).


[Three piles in point and an overall charge, vs. 3 piles] "Addition of the overall charge is only one CVD." [This implies no difference between piles and piles in point] (LoAR 4/91 p.13).


[Lozengy gules and Or, on a pile gules a <tertiary charge> ] "This particular design is just acceptable. Because of the nearly parallel lines of the lozengy field and the pile, the outline of the primary is almost too badly broken up to be identifiable. The best analogy for allowing this is an ordinary counter-compony or checky sharing a tincture with the field. But it would have been better on a field whose division lines did not so closely follow the line of the ordinary." (LoAR 11/91 p.9).


[A pile cotised] "The cotisses should meet in base" (LoAR 2/92 p.9).


PLANT


[Maidenhair Fern proper (vert, stemmed sable)] "Conflict with... a slip of three leaves vert and with...a sprig of parsley vert." [no type difference was given.] (LoAR 7/91 p.18).


[In bend a teasel slipped and leaved Or and a flax flower slipped and leaved argent ] "The use of two different types of plants in different orientations [one was somewhat out of the palewise true in the emblazon, although wasn't reflected in the blazon] and different tinctures is not period style. Prior Laurel precedent has indicated that we should not use two different kinds of charges of the same general type in a single charge group." (LoAR 11/91 p.21).


POSTURE


[<field> a hawk displayed wings inverted, <tincture> vs. many cases of <different field> an eagle displayed <same tincture> ] "In each case, there is only one CVD, for the field" [implying no difference for hawk to eagle, or for inverting wings] (LoAR 7/90 pps. 11-12).


[An arrow inverted vs. a stag lodged to sinister ] "...Laurel is inclined to allow a CVD...for orientation (palewise vs. fesswise)." (LoAR 7/90 pps. 12-13).


"We are not at all certain that 'juggling' is an heraldic posture." [Returned for this and other reasons] (LoAR 8/90 p.17).


[A charged bend sinister cotised] "Versus [a charged bend cotised] there is a CVD for the orientation of the primary and another for the orientation of the secondaries (the cotises)." (LoAR 10/90 p.6).


[Crane blazoned in LoAR as 'standing on one foot'] "The crane was blazoned in the LoI as 'in its vigilance', but that definiton includes a stone held in the raised foot of the bird, which was not present in the emblazon." (LoAR 10/90 p.7).


[Ypotryll dormant] "Versus [a dragon with the head and wings of an eagle couchant, wings displayed and addorsed], we believe that X.2 can be applied, even with the 'meatloaf' position here, owing to the very marked changes between the monsters." (LoAR 10/90 p.9).


"We feel that the second CVD can be gained from the change from courant to passant [sic - should be statant as in blazon], as it changes dramatically the position of all the legs. (Much as a CVD is granted for the change from statant to couchant, which effectively only removes the legs.)" (LoAR 11/90 p.9).


[A fox, lying on its back with all four paws in the hair, perched on a forepaw a raven ] "The fox is in a non-heraldic position, one which has been returned before in the LoARs of 14 April 1985, p.9 and 7 July 1986, p.17 and one which no one of us could blazon without resorting to, as Lord Trefoil pointed out, IPOC blazon terms. This we are extremely reluctant to do. While the submitted term 'in his deception' was very tempting, Laurel does not feel that a term which requires a special knowledge of SCA blazonry not already in current common usage in the College is a good idea." (LoAR 11/90 p.18).


[A bear sitting with its legs forward in the style of a teddy bear, blazoned as 'sitting' in the LoI and 'sejant erect' in the LoAR ] "We felt that the depiction of the bear was within the limits of artistic variation for sejant erect, and did not feel that a new term ('sitting') was necessary for this posture." (LoAR 12/90 p.13).


"There is...nothing for the change to erased contourny from trian aspect to sinister, which is, after all, only a slight turn of the head." (LoAR 12/90 p.15).


"The only real difference between herissony and passant is the arch of the back and position of one paw, so [there is no CVD]." (LoAR 12/90 p.16).


[A sheaf of arrows inverted between a group of secondary charges ] "Conflict with...a sheaf of three arrows...There is only one CVD, for the addition of the [secondaries]." [Implying that inverting the sheaf of arrows is worth no difference] (LoAR 2/91 p.17).


[A catamount couchant guardant, head lowered...] "The primary here is not in a heraldic posture. Nearly every commenter noted that it appeared in a very naturalistic position, crouched upon an (invisible) rock...Nor was the bordure truly fretty, but a kind of semy of lozenges [no interlace lines]. Were there only one of these problems, we would very likely have registered it and told the submitter to 'draw the X correctly'; as it is we felt that a new emblazon is in order." (LoAR 2/91 p.18).


"Though the hound was blazoned in the LoI as 'at point', there is no real difference between that and the more common 'passant'." [the blazon was corrected to 'passant'] (LoAR 4/91 p.7).


[Whale] "There is a CVD for hauriant embowed vs. hauriant." (LoAR 5/91 p.1).


"There appear to be some very strong feelings that birds should not be registered in quadrupeds' positions. As a consequence of this attitude (which Laurel has long shared): PRECEDENT: Henceforth, we will not accept rampant birds." (LoAR 5/91 p.5).


"It seems to be the consensus of the College that a fly rampant and clad in motley exceeds the informal 'Rule of two Weirdnesses' and given the College's feelings about birds in a rampant position it is unlikely that a rampant insect would be any more acceptable." (LoAR 5/91 p.11).


[A drakkar sailing to sinister proper, sailed gules] "Conflict with...a galley proper." [Discussion of addition of secondaries implies that there is no tincture difference or posture difference given here.] (LoAR 7/91 p.20).


[Cat herissony guardant vs. lion passant guardant, lion statant, etc.] "[There is] nothing for the minor changes in posture." (LoAR 8/91 p.20).


[Three hawk's legs couped contourny] "Conflict with... three eagle's legs erased.. There is one CVD for [a different change - implying that no difference between a bird's leg and a bird's leg contourny.]" (LoAR 9/91 p.16).


[A thistle 'flexed-reflexed, head to dexter' vs. a default thistle ] "The posture of the thistle is nearly identical [no difference given] with the exception of some waviness of the thistle's stem on the [flexed-reflexed charge]." (LoAR 9/91 p.19).


"The SCA has always 'picked and chosen' from among what period heralds did to apply to our own 'game'... Nor do my readings of the history of period heralds and heraldry lead me to believe that they had an integrated, codified 'system' of heraldry. The development of heraldry in period seems to me from my readings to have been every bit as haphazard as the development of heraldry in the SCA, and in some ways even more so. I do not see that our re-creation becomes any more 'pure' by closing off certain avenues of difference solely on the basis that period heralds did not recognize things to be different. One of the biggest examples of this that I can think of is the SCA practice of granting difference for reversing a charge. We currently grant a Difference between 'Gules, a lion rampant' and 'Gules a lion rampant contourny'. But that Difference would not have been granted in period. It would simply have been the 'other side of the {barded} horse' or the other side of the banner. Should we then no longer grant difference for reversing charges? Solely in the interest of 'purifying' our system of heraldry? If we are not ready to refuse difference for reversing charges, then why continue to cavil that 'the College {read: Laurel} is adopting a visual standard' for determining difference while ignoring period determination of difference. This is, and will continue to be, true only in a few limited instances and only with what I believe to be good and adequate cause." (CL 11/12/91 pps. 2-3).


[Bats (in default displayed posture) vs. martlets (in default close posture)] "There are CDs for both the type and posture of the <charge group>" (LoAR 11/91 p.9).


[A beast sejant erect] "The difference in posture here from rampant is essentially moving one hind paw. This is insufficient for the necessary [CD]." (LoAR 11/91 p.17).


