Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (2nd year)
Compiled and edited by Rouland CarreArmory Precedents by Letter
A B C D E
F G H I-J K
L M N O P-Q
R S T-V W-Z
Name Precedents by Letter
A-B C D E
F G
H I J-K L
M N O
P-Q R S-V
W-Z
Introduction
This work contains rulings of precedential relevance from the latter part of the second tenure of Master Da’ud ibn Auda as Laurel King of Arms of the Society for Creative Anachronism, covering the period from July, 1994 through the end of his tenure in June, 1996. During the second half of this time, from June, 1995 through June, 1996, Master Talan Gwynek served as Pelican King of Arms. As Pelican he made rulings on names and name issues. While Master Da’ud had the final authority, the name precedents from this period were written by Master Talan. The selection of material for this collection is my own, and with dreary inevitability it must disclaimed that this is not an official publication of the Society for Creative Anachronism nor its College of Arms. For the official texts of registrations and returns the reader is directed to the original documents.
I have tried to maintain a format consistent with previous collections of precedents. In particular, I have retained the practice of my immediate predecessor in dividing name and armory rulings into their own separate sections. I have retained the practice of my last two predecessors in including the name attached to the submission, rather than the older practice of citing by letter and page number alone. The subdivisions are my own, consistent as much as possible with those of the Ordinary and of previous compilations as is practicable.
There are two innovations in this compilation. All rules changes have been collected in Appendix A. (They are for the most part not included in the body.) Appendix B is included in recognition of the unique circumstances surrounding the implementation of the Modest Proposal. In addition to the initial implementation list, there were a significant number of rulings on non-SCA armory proposed for registration in the SCA. There is precedential interest in which were or were not registered, so this is given as Appendix B. Readers interested in the initial implementation list itself are directed to the original document.
The texts listed are taken directly from Letters of Acceptance and Return (LoAR), or in a few cases from the accompanying cover letters (CL). Text in [square brackets] is mine, providing editorial comment, summaries of omitted text, or replacing specific charges or names with more generally applicable versions. In those rare instances where Laurel used square brackets in the original text I have replaced them with {round brackets}. I use ellipses (...) to indicate deleted text, except at the beginning or end of an excerpt where deleted text is left unmarked. Minor corrections to spelling or grammar are left unmarked, as are my own contributions of such errors. The source of the text is cited at the end in round parentheses, by submitter's name, date of the LoAR, and page number of the LoAR. Those texts excepted from a cover letter are cited by “CL” and the date of the cover letter.
There are several instances where members of the College of Arms are mentioned by their heraldic title. The individuals holding these titles during this period are:
Green Crown: Owen ap Morgan
Palimpsest (Talan Gwynek before June 1996, Rouland Carre thereafter)
Baron Bruce: Baron Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, former Laurel King of Arms
Pelican: Talan Gwynek
Ensign: Cateline de la Mor
Harpy: Tangwystl verch Morgant Glasfryn
Black Dove: Colm Dubh
Silver Crescent: Allison MacDermot
Albion: Juhana Maununpoika Kivisuo
I wish to thank those who have helped me in this endeavor, in particular Da’ud ibn Auda and Zenobia Naphtali for their constructive advice.
