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

The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (1st year)

Compiled and edited by Lord Owen ap Morgan
Printed and distributed by: Free Trumpet Press West
HTML markup and minor emendations by Maggie Griggs
Several pages combined into one by Lindorm

Contents

INTRODUCTION

ADMINISTRATIVE PRECEDENTS

Armory Precedents: [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [H] [I] [K] [L] [M] [O] [P] [R] [S] [T] [V] [W]

Name Precedents: [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G] [H] [I] [J] [L] [M] [N] [O] [P] [R] [S] [T] [U] [W]

SOURCES

APPENDIX A


Table of Contents



Return to the Precedents Index Page

INTRODUCTION

This is a compilation of the significant policy decisions made by Da'ud ibn Auda during the first part of his second tenure as Laurel King of Arms in the Society for Creative Anachronism, from November 1993 through June 1994. The final choice of material to include from Laurel's published letters of this period was the editor's. DISCLAIMER: This is not an official publication of either the Society for Creative Anachronism or its College of Arms, and does not delineate official policy of either.

The excerpts contained herein are quoted from Laurel's letters as originally written with the following exceptions:

(1)Text enclosed in square brackets [] is the editor's. This has been used to include additional information or clarification, to condense certain passages and in a few circumstances to provide what seemed to be necessary corrections where the original text was obviously either incomplete or inconsistent with the apparent intent. Please note, however, that in the case of any disagreement between these precedents and the source documents, the source should be assumed to be correct until Laurel states otherwise. I have not altered in any way certain decisions in which I believe that Laurel has made errors in stating the facts; for better or worse, those are part of the official record and body of precedent. Square brackets in the source text have been replaced with curly braces {}.

(2)Minor corrections to spelling and grammar are unmarked.

(3)Some formatting has been standardized (e.g. to place all submitted names and blazons in italics rather than quotes, boldface, etc.)

Full decisions are not always quoted. Text omitted either before or after quoted material is not indicated; text omitted within quoted material is indicated by ellipsis (...).

There are two major differences between these precedents and previous compilations. First, I have organized the precedents into three main categories: Administrative, Armory and Name Precedents. Topics are arranged alphabetically within each category, and precedents are arranged in reverse chronological order by letter and in consecutive order within letters. Second, I have chosen to include many of the details of the decisions quoted as precedents. The context in which a decision is made has a significant effect on the extent of the application of the resulting precedent. It seemed more convenient to include those contexts here (when they seemed relevant) instead of requiring readers to look up the original documents (which are a matter of public record but may not be easily available.)

For identification purposes, each entry includes a code referring to the source text from which it was taken. These codes are generally along the lines of:

The first part is the date (mo/yr) of the Laurel meeting which produced the LOAR; the second is the page within the LOAR. A "c" following the year (e.g. 1/94c) indicates the cover letter to the LOAR. In one month, two separate Laurel meetings were held; these are identified as 12a/93 and 12b/93 respectively.

If errors are detected in this compilation, please inform me. (My current address is listed below; whether or not I continue to reside there I can be reached through that address.) If circumstances warrant, revised editions may appear later. Suggestions for changes to the format or other helpful criticism aimed at future volumes should be directed to whoever is designated by Laurel as my replacement, since I will not be doing the compilation of those (for reasons which have no relevance to the subject at hand.)

Owen ap Morgan
c/o Earl P. Jones
3825 Canterbury Dr.
Redding, CA 96002


ADMINISTRATIVE PRECEDENTS

Procedures

While Laurel, and indeed, many on Laurel staff, have a great deal of respect for the expertise it took to create the emblazon in color on the submissions forms for this item (and the badge, just below) on the computer, the Administrative Handbook, General Procedures for Submissions, C.1.d., requires that "The emblazon of any armory [must] be depicted in a size adequate for complete [rendition] of details of the armory and for equitable application of the "across the field test". In general, this means that the field for an escutcheon should be approximately six inches in height and five inches wide at its [widest] point...." The emblazons on the forms submitted were considerably smaller [than] this, though large enough that it was not felt that this alone was sufficient reason for return in this case. Having now reminded everyone of the necessity for adequately sized emblazons, however, we will expect that such forms in the future will adhere to the guidelines set forth in the Administrative Handbook. [4/94, p.13]

As the Laurel office is unable to consider alternate submissions, we were unable to register the documentable change they said they would accept. [1/94, p.18]

Furthermore, the conflicts cited in the prior return remain. (Indeed, the issue of the conflicts was not even addressed by the submitter, so even had the College accepted his style argument, this would have had to be returned.) [12b/93, p.10]

The evidence for support submitted with the device does not meet the requirements of the administrative handbook. Though it was signed by three quarters of the officers, it was also dated February 29, 1992. We need more timely evidence of support. [12b/93, p.14]

I find myself disturbed by what seems to be an increasing amount of commentary which is both dated and mailed well after the deadline for that commentary ... This situation cannot continue. ... As a consequence, I am going to have to be fairly strict on this. PRIMARY COMMENTARY MAILED OUT AFTER THE ANNOUNCED DEADLINE FOR THAT COMMENTARY WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AT THE LAUREL MEETING. REBUTTAL COMMENTARY MAILED OUT AFTER THE ANNOUNCED DEADLINE FOR THAT COMMENTARY WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AT THE LAUREL MEETING. ... As the flip side of this particular coin, LoIs must be postmarked before the end of the month to be considered as having been produced in that month. ... In the cases of both LoCs and LoIs, I will be checking not only the postmarks on the letters and packets I receive, but what the commenting members of the College have to say about when an LoI/LoC was mailed and/or received. I am sorry to have to get nasty about this my first month in office, but it's a situation which is getting out of hand and cannot be allowed to continue in fairness to ALL the members of the College of Arms. [11/93]

Protected Items

[Returning John Quest.] Conflicts with Jonny Quest. (Yes, I know he's a cartoon character. He is also, based on the commentary and reactions among those attending the Laurel meeting, apparently sufficiently well-known to meet Baron Bruce's guidelines for conflict with cartoon characters. See Cover Letter of 5 December 1992, p. 2). The discussion in the LoI regarding the different derivations of John and Jonny are not really to the point. A significant percentage of people hearing the name John Quest will immediately think of the cartoon character (even the "non-herald" attending the Laurel meeting cited the cartoon character immediately upon hearing the name, with no other background or hints). [5/94, p.19]

Registerable Items

[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]

[Returning a badge for the Ember Herald.] There is a long-standing policy that badges for subsidiary offices which have a higher-level equivalent will not be registered. The subsidiary offices are to use the badge registered for the higher-level office. [6/94, p.15]

[Returning Lauretta da Stellafessa.] Stellafessa was given as Italian for Rivenstar. However, the grandfather clause (RfS II.5.) does not apply to translations ("only the actual name element from the originally registered submission is covered by this permission"), and neither "stellafessa" nor "rivenstar" would be likely to be acceptable on its own without reference to the name of the Barony in which she resides. [6/94, p.15]

[Returning Ryuugatani, Shire of.] There was a fair amount of commentary with the belief that a Japanese place-name does not appear to fall within the defined scope of the Society, which is pre-17th Century Western culture (RfS I.1. See also "Scope of the Society: Period and Culture" in the Organizational Handbook, pp. 74-75). "Its domain includes Europe and areas that had contact with Europe during this period." (RfS I.1.) It was noted that while there was clearly some contact in very late period between Europe and Japan, and evidence that some few Japanese actually visited Europe, the contact between Europe and Japan was not great enough to justify a Japanese place-name in pre-17th C. Europe. [6/94, p.17]

[Returning {Fieldless} A cloudless natural rainbow in the shape of a crescent inverted and overall a phoenix head of flames, proper.] While the grandfather clause (RfS VII.8.) applies to originally registered elements and motifs, it does not then allow registration of different charges similarly treated. In this case, a phoenix of flames is grandfathered to the submitter, but not a phoenix' head, which is considered an entirely different charge. [4/94, p.16]

The Grandfather Clause has been held before to apply to armory changes where the new armory has identical conflicts to the previously registered armory. [2/94, p.15]

No documentation was presented for the byname beyond a statement that it is the name of the submitter's household. ... Despite a few registrations of the byname from several years ago, we are unwilling to extend the grandfather clause beyond immediate family members. [2/94, p.17]

Research Sources

I was distressed to see the number of names submissions whose sole documentation consisted of the bald assertion that "{X} is found in Hanks & Hodges {Surnames/Given Names} on page {x}". Except in a few cases, there were not even any accompanying photocopies of the appropriate pages. This situation is not acceptable. While Hanks and Hodges' works may be a great place to start in searching for name documentation, they are NOT the place to end that search. Very few of the entries have dates of any kind. There are many modern forms included in the entries. There are even, as there are in many general works of this kind, some errors, sometimes quite glaring. For all of these reasons, Hanks and Hodges' books are not acceptable as adequate documentation or support for an SCA name. They are especially not acceptable as the only documentation or support for an SCA name. [12a/93c]

Rules Changes

[A major revision to the rules for names, RFS X.4.j and the Administrative Handbook. In order to preserve the formatting, the full text appears as Appendix A.] [4/94c, pp.2-12]

The subtext of RfS X.4.d is revised in part to update the example given therein ("Or, three bulls' heads gules" differs from "Or, two bulls' heads sable and another gules", but not from "Or, two bulls' heads gules and another sable") to reflect the precedent set in the September 6, 1990 Cover Letter to the effect that tincture, type, and posture changes to the basemost of three charges arranged two and one are worth a CD, though at most one CD can be obtained even for multiple changes to this charge. As a consequence, and following Lord Palimpsest's wording, such example is revised to read:

Titles

The title Dame is now available as an alternate to Mistress for any female members of the Laurels, Pelicans, or Chivalry who wishes to use it. It had previously been reserved for female knights, but since every female knight so far has preferred to use Sir, it was felt that this strict a limitation was no longer necessary. [6/94c, p.2]


ARMORY PRECEDENTS

Architecture

[Returning Argent, a windmill, sails in cross, within a bordure embattled azure.] The sails of the windmill are effectively invisible here, even on the large emblazon. As a consequence, not only is the primary charge unidentifiable (itself grounds for return), but there are several conflicts [with towers]. [5/94, p.18]

[Returning Azure, a Doric colonnaded portico within a laurel wreath argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, a house argent, and a number of others, Azure, a (temple, church, etc.) argent. In each case there is only once CD for the addition of the laurel wreath. As several commenters if we do not give a CD between even radically different types of ships, we should not do so among various types of buildings. Further, the type of [the] "house" is completely unspecified. As we do not grant a CD between a generic bird and any other specific bird, we cannot see granting difference between a generic house (building) and any other type of house (building). [4/94, p.16]

[Returning Vert, a pedestalled sundial, and on a chief argent three quatrefoils slipped and leaved vert.] Conflict with ... Vert, a castle argent portalled and masoned sable, on a chief argent three oak leaves vert. There are simply not enough outline or visual differences between this sundial and a tower, or between the tertiary oak leaves and the quatrefoils, to get the necessary two Clear Differences. [I.e. neither difference is substantial.] [3/94, p.20]

Arrangement

[Returning Per fess embattled azure and argent masoned sable, conjoined in cross elongated to base, four double-bitted axes counterchanged argent and azure, hafted proper.] The blazon does not really adequately describe the emblazon, and all of the suggestions to fix it were not much better (see RfS VII.7.b., Reconstruction Requirement). The clear difficulty of creating an adequate blazon serves to underscore the non-period style of the device. [6/94, p.14]

Arrow

Additionally, the head and fletching of the arrow are drawn too small, which alone has been grounds for return in the past. [12a/93, p.21]

Base

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]

As a rule of thumb, a point (or base) should take up approximately 1/5 of the shield. [12a/93, p.8]

Beast

[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]

[Registering a Scottish terrier.] The dog is grandfathered to him ... . It is apparently not a period breed, not being recorded before 1879. [3/94, p.2]

[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 {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]

[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]

[Registering a marmot.] The critter was blazoned in the LoI as a gopher, but that name is a 19th century borrowing. We have, therefore, substituted the Old World rodent which is almost identical in build. [3/94, p.11]

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]

Bird

[Registering Gules, a sea-swallow migrant between three quatrefoils argent.] Clear of ... Gules, an eagle displayed argent. There is a CD for the addition of the secondary charges, and another for the difference in type of bird. (Blazoned on the LoI as a "tern", that term is post-period, dating to 1678, and it was felt that [a] sea-swallow would be more likely to be drawn with the forked tail, thus helping the difference from an eagle. This difference is probably necessary here, since we do not grant difference between an eagle and a generic "bird".) [6/94, p.5]

[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 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 Gules, a swan naiant and on a chief argent three roses gules.] Conflict ... with ... Gules, a swan naiant, wings elevated, and on a chief argent three trefoil knots gules. There is a CD for the change to the type of tertiary ... , but the change in wing position is insufficient for the necessary second. [5/94, p.19]

[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]

[Returning Per bend vert and sable, in bend sinister a gull close proper and a wheel Or.] Submitted as argent on the LoI, the gull is actually proper; that is to say, with white with dark grey wings. As a consequence, the wings disappear against the color field, making identifiability of the bird very problematical. [3/94, p.19]

[S]everal commenters had [a problem] with a "brown duck proper, headed sable". [2/94, p.18]

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 Purpure, a bird close, a bordure rayonny argent.] Conflict with ... Purpure, a heron close supporting in dexter upraised talon a rose argent barbed and seeded proper. There is one CD for the addition of the bordure but as a generic "bird", this could legitimately be drawn as nearly any kind of bird, and we cannot in good conscience grant a second CD for type. [1/94, p.13]

"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]

Blazon

The punch was blazoned in the LoI as a "trussel", a coin-stamping die whose name is dated to 1473 in the OED, but, especially given that it is here a small held charge, we believe that "punch" is the more accessible term. [5/94, p.1]

There was some discussion regarding how to blazon this posture (kneeling on one knee). We have adopted the term "genuant" which is used in Papworth. [3/94, p.7]

Blazoned in the LoI as a bull's skull, the primary was not emblazoned with any skull-like details, but appeared to simply be a bull's head. [2/94, p.13]

Laurel counted no less than six different suggestions at a reblazon. This variety alone tends to point out the possible non-period style of the [cross of two thornvines wavy]. [2/94, p.18]

The charges on the chief are not really arranged in a manner which lends itself to easy blazon, thus pointing out its probable non-period style. Were he to place the three charges in fess rather then enhancing the central charge (and reblazon the "drinking horns inverted" as simply a "pair of bull's horns"), this would probably be registerable. [2/94, p.18]

The blazon here, while marginally better than the one in the LoI, still does not adequately describe the outer group of comets: they are disposed in orle, but they are oriented in annulo, and as a result neither blazon is entirely satisfactory. [2/94, p.20]

Blazoned in the LoI as "a coiled match argent, flamed proper", we have deleted the flaming as an artistic detail of the same order as orbing, arming, and languing, and because someone unfamiliar with the charge may have drawn it with a lot more flames. [1/94, p.2]

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]

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]

[Registering Vert, in pale a roundel and an eagle displayed within a bordure Or.] On the large emblazon it was more obvious that the roundel and the eagle are two equal-sized charges, so the registered blazon is better than Vert, an eagle displayed and in chief a roundel.... (It was also clear from the large emblazon that the bird is an eagle, not a {smooth-feathered} falcon.) [1/94, p.11]

The field division was blazoned as schneckenweise in the LoI. It was felt, however, that the registered blazon [Per pall inverted arrondy ...] adequately reproduces the emblazon. [12b/93, p.7]

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]

The primary charge is not a "chevron inverted grady", and no one could come up with an adequate blazon for it. ("Grady" is a term which modifies "embattled"; it is not found as a separate line of division in and of itself.) [12b/93, p.13]

A bend fusily is a bend of "fusils conjoined". See, e.g., "A Return for First Principles: II -- Lozenge and Fusil", Roger F. Pye, Coat of Arms VII (50): 60-62. [12a/93, p.13]

Bordure

[Returning Argent, on a cross between in chief two estoiles azure in base an estoile argent, a bordure counterchanged.] No documentation has been found for counterchanging a bordure over an ordinary. That, combined with the unusual arrangement of the estoiles, is sufficient grounds for return. [3/94, p.20]

[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]

[Returning Azure, ... a bordure lozengy azure and Or.] The bordure is very odd. As colored on the large emblazon, there is a row of blue demi-lozenges along the chief portion of the azure field, and the bordure and field blend into each other. [1/94, p.14]

Charge Groups

[Returning Sable, a bend argent, overall a key, wards to sinister, within a laurel wreath Or.] The device ... also appears to conflict with ... Sable, a bend argent. The overall charges are effectively a single group, worth only one CD for their addition. [6/94, p.13]

[Returning {Fieldless} An annulet of rope nowed in base gules surmounted by a sword and a quill pen crossed in saltire argent.] Additionally, this proposal consists of three dissimilar charges in a single group, and thus falls afoul of the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. [6/94, p.14]

The emblazon is more properly blazoned as Azure, a chevron Or between in chief six trees and in base in pale a tree and a cat passant argent. As such this conflicts with ... Azure, a chevron Or, with only one CD for the addition of the secondaries. Were this redrawn with the trees all the same size as a semy, and the cat obviously larger as a secondary charge in base, it would be clear of the conflicts cited here. [2/94, p.20]

[Sable, a baton sinister couped gules fimbriated between in bend an oak sprig Or and a boar passant argent] falls afoul of the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. It has three charges of nearly equal visual weight in a single group, with the "primary" baton having the same visual "presence" on the field as the "secondary" charges. As a consequence, the charges appear to be a single group of primaries rather than a primary charge between two secondaries. [2/94, p.21]

[Returning Argent, a saltire vert, overall within a mascle a cross crosslet sable.] Conflict with ... Argent, a saltire vert. There is only one CD for the addition of the group of overall charges. [1/94, p.17]

[Registering Per bend ... a {charge} and three more in bend ... .] We did not believe that the precedent barring the use of two different sizes of the same charge as a semy and as the primary charge was applicable here. The feeling was that in this case there is a single group of charges drawn to adequately fill the space available for them. [12a/93, p.4]

[Returning Per chevron sable and vert, three mullets of nine points, one and two, and a hulk Or.] Conflict with ... Per chevron sable and vert, in chevron enhanced three compass stars elongated to base and in base a wolf's head cabossed argent. There is a CD for changing the tincture of all the charges, but the only way to grant the second would be to count the change to type and tincture of the bottom most charge separately from the tincture change to the charges in chief. It was not felt that such a "point count" was reasonable here, especially given that the charges have the appearance of a single group of primary charges rather than that of, say, a primary charge and a secondary group of charges. [12a/93, p.18]

Chevron

It was the consensus among many of the commenters and those at the Laurel meeting that X.2 should apply between chevrons and chevrons inverted. [4/94, p.6]

While a number of commenters noted that all of the chevrons couched they could find were used without secondary or tertiary charges, given the widespread use of secondary and tertiary charges with both chevrons and chevrons inverted, their combined use [with a chevron couched] did not seem to us to be more than a single "weirdness". [2/94, p.14]

Chief

[Returning Checky argent and sable, a chief engrailed gules.] Conflict with ... Checky argent and sable. A chief is not a primary charge and so X.1 can not be invoked here, as a consequence there is only once CD for the addition for the peripheral charge. [4/94, p.19]

Not even the large emblazon was clearly either a chief urdy or a field per fess urdy. It needs to be redrawn as one or the other. [1/94, p.17]

Complexity

[Returning {Fieldless} An annulet of rope nowed in base gules surmounted by a sword and a quill pen crossed in saltire argent.] Additionally, this proposal consists of three dissimilar charges in a single group, and thus falls afoul of the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. [6/94, p.14]

[Returning Per fess embattled sable and azure, on a demi-plate issuant from the line of division a double-bitted axe gules, and in base seven mullets of four points in annulo Or.] The device is right at the edge of the complexity limits of VIII.1.a. That, combined with its very modern "feel" [is grounds for return]. [5/94, p.20]