[A galley proper vs. a ship reversed proper sails gules ] "There is one CD for the field, but nothing for the orientation of the ship ." (LoAR 11/91 p.20).


[A beast statant affronty] "The <beast> is in an heraldically unusual position; that, combined with the three-dimensionality of the charge as drawn, pushes it beyond the informal Rule of Two Weirdnesses." [The badge was returned] (LoAR 11/91 p.21).


[Per bend sable and gules, a crescent bendwise counterchanged, fimbriated argent ] "There are a couple of problems with this proposal. First, for some time now the College has been drawing closer and closer to mundane armorial practices of only allowing ordinaries to be fimbriated. Second, fimbriating a crescent which is counterchanged of the (low contrast) field across the line of division becomes confusing visually, which the non-standard (though acceptable) orientation of the crescent only exacerbates. This proposal is, as Lord Dragon noted, 'basically thin line heraldry with some confusing counterchanging going on in the background.' " [The device was returned for these reasons] (LoAR 11/91 p.23).


[On a bend between a crescent bendwise sinister and a natural seahorse bendwise three trefoils palewise ] "The device is right at the very limits of the rule of thumb for complexity with four tinctures and four types of charge. That, in combination with the nonstandard posture of any of the charges (with the sole exception of the bend) pushes it over the edge of acceptability." (LoAR 12/91 p.20).


"There is no defined volant posture for quadrupeds." (LoAR 12/91 p.22).


[Azure, on a bend between six <secondary charges> bendwise in bend, a <tertiary charge> palewise ] "No evidence was presented that this style of device follows any Period exemplars. Normal practice both in Period and since would have been for the tertiary to follow the line of the bend and the secondaries to be palewise. To deliberately reverse the normal defaults for both the secondaries and the tertiary gives this a very post-Period look." (LoAR 2/92 p.21).


[A bull courant affronty] "The primary is not in an heraldic position. The effect is of a bull charging out from the shield, which is a very modern style. If we might suggest the client consider 'statant affronty'?" (LoAR 2/92 p.22).


"As Lord Trefoil noted, the 'lion's pelt' does not appear to meet the identification and reconstruction requirements of VII.7.a and b in the Rules for Submission. Pelts are normally displayed as hides rather than like a fleece, as here. Yet we could not bring ourselves to allow an invented new charge, the 'lion's fleece'. And calling it a lion would not help because of the very unusual 'posture' of the beast (which is essentially unblazonable. The closest anyone could suggest was 'herissony', which really doesn't describe it." (LoAR 2/92 p.24).


"We do not see [a CD] for inverting the serpent [glissant palewise/erect]" (LoAR 4/92 p.18).


"Passant is not a bird position, so we have reblazoned the bird in the closest avian position, as 'rising, wings inverted and addorsed.' " [Actually, passant is a bird posture, and refers to a bird walking with one foot raised.] (LoAR 4/92 p.20).


[A dolphin urinant contourny proper] "Conflict with... a dolphin urinant vert... There is... nothing for reversing the fish in this position." (LoAR 5/92 p.22).


[A rabbit sejant guardant armed with a stag's attire] Conflict with... a coney. Given that the default posture for a rabbit is sejant, there is at best one CD, and many commenters did not find that much for the addition of the antlers." (LoAR 5/92 p.24).


PRETENSE - Armory


[Two people's arms, dimidiated, submitted as a badge] "The Rules for Submissions, XI.3, state specifically that 'Armory that appears to marshall independent arms is considered presumptuous'. This submission clearly marshals independent arms. The subtext to XI.3 notes that 'Divisions commonly uesd for marshalling, such as quarterly or per pale, may only be used in contexts that ensure marshalling is not suggested.' Dimidiation is one such context. Precedents for not allowing marshalling and dimidiation go back at least as far as the LoAR of October 24, 1979, Master Wilhelm von Schlussel stated that 'This is very lovely, but it looks like dimidiation, which we do not allow.' The fact that dimidiation is not specifically mentioned in the new RfS does not mean that it is now excluded from the ban on marshalling. That the submitters may display their registered arms dimidiated (however unidentifiable each coat then becomes) is not disputed, but they may not register them this way." (LoAR 10/90 p.16).


[A quarterly field charged with two kinds of charge (as in quartered arms), and a bordure ] "The appearance of marshalled arms here is overwhelming, even with the bordure as a cadency charge. The intent of the 'overall charge' requirement of XI.3.a is one of a charge lying in the center of the field, not a peripheral charge such as a chief or bordure (which were often used as cadency charges)." (LoAR 10/90 p.16).


[Azure, in bend two fleurs-de-lys Or and in bend sinister two swans naiant argent ] "Though the field has but a single tincture, the appearance of marshalled arms is overwhelming. The eye tends to 'draw' the quarterly division even though each of the 'quarters' is azure." (LoAR 12/90 p.17).


[An impaled-style device, with a charged bordure] "There was some disagreement at the Laurel meeting as to whether the addition of a charged bordure removes the appearance of marshalling. That most of the commenters seem to think that it does or have said nothing leads us to believe that the College feels that the addition of a charged bordure does, in fact, remove the appearance of marshalling." (LoAR 7/91 p.4).


[Per pale argent and Or fretty vert, in dexter a leaved branch issuant from chief proper and <a charged chief> ] "The device has several problems. The first is the profound appearance of dimidiated arms, which the addition of the charged chief does not serve to diminish. The device is also right at the very edge of our complexity limits having four types of charge in four tinctures. Given the unusual arrangement and unbalanced design this is simply too much." (LoAR 8/91 p.20).


[A sash in annulo, knotted in base, sable] "The sash is not a recognized heraldic charge. Additionally, the submitter's form indicates that the precise form of sash is to be 'a karate belt with the white stripes'. We need evidence that this belt has not only been earned by the submitter, but that it is a Period charge." [overruled in the LoAR 5/92 p.19] (LoAR 9/91 p.20).


[(Fieldless) A fountain] "Versus... barry wavy argent and azure, this does not appear to fall under the ban on arms of pretence in XI.4 of the Rules of Submission. The fountain is a clearly defined heraldic charge in and of itself and as such would not appear to be in conflict." (LoAR 10/91 p.5).


[Quarterly gules and argent, in bend two <As> argent and in bend sinister two <Bs> vert, overall a cross sable ] "Given that crosses overall were not infrequently used in marshalled arms in period, this has every appearance of the marshalled arms of [Gules, an <A> argent, and Argent, a <B> vert]." [The submission was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 11/91 p.16).


[A cross couped gules irradiated Or] "The badge conflicts with the insignia of the International Red Cross, not by our rules, but by theirs. As stated in Corpora Appendix A, 'the Society recognizes the absolute precedence of law issued by civil authorities over any of its internal rules.' International treaty severely restricts the use of a cross couped gules, and this takes precedence over any of the Rules for Submission, including those for difference, of the SCA." (LoAR 2/92 p.20).


"For those commenters who suggested that this augmentation was presumptuous of Ansteorra, I would point out that by removing the laurel wreath and orle from the Ansteorran arms, this coat would be registerable as a device to any royal peer, as it has two CDs from Ansteorra. Yes, it is highly reminiscent (which I believe was the Crown's intent in granting this augmentation), but it is not, by our Rules, presumptuous of the Kingdom." (LoAR 4/92 p.3).


"For those commenters who suggested that this augmentation was presumptuous of Ansteorra, I would point out that by removing the laurel wreath and orle from the Ansteorran arms, this coat would be registerable as a device to any royal peer, as it has two CDs from Ansteorra. Yes, it is highly reminiscent (which I believe was the Crown's intent in granting this augmentation), but it is not, by our Rules, presumptuous of the Kingdom." (LoAR 4/92 p.3).


