Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (1st year)
Miscellaneous Charges[Registering a standard representation of Saint Agatha.] The College has registered standard depictions of saints before (the most recent being St. George slaying a dragon), and this has not been seen as "reserving to a person the use of the standard depiction of this saint". [6/94, p.4]
[Registering {Fieldless} A comet fesswise argent.] Clear of ... Azure, a comet fesswise, a dexter point and a sinister point argent. The two points ... not being contiguous, [the latter] cannot accurately be reblazoned as Azure, chapé, and thus leave only one CD for fieldlessness. As it stands, there are CDs for fieldlessness and for removing the peripheral charges (the points). [6/94, p.6]
[Returning Vert, a pitcher, flames issuant from the mouth, argent.] Conflict with ... Vert, a flower pot argent with gillyflowers issuant gules, leaved vert. There is a CD for the change to the type of primary, but insufficient difference for X.2 to apply. [6/94, p.13]
[Registering Argent, a pall flory sable between three roses proper, a chief gules.] The presence of a pall patonce dated to 1441 in Papworth ... lends support to this treatment of a pall. [5/94, p.4]
A harp proper is, like all other wooden charges, brown. [5/94, p.10]
[Returning Per chevron vert and azure, two fleurs-de-lys and a standing balance, on a bordure Or, three thorn vines entwined in orle vert.] As noted by one commenter, "The stuff on the bordure is unaccep ly thin-lined and looks like knotwork." We have had a long-standing ban on the registration of knotwork. [5/94, p.18]
[Returning Per pale argent and sable, two dragon's tails conjoined in annulo and in chief a viking tent arch, all counterchanged.] A number of commenters also had difficulty identifying the charge in base. Most thought it some kind of torque. And as Green Crown noted: "This rendering of a dragon's tail was declared unregisterable in the August 1992 LOAR (p.27); conjoining two of them only makes things worse." [5/94, p.20]
[Returning Vert, a heron-headed torque argent.] Conflict with ... Vert, an annulet argent. As in earlier returns of other armory in 1991 and 1992, there is only one CD between a torque and an annulet [not substantial difference]. Additionally, some commenters question whether any artifacts with this type of head have ever been found. [5/94, p.20]
[Returning {Fieldless} A lymphad gules sail set argent.] Conflict with ... Or a galley, sails furled and oars in action, gules, flags azure; ... A ship; ... Argent, a boat gules, and ... Or, a boat gules. In each case, there is one CD for fieldlessness, but nothing for ... the sail. [5/94, p.20]
[Returning Or, on a mountain purpure a rose Or.] As noted in the LoAR of September 1993, p. 10, "mountains, as variants of mounts, should be emblazoned to occupy no more than the lower portion of the field". As in the emblazon here the mountain is sufficiently high so as to immediately be thought of as a per chevron field by most of the commenters and everyone at the Laurel meeting, there are multiple conflicts with "[Field], a rose Or". This needs at the very least to be redrawn so it is identifiable as a mountain rather than a field division. [4/94, p.18]
[Returning Argent, a domino mask of leaves vert within a bordure vert semy of mullets argent.] The primary charge is not really recognizable nor have we seen period exemplars of items such as this constructed of leaves. [4/94, p.19]
[Returning Azure, on a fess Or between three caltraps argent a brown feather proper.] The consensus of the commentary was that a "brown feather proper" is not an appropriate use of a non-heraldic tincture for a charge. Laurel precedent concurs. "The wing was blazoned on the letter of intent and the forms as proper and is in fact brown so it cannot be reblazoned in any heraldic tincture. If there had been any method of determining what sort of wing this was intended to be, we would have pended this for appropriate commentary and conflict-checking. However, the depiction of the wing is such that ... it was exceedingly unclear what type of wing this should be." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR 31 December 1989, p. 25) We believe this to be equally true of feathers. [4/94, p.20]
Unless there is significant commentary or compelling argument to the contrary, I propose to ban, after the July 1994 Laurel meeting, the further registration of snowflakes as charges SCA armory on the grounds that they are not a charge used in period and that there is an accep le similar charge, the escarbuncle, which could be used to the same effect. [3/94c]