[A bow sable and a shepherd's crook bendwise vert, fretted with an arrow bendwise sinister inverted sable, flighted vert] ... has every appearance of being three different charges (bow, arrow, and crook) in a single group. As such, this falls afoul of the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. [2/94, p.16]

[Returning Barry wavy azure and argent, two dragons combattant gules maintaining between them a sword inverted, all within a laurel wreath Or.] Conflict with ... Barry wavy and per pale azure and argent, two wyverns combattant gules. There is a CD for the addition of the laurel wreath, but the complexity of the two fields makes it difficult to warrant granting a second for the per pale line of [the latter]. [2/94, p.20]

[Sable, a baton sinister couped gules fimbriated between in bend an oak sprig Or and a boar passant argent] falls afoul of the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. It has three charges of nearly equal visual weight in a single group, with the "primary" baton having the same visual "presence" on the field as the "secondary" charges. As a consequence, the charges appear to be a single group of primaries rather than a primary charge between two secondaries. [2/94, p.21]

[Returning Sable, on a pale between two mullets argent a pine tree eradicated proper, on a chief argent three reremice sable.] With five types of charge in four tinctures, this exceeds the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. While it is true that armory exceeding this "rule of thumb" has been registered on rare occasions, these exceptions have only been made for particularly elegant proposals. [Note the fourth tincture is the brown of the tree trunk, a detail which counts no difference for conflict.] [1/94, p.16]

Contrast

[Returning Sable, a tower per pale Or and azure, a bordure argent.] Unfortunately, even on the large emblazon, the tower was not recognizable as such because of the lack of contrast between its azure half and the field. Even though the charge is technically neutral, and could therefore be displayed on any tincture field, identifiability must be maintained. Here, it is not. [5/94, p.16]

[Returning Per bend vert and sable, in bend sinister, a gull close proper and a wheel Or.] Submitted as argent on the LoI, the gull is actually proper; that is to say, with white with dark grey wings. As a consequence, the wings disappear against the color field, making identifiability of the bird very problematical. [3/94, p.19]

[Registering Per pale argent and lozengy argent and purpure, three domestic cats rampant contourny sable.] Some commenters felt that the contrast between the cats and the field on the sinister half of the shield was too poor to allow ready identification. In cases such as this, where all three charges are identical, the poorer contrast to sinister does not seem to bar registration. [12b/93, p.5]

The style of "an X sable, marked vert" was accepted in the registration of this submitter's badge in the LoAR of 9 May 1993, where it was noted that "[t]he markings on the badger are considered artistic license, worth no difference.... The markings aren't considered a violation of the Rule of Contrast, any more than A brock's head per pale vert and sable would break contrast." [12b/93, p.5]

While technically a neutral charge on the sable field, the mullet [of eight points gyronny azure and Or] was unidentifiable as such at any distance. "All armory must have sufficient contrast to allow each element of the design to be clearly identifiable at a distance." (RfS VIII.2.) The overwhelming visual image was that of a Maltese cross at an unusual angle on the sable field, with its identifiability as a mullet of eight points completely lost. [12b/93, p.13]

The evidence submitted with this appeal goes beyond the bounds of "regional style". Of the forty-eight pieces of armory cited to support this submission, three were from Austria, one from England, twenty-five from the Holy Roman Empire, twelve from Hungary, five from Italy, and two from Portugal. Clearly, then, we are discussing a practice which surpasses the bounds of a single "regional" style.

It was noted that the Rule of Contrast, as codified in VIII.2.b. of the Rules for Submissions, is one of our most inviolate, and that exceptions should only be made to it with due and extremely careful consideration. On the other hand, it is equally true that the Rule of Contrast is our rule, and that just as we chose to adopt it we are equally free to chose to allow exceptions to it, under circumstances of our choosing.

In this case, I believe that the evidence presented adequately demonstrates through multiple period examples that vert trimounts were used on azure fields across Europe. As a consequence, and as you will note in the attached LoAR, we are registering [the device].

The next question, of course, is that having now made one exception to the Rule of Contrast, what are the standards for future possible exceptions? I believe the standards proposed by Master Bruce in his thoughts on this submission are the ones to be applied to submissions requesting an exception to any of our Rules in the future.

In other words, any future submission requesting an exception to any of the Rules for Submission must be documented (1) by multiple period examples, (2) from a number of heraldic jurisdictions, (3) in the exact form of the proposed armory, (4) of comparable simplicity and style as the proposed armory, (5) which apply only to that submission. We do not believe these restrictions to be too onerous, and hope that, if anything, they will stimulate our submitters to do some research on their own. [12a/93c]

Counterchanging

[Returning Gules, on a pile Or an eagle displayed sable, overall a laurel wreath counterchanged.] By current precedent, a laurel wreath is considered too complex a charge to be counterchanged over an ordinary. [6/94, p.13]

[Returning Per bend sinister embattled argent and azure, a ship counterchanged.] Additionally, most of the commenters found the outline of the ship to be too badly broken up by the counterchanging over the complex line of division to be readily identifiable, which itself is a separate grounds for return. [5/94, p.14]

[Returning Barry wavy argent and azure, an escallop inverted counterchanged, on a chief azure two mullets of four points Or.] This is an excessive use of counterchanging. Period style would have the field or the primary as barry, not both. [RFS VIII.3 specifically says complex divided fields may obscure charges counterchanged.] Such appears to be the case here. [5/94, p.16]

[Returning Argent, on a pile sable a Maltese Cross argent, a bordure counterchanged.] We need documentation for the motif of counter-changing a bordure over a pile before we can register this. [3/94, p.14]

[Returning Per saltire azure and argent, a butterfly counterchanged between in pale two bezants all within a bordure invected sable.] The butterfly is extremely hard to identify counterchanged on the field, so much so that we are compelled to return this because of unidentifiability. (See RfS VII.7.a., which states that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance.") [3/94, p.19]

[Returning Argent, on a cross between in chief two estoiles azure in base an estoile argent, a bordure counterchanged.] No documentation has been found for counterchanging a bordure over an ordinary. That, combined with the unusual arrangement of the estoiles, is sufficient grounds for return. [3/94, p.20]

[Registering Per pale and per chevron argent and sable, in chief two eagles displayed counterchanged.] Versus ... Per bend sable and argent, two eagles displayed, wings inverted, counterchanged, there is a CD for the change to the field and another for position on the field. This is not as easy to see as a change for, say, posture, but still exists. Because the charges are counterchanged, they could legitimately be placed anywhere on the field, even over the line(s) of division. As a consequence, the change in position of the birds cannot be considered to be "forced" by the field division (though in [the latter] they are in the expected position, one on either side of the line of division), thus giving a CD for position on the field. [1/94, p.1]

Couped / Throughout

[Returning Sable, in pale a compass star and three bars wavy couped argent.] The badge also conflicts with ... Sable, three bars wavy argent, and with ... Gules, three bars wavy argent and in chief a mullet of six points of the second. Against [the second] there is a CD for the addition of the charge in chief, and against [the third] for the tincture of the field [implying that there is no CD for couping the bars in this case]. [2/94, p.23]

Cross

[Returning Azure, a cross patonce between four roses, a bordure argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, a cross flory between four bear's heads couped argent muzzled gules within a bordure argent. There is only one CD for the change to the type of secondary charges [and nothing for patonce vs. flory]. [5/94, p.16]

The star-cross is a modern invention and not a period charge. [3/94, p.14]

[Returning Gules, a latin cross throughout parted and fretted argent interlaced with an annulet Or.] Conflict with ... Gules, a cross voided argent. There is only one CD for the addition of the annulet. [Implying there is no CD between a cross voided and one parted and fretted.] [3/94, p.15]

[Returning a cross maltese gyronny sable and gules.] While the argument that a Maltese cross is "four arms joined at a single point" is interesting, the visual reality is that it is seen as a single charge (a cross), and thus is seen as gyronny, not as four different charges each divided along a pale or fess line. The rules are quite clear that gyronny of two colors is not registerable. [3/94, p.17]

[Returning Per fess sable and argent, a cross botonny Or charged with a rose gules, barbed and seeded proper.] In keeping with the commentary and subsequent December 1993 return of the badge of Anton Tremayne, the weight of commentary was that this conflicts with ... Gules, a cross bottony voided Or, with one CD for the change to the field but without the necessary second for the change to type only of the tertiary. [3/94, p.17]

[Returning Gules, a patriarchal cross bottony throughout Or.] Conflict with ... Gules, a cross botonny Or. There may be a CD for the change to the type of cross, but there cannot be sufficient difference between [them]. [2/94, p.13; though listed among the acceptances this was intended as a return and corrected in Laurel's letter of April 12, 1994.]

[Returning Quarterly checky sable and argent and argent, a cross of two thornvines wavy vert.] There are a couple of problems with the primary charge. One is the difficulty of blazon. Laurel counted no less than six different suggestions at a reblazon. This variety alone tends to point out the possible non-period style of the charge. And as several commenters noted, because of both its thinness and waviness, the primary charge tends to disappear along the lines of partition of the field, making immediate identification a little problematical. Finally, it conflicts with ... Or, a cross raguly vert and with ... Argent, a cross slipped vert. In each case there is one CD for the change to the field, but nothing for the very minor visual differences to the type of cross. [2/94, p.18]

The submitter's argument that a Maltese star cross is but one step from a recognized period charge, a Maltese cross, is interesting but not particularly compelling. The fact remains that six armed crosses are not a period charge. [12b/93, p.10]

The weight of the commentary was that a cross botonny is not a simple enough primary charge for X.4.j.ii. to apply. [12b/93, p.12]

[Registering {field}, an equal-armed Celtic cross flory Or.] Versus ... {Fieldless} An equal-armed Celtic cross Or, there are CDs for fielded versus fieldless and for flory versus potent. [12a/93, p.12]

As the [key cross] is not an ordinary or "similarly simple" geometric design, X.4.j.ii. cannot apply to the change in type only of the tertiary charge. [12a/93, p.20]

Difference (CD)

[Registering Argent, two serpents nowed in a Bourchier knot palewise vert, a bordure counter-compony sable and argent.] Versus ... Argent, a Bourchier knot vert, there are CDs for adding the bordure and for the orientation of the knot. [6/94, p.2]

[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]

[Registering Gules, a sea-swallow migrant between three quatrefoils argent.] Clear of ... Gules, an eagle displayed argent. There is a CD for the addition of the secondary charges, and another for the difference in type of bird. (Blazoned on the LoI as a "tern", that term is post-period, dating to 1678, and it was felt that sea-swallow would be more likely to be drawn with the forked tail, thus helping the difference from an eagle. This difference is probably necessary here, since we do not grant difference between an eagle and a generic "bird".) [6/94, p.5]

[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 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 Per fess gules and azure, a fess dancetty flory Or.] Conflict with ... Azure, a fess dancetty the two upper points fleur-de-lys Or. While there is a CD for the change to the field, the addition of complex changes to an already complex line of division on only the bottom are not sufficient for the necessary second. [6/94, p.17]

[Registering {Fieldless} On a maple leaf Or a cross formy sable.] Versus ... Sable, on an oak leaf Or a battle-axe sable. there are CDs for fieldless vs. fielded and for maple leaf vs. oak leaf. The two leaves are not so visually similar as to warrant granting no difference between them. [5/94, p.9]

[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 Azure, a cross patonce between four roses, a bordure argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, a cross flory between four bear's heads couped argent muzzled gules within a bordure argent. There is only one CD for the change to the type of secondary charges [and nothing for patonce vs. flory]. [5/94, p.16]

[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]

[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]

[Returning Gules, a swan naiant and on a chief argent three roses gules.] Conflict ... with ... Gules, a swan naiant, wings elevated, and on a chief argent three trefoil knots gules. There is a CD for the change to the type of tertiary ... , but the change in wing position is insufficient for the necessary second. [5/94, p.19]

[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 {Fieldless} A fire arrow Or enflamed proper.] Numerous conflicts ... with {Field}, an arrow Or. In each case there is only one CD for fieldlessness [and nothing for the enflaming]. [5/94, p.20]

[Returning Azure, a goat's head couped within a bordure argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, two rams heads in bend sinister erased and respectant within a bordure argent. There is only one CD for the change in number of primary charges [and nothing for type]. [5/94, p.21]

[A significant revision of RFS X.4.j. For the full, formatted text see Appendix A.] [4/94c, pp.9-10]

[Registering Vert, three apples Or and a chief ermine.] Versus ... Vert, three acorns Or, and ... Vert, three pineapples Or, there are CDs for type of primary charge and addition of the chief. One commenter noted that Papworth put pineapples and apples together, but Parker (p. 462) makes it clear that "pineapples" are what we generally call "pine cones", which are not only visually different enough for a CD, but mundane default puts them stem to base, adding to the visual differences. [4/94, p.14]

[Returning Azure, a Doric colonnaded portico within a laurel wreath argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, a house argent, and a number of others, Azure, a (temple, church, etc.) argent. In each case there is only once CD for the addition of the laurel wreath. As several commenters if we do not give a CD between even radically different types of ships, we should not do so among various types of buildings. Further, the type of [the] "house" is completely unspecified. As we do not grant a CD between a generic bird and any other specific bird, we cannot see granting difference between a generic house (building) and any other type of house (building). [4/94, p.16]

[Returning {Fieldless} A Catherine wheel azure.] Conflict with ... A wheel, and with ... Dark, a wheel light. In each case there is a CD for fieldlessness, but nothing for the tincture [or type] of the wheels. [4/94, p.16]

[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 Per bend azure and sable, on a bend wavy between two oak-leaves argent three holly-leaves azure.] Prior Laurel precedent (December 1993 LoAR, p. 12) does not grant a CD between oak leaves and holly leaves. As a consequence this is being returned for the use of two different but heraldically similar charges on a single device. [4/94, p.18]

[Returning Or, a slip and on a chief vert three gouttes Or.] Blazoned on the LoI as "an olive slip", there was nothing even on the large emblazon to denote that this was an olive slip as opposed to any other kind (even a sprig of laurel would have been an adequate blazon). As a consequence, this conflicts with ... Or, a sprig of three linden leaves and on a chief vert a cavendish knot Or. There is CD for the multiple changes to the tertiaries, but we cannot in good conscience see another for the change to number of leaves on the sprig. [4/94, p.19]

[Returning {Fieldless} A cross gurgity reversed, interlaced with an annulet argent.] The style of the badge, with its interlaced charges, appears modern rather than period in style. There is also a conflict with ... Azure, a Catherine wheel argent. ... [T]he difference to only the number of "arms" of the "wheel" is insufficient for [a CD]. [4/94, p.21]

[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]

[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]

[Registering Argent, on a pale gules a wolf sejant affronty argent overall a laurel wreath vert.] Versus ... Argent, on a pale gules a griffin segreant argent, overall a laurel wreath counterchanged, there is a CD for changing the tincture of the laurel wreath and a CD for changing both the type and posture of the tertiary. [3/94, p.11]

[Registering Per chevron sable and Or, two Maltese crosses and a griffin counterchanged.] Versus ... Per chevron sable and Or, in chief three crosses patty of the second, there are CDs for changing the arrangement (three in chief to 2 and 1) and for changing the type and tincture of the bottom-most charge. [3/94, p.12]

[Returning Gules, a latin cross throughout parted and fretted argent interlaced with an annulet Or.] Conflict with ... Gules, a cross voided argent. There is only one CD for the addition of the annulet. [Implying there is no CD between a cross voided and one parted and fretted.] [3/94, p.15]

In each case, the enarching of the bend is only an artistic variant and counts for nothing. [3/94, p.15]

[Returning Sable, a compass star elongated gules, fimbriated argent, overall a lion's head cabossed Or ... .] [T]here is a conflict with ... Sable, a sun gules fimbriated Or, surmounted by a panther's head erased reversed Or. There is a possible CD for the changes to the overall charge, but no more than that, as by current precedent there is not a CD between a compass star and a sun [and nothing for the tincture of the fimbriation]. [3/94, p.15]

[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]

[Returning Argent, a tree eradicated gules between flaunches counter ermine.] Conflict with ... Argent, an oak branch eradicated gules, with one CD for the addition of the flaunches, but by prior precedent nothing for the difference between a branch and a tree. [3/94, p.17]

[Returning Azure, in sinister chief a cross parted and fretted, in dexter base a mermaid argent, tailed and crined, maintaining an estoile Or.] Conflict with ... Azure, a cross double-parted argent. There is one CD for the addition of the mermaid but nothing for the enhancement of the cross to sinister chief or for the fretting at its cross point. [3/94, p.18]

[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]

[T]here is a CD for ... the differences between a spider and an ant. While we would probably not grant sufficient difference between the two, when they are used as the primary charge, a CD can be granted. [2/94, p.6]

[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]

[Returning {Fieldless} A dragon's head couped sable.] Conflict with ... Paly argent and gules, a drakkar prow sable ... . There is ... nothing for difference in type of the charge. [2/94, p.16]

[Returning Azure, two harps and a wolf sejant erect guardant argent.] Conflict with ... Azure a wolf rampant argent. And with ... Azure a wolf salient argent. This was the subject of a lively debate at the Laurel meeting, as well as in the commentary. In the end, the basic philosophical position of subsuming changes to posture, orientation, type, etc. under changes to number (e.g., Azure, two lions combattant Or conflicts with Azure, a lion rampant Or, with one CD for adding the second lion, but nothing for then changing its orientation) required this to be seen as a conflict, too, with a CD for changing the number of charges, but nothing for then changing their type as well. [2/94, p.16]

[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]

[Returning Quarterly checky sable and argent and argent, a cross of two thornvines wavy vert.] Finally, it conflicts with ... Or, a cross raguly vert and with ... Argent, a cross slipped vert. In each case there is one CD for the change to the field, but nothing for the very minor visual differences to the type of cross. [2/94, p.18]

[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]

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]

[Returning Barry wavy azure and argent, two dragons combattant gules maintaining between them a sword inverted, all within a laurel wreath Or.] Conflict with ... Barry wavy and per pale azure and argent, two wyverns combattant gules. There is a CD for the addition of the laurel wreath, but the complexity of the two fields makes it difficult to warrant granting a second for the per pale line of [the latter]. [2/94, p.20]

[E]narching of [bars] is a period artistic convention to represent the curvature of the shield [and so not worth a CD]. [2/94, p.20]

[Returning Sable, in pale a compass star and three bars wavy couped argent.] The badge also conflicts with ... Sable, three bars wavy argent, and with ... Gules, three bars wavy argent and in chief a mullet of six points of the second. Against [the second] there is a CD for the addition of the charge in chief, and against [the third] for the tincture of the field [implying that there is no CD for couping the bars in this case]. [2/94, p.23]

[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]

[Registering Per pale and per chevron argent and sable, in chief two eagles displayed counterchanged.] Versus ... Per bend sable and argent, two eagles displayed, wings inverted, counterchanged, there is a CD for the change to the field and another for position on the field. This is not as easy to see as a change for, say, posture, but still exists. Because the charges are counterchanged, they could legitimately be placed anywhere on the field, even over the line(s) of division. As a consequence, the change in position of the birds cannot be considered to be "forced" by the field division (though in [the latter] they are in the expected position, one on either side of the line of division), thus giving a CD for position on the field. [1/94, p.1]

[Returning Purpure, a bird close, a bordure rayonny argent.] Conflict with ... Purpure, a heron close supporting in dexter upraised talon a rose argent barbed and seeded proper. There is one CD for the addition of the bordure but as a generic "bird", this could legitimately be drawn as nearly any kind of bird, and we cannot in good conscience grant a second CD for type. [1/94, p.13]

[Returning Azure mullety Or, a vol argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, two wings conjoined argent enflamed between in annulo six mullets of six points Or. In this case there are no CDs for the number or type or arrangement of the mullets and nothing for the enflaming of the wings. [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]

[Returning {field} a bear rampant contourny gules.] Conflict with ... Or, a bear legged of an eagle's legs rampant to sinister gules. There is one CD, for the changes to the field, but the difference in the legs only is insufficient for the second. [12b/93, p.10]