[An augmentation of an inescutcheon in honor point, bearing the arms of an SCA barony ] "While most of the College, and Laurel himself, has no problem with the use of an escutcheon as a vehicle for an augmentation {if I may quote Lady Harpy: 'the whole point of forbidding the charging of inescutcheons and cantons in a way that resembles an augmentation is so that you can do it when you want an augmentation.'} mundane and Society precedent reserve inescutcheons of actual arms to those legitimately claiming the right to those arms. In mundane usage, this augmentation is a claim that [the submitter] is married to the Baroness of [the barony used for the augmentation] and that their children will inherit it. This is an inappropriate heraldic claim, and violates the standards set by Corpora IV.C.3.a., that the standards set by the College of Arms 'shall be designed... [sic] to avoid the appearance... [sic] of false claims.'" (LoAR 4/92 pps. 17-18).


[A roundel charged with three annulets interlaced] "RFS XI.4 states that armory that uses charges which themselves are charged in such a way as to appear to be arms of pretence is considered presumptuous, the explanation with the rule notes that such charges should not contain more than one charge. While it may be argued that the charges here form a single unit, they are, in fact, multiple charges, as the blazon itself notes." (LoAR 4/92 p.18).


"Despite Lord Laurel's (and Lord Batonvert's) remaining questions regarding the use of a sash as a Period heraldic charge, nearly all of the other commenters wholeheartedly supported the appeal to allow its use." [overruling the LoAR 9/91 p.20] (LoAR 5/92 p.19).


"The use of a cross couped gules should probably no longer be allowed in SCA heraldry because of the international treaties and federal law which protect that charge and restrict its use to the International Red Cross (and as a trademark to those who were using it before those treaties went into effect.)" (LoAR 5/92 p.25).


"The precedent disallowing the use of the field of Bavaria (Lozengy bendwise azure and argent) of the LoAR of 17 January 1984, p.9, appears to have been based on the use of the field by corporations in Bavaria 'as a sign of the fact that they were in Bavaria.' It does not seem to me that this is sufficient grounds for a restriction on the use of this field similar to that of, say, France Ancient, which is so closely associated with the French ruling house. I am therefore withdrawing the restriction on the use of a field lozengy bendwise or lozengy bendwise sinister argent and azure, so long as there is otherwise sufficient difference from Bavaria." (LoAR 6/92 p.4).


[(Fieldless) A roundel barry wavy vert and argent] "Conflict with... Barry wavy vert and argent. The precedent cited [LoAR 10/91 p.5] does not apply here because this roundel does not have an independent heraldic existence the way a fountain does. Therefore, the ban on fieldless roundels as being presumptuous as a display of other armory applies." (LoAR 6/92 p.14).


PRETENSE - General


[A submission for a dog] "The College does not register names or armory which appear to claim for the submitter powers or status he or she does not have. In this case, the submitter is claiming human status. If the submitter can prove such, we will reconsider this name. Until such time, this name submission is RETURNED." (CL 2/4/91 pps. 1-2).


PRETENSE - Names


"Submitted as <given name> <locative> of <locative>, such a form (X of X, or X of that Ilk) is a claim not only to chieftanship of a clan but implies overlordship of a territory, and rank and title. Such a claim is improper in the S.C.A." (LoAR 9/90 p.7).


"<given name> the Breton should no more conflict with <same given name>, Duke of Brittany, than Richard the Englishman would with Richard, King of England." [Note this overturns a precedent of Master Baldwin's, in the case of Wladislaw Poleski] (LoAR 10/90 p.2).


"Submitted as <given name> Sinclair of Wick, we have dropped the locative to avoid the appearance of presumption that the submitter is the clan chief of the Sinclairs, Earls of Caithness, whose stronghold is Girnigoe Castle, just north of Wick in Caithness." (LoAR 10/90 p.2).


[<given name> of Orange] "While William of Orange did appear to be the most famous member of the House, given the facts that there is a town of that name in France and that no evidence was presented that the House of Orange was strictly a royal household in the manner of the Hohenstauffens, but something more along the lines of the families of York and Lancaster, we felt that this name was acceptable" (LoAR 10/90 p.4).


[Rob Roy <Surname>] "After much consideration and discussion, it was determined that 'Rob Roy' is so well known and closely associated with Rob Roy McGregor that it must be considered a unique name. 'Rob' is fine, and so is 'Roy', but 'Rob Roy' is not." (LoAR 10/90 p.17).


[<given name> ap Gryffydd ap Cynan o'r Wyddfa] "The name is a claim to descent from Gryffydd ap Cynan, king of Gwenedd of which y Wyddfa is the highest point." (LoAR 10/90 p.21).


[Clan Stewart of <place>] "There is in the name 'Stewart of <place>' an implication of title, but not of landedness (since <place> does not exist as a place). See Scots Heraldry by Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, pp. 203-205, for a fuller discussion of 'Territorial Designations'." [The clan name was registered] (LoAR 11/90 p.6).


[Samhiloldanach] "There was a question as to whether the byname is unique to the god Lugh, but given the lack of documentation for this objection, we are giving the submitter the benefit of the doubt." (LoAR 11/90 p.9).


"Given the common usage in the SCA of calling the holder of an heraldic title 'Lord X' or 'Lady X', heraldic titles taken from real-life places falls under the Prohibition of Landed Titles of Corpora (Appendix C, Administrative Rules of the College of Arms)." (LoAR 11/90 p.13).


[Guild of the Enchanted Needle] "We have serious qualms about registring 'enchanted' anythings. See RfS VI.2., Names Claiming Powers." [Guild name returned also because no given name present] (LoAR 11/90 p.16).


"The use of a clan name with an actual place in Scotland implies landedness in the possession of a feudal barony. See Scots Heraldry by Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, pp. 203-205, for a fuller discussion of 'Territorial Designations'." (LoAR 11/90 p.17).


[<given name> Killian the Red] "While the name is reminiscent of Killian's Red beer, the general feeling among the commenters was that the Law of Toyota should apply. ('You asked for it...')" (LoAR 12/90 p.2).


[Lora Leigh] "It was our feeling that the registration of Lora Leigh <surname> (from which this name is sufficiently different by the Rules) established a precedent in not calling conflict with the classical Lorelei, more so since there were no allusions to Lorelei in the armory." (LoAR 12/90 p.4).


[<name> de Montfort Lyons] "SCA practice for those with awards of arms is to style them as 'Lord/Lady {Given}' or 'Lord/Lady {Entire registered name}'. It is Laurel's opinion that such usage is not presumptuous. The form of usage...of '<given name>, Lord de Montfort' or '<given name>, Lord de Montfort Lyons' would be presumptuous; that form is not what we use in the SCA nor is it appropriate for SCA use." (CL 2/4/91 p.2).


"Submitted as <names> of the Rose, the byname implies membership in the Order of the Rose as much as 'of the Laurel', 'of the Chivalry', or 'of the Pelican' imply membership in those orders. We have dropped the byname..." (LoAR 1/91 p.10).


[Rhiannon of the Hollow Lands] "The name is simply too evocative of the Welsh Goddess Rhiannon, who rode out of the Gorsedd Arberth, a hill (resumably hollow) with supernatural properties." (LoAR 2/91 p.20).


"Although Levesque means 'bishop', which is a restricted title in the SCA, it is also a documentable period surname. It is Laurel's opinion that Levesque should be registrable under the same general restrictions as Regina; that is, so long as it is not used in such a way as to appear like a title." (LoAR 3/91 p.5).


"Submitted as Reina de <place>, that form of the name takes on the aspect of a title 'Queen of <place>.' We have deleted the article 'of' in order to remove the appearance of presumption and to register the name." (LoAR 3/91 p.5).


[<name> de Navarre] "We have historically registered ' 'name' of 'Kingdom' ' so long as the given name was not identical to that of one of the rulers of 'Kingdom'. The only exception Laurel remembers offhand to this is the name Hohenstaufen which name was only used by the ruling family." (LoAR 5/91 p.2).