[Registering {Fieldless} In pale two triangles, points to center, conjoined gules.] This is clear of ... An hourglass gules, with CDs for fieldlessness and for differences to the charge (removing the frame). [3/94, p.6]
The "passion nails" were unidentifiable as such, looking more like oddly-shaped lozenges or modern kites. This is being returned for redrawing. [3/94, p.16]
[Returning Gules, an axe and in chief three drinking horns Or.] Conflict with ... Gules, a broad axe argent, the handle sable, the blade turned to dexter. There is one CD for the addition of the charges in chief but nothing for the change of tincture to the haft only. [3/94, p.16]
[Registration of "a mask of comedy and a mask of tragedy joined in bend", implicitly overturning the instruction from the March 1993 LOAR, p.19, "to separate the charges, not have them overlap".] [2/94, p.3]
The primary charge is neither a classic "triskele" or "triskelion pometty", both of which are shown in the Pictorial Dictionary. As something halfway between the two, we are returning this for consultation with the submitter and redrawing as one or the other. [2/94, p.16]
As emblazoned, the [great wave] in base could be better blazoned, and is more recognizable, as a base wavy crested, which is not a [registerable] charge. [2/94, p.17]
[Returning Azure, on a cloud argent, a horseshoe inverted sable.] Conflict with ... Azure, a Boreas affronty argent. There is only one CD for the addition of the tertiary, and even that is minimal because it lies where the "face" of [the] Boreas is. [2/94, p.18]
[C]onjoined eighth notes are a post-period form of music notation. [2/94, p.18]
As noted in the LoAR of 17 October 1993, p. 17, there is not a CD between a snowflake and an escarbuncle. [2/94, p.19]
[Returning Or, a hunting horn reversed gules, stringed azure, and a chief checky argent and gules.] Conflict with ... Or, a buglehorn stringed and virolled gules. There is only one CD, for the addition of the chief [implying that there is no CD for reversing the horn]. [2/94, p.20]
The use of lightning bolts as charges in and of themselves is an SCA innovation, the use of a lightning bolt in annulo is therefore [two] steps from period practice. This is farther then we are willing to go. [2/94, p.22]
[Registering a "drakkar prow".] In its prior submission, Lord Laurel indicated that the charge would be accep le if submitted in a standard heraldic tincture. The submitters have done so. [1/94, p.4]
We blazon the type of pawprints for the same reason that we blazon specific types of sword; it may not grant any heraldic difference, but there are sufficient differences in the various types to warrant mentioning in the blazon. [1/94, p.10]
[Returning On a tankard azure a billet Or.] Conflict with ... {Fieldless} On a beaker azure a dolphin hauriant Or. There is one CD for the fieldless difference, but the modest changes in type of primary are insufficient for the second, and X.4.j.ii. does not apply to the difference in type of tertiary charges here. [1/94, p.14]
The pinecone is substantially unrecognizable as rendered, appearing here only as a pointed cartouche with cross-hatching. [1/94, p.15]
[Returning Azure, a wolf's fang within a bordure argent.] Conflict with ... Azure a shark's tooth point downwards proper. There is only one CD for the addition of the bordure. [1/94, p.16]
"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." (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR 4/92, p. 19) No documentation was presented to contradict this precedent. As a consequence, the precedent disallowing the use of dexter and/or sinister points remains in place. [12b/93, p.10]
[Returning "a triskelion of scythes".] Lord Laurel deeply appreciates the amount of thought and consideration which went into this appeal and its ensuing discussion. However, the evidence presented by the commenters on this issue indicate that indeed a "significant segment of the Society" (see RfS I.2.), consisting of both heralds and non-heralds, sees the primary charge of this submission and immediately identifies it with the symbol "strongly associated" with the Afrikaaner Weerstandsbeweging, a white supremacist group whose members and symbols have been photographed for and published in a number of news magazines with worldwide publication. Given this association by a significant segment of heralds and non-heralds from a wide range of geographical locations, Laurel cannot in good conscience give this motif the Society's "seal of approval" by registering it. [12b/93, p.10]
[Returning {Fieldless} A tri-mount couped Or.] Conflict with ... Sable, a two-peaked mountain couped Or, capped argent. There is one CD for fieldlessness but nothing for the artistic variation of the mountain. [12a/93, p.15]