[Returning {Fieldless} On a heart argent a seadragon rampant gules.] Conflict with ... Argent, a wyvern passant gules. There is only one CD for the posture of the monster. Several commenters submitted evidence that heart shapes were used as a medium, albeit only occasionally, for heraldic display in period. See, e.g., Ottfried Neubecker, Heraldry, Sources, Symbols and Meaning, page 76. [12b/93, p.12]

[Returning {Fieldless} Three holly leaves conjoined in pall inverted vert, fructed gules.] Conflict with ... {Fieldless} Three oak leaves conjoined in pall inverted vert, surmounted by an acorn Or. There is a CD for the fieldless difference, but given their similarity in outline, the difference in the type of leaves was insufficient to grant the second. [12b/93, p.12]

[Registering Or, on an eagle displayed sable an inescutcheon argent all within a bordure purpure semy of crosses formy argent.] Versus ... Or, on an eagle displayed sable within a bordure gules charged with eight cinquefoils argent a mullet of the second, there is a CD for the change to the tincture of the bordure. While the mullet ... cannot be "of the second" (which would make it sable on sable), this does leave its actual tincture in question. It has been our rule in cases where there is a question to give our submitters the benefit of the doubt. As a consequence this has a second CD for type and tincture of the charge on the eagle. [12a/93, p.1]

[Registering {field}, an equal-armed Celtic cross flory Or.] Versus ... {Fieldless} An equal-armed Celtic cross Or, there are CDs for fielded versus fieldless and for flory versus potent. [12a/93, p.12]

[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]

[Returning {field} three iris blossoms sable, slipped and leaved vert, conjoined at the bases.] Conflict with ... {Fieldless} Three irises in fess argent slipped, conjoined and leaved vert. There is a CD for fielded versus fieldless but nothing for the change to the tincture of the blossoms only. [12a/93, p.15]

[Returning Azure, in pale a heart distilling gouttes d'Or and a stag's skull caboshed argent within a bordure embattled Or.] The device conflicts with ... Vert, a heart Or between the attires of a stag's head cabossed argent, attired, within a bordure embattled Or. There is only one CD for the tincture of the field. The gouttes, the tincture of the horns, and the difference between a stag's skull cabossed and a stag's head cabossed are insufficient for the necessary CD. [12a/93, p.16]

[Returning Azure, a dragon segreant breathing flames within a bordure embattled argent.] 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 Per chevron sable and vert, three mullets of nine points, one and two, and a hulk Or.] Conflict with ... Per chevron sable and vert, in chevron enhanced three compass stars elongated to base and in base a wolf's head cabossed argent. There is a CD for changing the tincture of all the charges, but the only way to grant the second would be to count the change to type and tincture of the bottom most charge separately from the tincture change to the charges in chief. It was not felt that such a "point count" was reasonable here, especially given that the charges have the appearance of a single group of primary charges rather than that of, say, a primary charge and a secondary group of charges. [12a/93, p.18]

There is one CD for the changes to the field but nothing for the difference between rampant and sejant erect guardant. [12a/93, p.18]

[Returning Per pale azure and vert, three swords conjoined in pall throughout between three mullets argent.] Conflict with ... Gules, three swords in pairle hilts inward argent between a fleur-de-lys in chief and a mullet in each flank of the last. There is a CD for the change to the field; however, the change to the type only of one in the group of three secondary charges was sufficient to grant the second CD. (The precedent that several commenters wanted to apply here does not. Propounded in the Cover Letter of September 6, 1990, p. 2, that precedent states:

In this case, we have neither the basemost of three charges, nor are they "alone on the field or around an ordinary". [12a/93, p.18]

[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]

[Returning Argent, a centipede coiled, head to center, sable.] Conflict with mon illustrated in Matsuya, 109. Though that one is counterchanged and reversed from the one submitted here, there is no difference for reversing the tinctures in "tinctureless" mon nor for reversing the direction of the spiral. [12a/93, p.20]

Conflict with ... Azure, an estoile argent, and with ... Gyronny argent and sable an estoile of seven points argent fimbriated sable. In each case there is a CD for fieldless versus fielded but nothing for the addition or change in tincture of the fimbriation. [12a/93, p.20]

[Returning Vert, issuant from a castle argent, a demi-griffin rampant and in chief three mullets Or.] The device appears to conflict with ... Vert, a tower argent. There is a CD for the addition of the mullets in chief, but nothing for the difference between a castle and a tower, and the demi-griffin here is drawn so small as to be the visual equivalent as a maintained charge. [12a/93, p.22]

Conflict with ... Sable, a sun eclipsed Or. Normally we would be willing to grant a CD between the default six-armed estoile and a sun, but the addition of the tertiary roundel here leaves us with a nearly overwhelming visual similarity. As a consequence, there is only one CD for fieldless versus fielded, and nothing for the type of primary charge nor the tincture of the tertiary roundel. [12a/93, p.22]

Difference (Substantial)

[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]

[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 Sable, on a chevron between three horses rampant argent, three oak leaves vert.] Conflict with ... Sable, on a chevron argent, three trefoils slipped vert. There is a CD for the addition of the secondaries, but the consensus among the commenters was that there was not the substantial difference required by X.4.j.ii. to grant the necessary second for the change to type of the tertiaries. [5/94, p.18]

[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]

It was the consensus among many of the commenters and those at the Laurel meeting that X.2 should apply between chevrons and chevrons inverted. [4/94, p.6]

[Returning Per bend sinister argent and azure, a lotus blossom in profile and a moose statant contourny counterchanged.] To quote the prior return in the September 1992 LoAR, page 42, "there is a CD for type of primary charges, but because both armories contain a cup-shape flower in dexter chief, we cannot grant sufficient difference of charge per rule X.2" (emphasis added). While there is certainly a CD between the two types of flower, there is not "substantial difference", which is what the application of X.2. requires. As a consequence, the prior conflict must stand, because the type of all of the group of charges is [not] "substantially changed". [4/94, p.16]

[Returning Per pale sable and argent, a fret counterchanged.] Conflict with ... Per pale sable and argent, two double-bitted axes in saltire, fretted with a mascle counterchanged. There is only one CD [not substantial difference] for the changes to the group of primary charges. [4/94, p.18]

[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]

[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 Per fess sable and argent, a cross botonny Or charged with a rose gules, barbed and seeded proper.] In keeping with the commentary and subsequent December 1993 return of the badge of Anton Tremayne, the weight of commentary was that this conflicts with ... Gules, a cross bottony voided Or, with one CD for the change to the field but without the necessary second for the change to type only of the tertiary. [3/94, p.17]

[Returning Vert, a pedestalled sundial, and on a chief argent three quatrefoils slipped and leaved vert.] Conflict with ... Vert, a castle argent portalled and masoned sable, on a chief argent three oak leaves vert. There are simply not enough outline or visual differences between this sundial and a tower, or between the tertiary oak leaves and the quatrefoils, to get the necessary two Clear Differences. [I.e. neither difference is substantial.] [3/94, p.20]

[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]

[I]t was the opinion of the commenters and those at the Laurel meeting that there is sufficient difference between a sun in its splendor and a leopard's head jessant-de-lys [as tertiaries] to apply X.4.j.ii. for the second CD. [2/94, p.5]

[T]here is a CD for ... the differences between a spider and an ant. While we would probably not grant sufficient difference between the two, when they are used as the primary charge, a CD can be granted. [2/94, p.6]

[Returning Gules, a patriarchal cross bottony throughout Or.] Conflict with ... Gules, a cross botonny Or. There may be a CD for the change to the type of cross, but there cannot be sufficient difference between [them]. [2/94, p.13]

[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]

As this could equally well be blazoned (as Papworth has done with similar designs), Sable an inescutcheon argent charged with an eagle sable all within a bordure argent semy of lozenges sable, it conflicts with ... Sable an escutcheon argent within a bordure of the last charged with billets of the first. There is one CD for the addition of the tertiary eagle, but because this is not simple armory as defined in RfS X.4.j.2., there is nothing for changing the type only of the tertiary charges on the bordure. [1/94, p.14]

[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]

[Returning Gules, on a flame Or a mullet gules, a chief embattled Or.] Conflict with ... Gules on a sun Or a cross of St. Anthony gules a chief embattled Or. There is one CD for the change to type of the primary charge, but not a second for the change to type only of the tertiaries [implying that there is not substantial or X.2 difference between a flame and a sun]. [1/94, p.16]

[Returning {field} on a key cross throughout argent a county coronet gules.] Conflict with ... Per bend sinister gules and argent, in dexter chief a key cross nowy pierced argent. There is a CD for the field, but the change in position of the cross [in the latter] device is forced by the field. As the cross here is not an ordinary or "similarly simple" geometric design, X.4.j.ii. cannot apply to the change in type only of the tertiary charge. [12a/93, p.20]

Documentation

[Returning Per pale argent and purpure, in pale a Viking tent arch and a unicorn statant counterchanged.] The College has not previously registered a "Viking tent arch" as a charge. As a consequence, this registration ... would be the "defining instance", and we need some documentation for it: either that it appeared in period armory in this form or that it is a period artifact and that this is its standard or typical form. [5/94, p.17]

Estoile

[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]

Conflict with ... Sable, a sun eclipsed Or. Normally we would be willing to grant a CD between the default six-armed estoile and a sun, but the addition of the tertiary roundel here leaves us with a nearly overwhelming visual similarity. As a consequence, there is only one CD for fieldless versus fielded, and nothing for the type of primary charge nor the tincture of the tertiary roundel. [12a/93, p.22]

Fess

[Returning Or,in chief on a fess couped sable a fleur-de-lis Or and in base a horse salient [sic].] No one was able to find any period exemplars of fesses either couped or enhanced so far to chief. Without further documentation we are unable to register this motif. [3/94, p.14]

Field Division

[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 Per pale sable and argent, five roundels in saltire counterchanged, a chief gyronny argent and sable.] We would expect that in a chief gyronny that the gyrons would issue from the corners of the chief as opposed to the unusual drawing style used here [with the lines at evenly spaced angles, so that the diagonals met the top and bottom well in from the edges]. [5/94, p.16]

[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]

[Returning Plumetty argent and vert, a sledgehammer and overall a single horned anvil reversed sable.] The plumetty field treatment here [the pieces being long, vertical shafts with the tips in chief and curled over; similar to an illustration in Friar's A Dictionary of Heraldry, p.159] does not appear to be a valid period variant. [4/94, p.19]

Master Bruce, in the Cover Letter of 18 September 1992, had a page-long discussion of fields per bend {sinister} bevilled: the version here matches none of the attested forms, but is the inversion of the accep le form found in Legh's Accidence of Armory. At the very least, this would have to be returned for redrawing. However, it was additionally noted that allowing per bend bevilled fields (which normally appeared without charges) to be charged might be considered if the charges were in a balanced arrangement. Unlike charges on each side of a bevilled line do not appear to meet this criterion. [2/94, p.19]

[Returning Barry wavy azure and argent, two dragons combattant gules maintaining between them a sword inverted, all within a laurel wreath Or.] Conflict with ... Barry wavy and per pale azure and argent, two wyverns combattant gules. There is a CD for the addition of the laurel wreath, but the complexity of the two fields makes it difficult to warrant granting a second for the per pale line of [the latter]. [2/94, p.20]

Not even the large emblazon was clearly either a chief urdy or a field per fess urdy. It needs to be redrawn as one or the other. [1/94, p.17]

The field division was blazoned as schneckenweise in the LoI. It was felt, however, that the registered blazon [Per pall inverted arrondy ...] adequately reproduces the emblazon. [12b/93, p.7]

[Registering a field Per fess azure and per pale purpure and Or.] The field division, though somewhat unusual, is sufficiently attested to in period German armory to permit its registration here. [12a/93, p.5]

[Returning a field Per chevron rayonny paly, barry, bendy, bendy sinister Or and sable and gules.] The line of division is not rayonny, but rather alternately indented and a sort of wavy double-crested. The upper portion of the field is far too complex and follows no period exemplars of which we are aware. {One commenter suggested "checky Campbell".} Any one of these would normally be sufficient cause for return. [12a/93, p.21]

Field Treatment

[Returning Sable masoned, on a pile argent masoned sable between two hawks' heads erased respectant argent, a hawk striking to sinister gules.] The device lacks the symmetry and balance of period style heraldry, which lack the counterchanging of the field treatment over the primary charge only serves to reinforce. In fact, it reminded more than one commenter (and most of those at the Laurel meeting) of "a bird caught against the wall by a searchlight". A number of commenters questioned the propriety of counterchanging a field treatment over a charge in this manner. Certainly no one was able to find any period exemplars of such, bringing into question the propriety of such a counterchange. [4/94, p.17]

Fire and Flame

[Returning {Fieldless} A fire arrow Or enflamed proper.] Numerous conflicts ... with {Field}, an arrow Or. In each case there is only one CD for fieldlessness [and nothing for the enflaming]. [5/94, p.20]

[Returning Gules, on a flame the blade of a sword Or, winged argent, a bordure Or semy of roses sable.] The sword loses its identifiability against the "flames" of the same tincture. (One commenter noted its resemblance to a chain saw.) Were the flames drawn larger (and less regularly) and made proper to increase the contrast, this would probably accep le. [2/94, p.17]

Without evidence that ordinaries of flame were used in period armory, or that such are compatible with period armory, we will not register ordinaries of flames. [2/94, p.22]

[Returning Gules, on a flame Or a mullet gules, a chief embattled Or.] Conflict with ... Gules on a sun Or a cross of St. Anthony gules a chief embattled Or. There is one CD for the change to type of the primary charge, but not a second for the change to type only of the tertiaries [implying that there is not substantial or X.2 difference between a flame and a sun]. [1/94, p.16]

Though blazoned as "enflamed argent and azure", the flames were drawn on the large emblazon as "azure, fimbriated argent". We have disallowed fimbriated flames for quite some time. [12a/93, p.15]

Flower

[Returning Or, a double rose azure and argent pierced by a sword bendwise sable all within a bordure azure.] Though blazoned as a double rose, the primary is emblazoned as a "rose argent, fimbriated azure"; roses are too complex a charge to fimbriate. [6/94, p.15]

[U]nless there is significant commentary or compelling argument to the contrary, I propose to ban, after the July 1994 Laurel meeting, the further registration of garden roses and rosebuds as charges SCA armory on the grounds that they are not a charge used in period, that the "tea rose" depicted as garden roses in SCA armorial submissions was not a period rose, and that there is an accep le similar charge, the standard heraldic rose, which could be used to similar effect. An additional argument made against garden rosebuds is that we do not register baby fauna; why then should we register baby flora? [3/94c]

Daisies proper are defined as argent, seeded Or. [1/94, p.6]

[Returning {field} three iris blossoms sable, slipped and leaved vert, conjoined at the bases.] Conflict with ... {Fieldless} Three irises in fess argent slipped, conjoined and leaved vert. There is a CD for fielded versus fieldless but nothing for the change to the tincture of the blossoms only. [12a/93, p.15]

The strewn charges are not roses. Indeed, not all of them are five petaled, some having six or seven, and in one case, eight petals. They need to be redrawn as heraldic roses. [12a/93, p.19]

[Returning {Fieldless} A demi-stag argent, armed and unguled, issuant from a rose Or.] The rose as drawn is in trian aspect and extremely difficult to recognize. As a consequence, it loses its identifiability as a rose. {The most common comment was that the stag appeared to be wearing a tutu.} [12a/93, p.22]

Fret / Fretty

[Returning Per pale sable and argent, a fret counterchanged.] Conflict with ... Per pale sable and argent, two double-bitted axes in saltire, fretted with a mascle counterchanged. There is only one CD for the changes to the group of primary charges. [4/94, p.18]

Fruits and Vegetables

[Registering Vert, three apples Or and a chief ermine.] Versus ... Vert, three acorns Or, and ... Vert, three pineapples Or, there are CDs for type of primary charge and addition of the chief. One commenter noted that Papworth put pineapples and apples together, but Parker (p. 462) makes it clear that "pineapples" are what we generally call "pine cones", which are not only visually different enough for a CD, but mundane default puts them stem to base, adding to the visual differences. [4/94, p.14]

Fur

[Returning Gules, a chevron embattled potent between two reremice displayed and a tyger rampant Or.] The embattled line of division of the chevron is so badly broken up by the fur that while one can tell readily that "something" is going on there, it takes a little time to determine just exactly what. The complex line of division is simply not "readily identifiable", and ready identification is one of the hallmarks of period style heraldry. [5/94, p.21]

The chief as drawn is not ermine charged with three gouttes de larmes, but rather is "argent, charged alternately with ermine spots sable and gouttes de larmes". If he would redraw the chief with more and smaller ermine spots so that it truly appeared to be ermine (e.g., two rows of spots), it would correct this problem. [1/94, p.16]

Head

[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]

[Returning Azure, a goat's head couped within a bordure argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, two rams heads in bend sinister erased and respectant within a bordure argent. There is only one CD for the change in number of primary charges [and nothing for type]. [5/94, p.21]

[Registering Vert, on a fess between three eagle's heads erased contourny Or, three fleurs-de-lys sable.] The [secondary] charges were submitted as griffin's heads, but they lack the large ears which distinguishes the griffin's head from the eagle's. [4/94, p.10]

[I]t was the opinion of the commenters and those at the Laurel meeting that there is sufficient difference between a sun in its splendor and a leopard's head jessant-de-lys [as tertiaries] to apply X.4.j.ii. for the second CD. [2/94, p.5]

Blazoned in the LoI as a bull's skull, the primary was not emblazoned with any skull-like details, but appeared to simply be a bull's head. [2/94, p.13]

[Returning {Fieldless} A dragon's head couped sable.] Conflict with ... Paly argent and gules, a drakkar prow sable. There is ... nothing for difference in type of the charge. [2/94, p.16]

[Returning Azure, in pale a heart distilling gouttes d'Or and a stag's skull caboshed argent within a bordure embattled Or.] The device conflicts with ... Vert, a heart Or between the attires of a stag's head cabossed argent, attired, within a bordure embattled Or. There is only one CD for the tincture of the field. The gouttes, the tincture of the horns, and the difference between a stag's skull cabossed and a stag's head cabossed are insufficient for the necessary CD. [12a/93, p.16]

Heart

As this could as easily (and not incorrectly) be blazoned {Fieldless} A heart sable fimbriated Or, this still conflicts with ... Argent a heart sable ... . In addition, as a heart is demonstrably a standard shape for the display of armory in period, this also conflicts with ... Gules a bordure Or, ... Sable a bordure argent, and ... Sable a bordure Or, a label gules. In each case there is only one CD for the change to the field, to the tincture of the bordure, or for removing the label, respectively. [1/94, p.15]

[Returning {Fieldless} On a heart argent a seadragon rampant gules.] Conflict with ... Argent, a wyvern passant gules. There is only one CD for the posture of the monster. Several commenters submitted evidence that heart shapes were used as a medium, albeit only occasionally, for heraldic display in period. See, e.g., Ottfried Neubecker, Heraldry, Sources, Symbols and Meaning, page 76. [12b/93, p.12]

Identifiability

[Returning Gules, two lion-headed serpents nowed in a Wake knot respectant within a bordure Or.] The "extra twist" that each of the serpents have outside the knot renders the identifiability of the knot somewhat problematical. Were the submitter to place the heads on the ends where the tails are now (and vice versa), and straighten out the knot into a more regular Wake knot shape, this should be registrable. As it is, it is being returned for redrawing. [6/94, p.12]

[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 {Fieldless} On a dove volant, wings addorsed, vert the Arabic words "al-'izz wa'l-baqa wa'l-zafar bi-il-a'da" argent.] The "charge" here is not really heraldry, and cannot be dealt with under heraldry's conventions. And with the "corrective" outline added, it is no longer anything that can be documented from Arabic, Persian or Turkish sources. Most of the commenters could not identify the charge as a dove without the blazon, as is required by RfS VII.7.a. The identifiability problem adds to the stylistic problems the calligraphy represents. The writing here isn't really on the dove; it is the dove. And, finally, as has been noted by Laurels before, the fact that an artistic motif can be found in period (and calligraphic animals in Arabic script are found in late period) does not necessarily make such motif accep le for registration as heraldry. [6/94, p.17]