In service,
Rouland Carre
Palimpsest Herald of Arms
mka Richard R. Hershberger
A B C D E F G H I-J K L M N O P-Q R S T-V W-Z
A-B C D E F G H I J-K L M N O P-Q R S-V W-Z
APPENDIX B: NON-SCA ARMORY
ARMORY REGISTERED
ARMORY NOT REGISTERED
[a wine amphora vs various charges] There
was general agreement that there is a CD between a wine amphora and a goblet,
cup, tankard, and ink flask, the only potential conflicts that could be
found. (Lina Hen, 5/95 p. 2)
[returning "a quadruply-towered Eastern castle"] No one could create an adequate blazon for the primary charge, and it does not appear to follow any specific architectural type that could be blazoned. An "Eastern castle" does not appear in any of the general reference books of heraldic charges Laurel was able to consult, nor has it been registered before in the SCA. Laurel would note that the castle does not appear to match any middle eastern or Indian architecture he has seen in his studies of those areas (though he remembers seeing a not too dissimilar edifice in one of the early Sinbad movies.) As a consequence, this must be returned because the primary charge cannot be reconstructed from the blazon (as required by RfS VII.7.b), nor can it be readily identified from its appearance alone (as required by RfS VII.7.a). (Fucha de la Rua, 8/95 p. 19)
Though no columns fracted have been registered before, this seems a reasonable extension of the already-registered sword fracted. (Shimshon Aryeh ben Avraham, 11/95 p. 9)
[registering a bridge of three
arches throughout...the streams transfluent gules] This motif of water
flowing through the arches of a bridge, though unusual in the SCA, is both
period and more common in mundane heraldry (Grímr Víthfari,
5/96 p. 6)
An unfletched arrow is visually
and heraldically indistinguishable from a lance (Trimaris, Kingdom of,
2/96 p. 21)
[an armillary sphere vs an astrolabe or a sphere] There is in each case a CD (at least) for the change in type. (Brian Caradoc Walsh, 9/94 p. 11)
The difference between this astrolabe
(which is missing its chart, the back plate) and an armillary sphere, which
amounts to another round thing with openwork tracery, is insufficient to
grant [a CD]. (Malcolm of Fife, 6/95 p. 26)
The exact conflict with the seal of the office of the Dragon Principal Herald is ... troublesome for a couple of reasons. One is that we have not previously allowed armory, even as an augmentation, to be an identical version of the armory of a group or office, whether or not a letter of permission to conflict existed. (See, e.g., the discussion of the proposed augmentation for Jan w Orzeldom, LoAR April 1992, p. 17: "There is also some question whether an individual or a group can grant the right to their undifferenced arms for use by someone else. The use of letters of permission to conflict (which is what Laurel considers the petition by the members of the Barony of Bjornsborg to be) in the College has always been to allow a reduced standard of difference, not to allow the use of arms undifferenced. It is Laurel's belief that the only way the use of arms registered to one party may be granted undifferenced to another is to transfer those arms, with the appropriate letters signed by both parties transferring the arms and accepting them.") (Fiona Averylle of Maidenhead, 9/95 p. 27)
...it was a period practice for
the holders of an office to marshal the arms of the office with their personal
arms. This does not appear to apply to
former holders of the office,
but only to incumbents. As a consequence, this augmentation appears to
be a claim to be the current Dragon Principal Herald, which does then fall
afoul of our rules against the claim to "status or powers the submitter
does not possess" (RfS XI). (Fiona Averylle
of Maidenhead, 9/95 p. 27)
[registering a reremouse inverted] While the inversion of the bat is unusual, it remains (even at a distance) identifiable... Because of the bird-like nature of the bat, we believe that it should be allowed a posture which is not so very different from "migrant to base", which posture has not been disallowed under the ban on "inverted creatures" noted in the September 1993 LoAR. [The badge was registered.] (Devora Risee de Apors, 9/94 p. 5)
[returning a bat close inverted] The bat is not at all identifiable in this posture. (Kiera Nighthawk, 9/94 p. 18)
[a panther rampant guardant argent spotted sable incensed gules vs. a lion rampant argent] There is a CD for type for the difference between the cats, but that is all. [I.e. there is a significant but not a substantial difference.] (Ulfhethinn the Bold, 8/94 p. 15)
[a snow leopard spotted vs various unspotted cats] [There is a CD] for the addition of the spots (effectively a semy, and worth the same CD as any addition of a tertiary charge or tertiary charge group). (Marke von Mainz, 5/95 p. 2)
