Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 1st Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (2nd year)
"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).
["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).
[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).
[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).
[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).
[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).