There is a noted problem with the identifiability of the [columbine] flower as drawn. ... Were the submitter to copy the one in the Pictorial Dictionary, with slip and leaf, and without some of the petals at a 90 angle to the others as in the current submission, these changes would probably be sufficient to make the flower adequately identifiable for registration. [5/94, p.14]

[Returning Per bend sinister embattled argent and azure, a ship counterchanged.] Additionally, most of the commenters found the outline of the ship to be too badly broken up by the counterchanging over the complex line of division to be readily identifiable, which itself is a separate grounds for return. [5/94, p.14]

[Returning Per pale sable and Or, a cross formy throughout gules and overall a double-headed eagle-winged wyvern double-queued displayed per pale Or and sable.] The cross is somewhere between a plain Latin cross throughout and a Latin cross formy throughout. As such, it is ambiguous, and needs to be redrawn as one or the other. The overall charge also has problems of ambiguity. The use of eagle's wings make it nearly impossible to distinguish from a double-headed eagle, except the double-queued tail is clearly not a bird's. As this kind of ambiguity is precisely the kind of thing that heraldry seeks to avoid, it should be drawn more clearly as either an eagle or a wyvern. [5/94, p.17]

[Returning Argent, a windmill, sails in cross, within a bordure embattled azure.] The sails of the windmill are effectively invisible here, even on the large emblazon. As a consequence, not only is the primary charge unidentifiable (itself grounds for return), but there are several conflicts [with towers]. [5/94, p.18]

[Returning Purpure, a Maltese cross argent surmounted by a Star of David Or, and in chief a dove volant to sinister argent.] The star overlying the cross in this manner is visually confusing and obscures the identity of both charges. [5/94, p.18]

[Returning Ermine, a rose proper between three gouttes de larmes, a bordure gules.] The use of gouttes intermingled with ermine spots of about the same size is visually confusing, as, as one commenter noted, the "gouttes get lost among the ermine spots". As they are necessary to clear a conflict with ... Ermine, a rose gules, they must be visually prominent, and they are not here. [5/94, p.20]

[Returning a broadsword inverted quillioned with a holly sprig.] The use of foliage as part of another object creates serious identifiability problems. We need documentation of this sort of motif in period armory before we may register this. [3/94, p.14]

[Returning Sable, a compass star elongated gules, fimbriated argent, overall a lion's head cabossed Or ... .] The lion's head is too small; it is just barely overall, which has been reason for return in the past. Another problem is that the "compass star" is drawn almost as a mullet of eight points elongated to base, rather than as a true compass star, compounding the identifiability problem. [3/94, p.15]

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 Or, a beacon sable flamed gules atop a mount vert, a bordure vert semy of oak leaves Or.] The mount has zero contrast with the bordure, making the base of the device very confusing visually. As with the November 1992 return of a device with an argent gore and an ermine bordure, "The lack of contrast between the [base] and the bordure causes them to blend together, reducing the identifiability of both." (LoAR 11/92, p. 15). Here, the identifiability of the bordure is not lost quite so badly, but the identifiability of the mount is so severely diminished as to be visually confusing. [3/94, p.16]

[Returning {Fieldless} On a sheaf of five lightning bolts Or a pine tree couped proper.] This does not meet the requirements for fieldless badges consisting of one charge surmounting another. The area of intersection is not small and the tree effectively obscures the identification of the lightning bolts. [3/94, p.17]

[Returning Per saltire azure and argent, a butterfly counterchanged between in pale two bezants all within a bordure invected sable.] The butterfly is extremely hard to identify counterchanged on the field, so much so that we are compelled to return this because of unidentifiability. (See RfS VII.7.a., which states that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance.") [3/94, p.19]

[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]

[Returning Gules, on a flame the blade of a sword Or, winged argent, a bordure Or semy of roses sable.] The sword loses its identifiability against the "flames" of the same tincture. (One commenter noted its resemblance to a chain saw.) Were the flames drawn larger (and less regularly) and made proper to increase the contrast, this would probably accep le. [2/94, p.17]

[B]ecause of both its thinness and waviness, the [cross of two thornvines wavy] tends to disappear along the lines of partition of the field, making immediate identification a little problematical. [2/94, p.18]

The primary charge [a compass star chief point flory] is halfway between a compass star and a compass rose. As a consequence, its identifiability is problematical. [2/94, p.21]

[Returning Azure, ... a bordure lozengy azure and Or.] The bordure is very odd. As colored on the large emblazon, there is a row of blue demi-lozenges along the chief portion of the azure field, and the bordure and field blend into each other. [1/94, p.14]

While there are many period examples of animate charges barry or paly of two tinctures, no one could find any precedent for a gyronny treatment. As it stands, the tinctures are not really divided evenly around the charge and the gyronny treatment tends to badly confuse its identifiability. [1/94, p.15]

The pinecone is substantially unrecognizable as rendered, appearing here only as a pointed cartouche with cross-hatching. [1/94, p.15]

The chief as drawn is not ermine charged with three gouttes de larmes, but rather is "argent, charged alternately with ermine spots sable and gouttes de larmes". If he would redraw the chief with more and smaller ermine spots so that it truly appeared to be ermine (e.g., two rows of spots), it would correct this problem. [1/94, p.16]

Not even the large emblazon was clearly either a chief urdy or a field per fess urdy. It needs to be redrawn as one or the other. [1/94, p.17]

While technically a neutral charge on the sable field, the mullet [of eight points gyronny azure and Or] was unidentifiable as such at any distance. "All armory must have sufficient contrast to allow each element of the design to be clearly identifiable at a distance." (RfS VIII.2.) The overwhelming visual image was that of a Maltese cross at an unusual angle on the sable field, with its identifiability as a mullet of eight points completely lost. [12b/93, p.13]

The dragon's gambe in this posture [couped appaumy, maintaining a charge] is extremely difficult to identify. This has been cause for return before (see, e.g., the LoAR of June 1993, p. 21). [12b/93, p.14]

[Returning {Fieldless} A demi-stag argent, armed and unguled, issuant from a rose Or.] The rose as drawn is in trian aspect and extremely difficult to recognize. As a consequence, it loses its identifiability as a rose. {The most common comment was that the stag appeared to be wearing a tutu.} [12a/93, p.22]

This is being returned for redrawing. The chief is far too small. The ram's head is not really couped, nor is it erased. Additionally, as drawn, identifiability is a problem. Several commenters (and those attendees at the Laurel meeting) thought it was a rabbit's head before reading the blazon. [12a/93, p.23]

Insect

[Returning Per saltire azure and argent, a butterfly counterchanged between in pale two bezants all within a bordure invected sable.] The butterfly is extremely hard to identify counterchanged on the field, so much so that we are compelled to return this because of unidentifiability. (See RfS VII.7.a., which states that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance.") [3/94, p.19]

[T]here is a CD for ... the differences between a spider and an ant. While we would probably not grant sufficient difference between the two, when they are used as the primary charge, a CD can be granted. [2/94, p.6]

Knot

[Registering Argent, two serpents nowed in a Bourchier knot palewise vert, a bordure counter-compony sable and argent.] Versus ... Argent, a Bourchier knot vert, there are CDs for adding the bordure and for the orientation of the knot. [6/94, p.2]

[Returning Gules, two lion-headed serpents nowed in a Wake knot respectant within a bordure Or.] The "extra twist" that each of the serpents have outside the knot renders the identifiability of the knot somewhat problematical. Were the submitter to place the heads on the ends where the tails are now (and vice versa), and straighten out the knot into a more regular Wake knot shape, this should be registrable. As it is, it is being returned for redrawing. [6/94, p.12]

Leaf

[Registering {Fieldless} On a maple leaf Or a cross formy sable.] Versus ... Sable, on an oak leaf Or a battle-axe sable. there are CDs for fieldless vs. fielded and for maple leaf vs. oak leaf. The two leaves are not so visually similar as to warrant granting no difference between them. [5/94, p.9]

[Returning Sable, on a chevron between three horses rampant argent, three oak leaves vert.] Conflict with ... Sable, on a chevron argent, three trefoils slipped vert. There is a CD for the addition of the secondaries, but the consensus among the commenters was that there was not the substantial difference required by X.4.j.ii. to grant the necessary second for the change to type of the tertiaries. [5/94, p.18]

[Returning Per bend azure and sable, on a bend wavy between two oak-leaves argent three holly-leaves azure.] Prior Laurel precedent (December 1993 LoAR, p. 12) does not grant a CD between oak leaves and holly leaves. As a consequence this is being returned for the use of two different but heraldically similar charges on a single device. [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 Vert, a pedestalled sundial, and on a chief argent three quatrefoils slipped and leaved vert.] Conflict with ... Vert, a castle argent portalled and masoned sable, on a chief argent three oak leaves vert. There are simply not enough outline or visual differences between this sundial and a tower, or between the tertiary oak leaves and the quatrefoils, to get the necessary two Clear Differences. [I.e. neither difference is substantial.] [3/94, p.20]

[Returning {Fieldless} Three holly leaves conjoined in pall inverted vert, fructed gules.] Conflict with ... {Fieldless} Three oak leaves conjoined in pall inverted vert, surmounted by an acorn Or. There is a CD for the fieldless difference, but given their similarity in outline, the difference in the type of leaves was insufficient to grant the second. [12b/93, p.12]

Letters and Symbols

[Returning {Fieldless} A Norse sun cross per pale indented Or and gules.] Additionally, ... precedent still disallows armory consisting of a single letter or abstract symbol. [4/94, p.15]

Lines of Partition

[Returning Per fess gules and azure, a fess dancetty flory Or.] Conflict with ... Azure, a fess dancetty the two upper points fleur-de-lys Or. While there is a CD for the change to the field, the addition of complex changes to an already complex line of division on only the bottom are not sufficient for the necessary second. [6/94, p.17]

[Returning Barry wavy vert and argent, a sea-unicorn contourny azure.] The field needs to be drawn more clearly and boldly wavy; even the large emblazon was more like irregularly "ripply". [5/94, p.17]

[Returning Gules, a chevron embattled potent between two reremice displayed and a tyger rampant Or.] The embattled line of division of the chevron is so badly broken up by the fur that while one can tell readily that "something" is going on there, it takes a little time to determine just exactly what. The complex line of division is simply not "readily identifiable", and ready identification is one of the hallmarks of period style heraldry. [5/94, p.21]

[Returning Per bend azure and sable, on a bend wavy between two oak-leaves argent three holly-leaves azure.] Additionally the bend is drawn halfway between wavy and wavy bretessed. It needs to be redrawn with a proper wavy. [4/94, p.18]

As a general rule, for a complex line of division to be sufficiently "big and bold", along a fess line this most frequently means three "bumps"; along a pale or bend line perhaps as many as five. [12a/93, p.17]

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]

Monster

[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]

Mullet

[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]

Offense

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]

Pile

[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]

Posture

[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]

Pretense

[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]

Proper

[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]

Reptile

[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]

Restricted Charges

[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]

Semy

[Returning Azure mullety Or, a vol argent.] Conflict with ... Azure, two wings conjoined argent enflamed between in annulo six mullets of six points Or. In this case there are no CD's for the number or type or arrangement of the mullets and nothing for the enflaming of the wings. [1/94, p.15]

Style (Artistic)

[Returning Per pale sable and argent, five roundels in saltire counterchanged, a chief gyronny argent and sable.] We would expect that in a chief gyronny that the gyrons would issue from the corners of the chief as opposed to the unusual drawing style used here [with the lines at evenly spaced angles, so that the diagonals met the top and bottom well in from the edges]. [5/94, p.16]

[Returning Sable, a compass star elongated gules, fimbriated argent, overall a lion's head cabossed Or ... .] The lion's head is too small; it is just barely overall, which has been reason for return in the past. Another problem is that the "compass star" is drawn almost as a mullet of eight points elongated to base, rather than as a true compass star, compounding the identifiability problem. [3/94, p.15]

[Returning Or, on a lozenge fesswise between three mullets of four points sable a mullet of eight points Or.] The lozenge is throughout to chief and to the sides of the field, which is neither period style nor blazonable. He might try using a more standard lozenge. [3/94, p.16]

[Returning Vert, on a lozenge Or a spray of mistletoe vert, fructed argent, on a chief Or three lozenges vert.] As emblazoned, the berries are clearly drawn as quarternary charges, which have long been disallowed. Were they simply an artistic detail, we would probably ignore them entirely, but here they take up a significant amount of space on the tertiary mistletoe. [3/94, p.17]

The line of division on the device is not really rayonny, but is rather the unregisterable wavy crested. [3/94, p.19]

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]

Additionally, the cloud here is not drawn in a period manner, but is the modern "cotton candy" form of cloud. [2/94, p.18]

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]

[E]narching of [bars] is a period artistic convention to represent the curvature of the shield [and so not worth a CD]. [2/94, p.20]

[E]ven on the large emblazon form, the bend sinister was neither embattled-counterembattled nor bretessed, but somewhere halfway between the two. This needs to be redrawn as clearly one or the other. [1/94, p.15]

[Returning Argent, three gouttes in annulo, in chief a county coronet and on a chief gules two roses argent.] While it is clear what effect the submitter is trying for on the device, it only works with this specific rendition of the gouttes. It has been Laurel practice in the past to return items which only "work" because of a specific artistic rendering. In this case, were the gouttes drawn in a common period style (like icicles) it would vastly alter the triskele effect in the center of the shield. [1/94, p.17]

[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]

Additionally, as drawn, the laurel "wreath" isn't, but is two sprigs of laurel conjoined in chevron inverted. Please discuss the circular nature of a laurel wreath with the submitters. [12b/93, p.12]

The gillyflower on the large emblazon, as in the LoI, is drawn in trian aspect. Heraldic charges should properly be drawn "flat", without much three dimensionality. [12b/93, p.13]

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]

As a general rule, for a complex line of division to be sufficiently "big and bold", along a fess line this most frequently means three "bumps"; along a pale or bend line perhaps as many as five. [12a/93, p.17]

The badge, as drawn, is not a fireball, but a pellet between four separate flames. As such, it violates the ban on fieldless badges consisting of disconnected charges. [12a/93, p.19]

Style (Balance)

[Returning Sable, a swan migrant between in dexter chief four mullets of eight points and in sinister base one mullet of eight points all within a bordure invected argent.] The device, as almost every commenter noted, is grossly unbalanced and not period style. [5/94, p.14]

[Registering Quarterly azure and sable a lute bendwise sinister between three mullets and a decrescent argent.] This is about as unbalanced as a legal device can get. [4/94, p.10]

Style (Design)

[Returning {Fieldless} An annulet of rope nowed in base gules surmounted by a sword and a quill pen crossed in saltire argent.] While overall charges have been allowed in fieldless badges where identifiability of all the charges is maintained and the area of intersection is relatively small (as is the case here, admittedly), this proposal has two overall charges, which goes beyond the pale of the registered examples to date. [6/94, p.14]

[Returning Per fess embattled azure and argent masoned sable, conjoined in cross elongated to base, four double-bitted axes counterchanged argent and azure, hafted proper.] The blazon does not really adequately describe the emblazon, and all of the suggestions to fix it were not much better (see RfS VII.7.b., Reconstruction Requirement). The clear difficulty of creating an adequate blazon serves to underscore the non-period style of the device. [6/94, p.14]

[Returning {Fieldless} On a dove volant, wings addorsed, vert the Arabic words "al-'izz wa'l-baqa wa'l-zafar bi-il-a'da" argent.] The "charge" here is not really heraldry, and cannot be dealt with under heraldry's conventions. And with the "corrective" outline added, it is no longer anything that can be documented from Arabic, Persian or Turkish sources. Most of the commenters could not identify the charge as a dove without the blazon, as is required by RfS VII.7.a. The identifiability problem adds to the stylistic problems the calligraphy represents. The writing here isn't really on the dove; it is the dove. And, finally, as has been noted by Laurels before, the fact that an artistic motif can be found in period (and calligraphic animals in Arabic script are found in late period) does not necessarily make such motif accep le for registration as heraldry. [6/94, p.17]

[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]

[Registering Azure, a skull argent, on a chief Or a pellet between a decrescent and an increscent sable.] "The three tertiaries are thematically unified, but the 'phases of the moon' are not really period style." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR of 27 August 1989, p. 22) [5/94, p.12]

[Returning {Fieldless} A tree issuant from a mount couped per pale vert and Or, the sinister half blasted.] [T]he style of the badge, combining as it does what are essentially two variants of a single charge, is not good style and is sufficient grounds for return ... . [5/94, p.18]

[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]

[Registering Per fess sable and azure, a comet bendwise sinister inverted and in chief three suns Or.] Several commenters felt that this design violated the ban on using two different but heraldically identical charges (the "sword/dagger" rule). As we generally give a CD between suns and comets, there is not that problem here. [4/94, p.5]

[Returning {Fieldless} A cloudless natural rainbow in the shape of a crescent inverted and overall a phoenix head of flames, proper.] In this case, a phoenix of flames is grandfathered to the submitter, but not a phoenix' head, which is considered an entirely different charge. Additionally, the overall charge is not identifiable as a phoenix' head, and it should probably be reblazoned as an "eagle's head of flames". There was also some question as to whether this arrangement would fall afoul of the ban on overall charges in fieldless badges instituted by Baron Bruce. I believe it would; neither charge is "long and skinny" and the intersection cannot really be characterized as "small". [4/94, p.16]

[Returning Per chevron gules and sable, in chief two dragonflies and in base a lily of the valley Or within an annulet argent.] Technically this violates RfS XIII.1.a by having three different types of charge in what is considered to be a standard type of arrangement. [4/94, p.17]

[Returning Sable masoned, on a pile argent masoned sable between two hawks' heads erased respectant argent, a hawk striking to sinister gules.] The device lacks the symmetry and balance of period style heraldry, which lack the counterchanging of the field treatment over the primary charge only serves to reinforce. In fact, it reminded more than one commenter (and most of those at the Laurel meeting) of "a bird caught against the wall by a searchlight". A number of commenters questioned the propriety of counterchanging a field treatment over a charge in this manner. Certainly no one was able to find any period exemplars of such, bringing into question the propriety of such a counterchange. [4/94, p.17]

[Returning Per bend azure and sable, on a bend wavy between two oak-leaves argent three holly-leaves azure.] Prior Laurel precedent (December 1993 LoAR, p. 12) does not grant a CD between oak leaves and holly leaves. As a consequence this is being returned for the use of two different but heraldically similar charges on a single device. [4/94, p.18]

[Returning Argent, a dragon's head cabossed vert, in base a pansy purpure a chief embattled sable.] The identifiability of the dragon's head is problematical. This, combined with the use of three different types of charges in three different tinctures, puts the device beyond the limits of generally accep le style. [4/94, p.19]

[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]

[Registering Gules, issuant from a tub argent, scaly and banded sable, three demi-arrows bendwise argent and three demi-arrows bendwise sinister Or, all within an annulet argent.] The arrows being in two tinctures is not really good period style, but is not so egregiously poor style as to warrant return here. [3/94, p.6]

[Returning Argent, on a pile sable a Maltese Cross argent, a bordure counterchanged.] We need documentation for the motif of counter-changing a bordure over a pile before we can register this. [3/94, p.14]

[Returning a broadsword inverted quillioned with a holly sprig.] The use of foliage as part of another object creates serious identifiability problems. We need documentation of this sort of motif in period armory before we may register this. [3/94, p.14]

[Returning Or,in chief on a fess couped sable a fleur-de-lis Or and in base a horse salient [sic].] No one was able to find any period exemplars of fesses either couped or enhanced so far to chief. Without further documentation we are unable to register this motif. [3/94, p.14]