[of Windsor] "As the locative is that of a place in England from which a number of people could be, and only comparatively recently adopted as a dynastic name, it is not seen as presumptuous to the ruling family of England." (LoAR 6/91 p.13).


"The appeal of this name has sufficiently documented the use of le Fey as a surname by people well within Period. The surname le Fey is acceptable for registration provided there are no other allusions to elves or faerie in the name or armory." (LoAR 7/91 p.9).


"Submitted as <name> Griffith of Gwynedd, we have dropped the problematic locative. As submitted the name appears to be a claim of descent from Gruffudd, King of Gwynedd to 1137. Rule V.5 disallows any such claim." (LoAR 7/91 p.15).


"Submitted as <name> Braumeister von <place>, we have modified the name to drop the problematical Braumeister. 'Occupation' of 'Placename' name construction has for some years been held to be returnable." (LoAR 7/91 p.16).


Cairenn as spelled here appears to be a unique name, that of the mother of Niall of the Nine Hostages." (LoAR 8/91 p.17).


[Richard the Chicken-Hearted] "This is not only a joke name, but a parody of Richard the Lion-Hearted. As was the case with Decrease Mather (a parody of Increase Mather), which was returned on the LoAR of May 12, 1985, this name 'alludes strongly enough to the historical character to constitute infringement.' " (LoAR 10/91 p.18).


[<Given name> of the <adjective-object>] "Regarding the question of presumption versus the <Kingdom> Order of the Olde <adjective-object>, deletion of both the words 'Order of the' and 'Olde' should be sufficient to remove the appearance of presumption." (LoAR 11/91 p.2).


[Mark Phillipsson] "Some commenters were concerned that this name was claiming a relationship to Mark Phillips, currently a member of the English Royal family. Were Captain Phillips' first name Phillips, this might be an issue. As it is, the client is claiming to be 'Phillip's son' not 'Mark Phillip's son'." (LoAR 11/91 p.9).


[Vitki] "The byname is disallowed under RFS VI.2, Names Claiming Powers. You may not style yourself 'the wizard' in the Society." (LoAR 11/91 p.18).


[<name> Lietuvos, meaning <name> the Lithuanian> ] "While prior Laurel precedent has returned the form '{Name} the {Nationality}', we do not find this presumptuous of the ruler of the country in the same way or to the same degree that, say, '{Name} of {Nation}' would. Hence, we do not find that this name conflicts with <name>, King of Lithuania." (LoAR 12/91 p.12).


"Dona is not the same as the title Doña, and therefore is not subject to restriction as a title." (LoAR 2/92 p.15).


"While there was some concern that the byname 'de Lorraine' could be considered presumptuous, the citation in Reaney of 'de Lorreyne' (dated 1333) lends support to the belief that the locative was not restricted solely to members of the Ducal House of Lorraine." (LoAR 3/92 p.3).


"The biggest problem, however, is the combination of a Merlin-variant name with 'of the oak' in any language is an excessive reference to the Merlin of Arthurian legend." (LoAR 5/92 p.21).


PRETENSE - Names in conjunction with Armory


"The name Olwen may not be combined with the use of trefoils on armory." (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.1) [Submitter's surname the same as famous mundane family, primary charge on device is same as family's crest] "The device...contains one allusion to [surname] armory (their...crest), but used in this manner does not appear excessive." (LoAR 7/90 p.2).


[Submitter's surname the same as existing SCA person's surname, submitted badge has same outline as the same SCA person's arms ] "It is Laurel's feeling in this case...that the complete change to all tinctures on the device bring this clear, in spite of the similarity of outline." (LoAR 8/90 p.1). [Submitter has same surname as mundane armory owner] "While there is adequate technical difference, all of the difference comes from the addition of tertiaries; combined with the name this is problematical." [one of a number of reasons for return] (LoAR 8/90 p.19).


[Submitter's surname a spelling variant of Campbell, field of submitter's arms the same as the (field only) device of the Campbells ] "Several commenters expressed some qualms about the combination of the surname Campbell (in any form) and the gyronny arms of the Campbells. Given that the only allusion to the Campbells in the arms here is the gyronny field and that this proposal has three Clear Visual Differences from the Campbell arms [addition of a primary charge and a charged chief], we felt that the allusion was not excessive." (LoAR 11/90 p.4).


[Shaul ben Yisrael of <place>] "While there was some question as to whether this name combined with already registered armory which combined the 'lion of Judah' and a six-pointed mullet might not be excessive allusion, the fact that the historical King Saul, was a Benjaminite, not a Judahite, lessens the problem considerably. We did not, in fact, feel that the allusion was excessive." (LoAR 12/90 p.9).


"Pandora appears to be a unique name, borne only by the half-human heroine of myth. Barring documentation that the name was given to people in period, we cannot register it. [re: the device] The chest was... too great an allusion to the mythical Pandora (along with the anchor, the symbol of hope, the last thing to be released from Pandora's box)." (LoAR 12/90 p.16).


"The name MacLeer ('son of Leer') should not be used in connection with sea symbology because it will appear to be a claim to descent from the sea god Lir." (LoAR 1/91 p.27).


"There was much discussion regarding the combination of the <surname> surname with a device which is clearly derivative from the <surname> arms. However, there are three and four CVDs from each of these arms, respectively... This should be sufficient, even considering the similarity of the surname." (LoAR 3/91 p.1).


"The appeal of this name has sufficiently documented the use of le Fey as a surname by people well within Period. The surname le Fey is acceptable for registration provided there are no other allusions to elves or faerie in the name or armory." (LoAR 7/91 p.9).


"There is also some question as to the propriety of registering a seahorse to someone with the name Rhiannon, given the long-standing ban on registering horses in combination with the name Rhiannon." [Note, the sea-horse was white, and Rhiannon was a middle name. The main reason for return was conflict] (LoAR 10/91 p.16).


[Luna] "The LoI established 'a strong pattern of use of a class of words {in this case the names of Roman deities} as given names' (see RfS II.3.b). Based on this pattern we believe Luna to be acceptable. While the use of the decrescent with the given name is allusive, we do not believe that the name and charge combination is so excessively allusive as to require return." (LoAR 12/91 p.7).


PROPER


"Cloves 'proper' are hereby defined as being dark brown." (LoAR 7/90 p.1).


"There is really no 'proper' for a jester's bauble (or motley)." [Superceded on LoAR 1/91 p.13] (LoAR 9/90 p.17).


[Male American kestrels striking proper (Falco spaverius) ] "The male American kestrels are mostly light buff and tan on the underside, and in this position have good contrast with the [purpure] bend sinister." (LoAR 11/90 p.4).


"There is no 'proper' for the pack on the pack-horse (the one on the emblazon was brown)." (LoAR 12/90 p.15).


"A jester's bauble proper would have a white face and brown stick, with the vesting tinctures blazoned specifically." [superceding comments on LoAR 9/90 p.17] (LoAR 1/91 p.13).


"We believe, however, that a 'musket proper' would have a brown wood stock and black metal parts." (LoAR 1/91 p.15).


[Sable, a human proper between flaunches argent each charged with an animal proper ] "It was noted in the Laurel meeting that this might be considered an overuse of 'proper', since of all the visually significant charges, only the flaunches were not tinctured proper." [the device was returned primarily for administrative reasons] (LoAR 1/91 p.21).


"An enfield proper has a red fox's head and forequarters, a grey wolf's back half, and yellow hawk's talons for the forelegs." (LoAR 1/91 p.21).


[a ferret's head couped affronty proper] "There were two problems here: one is the identifiability of the 'ferret's' head as distinct from any other kind of beast's head in this position. The other is that ferrets appear to have no single defined 'proper' tincture, but can vary according to the season, etc." (LoAR 2/91 p.19).