This is being returned for redrawing of the secondaries. Mamluke rosettes, as defined for SCA heraldry, and as found on period artifacts, have only six arms. [12a/93, p.16]
Additionally, we have the problem that an "arbor" is not a defined heraldic charge. [12a/93, p.17]
The badge, as drawn, is not a fireball, but a pellet between four separate flames. [12a/93, p.19]
[Returning Or, a wingless wyvern statant gules.] Conflict with ... Or, a dragon gules. The only difference is for the removal of the wings. [6/94, p.14]
[Returning Or, three wolves passant regardant conjoined by the tail in pall within an annulet gules.] There were no period exemplars of either beasts conjoined at the tails or for this type of rotational symmetry to which any of the commenters could point. All of the tricorporate beasts we could find had a single head; conjoining at the tails does not appear to be period style. [5/94, p.18]
[Returning Per pale vert and argent, two Oriental dragons combattant counterchanged within a bordure sable.] The dragons are not combattant; indeed, no one was able to come up with a good blazon for their posture here ("combattant demi-tergiant"? "combattant displayed aversant"?). As a consequence, we are unable to register them. [5/94, p.18]
[Registering Per pale sable and gules, a Norse Jelling beast argent within a bordure Or.] For better or worse, the currently defined, already-registered Norse beasts continue to be accep le. As the Jelling beast is one of those, we did not feel that we could reasonably deny it here. [4/94, p.14]
[Returning Azure, a German panther rampant contourny argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, a panther rampant argent, crowned Or. There is but one CD, for the orientation of the monster. [Implying no CD between types of panther.] [4/94, p.17]
[Returning Azure, a bogbeast rampant, within a bordure embattled argent, semy of clusters of berries sable.] As was noted in the January 1993 [LOAR, p.2], the bogbeast is grandfathered to [one individual]. At that time Laurel noted that he was not inclined to register it to anyone else. I concur. [4/94, p.17]
[Registering Vert, on a lozenge argent, a cat sejant guardant sable.] Versus ... Vert, on a lozenge between in chief two trefoils slipped argent, a gryphon sejant sable, there is clearly a CD for the removal of the trefoils, and in this case we can see granting the second for the change to the type only of the tertiaries per X.4.j.ii, given the significant change in outline which the eagle's head and wings make to the outline of the critter. [3/94, p.3]
[Registering Vair, a panther rampant guardant gules spotted argent incensed proper.] Versus ... Argent, a leopard rampant gules, there is a CD for the field, and, as leopards and panthers were considered to be different beasts in late period, a second CD for the type of critter. [3/94, p.10]
Though blazoned in the LoI as sable, the monster on the large emblazon form was quite clearly drawn as brown. As we could not reblazon this as a "brown griffin proper", we are forced to return this. [3/94, p.14]
[Returning Per fess argent and gules, a seawolf counterchanged.] Conflict with ... Per fess argent and gules, a sea-unicorn counterchanged. There is clearly a CD for the change to type of the primary charge; however, though we can see applying X.2 to unicorns and wolves, when they both have fish-tails, the differences between them are lessened to such a point that we do not believe X.2 can reasonably be applied. [3/94, p.15]
[Returning Vert, a German panther rampant Or breathing flames gules, maintaining a fleur-de-lis argent.] Conflict with ... Per chevron rayonny erminois and sable, in base a panther rampant Or, incensed proper. There is a CD for the change to the field, but since the move ... is forced, nothing for position on the field, nor can we see granting a CD between continental and insular panthers. [3/94, p.19]
[Returning Argent, a panther sejant, the dexter forepaw raised, sable spotted of various tinctures incensed proper, in chief five decrescents sable.] Visual conflict with ... Argent, a panther sejant erect pean armed and issuing flames form the mouth and ears gules, orbed azure. While there is enough technical difference between the two, with a CD for the addition of the secondary group and another for the change to tincture of the primary, the visual reality is that of a CD for the addition of the decrescents and "somebody's done something strange to the spots on the cat". [2/94, p.16]
The primary charge is not emblazoned as a seahorse, but as a fish-tailed horse head with human arms. As such, it follows no period (or, indeed, post-period) exemplars of which we are aware. [2/94, p.17]