[a lion passant vs a cat
s'elongeant] A comparison of the two emblazons demonstrated the overwhelming
similarity of the postures of the two cats. (Anthony Navarre, 4/96 p. 18)
[a hare vs a rabbit sejant guardant armed with a stag's attires argent] [There is a CD] for the removal of the attires, which a comparison of the emblazons showed to be the visual equivalent of removing wings, for which we also grant a CD. (Donata Ivanovna Basistova, 5/95 p. 9)
[an otter couchant vs a ferret statant guardant] It is extremely hard to tell the difference between statant and couchant on very short-legged critters like otters and ferrets; so much so that a visual comparison of the emblazons showed very little difference between them. [No CD was given.] (Iain MacDhugal Cameron of Ben Liath, 5/95 p. 10)
A cameleopard, or giraffe, proper
is Or marked brown/tan; as such, it lacks sufficient contrast against
the argent field. (Ceridwen Alianora McInnes, 6/95 p. 21)
The bear was blazoned as statant displayed in the LoI, but there was a consensus among the commenters that displayed is an avian posture inappropriate for beasts (as, for example, rampant is a quadrupedal posture inappropriate for birds). [It was blazoned as statant erect affronty] (Grimhun Hroth, 7/95 p. 1)
[returning a sloth pendent] RfS
VIII.4.c. notes that "Excessively naturalistic use of otherwise acceptable
charges may not be registered. Excessively natural designs include those
that depict animate objects in unheraldic postures, ..." The sloth here
appears to be simply a photocopy of a drawing of the natural animal. It
is certainly in no heraldic posture, even inverted, and no one was able
to suggest either (1) a blazonable posture for it, or (2) that this would
be the default posture for a sloth. (Sven
Örfendur, 10/95 p. 18)
[a mouse vs a gopher] [There is] nothing
for type between two rodents. (Roisin Rhys, 11/95 p. 15)
[a hornless goat's head vs a mountain goat's head] There is a clear point for...the addition of the very prominent horns. (Tinoran's charge is a mountain goat, drawn with horns nearly as long as a gazelle's, and not a mountain sheep with the circular "Princess Leia bun" circular horns, which would not have as great a visual impact). (Lucia del Mar, 2/96 p. 14)
[a stag vs an ibex] There [is]
a CD between a stag and an ibex, though X.2., Sufficient Difference, [does]
not apply between the two. (Declan de Burgo, 6/96 p. 6)
[registering a zebra proper] Though several commenters recommended blazoning the charge here as argent, striped sable, it seems that this is a "widely understood default coloration" and is therefore permissible to blazon as proper. (Sarmasia Lakadaimoniote, 5/95 p. 3)
[a zebra proper vs a horse argent] [There
is a CD] for the addition of the stripes, which are
easily equivalent to the addition of a tertiary charge, which is given
a CD in the Rules for Submissions. (Sarmasia Lakadaimoniote, 5/95
p. 3)
Though blazoned as a dove on the LoI, the bird here has none of the distinguishing features of a dove. There is a CD for the field but nothing for type of primary charge between a generic bird and any other specific bird. (Anna of Eichenwald, 8/94 p. 14)
The Japanese crane displayed in annulo was returned for being not identifiable some time ago, having more in common with roundels and crescents than European renditions of birds. (Patrick Donovan of Warwick, 9/94 p. 16)
[a peacock vert vs a peacock proper] Conflict with...only one CD for the addition of the [secondary charge]. (As noted before, a peacock proper has a vert body). [I.e. there is no CD for tincture.] (Caitlyn Emrys, 10/94 p. 12)
[a bird striking vs a bird rising, wings elevated and displayed] ...there is a CD ...for the dramatic change in the posture and orientation of the bird's wings (elevated and addorsed vs displayed). (Sasha Dmitrievich Dozortsev, 12/94 p. 4)
[corbies close respectant vs doves respectant] The difference in type of bird is insufficient for [a CD]. (Ástrídr Oddsdóttir, 12/94 p. 12)
[a falcon dexter wing expanded and inverted vs an eagle rising, wings displayed] Particularly when applied to the primary charge, "close, dexter wing expanded and inverted" is a significant outline change from "rising, wings displayed". (Friedrich der Falkner, 1/95 p. 5)
[returning Per pale gules and sable, an eagle checky Or and gules] The checky Or and gules eagle is completely unidentifiable on the gules portion of the field. While we have allowed checky ordinaries to share a tincture with the field, their simple outline makes it obvious what they are and identifiability is not lost. Here, because of the complex outline of the charge, that is not the case. (Rolland von Fries, 1/95 p. 13)