"PRECEDENT: The College of Arms will no longer register flora and fauna in their natural 'proper' tinctures if to do so they require the Linnaean genus and species. Proper is allowed for natural flora and fauna where there is a widely understood default coloration for the charge so specified.

My rule of thumb here is that if you have to look it up in a book, it is excessive. An elephant 'proper' most everyone knows - it's basically gray, as is a natural dolphin proper. A brown bear proper or a brown horse proper, no problem. Natural tigers, trees, zebras, bald eagles, blackberry vines, and such-like may be registered as 'proper'. Loard Black Boar (Atenveldt), Phillip of Loch Shelldrake, suggests a similar rule of thumb: one adjective to describe the proper charge is fine (a Bengal tiger proper, a brown bear proper), but 'a blazon of several adjectives should be given the heraldic hairy eyeball'." (CL 5/13 p.2).


"Proper is not a tincture - it is heraldic shorthand. The badgers' heads are argent, marked sable. That's two tinctures. While vair may be listed in the glossary under tinctures, the fact that it is a neutral fur is because it consists of both a metal and a color. Its visual complexity is such that it looks like two tinctures." [a 'complexity count' was made on the above premises] (LoAR 4/91 p.15).


"[There is] nothing for the difference between Caucasian proper and argent." (LoAR 8/91 p.21).


[Request for reblazon from "owl argent" to "snowy owl proper" ] "It has long been the practice of the College that when a standard blazon using heraldic tinctures is available that that blazon is preferable to using naturalistic propers. In this case, the only difference between the registered owl argent and the client's snowy owl proper is some of the internal detailing in sable. As this is exactly the level and kind of artistic detail that has always been left to the whim of the artist, we do not see sufficient reason to change the blazon here." (LoAR 2/92 p.19).


[A dolphin urinant contourny proper] "Conflict with... a dolphin urinant vert... There is... [nothing] for the difference between 'vert', and 'vert, marked gules.'" (LoAR 5/92 p.22).


PROTECTED ITEMS


"Regarding the issue (brought up in the LoI) regarding the protection of the 'fictional armory of a character in a book that none of us had even heard of,' Laurel feels much as Lord Dragon put it: 'I'm perfectly content to protect his armory if it means keeping a single, simple standard of difference.' While Laurel is in sympathy with the position of the <Kingdom> College of Heralds, I would hate to start complicating things with notices like, 'We will protect all of the armory in Fabulous Heraldry (or the Military Ordinary, or Papworth's, or Woodward's or whatever) except for the following:'." (LoAR 11/90 pps. 17-18).


[<given name> the <epithet>] "Conflict with the submitter's legal name, <given name> <epithet>. Society names should not be the same as the members' legal names. (See Administrative Handbook, Protected Items I.) Addition of the article 'the' is insufficient. (See RfS, V.4.) Addition of a given, surname, adjective or adjectival phrase would clear this." (LoAR 1/91 p.23).


"Lord Laurel still has serious doubts as to the propriety of registering a name this close to a well known book title, whether or not that title is actually copyrighted, but the weight of the commentary from the rest of the College overrides his feelings in this matter." (LoAR 8/91 p.11).


"We share Lord Trefoil's doubts regarding dismissing conflicts from the Matsuya Piece Goods Store on a 'pick and choose' basis. As we have said before regarding some of the names in Withycombe or armory in Fabulous Heraldry, we are unwilling to start making lists of exceptions to standard references. The [other problem with the armory] simplifies matters this time; however, unless and until Matsuya can be shown to be unreliable in a manner similar to, say, Loughead, we will continue to use it for conflict checking." (LoAR 11/91 p.21).


[Order of the <astrological sign>] "The name conflicts with the very well-known astronomical constellation and astrological sign." [This implies such things are protected] (LoAR 2/92 p.22).


[Patrick MacManus] "Conflict with Patrick F. McManus, a well-known modern writer of humor. His name is apparently too recent to appear yet in any of our standard sources, but he is clearly well known enough to warrant protection. (Even Lord Laurel who has read none of his works, is familiar with all the titles mentioned by the commenters.) [The] statement that 'there is no problem with conflict' because of the middle initial 'F' is in error. We do protect against legal use names. In this specific case a legal name for the author is indeed Patrick McManus: this is a conflict." (LoAR 3/92 p.14).


"The general consensus of the commenters was that we should not check for conflict against the merit badges of the Boy Scouts. Several good reasons were given: they change many of them every so often; the list of them changes periodically; the Boy Scout organization considers even tiny artistic changes to be sufficiently different." (LoAR 4/92 p.4).



REGISTERABLE ITEMS


"As stated then by Mistress Alisoun, 'as status of the heirs [to the throne of a principality] is not recognized by Corpora, we do not feel it appropriate to register arms for the 'office'.' " (LoAR 8/90 p.15).


[Entertainer's Guild] "It was felt that the name was too generic to be registered to a single group." (LoAR 10/90 p.21).


[A submission for a dog] "The College does not register names or armory which appear to claim for the submitter powers or status he or she does not have. In this case, the submitter is claiming human status. If the submitter can prove such, we will reconsider this name. Until such time, this name submission is RETURNED." (CL 2/4/91 pps. 1-2).


"We have strong doubts about the propriety of the College registering an unofficial designation like 'borough' to an SCA group, past registration notwithstanding. If it's a household, let's call it a household and register it to the head of the household. If it's a geographic group like a canton or shire, let's register it as a canton or shire." (LoAR 1/91 p.24).


REPTILE


"Cobras have their hoods expanded by default." (LoAR 8/90 p.7).


RESTRICTED CHARGES AND TITLES


[Master Bowmen of <place>] "We cannot, in good conscience, register a title, reserved by Corpora to peers, to any non-peerage group, no matter in what form they propose to use it. It may be that there are guilds which use some form of 'guildmaster', 'master armorer', etc. These ranks are not registered, nor can they be unless and until the board of Directors changes the titles of rank of the peerages." (LoAR 7/90 p.15).


"The commentary on restricted charges, most specifically the caduceus, tended slightly to favor retaining the restriction to those with the medical qualifications to carry them outside the SCA. There did not appear to be a lot of strong feelings either way. We will therefore retain the restrictions as they currently apply to those charges." (CL 10/16/90 p.2).


[Wreath of violets in orle, blazoned as an orle of violets ] "This was returned before in part because the orle of flowers was too similar to the restricted wreath of roses. This issue has not been addressed in the resubmission, and so this must be returned once again for this reason. It was suggested that if the submitter would clearly separate the individual flowers in orle, that this would probably remove the problem." (LoAR 9/90 p.13).


"The Latin term eques (plural equites) is the equivalent of 'knight', a restricted title in the SCA." (LoAR 9/90 p.15).


"Given the common usage in the SCA of calling the holder of an heraldic title 'Lord X' or 'Lady X', heraldic titles taken from real-life places falls under the Prohibition of Landed Titles of Corpora (Appendix C, Administrative Rules of the College of Arms)" (LoAR 11/90 p.13).


"Aamir (pronounced AH-mir) is not the same as the restricted alternate title Amir (pronounced ah-Meer)." (LoAR 12/90 p.5).


[Huscarl] "Huscarl is not a restricted title, any more than is 'the Apprentice', or, perhaps more appropriately, 'the Fighter'." (LoAR 12/90 p.8).


[<name> de Montfort Lyons] "SCA practice for those with awards of arms is to style them as 'Lord/Lady {Given}' or 'Lord/Lady {Entire registered name}'. It is Laurel's opinion that such usage is not presumptuous. The form of usage...of '<given name>, Lord de Montfort' or '<given name>, Lord de Montfort Lyons' would be presumptuous; that form is not what we use in the SCA nor is it appropriate for SCA use". (CL 2/4/91 p.2).