[Registering Per bend sable and vert, a griffin couchant argent.] Versus ... Azure, an Assyrian griffin couchant gazing to chief wings displayed argent, there is a CD for the change to the field, and Laurel precedent (LoAR of 17 June 1990, p. 1) grants another for posture in the difference between wings addorsed and wings displayed. [1/94, p.1]
The "unicorn" on the large emblazon is clearly drawn as a unicornate horse. Unicornate horses have been disallowed for some years. [12b/93, p.14]
Conflict with ... Azure, a dragon argent. There is one CD for the addition of the bordure, but the default posture of a dragon is segreant, and the flames (which should be drawn a little smaller here) are not sufficient for the necessary second CD. [12a/93, p.17]
[Returning Sable, papelonny argent, an alphyn passant Or.] Visual conflict with ... Vert a heraldic tiger passant Or mane and tuft of the tail argent. There is clearly a CD for the changes to the field, but the visual similarities of the primary charges, combined with the lack of a clear heraldic difference in period, is too strong to grant the necessary second CD. [12a/93, p.18]
Conflict with ... Gules a phoenix Or issuant from flames argent. There is a clear CD for the addition of the bordure but the change to the tincture of the flames, which here constitute no more than one third of the charge, is insufficient for the second necessary CD. [12a/93, p.19]
Additionally, the charge here, as before, is an impermissible unicornate (sea)horse. Unicornate horses have been disallowed for some time because they blur the distinction of unicorns and horses. [12a/93, p.22]
[Returning Purpure, a mullet of eight interlocking mascles within a bordure Or.] Conflict with ... Per chevron vert and gules, a mullet of eight points voided within a bordure Or. There is a CD for the field, but the differences to the "mullets" are not sufficient for the necessary second. [6/94, p.15]
[Returning {Fieldless} On a mullet of eight points argent a bear's pawprint sable.] Conflict with ... {Fieldless} On a mullet of ten points argent, a pheon sable. There is one CD for fieldlessness, but as the mullets are not simple charges, there is no CD for changing the type only of the tertiary. [6/94, p.15]
[Returning Sable, a sun and on a chief Or, in pale a sword reversed and a sword sable.] Conflict with ... Sable, a mullet of four greater and four lesser points, on a chief Or a spear fesswise sable. There is a CD for the changes to type and number of tertiary charges, but per the precedent set in the LoAR of April 1993, p. 12, nothing for the change between a sun and a compass star ... . [5/94, p.19]
[Registering a mullet of six points elongated to chief and to base.] The mullet here is not really period style, but was not so modern as to require return in and of itself. [3/94, p.2]
[Returning Or, on a fess sable between three roses azure, three spur rowels Or.] Conflict with ... Or, on a fess sable, three estoiles of the first. There is a CD for the addition of the secondaries, but though the change in type between spur rowels/mullets and estoiles is generally worth a CD, they lack the substantial difference in type necessary to apply X.4.j.ii., which is needed here for the second CD. [2/94, p.17]
Blazoned on the LoI as a compass star, the arms of the primary charge are all the same length. We have therefore reblazoned it [as a mullet of eight points] to match the emblazon. [1/94, p.10]
The compass star meets the guidelines es lished by Master Bruce for voiding and fimbriation. [12a/93, p.1]
The secondary charges are not tricunes, but mullets of three points, which have been disallowed for some time. [12a/93, p.23]
One of the submissions considered this month (and another to be considered at an upcoming meeting) engendered a considerable amount of commentary regarding whether a specific symbol (or name) is offensive, and in what context, and what the College of Arms should do with such submissions. Indeed, the issue is a delicate one, and is one where rational argument can easily be put aside in favor of emotional reaction.
Commentary on this month's "issue" ranged from what I tend to think of as the "no way, no how" school to "well, I didn't recognize it as offensive so it must not be" to the "we can't let 'them' win" side. Since these are sensitive as well as emotional issues, I thought it would be well to discuss the general guidelines which are applied to submissions which may trigger "offensensitivity". These guidelines are written into the Rules for Submissions and have been in place since the current Rules were issued. They are [RFS I.2, IV and IX].