[Returning Sable, an eagle stooping and in base a bow and sword in saltire argent.] [B]y prior Laurel precedent, this is three different charges in a standard arrangement, and thus falls afoul of the complexity limits of RfS VIII.1.a. [3/94, p.15]

[Returning {Fieldless} On a sheaf of five lightning bolts Or a pine tree couped proper.] This does not meet the requirements for fieldless badges consisting of one charge surmounting another. The area of intersection is not small and the tree effectively obscures the identification of the lightning bolts. [3/94, p.17]

[Returning Argent, on a cross between in chief two estoiles azure in base an estoile argent, a bordure counterchanged.] No documentation has been found for counterchanging a bordure over an ordinary. That, combined with the unusual arrangement of the estoiles, is sufficient grounds for return. [3/94, p.20]

While a number of commenters noted that all of the chevrons couched they could find were used without secondary or tertiary charges, given the widespread use of secondary and tertiary charges with both chevrons and chevrons inverted, their combined use [with a chevron couched] did not seem to us to be more than a single "weirdness". [2/94, p.14]

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]

Laurel counted no less than six different suggestions at a reblazon. This variety alone tends to point out the possible non-period style of the [cross of two thornvines wavy]. [2/94, p.18]

The charges on the chief are not really arranged in a manner which lends itself to easy blazon, thus pointing out its probable non-period style. Were he to place the three charges in fess rather then enhancing the central charge (and reblazon the "drinking horns inverted" as simply a "pair of bull's horns"), this would probably be registerable. [2/94, p.18]

Master Bruce, in the Cover Letter of 18 September 1992, had a page-long discussion of fields per bend [sinister] bevilled: the version here matches none of the attested forms, but is the inversion of the accep le form found in Legh's Accidence of Armory. At the very least, this would have to be returned for redrawing. However, it was additionally noted that allowing per bend bevilled fields (which normally appeared without charges) to be charged might be considered if the charges were in a balanced arrangement. Unlike charges on each side of a bevilled line do not appear to meet this criterion. [2/94, p.19]

The blazon here, while marginally better than the one in the LoI, still does not adequately described the outer group of comets: they are disposed in orle, but they are oriented in annulo, and as a result neither blazon is entirely satisfactory. This is an indication that the style of the design itself isn't period. The use of a single charge in what appears to be two separate groups of charges on the field is also an anomaly. And if they aren't two separate groups, then the arrangement of the six identical charges on the field is an anomaly. [2/94, p.20]

Without evidence that ordinaries of flame were used in period armory, or that such are compatible with period armory, we will not register ordinaries of flames. [2/94, p.22]

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]

While we have extended the ability to be jessant-de-lys to animal faces other than leopards, the only documented historical animal to have this treatment, extending it to a sun becomes two steps from documented historical practice, which is farther than we are willing to go. [1/94, p.13]

While there are many period examples of animate charges barry or paly of two tinctures, no one could find any precedent for a gyronny treatment. As it stands, the tinctures are not really divided evenly around the charge and the gyronny treatment tends to badly confuse its identifiability. [1/94, p.15]

The submitter's argument that a Maltese star cross is but one step from a recognized period charge, a Maltese cross, is interesting but not particularly compelling. The fact remains that six armed crosses are not a period charge. [12b/93, p.10]

[Returning {Fieldless} A plate, overall a natural panther passant sable.] This violates the restriction on overall charges in fieldless badges (the sole exception to which is a concession to SCA style in allowing "long, slender objects" such as swords, spears, etc. where the "area of intersection" is small). This policy was recently reiterated in the LoAR of 13 June 1993, p. 17. Here, while identifiable, neither of the charges is "long and slender", and the area of overlap is quite large. [12b/93, p.11]

This is just not composed in a period manner. While there are many period examples of "an X and in chief a Y", there are none of "an X and to dexter a Y". This style has the additional problem of making the armory unbalanced. Were the rose drawn much larger, we could have blazoned the charges as "in fess". Here, however, the rose is not much larger than a maintained charge, though it is clearly not being maintained by the dragon. [12b/93, p.11]

As a number of the commenters noted, even heraldically insignificant charges need in general to follow our rules. The bees ("diversely volant") on the emblazon, though heraldically not significant, do, however, contravene the rule requiring that fieldless badges have all of their charges conjoined. [12b/93, p.13]

[Registering Per bend ... a {charge} and three more in bend ... .] We did not believe that the precedent barring the use of two different sizes of the same charge as a semy and as the primary charge was applicable here. The feeling was that in this case there is a single group of charges drawn to adequately fill the space available for them. [12a/93, p.4]

Style (Modern)

[Returning Per pale gules and sable, two winged cats passant addorsed, and a winged cat sejant affronty wings displayed argent.] As Badger noted: "This looks almost exactly like the 'what not to do - modern symmetry' illustration in Hilary of Serendip's article in the Knowne Worlde Handbook." [Returned for violating RfS VII.1.b.] [6/94, p.15]

[Returning Gules, a triangle inverted between three triangles one and two, all between three broadarrows inverted argent.] The arrangement of the triangles does not appear to be a period arrangement, but a modern artistic style. The device overall is neither good Japanese style nor good European style. [5/94, p.17]

[Returning Per fess embattled sable and azure, on a demi-plate issuant from the line of division a double-bitted axe gules, and in base seven mullets of four points in annulo Or.] The device is right at the edge of the complexity limits of VIII.1.a. That, combined with its very modern "feel" [is grounds for return]. [5/94, p.20]

[Returning {Fieldless} A cross gurgity reversed, interlaced with an annulet argent.] The style of the badge, with its interlaced charges, appears modern rather than period in style. There is also a conflict with ... Azure, a Catherine wheel argent. ... [T]he difference to only the number of "arms" of the "wheel" is insufficient for [a CD]. [4/94, p.21]

[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]

The star-cross is a modern invention and not a period charge. [3/94, p.14]

The symmetry [of in fess an increscent argent, a bezant and a decrescent argent] is modern, though perhaps not so much so as to warrant return in and of itself. [The registration makes a somewhat stronger statement of accep ility.] [2/94, p.13]

Additionally, the cloud here is not drawn in a period manner, but is the modern "cotton candy" form of cloud. [2/94, p.18]

[C]onjoined eighth notes are a post-period form of music notation. [2/94, p.18]

The style of the device with its rotational symmetry is very modern in style, and thus is in contravention of RfS VIII.4., Obtrusive Modernity. While there were some German arms which had rotational symmetry, this was generally three identical charges in pall, bases to center. The use of two charges in pale "respectant" or "addorsed", and two different charges in fess, also "respectant" or "addorsed", is not period style. [12a/93, p.16]

Secondly, the depiction of the comets is very modern in style, in violation of RfS VIII.4.d. Period style tended to be very static, and these comets, as the commentary noted, appear "swooshy". [12a/93, p.17]

Style (Regional)

The evidence submitted with this appeal goes beyond the bounds of "regional style". Of the forty-eight pieces of armory cited to support this submission, three were from Austria, one from England, twenty-five from the Holy Roman Empire, twelve from Hungary, five from Italy, and two from Portugal. Clearly, then, we are discussing a practice which surpasses the bounds of a single "regional" style.

It was noted that the Rule of Contrast, as codified in VIII.2.b. of the Rules for Submissions, is one of our most inviolate, and that exceptions should only be made to it with due and extremely careful consideration. On the other hand, it is equally true that the Rule of Contrast is our rule, and that just as we chose to adopt it we are equally free to chose to allow exceptions to it, under circumstances of our choosing.

In this case, I believe that the evidence presented adequately demonstrates through multiple period examples that vert trimounts were used on azure fields across Europe. As a consequence, and as you will note in the attached LoAR, we are registering [the device].

The next question, of course, is that having now made one exception to the Rule of Contrast, what are the standards for future possible exceptions? I believe the standards proposed by Master Bruce in his thoughts on this submission are the ones to be applied to submissions requesting an exception to any of our Rules in the future.

In other words, any future submission requesting an exception to any of the Rules for Submission must be documented (1) by multiple period examples, (2) from a number of heraldic jurisdictions, (3) in the exact form of the proposed armory, (4) of comparable simplicity and style as the proposed armory, (5) which apply only to that submission. We do not believe these restrictions to be too onerous, and hope that, if anything, they will stimulate our submitters to do some research on their own. [12a/93c]

Sun

[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]

[I]t was the opinion of the commenters and those at the Laurel meeting that there is sufficient difference between a sun in its splendor and a leopard's head jessant-de-lys [as tertiaries] to apply X.4.j.ii. for the second CD. [2/94, p.5]

While we have extended the ability to be jessant-de-lys to animal faces other than leopards, the only documented historical animal to have this treatment, extending it to a sun becomes two steps from documented historical practice, which is farther than we are willing to go. [1/94, p.13]

[Returning Gules, on a flame Or a mullet gules, a chief embattled Or.] Conflict with ... Gules on a sun Or a cross of St. Anthony gules a chief embattled Or. There is one CD for the change to type of the primary charge, but not a second for the change to type only of the tertiaries [implying that there is not substantial or X.2 difference between a flame and a sun]. [1/94, p.16]

Conflict with ... Sable, a sun eclipsed Or. Normally we would be willing to grant a CD between the default six-armed estoile and a sun, but the addition of the tertiary roundel here leaves us with a nearly overwhelming visual similarity. As a consequence, there is only one CD for fieldless versus fielded, and nothing for the type of primary charge nor the tincture of the tertiary roundel. [12a/93, p.22]

Tree

[Returning Argent, a tree eradicated gules between flaunches counter ermine.] Conflict with ... Argent, an oak branch eradicated gules, with one CD for the addition of the flaunches, but by prior precedent nothing for the difference between a branch and a tree. [3/94, p.17]

Voiding and Fimbriation

[Returning Or, a double rose azure and argent pierced by a sword bendwise sable all within a bordure azure.] Though blazoned as a double rose, the primary is emblazoned as a "rose argent, fimbriated azure"; roses are too complex a charge to fimbriate. [6/94, p.15]

[Returning Sable, a compass star elongated gules, fimbriated argent, overall a lion's head cabossed Or ... .] [T]here is a conflict with ... Sable, a sun gules fimbriated Or, surmounted by a panther's head erased reversed Or. There is a possible CD for the changes to the overall charge, but no more than that, as by current precedent there is not a CD between a compass star and a sun [and nothing for the tincture of the fimbriation]. [3/94, p.15]

The compass star meets the guidelines es lished by Master Bruce for voiding and fimbriation. [12a/93, p.1]

Though blazoned as "enflamed argent and azure", the flames were drawn on the large emblazon as "azure, fimbriated argent". We have disallowed fimbriated flames for quite some time. [12a/93, p.15]

Conflict with ... Azure, an estoile argent, and with ... Gyronny argent and sable an estoile of seven points argent fimbriated sable. In each case there is a CD for fieldless versus fielded but nothing for the addition or change in tincture of the fimbriation. [12a/93, p.20]

Wheel

[Returning {Fieldless} A Catherine wheel azure.] Conflict with ... A wheel, and with ... Dark, a wheel light. In each case there is a CD for fieldlessness, but nothing for the tincture of the wheels. [4/94, p.16]

[Returning {Fieldless} A cross gurgity reversed, interlaced with an annulet argent.] The style of the badge, with its interlaced charges, appears modern rather than period in style. There is also a conflict with ... Azure, a Catherine wheel argent. ... [T]he difference to only the number of "arms" of the "wheel" is insufficient for [a CD]. [4/94, p.21]

Winged objects

[Registering Vert, a winged frog salient Or.] Unlike, say, unicorn's horns, there appears to be period precedent for adding wings to beasts which did not normally have them. [4/94, p.6]

[Registering {Fieldless} A Celtic cross within and conjoined to a vol argent.] This is not a visual conflict with ... A winged sledgehammer displayed argent. [3/94, p.5]

Wreath

[Returning Gules, on a pile Or an eagle displayed sable, overall a laurel wreath counterchanged.] By current precedent, a laurel wreath is considered too complex a charge to be counterchanged over an ordinary. [6/94, p.13]

[Returning Or, on a hurt an eagle displayed Or and on a bordure azure a laurel wreath Or.] The laurel wreath is not, and indeed on a bordure cannot be, a wreath, which when properly drawn is nearly a closed circle. Rather, here it is "two sprigs of laurel, stems crossed in base". [5/94, p.15]

[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]

Though blazoned as a laurel wreath the charge in base is really two sprays of laurel, stems crossed in saltire. This needs to be redrawn with a laurel wreath. [2/94, p.22]

Additionally, as drawn, the laurel "wreath" isn't, but is two sprigs of laurel conjoined in chevron inverted. Please discuss the circular nature of a laurel wreath with the submitters. [12b/93, p.12]


NAME PRECEDENTS

Arabic

[Returning _liyah bint Leyl_.] The Arabs do not seem to have used matronymic formations (which this is) in their names, either in period or since. Of only two instances in history which Laurel has found in his researches, one was 'Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus the son of Mary), which was clearly a special case. [4/94, p.19]

[T]he name was not constructed according to any known period pattern. Arabic names were not formed by stringing given names together. [2/94, p.13]

The submitters have not demonstrated a practice of placenames derived from laqabs, nor could any of the commenters lend support to this formation. Neither does the cited example of Cairo (al-Qáhirah, "the Victorious") support this name. Originally called al-Mansúriyyah, it later became al-Qáhirah al-Mu'izziyyah, "the victorious [city] of [the Fatimid Caliph] Mu'izz [li-Dín alláh]", similar to the fashion by which "The City of Our Lady the Queen of the Angels" (el pueblo de nuestra señora la reina de los angeles) became Los Angeles. [2/94, p.19]

None of the Arabic-speaking peoples appear to have formed names using a double given name. [12a/93, p.21]

Bynames

[Returning Alastar the Arcane.] It is very unlikely that a rare, scholarly word (meaning "hidden") borrowed from Latin in very late period would have been used as a byname in our period of study. [Also in violation of RFS I.3.] [5/94, p.15]

[Returning Eirik the Wandering.] No one was able to document an authentic English byname formed from the present participle of a word. [5/94, p.16]

[Returning Eduardo Negro y Albo.] We need some documentation for the form of the byname; none of the commenters cited any examples of "[surname] y [surname]" to period. It is especially needed here, where the byname literally means "black and white". [5/94, p.19]

Submitted as Jean Baylard Silverswan, we have dropped the problematic element. The examples given in the LoI do not adequately support the construction of Silverswan, nor were any of the commenters able to adequately justify it. [4/94, p.11]

[Returning Wilhelm the Red Hawk of Brandenburg.] The Red Hawk does not appear to be a reasonable English byname, particularly in conjunction with the German form of the given name. The example of Albert the Bear of Brandenburg does not sufficiently support the form for the [color + animal] of Brandenburg. [4/94, p.15]

[Returning Andrew Scarhart.] One example of a byname formed in a verb plus noun pattern does not adequately support any and all combinations of verbs plus nouns. Most of the commenters found the byname extremely unlikely, especially given the very late date for this meaning of "scar". Bynames of this nature date from much earlier than the 1555 citation for scar. [4/94, p.15]

[Returning Deirdre the Distracted.] While the LoI documented the word "distract" to very late period, no evidence was presented, nor could any of the commenters find any, to demonstrate that epithetical nicknames were constructed in this way from a fairly abstract past participle. Without such evidence, we are unable to register this. [4/94, p.15]

[Returning Teresa of Winterhawke.] None of the cited examples justifies this combination in the byname (Wynterskale and Wintretune both obviously refer to places ("hut" and "town", respectively) that are used in winter). No one was able to document any kind of "winter + bird" or "winter + animal" names at all. As a descriptive surname, Winterhawke is unlikely in the extreme; as a place name, it is impossible. [4/94, p.20]

The prepositional byname placed before the given here is fine ... . [2/94, p.12]

By following the examples given by Lady Ensign of Boykin, Webkin, and Revekyn, [Wilderkyn] would appear to mean literally "little wild animal". As a consequence, this version appears to suffer from the same problem as its previous incarnation, ... Wildeorcynn (returned in the LoAR of [11/92]) [for claiming to be the same species as a deer]. [1/94, p.17]

The construction of [Bladeslayer] is not a reasonable one. "Slay" in period (or since) did not mean "to break an inanimate object". You might try recommending to him the documented Brekeblade or Breakblade (or Brekeswerd, Breaksword, Breakspear, or Brekelaunce). [12b/93, p.10]

[Stormchaser] does not appear to be formed in a style that would have been used in period. All of the bynames any of the commenters found were formed in the manner of the examples cited in the LoI, Chacepork (chase-pork) or Chasemuine (chase-monk), and even these examples were not really equivalent to the submitted byname even should it be modified to match the documented pattern (Chasestorm). [12b/93, p.14]

No documentation was evidenced by either the submitter or the commenters that "the Traveled" or anything similar in form or grammar is or was applied as an epithet in period. [12a/93, p.5]

[Registering "Breakshield"] Submitted as ... Shieldbreaker, the byname has been modified to match a documentable form. [12a/93, p.10]

No documentation was provided for the use of double surnames in French, particularly when such a combination results in the appearance of a single byname such as "the Black Gutter". [12a/93, p.16]

[Returning Caitriona a Gaoth.] The byname, meaning "the Wind", makes little more sense than her original submission. [12a/93, p.16]

Compatibility

[Returning Kyrin Charissa de Cameron.] [The given name was inadequately documented.] Additionally, it would appear to be a masculine name, which with Charissa would make the name one of mixed gender; while the SCA registers cross-gender names, mixed gender names have been disallowed for some time. [6/94, p.12]

[Registering David Falvy Falconer.] Submitted as David Faílbe Falconer, the combination of late period English and ancient Irish Gaelic was not at all compatible. We have submitted the Englished form. [5/94, p.2]

[Registering Sarai Rose Perlea.] Submitted as Sarai Rose Perlai, the submitted form of the placename is from the Domesday Book, and is entirely out of place with the late period form of the name. We have modified the spelling of the locative to a documented form more compatible with the remainder of the name. [5/94, p.2]

[Registering Gwenhwyvar Ainsley.] Submitted as Gwenhwyvar Ainsley a'Ghio, ... an additional problem is the dearth of evidence that a Welsh forename, an English locative surname, and a Gaelic locative surname could have come together in the name of a single individual. Gaelic, in particular, seems to resist mixed language combinations. As a consequence, we have dropped the most unlikely element in order to register the name. [5/94, p.5]

[Registering Katrine Avelina Fitzalan.] This would have been better with the given as Katerin or Katerine, as Katrine is a German form unlikely to appear in an otherwise English name. [5/94, p.11]

[Returning Mredyth Vetrgaupa.] [T]he combination of an Anglicized Welsh masculine given name with a compound Icelandic byname [is] highly improbable ... . [5/94, p.14]

[Returning Krista al Kamil.] The example of combined Arabic/Spanish names is not sufficient support for combined Swiss/Arabic names. (The submitter seemed to be confusing the Swedes and the Swiss in her documentation. Caches of Arab silver coins have been found in Scandinavia, not Switzerland. And the presence of Arabic silver coins in Sweden is only evidence that the trade routes extended that far, not that the people at the two ends of those trade routes had any direct dealings with each other.) [5/94, p.22]

Submitted as ... o Tatershal, the Welsh "o" is out of place with the English placename. The simplest course was to simply drop it. [3/94, p.2]

[Registering Aodh Marland.] Submitted as Aodh Adendra Marland, the very lengthy appeal made interesting reading. However, it was not shown that Greek bynames were used in the Gaelic countries (although the point was made for Latin bynames). Nor was it shown that "tree-less" falls into any existing pattern of classical bynames used in the Middle Ages. As a consequence we have dropped the problematic element in order to register the name. [3/94, p.3]

Difference

[Returning Frostheim, Canton of.] [It] is in conflict with Froscheim ... per RfS V.2. ... The differences in pronunciation appear to be analogous to "fish head" v. "fist head"; certainly much closer than "Auda/Ali" and not much more different than "Morgan/Morton". This is not "significantly" different. [6/94, p.13]

[Returning Domus Phoenicis.] Conflict with the Order of the Phoenix and the Shire of Fenix. As "domus" here is the designator, the difference has to come down to the difference between the singular and the plural, which here is insufficient. [6/94, p.14]

[Returning Katherine Power.] Aural conflict with Catherine Parr, sixth wife of Henry VIII. The differences between Power and Parr when pronounced are no greater than those between Morton the Gray and Morgan the Gray which have been held to conflict. [6/94, p.14]

[Returning John Quest.] Conflicts with Jonny Quest. (Yes, I know he's a cartoon character. He is also, based on the commentary and reactions among those attending the Laurel meeting, apparently sufficiently well-known to meet Baron Bruce's guidelines for conflict with cartoon characters. See Cover Letter of 5 December 1992, p. 2). The discussion in the LoI regarding the different derivations of John and Jonny are not really to the point. A significant percentage of people hearing the name John Quest will immediately think of the cartoon character (even the "non-herald" attending the Laurel meeting cited the cartoon character immediately upon hearing the name, with no other background or hints). [5/94, p.19]

[A major revision to the name rules, particularly the conflict rules. For the full, formatted text see Appendix A.] [4/94c, pp.3-8]

[Returning Rowena the Peregrine.] Conflicts with Rowan Perigrynne. The minor changes of adding an "a" to the given and the article are insufficient to clear this name. [12a/93, p.19]

[Returning Canton of Chuzan.] The name still conflicts with that of Chusan, as noted in the return of September 27, 1992. However spelled and using whatever system of transliteration, as Lady Harpy notes, Chuzan and Chusan are more similar than Morgan de Grey and Morton the Grey. [12a/93, p.23]

Documentation

Two non-English submissions considered in this month's LoAR spurred a moderate amount of discussion about "folk tradition" and "common knowledge" as documentation. While the College does not exactly reject folk tradition and common knowledge, as Crescent noted, "in some circles it's common knowledge that Elvis is alive, Washington threw a dollar across the Potomac, and UFOs routinely abduct people." Hence the request for more information, for hard documentation. It is not that the College believes that these people are lying; merely that more information than a simple assertion is necessary to adequately evaluate a submission. An important principle in what we do is that all evidence is available to all of the College for evaluation. It is not at all unreasonable for submitters, and submitting heralds, to be expected to justify their assertions. We are entirely willing to accept local sources which are not generally available to us. We are also willing to accept the research of local historical societies, so long as the product of their research is reasonable. Evidence from folk tradition is in many cases not sufficiently substantiated to be admissible. At the very least it is not, in and of itself, persuasive. Similarly, evidence from pamphlets produced by local chambers of commerce and other local organizations is generally only a bit better than evidence from family histories. Only if the assertions therein are inherently plausible are they likely to be convincing, and even then it would be nice to see the entire publication in order to form an opinion about its reliability.