ROUNDEL


[<field> a charged engrailed torteau vs. <different field> a charged sun gules ] "There is a CVD for the field, but nothing for the change to type only of the tertiary." [implying no difference between the engrailed torteau and the sun] (LoAR 8/90 p.19 - overruled in the LoAR 4/91 p.3).


"Lord Laurel seems to be in a definite minority in believing that a roundel engrailed is visually similar to a sun. Thus... [there is a CVD] for the type of primary charge." (LoAR 4/91 p.3).


RULES CHANGES


"After much thought and discussion, it has been decided, for purposes of X.4.d, e and h of the Rules for Submission, that the bottommost of three charges, either on the field alone or around an ordinary, is defined as one-half of the group...multiple changes to the basemost of three charges under this definiton will be granted a maximum of one CVD." (CL 9/6/90 p.2).


"After reviewing carefully what commentary there was on the change to X.2 proposed by Mistress Alisoun, X.2 will be changed as follows, effective immediately:

X.2 Difference of Primary Charges. Armory that consists of: (a) a charge or group of charges alone on the field; or (b) a charge or group of charges which may themselves be charged; or (c) a charge or group of charges accompanied by a peripheral charge which may itself be charged - does not conflict with similarly simple, protected armory if the type of the primary charge is substantially changed.
This wording is a little longer than Laurel himself would have liked, but describes more clearly than a more abbreviated form would the various conditions under which X.2 will apply. Please note the careful placement of the word 'or' between the various subclauses: X.2 will not apply to two devices with secondaries and a charged chief, for instance. The change to the primary charge(s) must be substantial: type variants are not sufficient (a chevron vs. a chevron embattled is not a substantial change in type {both are, after all, the same type of charge, a chevron} for the purposes of this rule); some quadrupeds and crosses, for example, may be too close visually to apply this rule." (CL 10/16/90 pps. 1-2).

"The following is a revised version of X.4.j. of the Rules for Submissions...The type of substantial change required for this new provision X.4.j.ii to apply is the same general standard in the recently revised X.2...

X.4.j Changes to Charges on Charges.

i. Making two or more visually significant changes to the same group of charges placed entirely on other charges is one clear difference.

Changes of type, number, tincture, posture, or independent changes of arrangement may each count as one of the two changes. Generally, such changes must affect the whole group of charges to be considered visually significant, since the size of these elements and their visual impact are considerably diminished. For example, changing the tincture of the wings of such a charge would not be enough of a tincture difference to be one of the two. Charges held or maintained by other charges are generally too insignificant to count towards difference at all.

ii. In simple cases, a clear difference can be obtained from change to type only of charges entirely on other charges. On armory that consists of:
a) an ordinary or similarly simple geometric charge alone on the field; or
b) an ordinary or similarly simple geometric charge accompanied only by a single group of identical charges upon the field; or
c) an ordinary or similarly simple geometric charge accompanied by an uncharged peripheral charge; or
d) an uncharged charge or group of identical charges accompanied only by a peripheral charge which is charged;
Substantially changing the type of all of a group of charges entirely on the ordinary, similarly simple geometric charge, or, in case (d), peripheral charge is one clear difference. In any case changes to a single group of charges on charges cannot be more than one clear difference.

For example, (a) Sable, on a pale Or two swords sable has one clear difference from Sable, on a pale Or two oak leaves sable. (b) Argent, on a fess azure between two pine trees vert, a spear argent has one clear difference from Argent, on a fess azure between two pine trees vert, a rose argent. (c) Azure, on a roundel Or a tree azure, a bordure Or has one clear difference from Azure, on a roundel Or a bear statant azure, a bordure Or. (d) Argent, a lion rampant and on a chief gules three fleurs-de-lys argent has one clear difference from Argent, a lion rampant and on a chief gules three crosses crosslet argent." (CL 1/4/91 pps. 2-3).

SALTIRE


[A saltire triple-parted and fretted] "Clear of...<a fretty only device>, with [a CVD] for the positioning of the 'laths'. While a medieval fretty field generally had three laths along each diagonal, they were evenly spaced out. The proximity of those here clearly make them a saltire. Also clear of [a saltire parted and fretted]...we can see [a CVD] for the difference between two laths on each diagonal and three." (LoAR 1/91 p.17).


[A sea-dragon and a label] "Clear of... a sea-dragon erect within a saltire parted and fretted argent. As Morgan's could just as well (or perhaps better) be blazoned Azure, a sea-dragon erect between two bendlets and two bendlets sinister fretted argent, we see two CVDs for changing the type and number of the secondaries." (LoAR 6/91 p.2).


SEMY


[<field> semy of X <tincture>, an X <another tincture> ] "An additional problem is one pointed out by Mistress Alisoun in a return of a device using a major charge with a semy of the same charge: 'Such a differentiation is not period style: the size of strewn charges could vary widely in a period emblazon as necessary to suit the design.' Some commenters pointed out cases of '...crusilly...a cross', but even here there is generally a significant change in type of cross between the semy and the primary. The fact that he uses a different tincture here for the primary versus the semy helps a little, but it is not enough." [device returned for this reason and for conflict] (LoAR 9/90 p.16).


"It is Laurel's position that a semy is a group of charges in and of itself, separate and distinct from any other charge or group of charges (the exception being where the semy and the other charge(s) are the same)." (LoAR 10/90 p.9).


[On a gyronny field, quatrefoils in annulo vs. crusilly counterchanged ] "There is a CVD for the type of charge and a CVD for their arrangement on the field. [The crusilly] is definitely a seme, with crosses overlying the lines of division and cut off by the edge of the shield." (LoAR 5/91 p.7).


"[There is] nothing for the difference between seme of roses and seme of cinquefoils." (LoAR 5/91 p.10).


"Counterchanging a semy over an ordinary appears to be modern and not Period style." (LoAR 2/92 p.23).


SHIP


[A drakkar sailing to sinister proper, sailed gules ] "Conflict with...a galley proper." [Discussion of addition of secondaries implies that there is no tincture difference or posture difference given here.] (LoAR 7/91 p.20).


[A galley proper vs. a ship reversed proper sails gules] "There is one CD for the field, but nothing for the orientation of the ship or for changing the tincture of the sails which amount to approximately one third of the primary charge. No evidence was presented that period heralds allowed any difference for changing the tincture of the sails on a ship." (LoAR 11/91 p.20).


SIZE


[<field> semy of X <tincture>, an X <another tincture> ] "An additional problem is one pointed out by Mistress Alisoun in a return of a device using a major charge with a semy of the same charge: 'Such a differentiation is not period style: the size of strewn charges could vary widely in a period emblazon as necessary to suit the design.' Some commenters pointed out caes of '...crusilly...a cross', but even here there is generally a significant change in tye type of cross between the semy and the primary. The fact that he uses a different tincture here for the primary versus the semy helps a little, but it is not enough." [device returned for this reason and for conflict] (LoAR 9/90 p.16).


[A cross between four others, two and two] "This is very marginal style, with two different sizes of the same charge. Had the smaller crosses been a semy, it would have been returned. As it is, we felt that it was just within the line of acceptability." (LoAR 11/90 p.1).


[Azure, within the horns of an increscent a <charge> argent ] "Conflict with...Azure a <charge> argent. There is only one CVD, for addition of the crescent. In the case...cited in the LoI, the sizes of the two charges were so disparate that the crescent overwhelmed the <central charge> and was visually the primary charge. Here, the size differential is such that the eye does not necessarily make the immediate evaluation that the crescent is the primary. In such a case, the charge at the visual center of the field will normally be so considered." (LoAR 12/90 p.18).


[Sable, two <charges> argent and in base a three-towered castle Or ] "Clear of...Sable, a castle triple-towered Or, because the visual reality of this device is that the <charges> a clearly the primary charges here, with a diminutive castle in base." (LoAR 4/91 p.4).