Reading through these sections carefully, and taking them as a whole, I believe that many issues involved become clearer. A return for offensiveness should be made only very rarely. This is at least in part because of the level to which the "offense" must rise before these rules are applied to return a submission. Almost every heraldic charge, and a number of names, could be considered offensive by someone. So the guideline is not whether they might be considered to be offensive by someone, but whether they are so "to a significant segment of the Society or the general population." (emphasis added). Additionally, consideration must be given to "the educational purposes {and} good name of the Society" and to "the enjoyment of its participants". In other words, will registration of a specific submission (thus giving it more or less "official approval" by the Society) put the Society in a negative light to a significant segment of the general population? Or will it cause sufficient offense to a significant segment of our own members as to be detrimental to their enjoyment of and participation in the activities of the Society? If the answer to either of these questions is "yes", then such should not receive the sanction of the Society by being registered. (How often is this likely to happen? Well, off the top of my head I can only remember two instances during the eight years I've been active in the College of Arms. I'd say that's sufficiently rare, especially given the number of items we process each year.) [12b/93c]
[Returning "a triskelion of scythes".] Lord Laurel deeply appreciates the amount of thought and consideration which went into this appeal and its ensuing discussion. However, the evidence presented by the commenters on this issue indicate that indeed a "significant segment of the Society" (see RfS I.2.), consisting of both heralds and non-heralds, sees the primary charge of this submission and immediately identifies it with the symbol "strongly associated" with the Afrikaaner Weerstandsbeweging, a white supremacist group whose members and symbols have been photographed for and published in a number of news magazines with worldwide publication. Given this association by a significant segment of heralds and non-heralds from a wide range of geographical locations, Laurel cannot in good conscience give this motif the Society's "seal of approval" by registering it. [12b/93, p.10]
[Registering Argent, three piles inverted in point and a chief azure.] Piles inverted in point do not seem to be particularly good period style, as they have their widest parts in the narrowest portion of the shield. As this was the only unusual element, however, we did not feel that it was in and of itself sufficient reason for return. [5/94, p.6]
[Returning Azure, a pile inverted ployé argent ermined azure between two cups Or.] Conflict with ... Per chevron sable and ermine, in chief two cups covered Or. There is only one CD for the changes to the field, as we have traditionally not granted difference between per chevron, chapé and a pile inverted. [5/94, p.19]
[Registering Lozengy Or and vert, a griffin segreant maintaining a trefoil within a bordure sable.] Versus ... Checky argent and gules, a griffin sejant, forepaw raised, within a border sable, there are CDs for the changes to the field and for posture of the monster. (While sejant erect and rampant have been declared insufficiently different to qualify for a CD, sejant is sufficiently different -- the angle of the monster's body, that one forepaw (at least) is much farther down, and the noticable changes to the hindquarters all add up to sufficient difference from to allow a CD between the two postures. [6/94, p.4]
[Returning Per chevron azure and gules, a dragon salient argent, maintaining in its sinister forepaw an egg Or.] The posture of the dragon is ambiguous, being closer to passant bendwise than segreant or salient. As a consequence of this ambiguity, there are several possible conflicts, most no ly ... Azure, a dragon argent. If redrawn with a proper segreant or salient, these conflicts should be clear, with CDs for the changes to the field and for posture of the monster. [6/94, p.13]
[Returning Per pale argent and sable, two rooks rising respectant counterchanged.] Conflict with ... Per pale argent and sable, two hawks striking respectant counterchanged, all within a bordure gules. There is only one CD for the bordure. The postures of the birds were very nearly identical, with minor changes to the head position being the only noticeable difference. [5/94, p.14]
[Returning Per pale vert and argent, two Oriental dragons combattant counterchanged within a bordure sable.] The dragons are not "combattant"; indeed, no one was able to come up with a good blazon for their posture here ("combattant demi-tergiant"? "combattant displayed aversant"?). As a consequence, we are unable to register them. [5/94, p.18]
[Returning Counter-ermine, a frog statant within a bordure argent.] The frog is not in an identifiable posture. It appears to be somewhere between couchant and sejant. Additionally, it is drawn in trian aspect, which perspective-style drawing is disallowed by RfS VII.1.c.i. [3/94, p.14]
[Returning Sable, an eagle stooping and in base a bow and sword in saltire argent.] The device is clear of ... Sable, an eagle volant argent, with CDs for the posture of the eagle and the addition of the charges in base. [The device was returned for slot-machine arrangement.] [3/94, p.15]