Most of us wouldn't trust the average English-speaker to get Early Modern English correct (witness the number of people who have trouble understanding Shakespeare!); anything earlier is even more unlikely. And there is no reason to believe that English is peculiar in this. We have no more cause to trust a modern German speaker's knowledge of Middle High German than to trust a modern English speaker's knowledge of Middle English. Native speakers of English submitting English names frequently 'know' that they are correct -- even when they are altogether wrong. Without sufficient information with which to judge the reliability of the source, or the background and training of the speaker, we cannot assume any special knowledge about period naming practice or grammar. When the documentation boils down to "because I said so", it cannot be accepted on its face. [6/94c, p.3]

[Returning Damián Daskal De Valerio.] No evidence was presented that Daskal is a period form; a book on American family names is not good documentation for our purposes, as many foreign names have undergone odd transformations in this country. [5/94, p.21]

[Returning Krista al Kamil.] None of the commenters were able to find better documentation for the given. As the submitter's own source, Family Names in Australia and New Zealand, is clearly post-period and had no dated citations for the name, the name must be assumed without better evidence to be post-period. [5/94, p.22]

[Returning Kynda of Hollyoak.] The derivation of the given name is a further stretch of conjectural elements then we are willing to go. Each single element of conjecture is not too unreasonable in itself, but the cumulative effect of all of the conjectural elements in the chain is just too much. ... [T]he number of conjectural steps to get Kynda from documented examples is about three. The College has long been willing to accept reasonable variances from documented examples, but to accept a series of three conjectural steps is more than we are willing to go. [4/94, p.18]

As several commenters noted in the discussion of Amber Lang in the attached LoAR, the registration of Amber as a given name in the SCA has been based on faulty evidence. Unless new evidence is found demonstrating the use of Amber as a given name in period, we will cease to register it after the Laurel meeting held in July 1994. [3/94c]

None of the commenters were able to document [sur la Chaise Azurée] in French, and comparable forms in English and German do not adequately support the same form in a different language (French). [3/94, p.16]

[N]o one was able to corroborate Ochiern, nor is the submitter's source (Arthur, An Etymological Dictionary of Family and Christian Names) considered a reliable one. As a consequence we have dropped the problematic element to register the name. [1/94, p.9]

[I]t has been noted many times in the past that prior registration in the SCA does not constitute adequate documentation. [1/94, p.17]

The only documentation submitted for this name was from the works of Hanks and Hodges. Fortunately, in this case, not only did Hanks and Hodges date Feliciano to the 3rd century, but Lord Palimpsest was able to support both elements of the name from other more acceptable sources. [12b/93, p.6]

The name as submitted appears to be made up of modern variants of the individual elements. It is thus incompatible with the period and domain of the Society, as required by RfS I.1. As a consequence, we are required to return this for modification to period forms or for better documentation of each element than the works of Hanks and Hodges. [12b/93, p.11]

I was distressed to see the number of names submissions whose sole documentation consisted of the bald assertion that "{X} is found in Hanks & Hodges {Surnames/Given Names} on page {x}". Except in a few cases, there were not even any accompanying photocopies of the appropriate pages. This situation is not acceptable. While Hanks and Hodges' works may be a great place to start in searching for name documentation, they are NOT the place to end that search. Very few of the entries have dates of any kind. There are many modern forms included in the entries. There are even, as there are in many general works of this kind, some errors, sometimes quite glaring. For all of these reasons, Hanks and Hodges' books are not acceptable as adequate documentation or support for an SCA name. They are especially not acceptable as the only documentation or support for an SCA name. [12a/93c]

The first element of the "name" the submitter cites appears to be volni, "free, independent", not a given name. This situation helps to dramatize one of the major reasons we require that all documentation in another language be translated into English. [12a/93, p.20]

English

As with the name Amber, discussed in the Cover Letter with the March 1994 LoAR, our prior registrations of Cedric appear to have been based on the supposition that there was an OE prototheme Ced-, which there does not appear to be, though it was a reasonable enough supposition on the basis of the evidence then available. Such supposition appears to have been superseded by further research. (As for Cedrych, (Gruffudd, 21) refers it to Ceidrych, which '[c]ould be a form of "Caradog" but is the name of a river in Carmarthenshire. (Bartrum, 149) has a Keidyrch, but no Ceidrych.) As a consequence, unless and until new research appears giving better historical support to the name, after the September 1994 Laurel meeting we will no longer register Cedric. [6/94c, p.2]

[Returning Gregor of Falcon's Roost.] The locative is entirely unlikely. As Harpy noted in her commentary, "The English language has and had during period a perfectly good technical term for the place where falcons 'roost'. It's called a 'mews'. I find it no more likely that a person in period would have felt the need to coin the term 'falcon's roost' than he would have felt the need to coin 'horse shed' to describe a stable." [5/94, p.19]

[Returning Kendrick of the Saxon Shore.] Kendrick is acceptable in this spelling only as a late period given name. The phrase "Saxon Shore" comes from a 5th Century document called the Notitia Dignitatem, which includes a list of stations under the command of an officer called comes litoris Saxonici ("Count of the Saxon Shore"). This title (not name element) dates from the late 3rd Century at the earliest, and [no] evidence of its use appears after the breakdown of Roman authority in Britain (late 5th Century). It does not appear to have been used in any other way (say, as a placename). The combination of an extremely unlikely placename, "lingua franca" or not, which would only have been used (if at all) in early period with a late period given name exceeds the "Rule of Two Weirdnesses", iterated by Baron Bruce in his May 8, 1993 Cover Letter: "If the elements of a submitted name are dated too far apart, then any other anomaly in the name may combine to force it to be returned. ... [H]enceforth, excessive temporal mismatch may contribute to a name's unacceptability; another problem with the name may cause it to be returned." (Cover Letter, May 8, 1993, p. 4) [4/94, p.18]

[Returning Kynda of Hollyoak.] The byname does not appear to be a reasonable interpolation from Holy Oakes (there are almost no examples of "holy" becoming "holly" in this type of name), nor could any of the commenters find any other exemplars of (type of tree) + (other type of tree) names. [4/94, p.18]

[Returning Teresa of Winterhawke.] None of the cited examples justifies this combination in the byname (Wynterskale and Wintretune both obviously refer to places ("hut" and "town", respectively) that are used in winter). No one was able to document any kind of "winter + bird" or "winter + animal" names at all. As a descriptive surname, Winterhawke is unlikely in the extreme; as a place name, it is impossible. [4/94, p.20]

Submitted as ... o Tatershal, the Welsh "o" is out of place with the English placename. The simplest course was to simply drop it. [3/94, p.2]

Submitted as Muirghan Ruadh of Dragoon Keep, "Dragoon" is a post-period term applied to a particular type of pistol, and only later applied to the cavalrymen who carried that pistol. It is not a period variant of "dragon". We have, therefore, dropped it in order to register the name. [3/94, p.9]

[Returning ... of Emerald Marsh.] In period the word "emerald" was applied only to the gem, not to a color. As emeralds are not normally found in marshes, the place name is extremely unlikely. Would the submitter consider "Greenmarsh"? [3/94, p.14]

[Returning Mavis Isleen Reynebaud of Falcon's Keep.] Mavis is not documented before 1891. Isleen is unlikely as a period Englishing of the Irish name Aisling, which would more likely be Anglicized as Ashling. The submitter permitted only minor changes, and we believed the changes necessary to register some form of the name went beyond this allowance. [3/94, p.15]

[Returning Kaleigh Hayes.] Kaleigh is not at all a reasonable English respelling of the Irish Ceallach. As Palimpsest noted, "Ceallach is and was pronounced with a final hard ch as in German ach or Gaelic loch; when this sound occurs in English, it is generally rendered ch, so it's unlikely that any Englishing would differ much from the Irish spellings." [3/94, p.20]

[Returning Swamp Keype.] Given the combination of weak evidence for this spelling of the noun "keep", the ... splitting into two parts ... (not a common English period practice, under the best circumstances) and then modifying the spelling of only the last element, we find the combination highly unlikely. [3/94, p.20]

Only Green Anchor, among all the commenters, was able to find any support for [of Wolf's End], and even that is a bit of a stretch, since none of the examples of "End" he found had an animal with them. [1/94, p.15]

[Registering Canton of Wintersedge.] Submitted as Canton of Winter's Edge. We have modified the name to match the grammar of the name with the documented form for English place names. [12b/93, p.8]

Fictional

[Returning Miranda of Halidon Hill.] Miranda was coined by Shakespeare after the close of our period. While we have often registered names used by people documented only from the "grey area" (1600-1650), fictional names from literature are more problematic. Given the relatively small number of prior registrations of Miranda, as well as the dates of these registrations, we do not feel compelled to continue registering the name as SCA-compatible. [3/94, p.18]

French

[Returning Catherine du Castelcoeur.] While the French have many versions of Castel{name} and Château{name}, the {name} is a given name in all but one case ("the Moor's castle"). We lack documentation for the submitted form. [3/94, p.17]

No documentation was provided for the use of double surnames in French, particularly when such a combination results in the appearance of a single byname such as "the Black Gutter". [12a/93, p.16]

Gaelic

[Registering Gwenhwyvar Ainsley.] Submitted as Gwenhwyvar Ainsley a'Ghio, ... an additional problem is the dearth of evidence that a Welsh forename, an English locative surname, and a Gaelic locative surname could have come together in the name of a single individual. Gaelic, in particular, seems to resist mixed language combinations. As a consequence, we have dropped the most unlikely element in order to register the name. [5/94, p.5]

[Returning David Mícheál Mac Laisre.] The name consists of three given names: Mac Laisre is a given name, not a patronymic (and since it means 'son of flame', it can't well be re-interpreted as a patronymic). No evidence has been found for the use of two given names in Irish, let alone three with no surname. That, combined with the fact that Mícheál is a modern spelling of older Míchél, while Dauíd (rather than David) is an older spelling of modern Daibhead, is sufficient cause for return. [5/94, p.15]

As noted by the submitter, Irish has indeed undergone great changes. But the language still has a real grammatical structure; it isn't chaotic. Joyce's statement to the effect that Irish 'degenerated' after the Anglo-Norman invasion is more a matter of taste than historical fact; it would be safer to say simply that it changed. The loss of 'pure grammatical forms' to which he refers need be nothing more than the difference between Middle Irish and Early Modern Irish. Certainly there is no reason to suppose that he is describing a complete breakdown of the underlying grammatical system. The Norman invasion caused a breakdown only in the strongly and artificially conservative tradition of written Irish. [5/94, p.16]

[Returning Eibhlin Niccluir.] The "patronymic" is unattested in the documentation. The only variant discussed in the documentation (dated to 1637) is Makcluir. Further, as an anglicized variant it is unlikely to have been combined with a Gaelic borrowing of the Norman Avelina and Emeline. The combination of two unlikely components is sufficient to cause return for rework and/or better documentation. [5/94, p.18]

[Returning Elspeth nic Léighinn.] The byname does not appear to be properly constructed. Léighinn is the genitive singular of léigheann, and is defined as 'reading, learning; a lesson, a branch of studies'. While mac léighinn is defined as 'a scholar, a student', it isn't a patronymic name and one may not then simply substitute the feminine nic for mac. [4/94, p.17]

[Registering Aodh Marland.] Submitted as Aodh Adendra Marland, the very lengthy appeal made interesting reading. However, it was not shown that Greek bynames were used in the Gaelic countries (although the point was made for Latin bynames). Nor was it shown that "tree-less" falls into any existing pattern of classical bynames used in the Middle Ages. As a consequence we have dropped the problematic element in order to register the name. [3/94, p.3]

[Returning Iain Anndra Ánraidh a'Ghleanna Sìodhaich.] The name is a confused mixture of Irish and Scottish Gaelic. While the submitter allowed minor changes, she allows minor changes only. All of the changes suggested by the onomastics experts involved greater modifications than we felt we were permitted to make under these conditions. [3/94, p.14]

[Returning Kaleigh Hayes.] Kaleigh is not at all a reasonable English respelling of the Irish Ceallach. As Palimpsest noted, "Ceallach is and was pronounced with a final hard ch as in German ach or Gaelic loch; when this sound occurs in English, it is generally rendered ch, so it's unlikely that any Englishing would differ much from the Irish spellings." [3/94, p.20]

[Registering Meadhbh ní Ruadháin.] Submitted as Medb ni Ruadhan, we have modified the spelling and grammar as the submitter's forms allowed to match the given and patronymic in period and to place the patronymic in the genitive. (The other good alternative would have been Medb ingen Ruadáin, but the registered form is closer in pronunciation to the submitted form.) [1/94, p.7]

Baron Bruce covered the issue of pretention in the form of "X of Y" in Scottish names. "We will continue to prohibit the use of a Scots clan name with the seat or territory of that clan (e.g. Cameron of Lochiel), or a surname with the phrase of that Ilk (or its functional equivalent, e.g. Macintosh of Macintosh). That usage, with or without the given name, is the title of the actual chief of the clan or his immediate kin; its use in the SCA represents a direct infringement on actual nobility, and also appears to be a claim to rank, either of which is grounds for return. But by and large, the use of a Scots surname with a Scots placename is acceptable for SCA use." (LoAR March 1993, p. 8) Based on that precedent, [MacLeod of Duirinish] is registrable. [1/94, p.8]

Siobhan is out of place in anything but an all-Gaelic name, being usually anglicized as "John". [1/94, p.14]

[Returning Tara ni Connmhaigh.] The prior registration of Tara as a given name hinged on the statement "If the given name and the place name [Temair] are identical in Irish, and Tara is a valid anglicization of the latter, then it should be acceptable as an anglicization of the former." The problem is that Tara is not an acceptable Anglicization of Temair; only of the genitive case of the name: Temra (pronounced approximately 'tev-ra). Tara is not an Anglicization of Temair but rather an English name for the place derived specifically from the context in which it appears as a place name (e.g., "hill of Tara"). (A similar case occurs with Erin, as a poetic English name for Ireland is based on the genitive case (Éireann) of the Irish name Éire.) Since the given name Temair would not normally be found in the genitive, it is unlikely that it would be taken into English in the genitive form. [1/94, p.18]

Additionally the byname should not use the definite article "an"; Gaelic grammar did not use the definite article in bynames in this manner. [12a/93, p.20]

German

[Registering Gottfried von der Schwyz.] Submitted as Gottfried von Schwyz, the locative is feminine and seems always to appear with the article ... . [6/94, p.7]

[Registering Sarah Rumoldestohter.] Submitted as Sarah Rumoldstohter, it is characteristic of German usage that the genitive is n -es rather than -s. We have corrected the patronymic accordingly. [4/94, p.3]

[Returning von Lantwüeste.] Unfortunately, none of the documentation in this appeal was strictly to the point. Compound names do not always follow the same rules as phrases. Bach notes that the first element in compounds such as this is always a place name, which Land or Lant is not. [3/94, p.16]

Given

Den is the genitive form, and is therefore inappropriate as a given name. (The equivalent here is Dan's.) [The name was returned primarily for this reason.] [3/94, p.17]

Grammar

[Registering Svatý Sebesta, College of. NOTE: The inverted carat over the "S" in "Sebesta" is not displayable in HTML coding and has been replaced with a standard "S".] Submitted as College of Saint Sebesta, RfS III.1.a. requires that each phrase must be grammatically correct according to the usage of a single language. We have translated "saint" to the Czech form, as well as adding the correct "inverted caret" over the S in Sebesta (it is pronounced "Shebesta"). [6/94, p.9]

[Returning Cynthia de Mantegna.] The preposition "de" is out of place here; were Mantegna either a placename or a given name, it would work, but Mantegna was only documented as a surname. [6/94, p.13]

The prepositional byname placed before the given here is fine ... . [2/94, p.12]

Submitted as ... St. ..., as most of the commenters noted, we do not register the scribal abbreviation, though the submitter is certainly allowed to use it. [1/94, p.2]

[Registering Meadhbh ní Ruadháin.] Submitted as Medb ni Ruadhan, we have modified the spelling and grammar as the submitter's forms allowed to match the given and patronymic in period and to place the patronymic in the genitive. (The other good alternative would have been Medb ingen Ruadáin, but the registered form is closer in pronunciation to the submitted form.) [1/94, p.7]

[Registering ferch Rhys.] Submitted as ... ni Rhys ...; we have modified the patronymic particle to match the language of the patronym. [1/94, p.7]

[Returning Monsdraconis.] The grammar appears to be incorrect; normal Latin formation would keep the elements separate as either Mons Draco (dragon mountain) or as Mons Draconis (dragon's mountain). In addition, the locative would almost certainly use the preposition de, which takes the ablative case, as de Monte Dracone or de Monte Draconis. [1/94, p.13]

[T]he name was modified to correct the grammar by better matching the spelling of the given and the byname temporally. [12a/93, p.3]

[Returning Curstaidh.] While the submitter allowed minor changes to the name, and while Lord Palimpsest could document the form Kirsty ..., we felt that such a change exceeded the permissible "minor changes to grammar/spelling only". [12a/93, p.15]

Household

[Returning Ducal Household Brunwulf.] There is no period precedent for this style of household name. Though there were a number of "ducal households", they were not so styled as part of their proper names. [6/94, p.12]

