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