[Returning Sable, a swan naiant argent and a demi-sun issuant from sinister chief Or.] Conflict with ... Sable, a swan close argent ducally gorged and chained Or and with ... Sable, a swan close within a bordure engrailed Or. In each case there is one CD, for addition of the peripheral charge or for the change to its type, respectively [implying that there is no CD between the postures naiant and close]. [2/94, p.16]
The owl here is not really displayed but rather striking affronty, a posture which has been grounds for return in the past. [2/94, p.19]
[Returning Alastar the Arcane and Sable, two skulls and a mandrake, a bordure argent.] [W]hile the name does not in any way conflict with that of Aleister Crowley, the early twentieth-century writer on "Magick", the combination of given name, byname, and device certainly reminded more than half the commenters of him. Given the volume of that reaction, I believe that RfS I.3. (Inappropriate Claims) applies here [specifically with regard to name and armory combinations]. [5/94, p.15]
[Registering Argent ermined azure, on a hurt a bear rampant Or maintaining a scythe argent, all within a bordure azure.] It was the consensus among many of the commenters and those at the Laurel meeting that the scythe is not a significant enough charge to count for difference or to be blazoned as sustained. As a consequence this does not violate RfS XI.4. [4/94, p.2]
[Registering a seahorse to a person named Rhiannon.] This brings the name Rhiannon within the scope of Master Bruce's ruling that "one allusion to a deity is accep le when the name of the deity was also used by humans in period". [3/94, p.4]
[Registering Quarterly azure and argent, a cross couped between in bend two towers and in bend sinister two roses all counterchanged.] This comes perilously close to having the appearance of marshalled arms. The fact that the cross here is used as a charge rather than the default cross throughout (which is considered an ordinary) saves it from falling afoul of XI.3. No evidence was found by any of the commenters that crosses couped were used in the same way as crosses throughout, crosses paty throughout, or crosses engrailed throughout were in marshalled arms. [3/94, p.10]
[Returning Per pale argent and gules, a dragon gules and a natural tiger argent marked sable combattant, a bordure counterchanged.] This submission has the clear appearance of impaled arms, which the counterchanged bordure does not in the least diminish. [2/94, p.19]
Additionally, the field here [Lozengy azure and argent] is functionally the same as Bavaria, and may fall afoul of the ban on the use of fields lozengy bendwise azure and argent (or paly bendy azure and argent), reiterated by Master Bruce in the September 18, 1992 Cover Letter, pp. 2-3. [12b/93, p.10]
[Returning Quarterly ... a cross between in bend two {charges} and in bend sinister two {other charges}.] This device submission violates Rules for Submission XI.3., Marshalling, "divisions commonly used for marshalling, such as quarterly or per pale, may only be used in contexts that ensure marshalling is not suggested." The fillet cross was often used on marshalled arms, and thus the cross here does not remove the appearance of marshalling. [12a/93, p.16]
The submitter's original submission with a unicornate horse's head was returned in September 1986 for the use of the name Rhiannon combined with a horse or unicorn on the armory. Her resubmission, with a unicornate horse's head, was returned in February 1991 for the use of the name Rhiannon combined with a horse or unicorn on the armory. This is now being returned in November 1993 for the use of the name Rhiannon combined with a horse or unicorn on the armory. [12a/93, p.22]
[Returning Quarterly gules and argent, a boar's head couped close proper within a bordure Or.] Though blazoned as "proper" and emblazoned as "brown", there does not seem to be a default "proper" for boars (and therefore, boar's heads); there appears to be a wide variation in the coloration of those found in nature. [6/94, p.14]
A harp proper is, like all other wooden charges, brown. [5/94, p.10]
[Returning Argent, a peacock in its pride vert.] Conflicts with ... Argent, a peacock in its pride proper, a bordure invected purpure; ... Argent, three peacocks in pride proper; and ... Argent, a peacock passant regardant bendwise proper. As noted by Laurel in the LOAR of October 1992, p. 29, "peacocks have green bodies". [5/94, p.15]
[Returning Azure, on a fess Or between three caltraps argent a brown feather proper.] The consensus of the commentary was that a "brown feather proper" is not an appropriate use of a non-heraldic tincture for a charge. Laurel precedent concurs. "The wing was blazoned on the letter of intent and the forms as proper and is in fact brown so it cannot be reblazoned in any heraldic tincture. If there had been any method of determining what sort of wing this was intended to be, we would have pended this for appropriate commentary and conflict-checking. However, the depiction of the wing is such that ... it was exceedingly unclear what type of wing this should be." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR 31 December 1989, p. 25) We believe this to be equally true of feathers. [4/94, p.20]