Though it was noted by a couple of commenters that clan names are generally generated from given names or occasionally from nicknames, Bain's The Clans and Tartans of Scotland notes a number of clan name derived from surnames. [3/94, p.1]

Italian

[Registering Evita Maria da Lombardia.] Submitted as Evita Matia di Lombardia, the ... Italian preposition used with places is "da" ("di" is used to form patronymics). [5/94, p.3]

Japanese

[Returning Ryuugatani, Shire of.] There was a fair amount of commentary with the belief that a Japanese place-name does not appear to fall within the defined scope of the Society, which is pre-17th Century Western culture (RfS I.1. See also "Scope of the Society: Period and Culture" in the Organizational Handbook, pp. 74-75). "Its domain includes Europe and areas that had contact with Europe during this period." (RfS I.1.) It was noted that while there was clearly some contact in very late period between Europe and Japan, and evidence that some few Japanese actually visited Europe, the contact between Europe and Japan was not great enough to justify a Japanese place-name in pre-17th C. Europe. [6/94, p.17]

Latin

[Returning Monsdraconis.] The grammar appears to be incorrect; normal Latin formation would keep the elements separate as either Mons Draco (dragon mountain) or as Mons Draconis (dragon's mountain). In addition, the locative would almost certainly use the preposition de, which takes the ablative case, as de Monte Dracone or de Monte Draconis. [1/94, p.13]

Mundane

Let me make my position concisely and clearly: as long as I am in this office, I am not going to remove the legal name allowance from the Rules for Submissions. Names submitted under the legal name allowance do not have to be proven compatible with period naming style and practices. (If they could, we wouldn't need the allowance.) The only criterion regarding registration of names under the legal name allowance is whether or not the name is obtrusively modern (to the average "Joseph" on the SCA street, not just to knowledgeable onomastics members of the CoA). [2/94c]

Some of the commenters objected to registering Gordon under RfS II.4., Legal Name, on the grounds that Gordon was only used in period as a locative surname and was thus too obtrusive to register. The rule clearly states that "elements of the submitter's legal name may be used as the corresponding part of a Society name, if such elements are not excessively obtrusive and do not violate other sections of these rules." (emphasis added) Gordon seems no more obtrusive than Ruby, the example used to illustrate this rule. [12a/93, p.1]

Additionally, [the submission] is too close to his legal name, even under our more relaxed standards. The minimum change guaranteed to be sufficient is the deletion or addition of a syllable: John Smith to John the Smith. [12a/93, p.20]

Native American

[Returning Ixtlilxochitl de los Indios.] No evidence was submitted or noted by any of the commenters supporting this combination of Nahuatl and Spanish. From all of the historical evidence we could find, the Native Americans were given Spanish Christian names by the Spaniards under their forced Christianization and at no time was a mixed name in this style ever done. [1/94, p.16]

Non-human

No evidence was presented either in the appeal or in the commentary that [Abaddon] was ever used by humans, in or out of period. As a consequence, we are unable to register it here. [3/94, p.17]

Offense

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]

Old English

No one could document or justify the construction of Elkeheorte as a placename or even as a sign name, which it would need to be with "of". Additionally, this particular combination is a mixture of early modern English and old English, which is not permissible. [12a/93, p.16]

Orders and awards

[Registering Golden Dolphin Herald.] To borrow from Baron Bruce's words in the March 1993 LoAR and apply them to this case, the title is taken from the Order of the Golden Dolphin, already registered to Atlantia. It is an ancient and honorable tradition to name heraldic officers after orders: Garter and Toison d'Or (Golden Fleece) are well-known medieval examples, while the classic Society example is (ahem) Laurel. [5/94, p.3]

This does not appear to follow any period exemplars of which we are aware, nor does it match in style their other "Dragon's {part}" proposals. Order names in period seem to have been based on tangible objects (such as the Order of the Golden Fleece) or on abstract concepts which members of the Order embody (such as the Legion of Honor.) The Order of the Dragon's Dream doesn't appear to fit either of these categories. [2/94, p.19]

Neither has "friendship" been accepted as an alternate designator for "order" or "award". [1/94, p.16]

Portugese

We need documentation for the use of four given names in Portuguese in period. Even for the Iberian Peninsula, this seems a bit much. [2/94, p.18]

Pretense

[Registering Mark FitzRoy.] RfS VI.1. states that "Names documented to have been used in period may be used, even if they were derived from titles, provided there is no suggestion of territorial claim or explicit assertion of rank." FitzRoy meets that criteria. RfS VI.3. states that "Names that unmistakably imply identity with or close relationship to a protected person or literary character will generally not be registered." There is no implication of "identity with or close relationship to" any protected individual or character as used here. Consequently, the surname here is not considered pretentious. [6/94, p.8]

[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]

The discussion of the names of Lucia Visconti and Arianna Maria di Marchesi, reviewed in the April Laurel meeting, sparked quite a bit of commentary, particularly as regards the strictures of Rules for Submission VI.1. ... While both surnames Marchesi and Visconti are derived, in a more or less roundabout fashion, from the Italian equivalents of Marquess and Viscount, they were also clearly documented as surnames used by non-nobles. As a consequence, the applicable part of RfS VI.1. would be "Names documented to have been used in period may be used, even if they were derived from titles, provided there is no suggestion of territorial claim or explicit assertion of rank. For example, 'Regina the Laundress' is acceptable but 'Regina of Germany' is not." In the cases here, both names have been documented to have been used in period, and neither is used in such a way as to suggest either a territorial claim or an assertion of rank. That being so, both names have been registered. [4/94c, 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 acceptable when the name of the deity was also used by humans in period". [3/94, p.4]

[Registering Giacomo da Firenze.] Submitted as Giacomo Cavalliere da Firenze, caval[l]iere is the approved alternate title for "knight" in Italian. (Indeed, the submitter's own documentation notes it as meaning "knight".) As such, it should not be used in such a way that it may be mistaken as a title. Unfortunately, "knight of Florence" is just such an example. We have dropped the problematic element in order to register the name. [3/94, p.10]

[Returning Henry d'Agincourt.] While this name is, indeed, not a conflict with Henry V, and indeed does not violate any of the specific clauses of RfS V (or even IV), it does, however, fall within the aegis of RfS I.3.a. Conflicting Claims - "A name or piece of armory that creates a false impression of the identity of the submitter will not be registered." SCA names should not cause someone hearing the name to think of some individual other than the SCA person bearing that name. As an example, how many people hearing the name "Dick of Watergate" are going to think of anyone other than Richard Milhous Nixon, with whom the name "Dick of Watergate" neither conflicts nor is pretentious by the Rules? Very few in the SCA hearing the submitted name here are going to think of anyone other than Henry V. [2/94, p.18]

Baron Bruce covered the issue of pretention in the form of "X of Y" in Scottish names. "We will continue to prohibit the use of a Scots clan name with the seat or territory of that clan (e.g. Cameron of Lochiel), or a surname with the phrase of that Ilk (or its functional equivalent, e.g. Macintosh of Macintosh). That usage, with or without the given name, is the title of the actual chief of the clan or his immediate kin; its use in the SCA represents a direct infringement on actual nobility, and also appears to be a claim to rank, either of which is grounds for return. But by and large, the use of a Scots surname with a Scots placename is acceptable for SCA use." (LoAR March 1993, p. 8) Based on that precedent, [MacLeod of Duirinish] is registrable. [1/94, p.8]

[Returning Bayt al-Da'ud.] Conflicts with the Biblical King David, per RfS V.5., "Names that unmistakably imply identity with or close relationship to a specific person or literary character will not be registered." As Master Bruce noted, any claim of relationship -- be it "house of David", "descendants of David", or "drinking buddies of David" -- will run afoul of this Rule. And King David was known to the Arabs as simply Da'ud. [12a/93, p.15]

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]

Russian

Submitted as Sofia Staritskaia Rhosia; Rhosia appears to be extremely out of place in an otherwise Russian name and is placed inappropriately for Russian usage. We have therefore dropped it in order to register the name. [1/94, p.7]

Scandinavian

[Returning Frostheim, Canton of.] There was some question as to whether "frost-home" is a reasonable period-style placename, even in Swedish. [6/94, p.13]

[Returning Mredyth Vetrgaupa.] There are no compounds of the form vetr-{name of animal}, and the examples cited in the LoI are not support for this form. Nor does the byname have any likely signification on its face. [5/94, p.14]

Spanish

[Returning Eduardo Negro y Albo.] We need some documentation for the form of the byname; none of the commenters cited any examples of "[surname] y [surname]" to period. It is especially needed here, where the byname literally means "black and white". [5/94, p.19]

[Returning Ixtlilxochitl de los Indios.] No evidence was submitted or noted by any of the commenters supporting this combination of Nahuatl and Spanish. From all of the historical evidence we could find, the Native Americans were given Spanish Christian names by the Spaniards under their forced Christianization and at no time was a mixed name in this style ever done. [1/94, p.16]

Style

[Returning Ducal Household Brunwulf.] There is no period precedent for this style of household name. Though there were a number of "ducal households", they were not so styled as part of their proper names. [6/94, p.12]

[Returning Frostheim, Canton of.] There was some question as to whether "frost-home" is a reasonable period-style placename, even in Swedish. [6/94, p.13]

[Returning Eibhlin Niccluir.] The "patronymic" is unattested in the documentation. The only variant discussed in the documentation (dated to 1637) is Makcluir. Further, as an anglicized variant it is unlikely to have been combined with a Gaelic borrowing of the Norman Avelina and Emeline. The combination of two unlikely components is sufficient to cause return for rework and/or better documentation. [5/94, p.18]

A few commenters noted the similarity between the submitter's legal given name (Cymbric) and the Welsh word for the Welsh (Cymri); the consensus among those who discussed it and those attending the Laurel meeting was that it was not sufficiently obtrusive to warrant return. The general guideline Laurel tries to use here and in similar cases is how obtrusive the name is to the average "SCAdian on the street", rather than the much higher standards of the College's onomastics experts. [4/94, p.1]

[Returning Kendrick of the Saxon Shore.] Kendrick is acceptable in this spelling only as a late period given name. The phrase "Saxon Shore" comes from a 5th Century document called the Notitia Dignitatem, which includes a list of stations under the command of an officer called comes litoris Saxonici ("Count of the Saxon Shore"). This title (not name element) dates from the late 3rd Century at the earliest, and [no] evidence of its use appears after the breakdown of Roman authority in Britain (late 5th Century). It does not appear to have been used in any other way (say, as a placename). The combination of an extremely unlikely placename, "lingua franca" or not, which would only have been used (if at all) in early period with a late period given name exceeds the "Rule of Two Weirdnesses", iterated by Baron Bruce in his May 8, 1993 Cover Letter: "If the elements of a submitted name are dated too far apart, then any other anomaly in the name may combine to force it to be returned. ... [H]enceforth, excessive temporal mismatch may contribute to a name's unacceptability; another problem with the name may cause it to be returned." (Cover Letter, May 8, 1993, p. 4) [4/94, p.18]

We need documentation for the use of four given names in Portuguese in period. Even for the Iberian Peninsula, this seems a bit much. [2/94, p.18]

This does not appear to follow any period exemplars of which we are aware, nor does it match in style their other "Dragon's [part]" proposals. Order names in period seem to have been based on tangible objects (such as the Order of the Golden Fleece) or on abstract concepts which members of the Order embody (such as the Legion of Honor.) The Order of the Dragon's Dream doesn't appear to fit either of these categories. [2/94, p.19]

[Greymist] is extremely unlikely. We know of no period name formations of this "misty" type. The many "color + thing" locatives the submitter cites in his documentation (e.g., Blackwood, Blackwell, Blacklock, &co.) are all much more "physical" than this proposal. [2/94, p.23]

[Returning House Caer Knot.] The name also has, to all intents and purposes, a double designator: in English, House Fort Knot. The fact that they are in different languages only serves to exacerbate the problem. He needs to choose just one. [2/94, p.23]

No support could be found by any of the commenters for [House Pillaging Falcons], nor does it appear to be formed in a period style. [1/94, p.16]

The submitted name is not just an Anglo-French hybrid; it has the specific form {English nominal descriptor} {French toponym}. The examples [are] of the form {English place-name} {surname of French owner}. Vair Couvert follows another pattern altogether, one that still hasn't been documented. (And since the pattern involves the use of two languages in a single phrase, it must be documented pretty thoroughly; one or two isolated examples would probably be insufficient.) [1/94, p.18]

[Returning Hashem, ábu Benjamin.] No documentation was presented, nor could any be found, to support the odd mix of languages and the unusual construction of the name. We would recommend that the submitter consider an all-Arabic, all-Hebrew, or all-English name, and then structure it in accordance with the normal word order and grammar for that language. [12a/93, p.15]

No one could document or justify the construction of Elkeheorte as a placename or even as a sign name, which it would need to be with "of". Additionally, this particular combination is a mixture of early modern English and old English, which is not permissible. [12a/93, p.16]

[Returning Alexander de Saytoune na Ban Dharaich.] There were two problems with the name. The first is the use of de with Saytoune, which is, in Lord Palimpsest's words, "probably not right", owing to the fact that Saytoune does not predate the 15th Century, well after use of "de" disappeared. The second, is that the Gaelic byname is unlikely in the extreme to have been used with what is essentially an English name. While the submitter allowed minor changes, we felt that dropping the "de" and either dropping the byname or translating it into English did not constitute minor changes. [12a/93, p.19]

[Returning Méadhbh Ysolde fra Skuyö.] Meadhbh (no accent) is a modern spelling of an ancient Irish name; Ysolde is an Anglo-French spelling of the Old French Iseaut, and the locative is modern Norwegian. Taken as a whole, the combination is too unlikely linguistically to be permissible. Additionally, there is some question about the locative being formed correctly. Unless the Swedish name of the island of Skye is Skuy, the submitted form is unlikely. [12a/93, p.20]

Style (Modern)

The name as submitted appears to be made up of modern variants of the individual elements. It is thus incompatible with the period and domain of the Society, as required by RfS I.1. As a consequence, we are required to return this for modification to period forms or for better documentation of each element than the works of Hanks and Hodges. [12b/93, p.11]

[Returning March of the Wild Hares.] None of the commenters could find any period models for this placename formation, nor was any documentation supporting this form included with the submission. Additionally, the name is obtrusively modern in that the first association many of the commenters had was the tea party with the March Hare described so amusingly by Lewis Carroll. [12b/93, p.12]

Titles

[Registering Golden Dolphin Herald.] To borrow from Baron Bruce's words in the March 1993 LoAR and apply them to this case, the title is taken from the Order of the Golden Dolphin, already registered to Atlantia. It is an ancient and honorable tradition to name heraldic officers after orders: Garter and Toison d'Or (Golden Fleece) are well-known medieval examples, while the classic Society example is (ahem) Laurel. [5/94, p.3]

Unique

[Returning Emer ni Maeve.] Émer appears to be a unique name, that of Cúchulainn's lady. It does not seem to have been borne by any other human. Ó Corráin & Maguire doesn't give a modern form, lending support to this belief. Coghlan, p. 19, gives the modern form as Eimhear, noting that the name has had a "modern revival". [3/94, p.20]

[Kambreda] also appears to be a name unique to one of the daughters of Brychan. This being the case we need additional documentation for its existence and its use by others before we can register Kambreda in the SCA. [12b/93, p.13]

Arion appears to be by the submitter's own documentation to be a unique name, that of a semi-legendary ancient Greek poet and musician. (The only other Arion found was a "fabulous horse", the offspring of Poseidon and Demeter.) We need documentation of its use by other humans in period before we may register Arion. [12a/93, p.15]

Welsh

[Registering Aaron Direidus.] Submitted as Aaron ir Direidus, we have modified the name to drop the article, which appears from all the evidence not to have been used in Welsh bynames in period. [5/94, p.4]

[Registering Siani Euraid.] Submitted as Siani y Euraidd, we have dropped the intrusive particle, which was not used in Welsh when the given name is present. We have also modified the byname to the period form. [3/94, p.3]

[Registering ferch Rhys.] Submitted as ... ni Rhys ...; we have modified the patronymic particle to match the language of the patronym. [1/94, p.7]

[Returning Gwynedd Fairfax.] Gwynedd, though found in Withycombe's Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names, is only noted there as an undated, modern form. The closest documentable period given name is Gwineth. [12b/93, p.13]


SOURCES

Material for these precedents was compiled from the following sources. The codes in brackets are used to identify the source in the text.

Laurel letter, 18 Nov 1993 [11/93]
LOAR, 4 Dec 1993 meeting [12a/93]
15 Dec 1993 cover [12a/93c]
LOAR, 18 Dec 1993 meeting [12b/93]
3 Jan 1994 cover [12b/93c]
LOAR, 15 Jan 1994 meeting [1/94]
10 Feb 1994 cover [1/94c]
LOAR, 12 Feb 1994 meeting [2/94]
9 Mar 1994 cover [2/94c]
LOAR, 12 Mar 1994 meeting [3/94]
12 Apr 1994 cover [3/94c]
LOAR, 23 Apr 1994 meeting [4/94]
13 May 1994 cover [4/94c]
LOAR, 21 May 1994 meeting [5/94]
4 Jun 1994 cover [5/94c]
LOAR, 11 Jun 1994 meeting [6/94]
5 Jul 1994 cover [6/94c]


APPENDIX A

Rules revision from the April 1994 LOAR.

The discussion appearing to have wound down and a consensus reached, the Names Rules provisions of the Rules for Submissions are modified as follows: Parts III, V and VI of the names rules are replaced in their entirety with the following:

PART III - COMPATIBLE NAMING STYLE AND GRAMMAR

All elements of a name must be correctly arranged to follow the grammar and linguistic traditions of period names, as is required by General Principle 1b of these rules. This section defines the requirements for arranging acceptable words into a compatible name.

  1. Name Grammar and Syntax - All names must be grammatically correct for period names and follow documented patterns.

    Standard grammatical rules for a language will be applied unless documentation is provided for non-standard usages in period names from that language. Names should generally combine elements that are all from a single linguistic culture, but a name may be registered that combines languages. As a rule of thumb, languages should be used together only if there was substantial contact between the cultures that spoke those languages, and a name should not combine more than three languages. Each name as a whole should be compatible with the culture of a single time and place.

    1. Linguistic Consistency - Each phrase must be grammatically correct according to the usage of a single language.

      For the purposes of this rule a phrase may consist of a single word (Heinrich, Calais) or of a grammatically connected series of words (the Garter, the Dragon's Heart, with the Beard, von Königsberg) in a single language. Although it seems to mix French or Latin with English, the phrase de London is documentably correct usage in the written language of Anglo-Norman England and can therefore be registered. If a later form of a language differs radically from an earlier form, the two may not be considered a single language; thus, Old English and Early Modern English are different languages. In the case of place names and other name elements frequently used in English in their original form, an English article or preposition may be used. For example, of Aachen might be used instead of the purely German von Aachen.

  2. Name Style - Every name as a whole should be compatible with the culture of a single time and place.

    1. Personal Names - A personal name must contain a given name and at least one byname; each of these components will be called a name phrase. A byname is any name added to the given name to identify its bearer more precisely. Most period names contained no more than three name phrases; as a rule of thumb a personal name should not contain more than four name phrases. (A documentable exception is Arabic, in which longer period names can fairly easily be found; an example is Abû 'Abd Allâh Muhammad ibn Isma'îl ibn Mughîrah al-Bukhârî 'Muhammad, father of 'Abd Allâh, son of Isma'îl, the son of Mughîrah, the Bukharan'.)

      1. A byname may be one of relationship, like a patronymic or metronymic: filz Payn, Johnson, Bjarnardóttir, Gudrúnarson, des langen Dietrich bruder 'brother of the tall Dietrich', ingen Murchada 'daughter of Murchad', Smythwyf, Mac a' Phearsain 'son of the parson', abu Sa'îd 'father of Sa'îd'.

      2. A byname may be a second given name; in most European cultures during most of our period this is a patronymic byname: John William = John Williamson. Late in period in some cultures it may be the second part of a double given name: Gian Giacomo Caroldo.