Regarding the potential conflict with Knowles (Papworth, p. 310), Azure, a hawk seizing a partridge argent on a chief of the last three bolts of the first, there is a CD for the changes to the tertiaries, and because we are unable to find any definition of the posture "seizing", which could as well be similar to striking (which would be a CD from rising) as trussing (which would not), we are giving the submitter the benefit of the doubt here. (Mairghread Sgoilear, 4/95 p. 6)
[a goose displayed vs an eagle displayed] The goose displayed is insufficiently different from an eagle displayed to grant a CD. (Thosheim, Canton of, 5/95 p. 12)
[a parrot vs a falcon] Though X.4.e. would normally grant a CD for difference between charges considered different in period, the bird here is drawn so that it appears to be more falcon-like than parrot-like, making this a visual conflict. (Aleksandr the Traveller, 6/95 p. 25)
[geese enraged vs martlets] There is a CD for the change in posture (enraged has the wings expansed, and bodies in more of a "rising" posture), and another, given the clearly separate heraldic identity of the two birds in period, for type of bird. (Ceri of Caermarthen, 9/95 p. 4)
[a bird rising wings displayed vs a bird displayed] [There is a CD] for the posture of the primary charge; rising is basically bendwise while displayed has the body clearly palewise. (Lucia Ottavia da Siena, 9/95 p. 14)
[returning a red-tail hawk proper] Though under the new precedent for animals proper, we could have registered this had it been emblazoned as brown or even, presumably, brown with red tail feathers, the bird on the submission forms was quite clearly drawn as a red-tailed hawk in light phase proper. (According to the sources we checked, the red-tailed hawk also has a "dark phase".) This is exactly the type of "Linnaean heraldry" that has been banned for some time now, for the reason that one would have to consult a specialized non-heraldic source (in this case, a book on North American birds) to adequately reproduce the emblazon from a blazon. RfS VIII.4.c. notes that "[Proper] is not allowed if many people would have to look up the correct coloration, or if the Linnaean genus and species (or some other elaborate description) would be required to get it right." Such is the case here. (Hachille de Remiercourt, 12/95 p. 18)
A bird passant, that is to
say, with one leg raised, is considered an unblazoned variant of close.
(Arianna othe Windisle, 2/96 p. 1)
[a bear rampant contourny sustaining a halberd] Regarding the "significance" of the halberd, as Green Crown noted, a charge consisting mostly of a long skinny handle will always have difficulty matching the visual weight of other charges, but here the sizes of the charges are about the same as would be expected if they were in fess a bear and a halberd. That seems to be a reasonable rule of thumb for determining sustained (and qualifying for a CD), as opposed to maintained (and not qualifying for a CD), charges. (Wynn of Naevehjem, 9/94 p. 9)
The commentary is in, with a clear majority of commenters in favor of adopting Baron Bruce's proposal that we continue to accept garden roses in SCA armory, but simply blazon them as roses. As a consequence, we will immediately and henceforth blazon a rose, whether the default heraldic rose or the garden rose, as a rose. (CL 11/94)
The swords were originally blazoned as "three swords in triangle". The problem with that blazon, however, is that it leaves one wondering where to stop (in estoile, in mullet of six points, in fleam, in lion rampant?). The blazon as modified and registered seems the most appropriate. [It was blazoned as a triangle of three swords] (Leon von Schrecken, 11/94 p. 10)
The rule of thumb which has been applied recently in attempting to determine whether a charge was relatively small (and therefore maintained, and too small to count for a CD) or relatively large (sustained, and large enough to count for a CD), is whether if the two charges were separated they would be seen as a primary charge and a secondary charge or as a set of two primary charges. (Winifred Corbet de Wynterwood, 12/94 p. 3)
[Per chevron, a chevron and in base a <charge>] Though, as a number of commenters noted, the field division and chevron were drawn higher on the field than normal, in a design like this the chevron will normally be enhanced. It is not necessary to blazon the fact. (Andrew of Cork, 12/94 p. 5)
[registering the blazon a phoenix rousant wings addorsed] The phoenix is not truly "rising", a posture which for phoenices is the equivalent of "displayed". We have modified the blazon to better match the emblazon. (Battle Rock, Canton of, 2/95 p. 9)