[An owl passant brandishing an axe palewise] "The axe in this submission, nearly the length of the primary charge, is significant enough to contribute to difference." (LoAR 9/91 p.11).


[<field> a rose and on a gore a rose] "The use of two different sizes of the same charge (the primary and the tertiary) has been grounds for return in the past, as they make it harder to identify just what is going on on the field, belonging as they do to two different charge groups." [the main reason for treturn was non-period ermining on both primary and peripheral charge] (LoAR 3/92 p.15).


STAINS


"Give that tenné is one of the standard heraldic stains, we believe that it should be granted the same difference from Or and gules as purpure is from gules and azure." (LoAR 10/91 p.1).


SUN


[<field> a charged engrailed torteau vs. <different field> a charged sun gules ] "There is a CVD for the field, but nothing for the change to type only of the tertiary." [implying no difference between the engrailed torteau and the sun] (LoAR 8/90 p.19 - overruled on the LoAR 4/91 p.3).


[On a chief a demi-sun issuant from the line of division throughout ] "A demi-sun throughout on a chief must have good contrast with the charge upon which it lies (the chief). It will automatically by definition have poor contrast with the field which it adjoins (assuming that the field is not neutral). This will be permissible so long as the demi-sun is not of the same tincture as the field." (CL 11/30/90 p.1).


"It is not possible to eclipse something 'of the field' on a fieldless badge." (LoAR 2/91 p.16).


"Lord Laurel seems to be in a definite minority in believing that a roundel engrailed is visually similar to a sun. Thus ... [there is a CVD] for the type of primary charge." (LoAR 4/91 p.3).


[A sunburst inverted Or] "As with the device of Baldric the Benevolent, registered February 1991, sunbursts Or are now considered acceptable charges in SCA heraldry." (LoAR 6/91 p.6).


"Based on the commentary, for purposes of X.4.j.ii, we are specifically adding a sun as an underlying charge which qualifies for a CVD to change of type only of a tertiary." [overruled in the CL 1/6/92 p.1] (LoAR 7/91 p.8)


"We have not registered a sun eclipsed of the field since 1985, and it is questionable whether we want to start now." [Primary reason for return was conflict] (LoAR 11/91 p.16).


"The commentary on [X.4.j.ii] seemed to be reasonably clear. As a consequence, the application of X.4.j.ii. for the granting of a Clear Difference for substantial change of type of a tertiary will be applicable only to tertiaries on an ordinary or simple, geometric shape such as a lozenge, delf or roundel. It will not be applied to charges on mullets, suns or hearts." [overruling decision in the LoAR 7/91 p.8] (CL 1/6/92 p.1).


[On a sun eclipsed a <charge>] "Because this is effectively '{Fieldless} on a sun... a [roundel] charged with a <charge>', the <charge> is effectively a quaternary charge, and therefore exceeds our layering limits." (LoAR 1/92 p.14).


[Mullet of eight points eclipsed, charged with a <charge>, compared to a sun eclipsed charged with an identical <charge>] "There is at very best one CD for change of type of primary, and it is questionable whether we should even allow that much for the difference between a mullet of eight points and a sun." (LoAR 4/92 p.22).


"[There is a CD] for the difference between a compass star (a well-defined SCA charge with a distinctive outline) and a sun." (LoAR 5/92 p.5).


SWORD


[Four swords fretted] "Conflict with...four arrows fretted...There is one CVD, for changing the arrows to swords." (LoAR 3/91 p.7).


"It is poor style to use two similar but non-identical charges in a a single group. For example, using a sword and two poinards in a sheaf... has been cause for return in the past. The use of two different types of gauntlets is likewise impermissible." (LoAR 7/91 p.21).


"As several commenters noted, having the unicorn [salient] and sword in saltire is not good style." [However, despite this and some artistic problems, the device was still registered] (LoAR 12/91 p.2).


"There is not [a CD] for enflaming the blade of the sword [used as a primary charge]." (LoAR 12/91 p.17).


[Per pale... two arrows counterchanged] "Conflict with... two swords palewise... While there is a CD between swords and arrows, Laurel cannot in good conscience apply RfS X.2 to them." [This elaborates a precedent in LoAR of 3/91 p.7, in which the compared swords and arrows were fretted and might have their type obscured thereby] (LoAR 4/92 p.21).


[A sword per chevron] "A long skinny charge may not be divided per chevron in this manner. The line of division is not identifiable, thus falling afoul of RfS VII.7.a." (LoAR 5/92 p.24).


SYMMETRY


[Two winged lions dormant respectant and a winged lion sejant affronty wings displayed, two and one ] "Several commenters felt that the mirrored orientation of the two lions in chief created a 'de facto' case of slot machine heraldry. While Laurel is personally sympathetic with this position, orienting charges this way has not been cause for return in the past." (LoAR 7/91 p.1).


[Four stafford knots in saltire tassels inward between four crescents in cross horns inward ] "The four-fold symmetry of the submission is not period style and violates the strictures of Rules for Submission VIII.4. and VIII.4.d., Obtrusive Modernity." (LoAR 10/91 p.16).


[Per pall, two ravens addorsed counterchanged, in chief an estoile in soleil between two sprigs of mistletoe ] "This is not Period style and is too close to slot machine heraldry, having three different types of charge in what could be considered a standard heraldic arrangement on a per pall field. The 'estoile in soleil' is not something I think we wish to encourage, nor is the mirror symmetry of the entire device." (LoAR 12/91 p.22).


THIN-LINE HERALDRY


"While there was some discussion regarding whether or not valknuts were thin-line heraldry, by definition they look like this, and it was our feeling that they should not then fall under the ban on thin-line heraldry in the same way that, say, a compass star voided would." (LoAR 8/90 p.9).


[An ordinary "voided humetty"] "Though the voiding here is certainly unusual, it does not seem excessively non-period in style. Given that it can be easily blazoned in standard heraldic terminology in such a way as to guarantee the reproducibility of the emblazon, we felt that we could apply the Rule of Toyota here." (LoAR 10/90 p.9).


[A cross bottony as a tertiary charge] "It was the general consensus of the commenters that the cross is too complex to fimbriate" (LoAR 12/90 p.15).


[A complex device using mascles and a double tressure ] "With four types of charges and four tinctures, this is right at the upper limit of the rule of thumb for complexity. Given that most of the charges are then 'voided', the thin-line aspects of this device are enough to push it over the edge into unacceptability." [the device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 1/91 p.21).


"It is not possible to eclipse something 'of the field' on a fieldless badge." (LoAR 2/91 p.16).


[Sable a fess gules fimbriated between a <secondary group> argent ] "Conflict with...Sable, a fess gules. There is one CVD for the addition of the secondaries." [this implies that the interior color is the main color of the fess: see related ruling on p.20 of this LoAR] (LoAR 6/91 p.17).


[A triangle inverted and a triangle conjoined, fimbriated ] "Prior commentary and earlier Laurel precedents have favored limiting the use of fimbriation to ordinaries at the center of the field." [the device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 6/91 p.19).


[Gules, a latin cross pomelly sable fimbriated and an <overall charge> Or ] "Conflict with...Gules, a cross pommetty voided Or. There is a CVD for the addition of the overall charge, but changing the tincture only of what is effectively a tertiary charge (the voided area of the cross) is insufficient for the second." (LoAR 6/91 p.20).


"The lantern with its transparent 'glass' is not done in a period manner. As was noted in the commentary, the College has a long history of disallowing transparent objects." (LoAR 8/91 p.22).


[A bend vs. a bend fimbriated] "[There is] nothing for the fimbriation of the bend." (LoAR 9/91 p.15).