[Registering {Fieldless} An elephant contourny proper.] Blazoned as argent in the LoI, the elephant is clearly colored light grey with argent tusks on the large emblazon sheet. While this is certainly the equivalent of argent in terms of contrast, and should be so considered for contrast or conflict purposes, we believe that elephants have a "widely understood default proper coloration". [3/94, p.5]
Though blazoned in the LoI as sable, the monster on the large emblazon form was quite clearly drawn as brown. As we could not reblazon this as a "brown griffin proper", we are forced to return this. [3/94, p.14]
[S]everal commenters had [a problem] with a "brown duck proper, headed sable". [2/94, p.18]
Daisies proper are defined as argent, seeded Or. [1/94, p.6]
A stag "proper" would seem to be a dark brown (see, e.g., James Parker, A Glossary of Terms as Used in Heraldry, 1982, pp. 197-198, where all of the stags "proper" are on metal fields). [1/94, p.8]
[Returning Pean, a lion couchant contourny Or.] Conflict with ... Per fess argent and vert, a catamount ... couchant sinister proper. There is only one CD for the changes to the field [implying that a catamount proper is effectively Or]. [1/94, p.14]
"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." (Cover Letter, May 1991, p. 2). Given the number of times the various commenters asked the question in the commentary received on this item, it is obvious that a peregrine falcon does not have a "widely-understood" proper tincture. As a consequence, we are having to return this. [1/94, p.14]
[Returning Azure, a wolf's fang within a bordure argent.] Conflict with ... Azure a shark's tooth point downwards proper. There is only one CD for the addition of the bordure [implying that a shark's tooth proper is effectively argent]. [1/94, p.16]
[Returning Argent, a serpent glissant palewise sable between flaunches gules.] Conflict with ... Argent, a wingless sea-dragon between two flaunches gules. Though there may be sufficient technical difference, and though there is clearly a CD between [the] serpent and [the] sea-dragon, the visual resemblances between the two lizards are too great to grant sufficient difference here. [3/94, p.20]
[Returning Per pale argent and vert, two serpents nowed respectant counterchanged.] There is no reasonable way to blazon the nowing of the serpents here; none of the standard heraldic depictions of nowing seem to apply to this case. [12b/93, p.10]
[Returning Per chevron azure and vert scaly Or, three fleurs-de-lys in chevron, each within a mascle Or.] "The use of multiple gold fleurs-de-lys on blue is not permitted in SCA armory: it is too strongly suggestive of a claim of connection to French royalty. ... The prohibition is supported by period practice. ... The period examples are so numerous that I feel I must uphold the Society's ban on gold fleurs-de-lys on blue backgrounds." (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR July 1992, p. 23) That the fleurs here are within mascles does not lessen the suggestion of that claim. [5/94, p.21]
[Returning Quarterly argent and Or, a wreath of flowers azure between in bend two dice gules.] A generic wreath of flowers is too close to the reserved wreath of roses. [4/94, p.19]
I recently received a letter from Master Crag Duggan of Calontir (m/k/a Craig J. Brown,M.D., F.A.C.S., F.R.S.M.), who made a number of cogent arguments in favor of retaining the former restrictions of the use of the Rod of Asclepius and Caduceus as charges to those with medical credentials. Among his arguments was the note that, having such a charge on his arms, he has been approached "many times" for medical assistance "on that very basis". As the belief that such never happened was one of the arguments in favor of relaxing the restriction on these these charges, I believe we need to take another look at this decision. I am therefore going to place "on hold" the relaxation of the restriction of the Rod of Asclepius and Caduceus as charges to those with medical credentials until the College has a chance to see all of Master Crag's arguments ... as well as to get the opinion of the Society Chirugeon ... . [2/94c]
In his Cover Letter of July 24, 1993, the Laurel Baron Bruce noted that unless cogent argument to the contrary were presented within a few weeks, he intended to "relax our restrictions on the caduceus, rod of Aesculepius, and bowl of Hygeia". As no such argument has been forthcoming, the use of these three symbols in SCA armory is no longer restricted to persons with modern medical credentials. [Overturned in February 1994 as noted above.] [12b/93c]
The "double tressure flory" is misdrawn here; a double tressure flory would be drawn with single fleurs underlying both tressures. More importantly, however, it infringes on the double tressure flory counter-flory, the Royal augmentation of Scotland, a restricted charge which may not be registered in the SCA. [12b/93, p.12]
Additionally, we have the problem that an "arbor" is not a defined heraldic charge. If reblazoned as a wreath inverted, it comes fatally close to the restricted wreath of roses, whose use in the SCA is limited to queens and members of the Order of the Rose. [12a/93, p.17]
Despite the blazon of the "chief", the visual reality of this device is one of an Or field with two charged cantons. Charged cantons are reserved in the SCA for augmentations. [12a/93, p.23]
Next Page - Previous Page
Return to the Precedents of Da'ud Ibn Auda, 2nd Tenure, Table of Contents Page