Though blazoned in the LoI as a ducal coronet, the coronet here does not match the SCA ducal coronet, which consists of a band decorated solely with four strawberry leaves. As there appears to be no blazon adequate to recreate the specific form here, we are blazoning it simply as a coronet. (Anton Tremayne, 4/95 p. 2)
Blazoned in the LoI as a Maltese cross, the primary charge does not have the arms meeting in the center at a point, one of the defining characteristics of a Maltese cross. [It was registered as a cross formy swallowtailed] (Ranulf Throckmorton, 5/95 p. 9)
The bear was blazoned as statant displayed in the LoI, but there was a consensus among the commenters that displayed is an avian posture inappropriate for beasts (as, for example, rampant is a quadrupedal posture inappropriate for birds). [It was blazoned as statant erect affronty] (Grimhun Hroth, 7/95 p. 1)
The cross was blazoned in the LoI as recercely; this term appears to be an ambiguous one and should not be used in SCA blazon, much as we no longer use forceny, and for the same underlying reason: its ambiguity. "English heraldic writers seem, however, to have made two words, recercele and sarcelly, and have implied that they are of different origin and meaning; but there is no agreement as to what those meanings were. The French heralds seem equally at fault." (Parker, p. 494). Given this confusion among heraldists, the terms should be avoided in SCA blazon. (Merrick Xavier, 9/95 p. 3)
Blazoned in the LoI and drawn on the emblazon as "four-lobed" roses, evidence was presented that the number of petals on roses was not blazoned in period, whether of four petals or more, and so we have blazoned these simply as "roses". As a consequence, we will no longer make a distinction among roses based on the number of petals. As with garden roses, a "rose is a rose", whether of five, six, or four petals. (Eleanor de Broke, 10/95 p. 4)
A bird passant, that is to say, with one leg raised, is considered an unblazoned variant of close. (Arianna othe Windisle, 2/96 p. 1)
We have decided to bring the SCA back in line with real world heraldry, at least in one area. Spurs will be palewise, rowel to chief by default. Prior registrations of spurs in the former SCA default in the A&O will be corrected to "fesswise in profile, rowel to sinister". (Harrys Rob of Wamphray, 2/96 p. 2)
[returning a bow reversed sustained by a sinister cubit
arm] The cubit/bow combination is insufficiently distinguishable from
a crossbow. (Cyril Bowman, 11/94 p. 12)
Buckets have not previously been
registered in the SCA. As the defining instance, we normally require extra
documentation for a new charge. Fortunately, Parker, p. 79, and Elvin,
pl. 39, document something very close to what is drawn here as a bucket.
These are, indeed, quite identifiable as buckets, and the term itself
is period. Given that buckets may be made from wood, leather, and metal,
we have determined that the default bucket is the wooden one; leather or
metal buckets must be so specified. (Marcan O Brien, 10/95 p. 12)
[a candle enflamed vs. a candle and candlestick flammant] A visual check of the files indicates that [the] candlestick is the vertical type and therefore insufficient to grant a CD, leaving us with only the fieldless difference. (Thecla Doria of Andritsaena, 8/94 p. 15)
[considering ...two swords each
surmounted by a tankard argent...] The tankards, being of the same
tincture as the swords, tend to become confused with them visually, making
identifiability problematical. (See RfS VII.7.a.) That being the case,
they cannot truly count as the addition of another group of charges, but
are as a modification to the swords. (Dafydd ap Morgan ap Gwydion, 2/96
p. 20)
[a single-headed chess knight vs a horse's head]
There is...nothing for single-headed chess knight versus horse's head.
(Jonathan Thorne, 9/94 p. 18)
Column see Architecture
[a compass rose vs a compass star] [There
is a CD] for the difference between a compass rose
with its prominent annulet and a compass star. (Northshield, Principality
of, 9/95 p. 15)
[returning Per bend sinister argent and checky bendwise argent and gules, a bend sinister Or...] The field here, being half metal and half color and metal, is not a neutral field, but is 75% metal. Thus, the bend sinister is in violation of RfS VIII.2.a. and VIII.2.b.i. (Elrich the Wanderer, 4/95 p. 9)
A cameleopard, or giraffe, proper is Or marked brown/tan; as such, it lacks sufficient contrast against the argent field. (Ceridwen Alianora McInnes, 6/95 p. 21)
[returning Quarterly argent and
argent semy of fir trees] "Semy should cover a defined area,
not part of a field. The effect here is visually confusing and unbalanced."