[Charge blazoned as 'a flame issuant from base'] "Although the LoI noted the submitter has been advised to draw more yellow in the flame, this is effectively a 'base rayonny gules, fimbriated Or'. Similar charges tinctured in this fashion have been returned in the past. If he wishes to redraw it with areal base of flames (gules with yellow throughout as well as along the edges of the rayonny) we will be happy to reconsider this proposal." (LoAR 9/91 p.17).


[A horse's head couped argent maned gules fimbriated Or ] "There are simply too many problems with the emblazon here to register this and tell the submitter to 'draw the X properly.' The greatest difficulty comes with the mane of the horse's head which, rather than being of flames proper, is gules, fimbriated Or. The mane is far too complex to fimbriate. (And there is some question as to whether 'maned of flames' is acceptable SCA style.) The suggestion by Lord Trefoil that we simply blazon the mane gules and tolerate its low contrast against the field as an artistic detail worth no heraldic difference will not work here. On this horse's head the mane is easily as significant as a pair of wings would be, and we would not allow them to break tincture either." (LoAR 10/91 p.17).


[Charges blazoned as flames voided in the LoI and emblazoned as gouttes voided ] "The gouttes of flame are too complex to void. Voiding (and fimbriation) have been pretty much restricted to ordinaries or similarly simple charges for some time now." (LoAR 10/91 p.18).


"We have not registered a sun eclipsed of the field since 1985, and it is questionable whether we want to start now." [Primary reason for return was conflict] (LoAR 11/91 p.16).


"A shamrock is too complex a charge to fimbriate." (LoAR 11/91 p.16).


[Per bend sable and gules, a crescent bendwise counterchanged, fimbriated argent ] "There are a couple of problems with this proposal. First, for some time now the College has been drawing closer and closer to mundane armorial practices of only allowing ordinaries to be fimbriated. Second, fimbriating a crescent which is counterchanged of the (low contrast) field across the line of division becomes confusing visually, which the non-standard (though acceptable) orientation of the crescent only exacerbates. This proposal is, as Lord Dragon noted, 'basically thin line heraldry with some confusing counterchanging going on in the background.' " [The device was returned for these reasons] (LoAR 11/91 p.23).


[On a sun eclipsed a <charge>] "Because this is effectively '{Fieldless} on a sun... a [roundel] charged with a <charge>', the lion's head is effectively a quaternary charge, and therefore exceeds our layering limits." (LoAR 1/92 p.14).


[On a trefoil slipped three hearts points to center ] "The radial arrangement of the tertiary charges is not period style, and their placement makes this effectively 'a shamrock... voided...' which is not permissible because it becomes effectively 'thin-line' heraldry." (LoAR 2/92 p.20).


[Per bend sinister gules and sable, a bend sinister counterchanged fimbriated argent ] "If I may quote Lord Batonvert: 'This looks to be acceptable, by both SCA and period standards. A recent case (LoAR of Nov. 91, p.23) had a field party sable and gules, with a crescent counterchanged and fimbriated; that case was returned for (among other reasons) fimbriation of a non-ordinary. [This] submission does use an ordinary, for which there are period examples - notably the arms of Say, c. 1586 (Papworth 550),Per pale azure and gules, three chevrons counterchanged, fimbriated argent.

This is about the limit of complexity we should accept for this sort of motif; but it should be acceptable.'

Lord Laurel would note that he believes that this is at the limits of complexity we should accept for this motif, but given period examples of the motif and the College's allowance for the fimbriation of ordinaries, this proposal is registrable." (LoAR 4/92 p.2).


[Quarterly... a cross moline voided counterchanged ] "This cross appears to be at the very limits of acceptability for voiding and counterchanging." (LoAR 4/92 p.7).


"Most of the commenters felt that a mullet of eight points was too complex a charge to void or fimbriate." [The device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 4/92 p.21).


[A mullet of seven points charged with another] "Several commenters noted that the primary charge is effectively a mullet fimbriated and that under RfS VIII.3 a mullet of seven points is too complex a charge to fimbriate." (LoAR 6/92 p.15).


TREE


[Rounded trees proper vs. gules leaved vert ] "We did not find the difference between a red trunk and a brown trunk to be worth a CVD." (LoAR 12/90 p.14).


[Rounded trees vs. fir trees] "There is only one CVD, for the change to type of the primary charges. X.2 (Sufficient Difference) cannot apply between two types of trees." (LoAR 6/91 p.18).


[Maidenhair Fern proper (vert, stemmed sable)] "Conflict with... a slip of three leaves vert and with...a sprig of parsley vert." [no type difference was given.] (LoAR 7/91 p.18).


"X.2 (Sufficient Difference) cannot apply between two types of trees." [the specific trees in the ruling were oak and fir] (LoAR 7/91 p.21).


[A pine tree vs. a blasted tree] "While there is clearly a CD for the difference between types of trees, X.2 does not apply between trees. That X.2 should not apply between blasted and regular trees should be even more apparent given that in period many trees were drawn with empty branches each terminating in a single oversized leaf, rather than the 'cotton candy' form of leafy foliage we see more commonly today." (LoAR 11/91 p.22).


[On a chief, three linden trees proper] "Versus... on a chief argent a grove of seven fir trees proper, there is... [a CD] for the change of both type and number of the tertiaries." (LoAR 1/92 p.9).


[Sable a <charge> sinister facing and on a chief argent three trefoils vert ] "Conflict with... Sable a <charge> and on a chief argent three trees eradicated proper... there is one CD for the orientation of the primary charge but the change to type only of the tertiaries is not great enough to apply X.4.j.ii, and comparing the two emblazons graphically demonstrated the overwhelming visual similarity between these two devices." (LoAR 5/92 p.23).


WHEEL


"Ship's wheels are post-period, not coming into use before the mid-17th century. As a suggestion, the submitter might try a Catherine's wheel." [the device was returned] (LoAR 6/91 p.21).


WREATH


[Wreath of violets in orle, blazoned as an orle of violets ] "This was returned before in part because the orle of flowers was too similar to the restricted wreath of roses. This issue has not been addressed in the resubmission, and so this must be returned once again for this reason. It was suggested that if the submitter would clearly separate the individual flowers in orle, that this would probably remove the problem." (LoAR 9/90 p.13).


"The ivy here is clearly drawn in such a way that it will not be mistaken for a laurel wreath. (Such a determination will have to be made on a case by case basis, but this instance appears clearly different.)" (LoAR 2/91 p.12).


[Two sprays of ripe barleycorn and fructed olive proper, shaped like a wreath ] "Nearly every commenter found the wreath of barleycorn and olive to be too much like the required laurel wreath for branch arms. Additionally, combining two different types of charge into a single visual unit, as is done here with the barleycorn and olive, is visually confusing and poor practice." [The badge was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 4/92 p.16).


"A second issue is the use of a laurel wreath on arms registered to an individual. Laurel wreaths have always been reserved in the Society to branches of the Society, and may not be registered to an individual. (see, e.g., Baldwin of Erebor, LoAR of 10 March 1985, p.4) It is Laurel's belief, and that of many of the commenting heralds, that this restriction applies to augmentations as well as to devices, the same way that coronets and loops of chain, even as augmentations, have been restricted to those who may rightfully bear them." (LoAR 4/92 pps. 17-18).


[A beast rampant maintaining in its dexter forepaw a laurel wreath ] "A number of commenters expressed concern that the laurel wreath did not constitute 'a significant element of the design', as required by the Administrative Handbook, I.D.2. Given that we do not normally grant any difference for maintained charges, this opinion has weight." [The device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 4/92 p.19).



Table of Contents




Jump to Precedents main page
Jump to Laurel main page



maintained by Codex Herald

This page was last updated on Friday, April 26th, 2013 @ 10:24 am CDT

The arms of the SCA Copyright © 1995 - 2017 Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.