      3. A byname may be locative, a byname of origin or of residence: Hubert of York, Jack London, Heinrich von Hamburg, William atte Wode, Robert Undertheclyf, Matthias de Flandre; Alphonse le Picard, Dirk der Brabanter, Adam (le) Flemyng, Wautier Alleman, Herman Münstermann. Names of residence include sign names taken from signs on buildings: atte Belle 'at the [sign of the] Bell', zur Krone 'at the [sign of the] crown', zum blauen Esel 'at the blue Ass'. These are extremely rare in English but not uncommon in German.

      4. A byname may describe occupation, status, or office: John Bowwright, Hans Schneider, Jehan (le) Changeur, Maud Webster, Nicolaus Ankersmit, William Parson, Serlo le Reve, Adam (le) Freman.

      5. A byname may be a descriptive nickname: Osbert le Gentil, Skalla-Björn 'bald', Conrad Klein 'small', Klein Conrad, Robertus cum Barba 'with the beard', Ludolf metter langher nese 'with the long nose', Henry Beard, Rudolfus der Esel 'the Ass', Gilbert le Sour, John Skamful, Thorvaldr inn kyrri 'the quiet', Iain Camshròn 'hook-nose'.

      6. Finally, a byname may be a sentence, oath, or phrase name: Geoffrey Likkefinger, Adam Brekeleg, Rudolfus Drinkwasser, Otto Dumernyt 'Do nothing to me!', Nickl Lerenpecher 'Empty the tankard', Serle Gotokirke, John Falleinthewelle, Godeke Maketwol 'Make it well', Katharina Gottvergebmirs 'God forgive me for it!', Richard Playndeamours 'full of love', Henry ffulofloue, Petronilla Notegood, Hans mornebesser 'better [in the] morning'.

        Some bynames may fit into more than one category: Edward Pepper may be named for his temper or for his occupation as spice-merchant; Herbert le Knif may have a notable knife, or he may be a cutler; and Notegood, like other phrase names without verbs, can also be considered a descriptive nickname. Lion may be descriptive or an abbreviated form of atte Lyon 'at the [sign of the] lion'.

    2. Non-Personal Names - Branch names, names of orders and awards, heraldic titles, and household names must consist of a designator that identifies the type of entity and at least one descriptive element.

      Common designators are Shire, Barony, Guild, House, Order of the, and Herald. The designator must be appropriate to the status of the submitter. Society branches may use the designator established by Corpora for their category of group or any authorized alternative form. The designator may be included as part of a one-word name if the authorized form was used that way in period, like the English word shire, which appears as a part of the one-word name Worcestershire.

      1. Branch Names - Names of branches must follow the patterns of period place-names.

        Some good Society examples are: Shire of Carlsby, Standonshire, Barony of Jararvellir, College of Saint Carol on the Moor, all of which closely resemble period place-names.

      2. Names of Orders and Awards - Names of orders and awards must follow the patterns of the names of period orders and awards.

        These are often the names of saints; others are similar to sign names (see RfS III.2.a.iii). Some examples are: the Order of Saint Michael, the Order of Saint Maurice and Saint Lazarus, the Brethren of the Sword, the Order of the Garter, La Toison d'Or (the Order of the Golden Fleece), the Order of the Golden Rose, the Order of the Star, the Order of the Swan, La Orden de la Jara (the Knights of the Tankard), the Order of Lilies.

      3. Heraldic Titles - Heraldic titles must follow the patterns of period heraldic titles.

        These are generally drawn from surnames (Chandos Herald, Percy Herald), names of heraldic charges (Crosslet Herald, Estoile Volant Pursuivant, Noir Lyon Pursuivant), names of orders of chivalry (Garter King of Arms), and mottos (Ich Dien Pursuivant, Esperance Pursuivant). (They are also drawn from place-names (Windsor Herald, Calais Pursuivant, Sicily Herald), but this practice is not allowed in the Society because the common usage Lady {Heraldic Title} (e.g., Lady Sicily) would then contain a forbidden implication of landedness.)

      4. Household Names - Household names must follow the patterns of period names of organized groups of people.

        Possible models include Scottish clans (Clan Stewart), ruling dynasties (House of Anjou), professional guilds (Baker's Guild of Augsburg, Worshipful Company of Coopers), military units (The White Company), and inns (House of the White Hart).

PART V - NAME CONFLICT

Names may not be too similar to the names of others, as is required by General Principle 3a of these rules. Names need to be distinguished from each other both in their written form and when heard in announcements. This section defines ways in which submitted names may differ sufficiently from protected names.

  1. Personal Names - Personal names must be significantly different from other protected personal names.

    1. Difference of Name Phrases - Two name phrases are considered significantly different if they differ significantly in sound and appearance. Name phrases that are not significantly different are said to be equivalent.

      Variant spellings of the same word or name, no matter how radical, are not considered significantly different unless there is also a significant difference in pronunciation. Low German Flaschenträger could be spelled vlaschendreyger in 1430, but the pronunciation was essentially the same, so vlaschendreyger and Flaschenträger are equivalent. Such variant spellings may be registered where appropriate but do not make the name different. Examples and further restrictions for different types of name phrase are given below.

      1. Given Names - Two given names are significantly different only if they differ significantly in sound and appearance. Irrespective of differences in sound and appearance, a given name is not significantly different from any of its diminutives when they are used as given names. However, two diminutives of the same given name are significantly different if they differ significantly in sound and appearance.

        Mary is equivalent to the French Marie, since neither the appearance nor the sound is significantly different; it is significantly different from the Hebrew Miriam, since it differs significantly in sound and appearance and neither name is a diminutive of the other. Similarly, Ali is significantly different from Auda. Hob is a diminutive of Robert and therefore equivalent to it, and for the same reason Kunz is equivalent to Konrad. But Hob and Robin are significantly different; though both are diminutives of Robert, they look and sound significantly different. The same holds for Nickel and Klas, which are both diminutives of Niclas.

      2. Bynames - Two bynames are significantly different if they look and sound significantly different. In general the addition or deletion of prepositions and articles is not significant. Additional restrictions apply to certain types of bynames as specified below.

        Blacksmith is significantly different from Smith. Le Vanur 'the basketmaker' is not significantly different from le vannere 'the winnower or maker of fans or winnowing-baskets' because the pronunciations are not significantly different.

        Cum Barba is significantly different from Beard and Witheberd 'with the beard', but Beard is equivalent to Witheberd. Der grosse Esel 'the great ass' is significantly different from der Esel, and with the Long Nose is significantly different from with the Crooked Nose. The Lion is not significantly different from de Lyon.

        Brekeleg is significantly different from Brekeheved 'break head'. Waggespere is significantly different from Shakespeare.

        • (a) Bynames of Relationship - Two bynames of relationship are significantly different if the natures of the relationships or the objects of the relationships are significantly different.

          Smythwyf is significantly different from Smithson because the nature of the relationship is significantly changed; it is significantly different from Tomwyf because the object of the relationship has been changed (from Smith to Tom). Mac Thorcuill 'son of Thorcull' is equivalent to Nic Thorcuill 'daughter of Thorcull', and Richards is equivalent to Richard and to Richardson; in each case the sound is insufficiently different. Hobson is significantly different from Robertson, however, because Hob and Robert differ significantly in sound and appearance and are not being used in given names.

        • (b) Locative Bynames - Two locative bynames need not refer to different places in order to be considered significantly different; they need only look and sound sufficiently different.

          Der Brabanter is equivalent to von Brabant; such bynames were interchangeable in period. However, de Flandre is significantly different from le Flemyng because Flandre and Flemyng are significantly different in sound and appearance. York is equivalent to of York, Münstermann is equivalent to von Münster, and Undertheclyf is equivalent to del Clif and Cliff. Zum Roten Löwen 'at the Red Lion' is significantly different from zum Löwen and from zum Blauen Löwen 'at the Blue Lion'. Lion (from a sign name) is not significantly different from de Lyon because the bynames do not differ significantly in appearance.

    2. Conflict of Personal Names - Two personal names conflict unless at least one of the following conditions is met.

      1. Given Names - Two personal names do not conflict if the given names are significantly different.

        Sancha Alfonso Carrillo does not conflict with Juan Alfonso Carrillo. Hob Gage conflicts with Robert Gage because Hob is not significantly different from Robert (of which it is a diminutive).

      2. Number of Name Phrases - A personal name containing exactly two name phrases does not conflict with any personal name containing more than two name phrases.

        Thóra Arnthórudóttir does not conflict with Thóra in spaka Arnthórudóttir; Pedro Fernandez does not conflict with Pedro Fernandez Perez.

      3. Order of Name Phrases - Two personal names that contain equivalent name phrases arranged in different orders do not conflict if the change in order significantly changes the meaning of the name as a whole.

        Klein Konrad conflicts with Konrad der Kleine: they could well refer to the same person. Owen ap Morgan ap Gruffudd does not conflict with Owen ap Gruffudd ap Morgan: as they have different fathers, they cannot be the same person. Aed Dub mac Cormaic 'Black Aed son of Cormac' does not conflict with Aed mac Cormaic Duib 'Aed son of Black Cormac', and Hrólfr dúfunef Bjarnarson 'Hrólfr dove-nose son of Björn' does not conflict with Hrólfr Bjarnarson dúfunefs 'Hrólfr son of Björn dove-nose'. William Brun le Mercer conflicts with William Mercer le Brun, both meaning 'William with brown hair who is a merchant in fine textiles'.

      4. Change of Name Phrases - Two personal names do not conflict if each contains a name phrase that is significantly different from every name phrase in the other.

        William Jamesson the Smith does not conflict with William Jamesson the Carter because each of the phrases the Smith and the Carter appears in one name but not the other. Gilbert Fletcher the Long of Kent conflicts with Gilbert Long Fletcher because (1) the latter name contains no phrase that is significantly different from every phrase of the former name, and (2) the change in order of the second and third name phrases does not significantly change the meaning of the name.

    3. Historical Personal Names - Protected historical personal names are protected in all of the forms in which they commonly appear.

      Charlemagne, which becomes Carolus Magnus in Latin and Karl der Grosse in German, is protected in all three forms.

  2. Non-Personal Names - Branch names, order and award names, heraldic titles, and household names must be significantly different from other protected non-personal names.

    1. Difference of Descriptive Elements - A descriptive element is a word other than a designator, an article, a preposition, or the name of a branch of the Society. Two descriptive elements are considered significantly different if they differ significantly in both sound and appearance. Descriptive elements that are not significantly different are said to be equivalent.

    2. Conflict of Names with the Same Number of Elements - Two non-personal names with the same number of descriptive elements conflict unless at least one of the following conditions is met.

      1. Change of Elements - Two such names do not conflict if each of them contains a descriptive element significantly different from every descriptive element in the other.

        House Saint Mary, Saint Mary Herald, and the College of Sainte Marie all conflict with one another because their descriptive elements are equivalent; House, Herald, and College of, being designators, are not descriptive elements. The House of the Red Dolphin does not conflict with the House of the Blue Dolphin or the House of the Red Lion. The Order of the White Scarf of Ansteorra conflicts with the Order of the White Scarf of Atenveldt because Ansteorra and Atenveldt are not descriptive elements as defined above in clause 2.a.

      2. Change of Order or Grammar - Two such names containing equivalent descriptive elements do not conflict if either the order of the elements or the grammatical structure of the name has changed in a way that significantly changes the meaning of the name as a whole.

        The Order of the Sword and the Tower conflicts with the Order of the Tower and the Sword because the change in order does not significantly change the meaning of the name. Similarly, the Order of the Guardians of the Castle conflicts with the Order of the Castle's Guardians. The Order of the Castle of the Guardians does not conflict the Order of the Guardians of the Castle because the change in order significantly changes the meaning; it does not conflict with the Order of the Castle's Guardians because the change in grammatical structure significatly changes the meaning.

    3. Conflict of Names with Different Numbers of Elements - Two non-personal names with different numbers of descriptive elements conflict if the only difference in the descriptive parts is the addition of one or more modifiers to a single, already modified root element.

      The addition of one or more modifiers to an unmodified noun is a significant change, so Black Lion Herald does not conflict with Lyon King of Arms. The Order of the Black Rampant Lion conflicts with the Black Lion Herald, however, since Rampant is added to an already modified noun. (Adding further modifiers to an already modified noun is not a significant change because it is generally not good period style.) The Order of the Black Lion's Heart does not conflict with the Black Lion Herald since the added element, Heart, is not a modifier. Similarly, the Order of the Tower and the Sword does not conflict with the Order of the Sword.

PART VI - PRESUMPTUOUS NAMES

Names may not claim status or powers the submitter does not possess, as is required by General Principle 3b of these rules. This section defines categories of presumptuous claims.

  1. Names Claiming Rank - Names containing titles, territorial claims, or allusions to rank are considered presumptuous.

    Titles like Earl and Duke generally may not be used as Society names, even if the title is the submitter's legal name. Names documented to have been used in period may be used, even if they were derived from titles, provided there is no suggestion of territorial claim or explicit assertion of rank. For example, Regina the Laundress is acceptable but Regina of Germany is not. Claim to membership in a uniquely royal family is also considered presumptuous, although use of some dynastic surnames do not necessarily claim royal rank. For example, there was a Scottish dynasty named Stewart, but there were also many other Stewart families so use of that surname does not link one unmistakably to the royal house. Hohenstaufen, on the other hand, seems to have only been used by the line of Holy Roman Emperors, so its use makes a clear dynastic claim. In some cases, use of an otherwise inoffensive occupational surname in a territorial context may make it appear to be a title or rank, such as John the Bard of Armagh or Peter Abbot of St. Giles.

  2. Names Claiming Powers - Names containing elements that allude to powers that the submitter does not possess are considered presumptuous.

    Society names may not claim divine descent, superhuman abilities, or other powers that the submitter does not actually possess. Such claims include divine patronymics, like Vulcanson; epithets peculiarly associated with divinities or superhuman beings, such as of the Valkyrie; given names that were never used by humans, like the names of some Giants or Dwarves in Norse mythology; or descriptive epithets like Worldblaster.

  3. Names Claiming Specific Relationships - Names that unmistakably imply identity with or close relationship to a protected person or literary character will generally not be registered.

    Explicit claims to descend from a particular person, such as Edwin fitzWilliam Marshall or Rhys ap Cariadoc of the Bow will not be registered. (The latter could be registered with a letter of permission from Cariadoc of the Bow.) However, since there are many people named William and Cariadoc, Edwin fitzWilliam or Rhys ap Cariadoc would not conflict by themselves. In some cases a unique name, surname, or epithet is so closely related to an individual that its use alone can imply relationship to that individual. There is only one family that uses the name Baggins of Bag End, so Joan Baggins of Bag End would not be appropriate.

  4. Other Presumptuous Names - Some names not otherwise forbidden by these rules are nevertheless too evocative of widely known and revered protected items to be registered.

    Such items include the peerage orders of the Society and such well-known items outside the Society as the Order of the Garter. The House of the Rose and Laurel does not conflict with the Order of the Rose or the Order of the Laurel, but it is too evocative of both to be registered. Similarly, the Award of the Blue Garter is too evocative of the Order of the Garter, whose badge is a blue garter.

Similarly, X.4.j. of the Rules for Submissions is replaced with the following:

Additionally, while we were finalizing these changes to the Rules so that they could be printed in their entirety in the Proceedings to the 1995 Known World Heraldic Symposium, it seemed a good time to update the Administrative Handbook to match our current practices. For example, any references to the "Steward of the Society" have been changed to "Registrar of the Society", to match the current organization of the Society. The following other (mostly minor) changes are made to the Administrative Handbook (additions/changes are underlined):

General Procedures for Submissions, Section D, is modified to read as follows:

  1. Payment of Fees - No submission shall be considered to have been made until all fees associated with the submission have been paid. Such fees are set by kingdom law and policy as required to cover the costs of processing submissions. However, no fee may be charged for appeals, change of holding name, submission of alternate forms for standard titles or designations, corrections of spelling or blazon or resubmissions made within a year of the most recent notification of return. The Laurel Office currently charges no fee for resubmissions, but kingdoms may charge appropriate fees for resubmissions not made in a timely manner after appropriate advance notification of this policy in the kingdom newsletter or by individual letters to submitters.
Kingdom Processing of Submissions, Section C.4., Payment of Laurel Office Fees, is modified as follows:

  1. Payment of Laurel Office Fees - Each packet must include a cheque or money order covering the processing fees for each submission element presented to the Laurel Office which requires a fee (see the section on Payment of Fees above). Checks should be made out to the SOCIETY FOR CREATIVE ANACHRONISM - COLLEGE OF ARMS. (Note: this fee is currently three dollars per element for all submissions, including official submissions at kingdom level and below.)
Commentary on Submissions, Sections A and B, are modified as follows:

  1. Commenting Members of the College of Arms - Members of the College of Arms engaged actively in the commentary process are referred to collectively as the mailing list. Such members shall generally include:

    1. Laurel Sovereign of Arms.

    2. Laurel Staff Commenters appointed by the Laurel Sovereign of Arms.

    3. Principal Heralds.

    4. Submissions Heralds, nominated by the Principal Herald of their kingdom of residence and ratified by the Laurel Sovereign of Arms, of kingdoms where the Principal Herald has delegated issuance of letters of intent to another.

    5. Other Commenters nominated by the Principal Herald of their kingdom of residence and ratified by the Laurel Sovereign of Arms.

  2. Regularity of Comment - Commenters other than Principal Heralds or their duly confirmed submissions deputies who do not participate actively in College of Arms commentary on a regular basis will be subject to removal from the mailing list. Any or all of the following may be construed as lack of active participation.

    1. Failure to Comment. Failure to comment for three successive Laurel meetings shall result in automatic removal from the mailing list. At Laurel's discretion, extensions for commentary may be granted in case of illness or personal catastrophe.

    2. Persistently Sporadic or Incomplete Commentary. Individuals persistently commenting only one month in three or regularly offering only scanty comments on only one or two letters per Laurel meeting may be considered to have failed in active participation in the College of Arms.

    3. Persistent Breach of General Commenting Requirements. Failure to abide by the requirements for format and distribution of commentary may be construed failure to comment actively. In particular, commenter who regularly sent commentary only to Laurel and no other member of the College will be considered to have failed to meet requirements for active participation.

Laurel Office Processing of Submissions, Section A.1., is modified as follows:

  1. Four Month Commenting Period - When a valid letter of intent and packet are received in a timely manner, the letter of intent shall be scheduled for the fourth month following the month in which the letter is dated (e.g., a letter dated in January will be considered in May).

Laurel Office Processing of Submissions, Section B.6., is modified as follows:

  1. Rules Changes - Any proposed changes to the actual wording of the rules governing the content and form of submissions must be published for comment in the cover letter to the letter of acceptances and returns or in an LoI prepared by a designated Laurel Staff member. No action may be taken on the proposed changes until after adequate time for commentary (normally 3-4 months or more) following the publication of the proposal. If adopted, the change must then be published in full in the cover letter together with any information needed for its implementation.
Laurel Office Processing of Submissions, Section C.2., is modified as follows:

  1. Ordinary Subscribers - Any member of the Society who does not qualify as an Ex Officio Subscriber may become an Ordinary Subscriber upon payment of the appropriate fee to the Laurel Office. Subscription fees shall be based on the cost of publication, including printing and postage. Checks for subscription should be made out to the SOCIETY FOR CREATIVE ANACHRONISM - COLLEGE OF ARMS. (Note: this fee is currently twenty-five dollars a year.)
And the following sources have been added to Appendix E, Armory References. (These have been specifically added in several Cover Letters over the past three years.)



Table of Contents of Precedents of Da'ud Ibn Auda, 2nd Tenure




Jump to Precedents main page
Jump to Laurel main page



maintained by Codex Herald

This page was last updated on Friday, April 26th, 2013 @ 10:24 am CDT

The arms of the SCA Copyright © 1995 - 2017 Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.