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