[Baldwin of Erebor, LoAR 10 Mar 85, p.14] That is the case here. It is
impossible to tell where the argent ends and the argent with semy begins,
making the device visually confusing and unbalanced. (Sophia de Forest,
2/96 p. 19)
As noted by several commenters, there is no defined viscomital coronet, "either as a physical entity or an heraldic convention." As noted in the return of Lucan von Drachenklaue (LoAR November 1991), "Viscounts and Viscountesses may use the default heraldic coronet (a crown indented of three points) if they so choose." ...we are returning this for redrawing. (Morgan fitz Arthur de Grey, 8/94 p. 17)
Though blazoned in the LoI as a
ducal
coronet, the coronet here does not match the SCA ducal coronet, which
consists of a band decorated solely with four strawberry leaves. As there
appears to be no blazon adequate to recreate the specific form here, we
are blazoning it simply as a coronet. (Anton Tremayne, 4/95 p. 2
Like any other charge which is longer than it is wide,
crampons are palewise by default. (Vladimir Zinonovich, 10/94 p. 4)
[registering a crescent fimbriated] Though legal, the fimbriation of the crescent is not very good style. (Tigranes of Bezabde, 2/95 p. 5)
...the "increscent double enarched"
is not a period charge and cannot be reliably reproduced from the blazon.
The most recent registration (of only two) in the Armorial and Ordinary
was decade ago. As has been noted by many who held this office before,
we are not bound by the mistakes of the past. We need documentation for
the use of this charge before we register it. (Sarasi Candrah, 6/95
p. 23)
[a Canterbury cross vs a cross potent quadrate ] There is a CD for...the change to the type of cross (straight arms vs. formy, plus the markedly rounded ends vs. straight) (Caithlyn O'Duirnin, 10/94 p. 2)
[Canterbury cross vs a cross patty] There is a CD for...the change to the type of cross. (Caithlyn O'Duirnin, 10/94 p. 2)
[a crosses patonce vs a cross patty] There [is a CD] for changing...the type...of the charge(s). (Elwyn Tenways, 1/95 p. 2)
[a cross formy vs a Bowen cross] ... Thus this is clear by application of X.2 for significant change of type of the primary charges. [editor's note: Laurel apparently meant that there is a substantial difference between these charges] (Grimbaldus Bacon, 5/95 p. 7)
Blazoned in the LoI as a Maltese cross, the primary charge does not have the arms meeting in the center at a point, one of the defining characteristics of a Maltese cross. [It was registered as a cross formy swallowtailed] (Ranulf Throckmorton, 5/95 p. 9)
[a patriarchal cross vs a cross of Toulouse] There is one CD for the change to the type of cross, but the "voiding" of the cross of Toulouse is a part of its definition and is not the addition of a tertiary charge. (John of Blackhawk, 8/95 p. 22)
The cross was blazoned in the LoI as recercely; this term appears to be an ambiguous one and should not be used in SCA blazon, much as we no longer use forceny, and for the same underlying reason: its ambiguity. "English heraldic writers seem, however, to have made two words, recercele and sarcelly, and have implied that they are of different origin and meaning; but there is no agreement as to what those meanings were. The French heralds seem equally at fault." (Parker, p. 494). Given this confusion among heraldists, the terms should be avoided in SCA blazon. (Merrick Xavier, 9/95 p. 3)
[registering a cross potent engrailed] Some commenters questioned the use of a complex line on an already complex cross. There is sufficient support for such a treatment from period and post-period non-SCA arms (e.g., Peshale, Argent, a cross flory engrailed sable; Cottez, Argent, a cross moline engrailed sable; Peshall, Argent, a cross patty throughout engrailed sable, (these arms also appear to exist with the cross not throughout); Coley, Argent, a cross patty throughout wavy sable; and Cotter, Argent, a cross sarcelly engrailed sable). (Ghislaine d'Auxerre, 10/95 p. 9)
Fitching a cross is not worth [a CD]. (Wolfger of Rheinfelden, 11/95 p. 15)
[a fret vs a Bowen cross]A visual comparison of the emblazons demonstrated that X.2. is reasonably applied between a fret and a Bowen cross. (Cynon Mac an Choill, 12/95 p. 5)
[returning a Jerusalem cross fimbriated] It is Laurel's belief that a cross potent, the central cross in a cross of Jerusalem, falls into the same "too complex to fimbriate" category as roses and suns. Even were that not felt to be the case, however, the amount of fimbriation, of both the cross potent and the four surrounding crosses couped, is excessive and sufficient grounds for return in and of itself. (Sebastian Blacke, 12/95 p. 22)
X.2 [does] not apply between a Latin cross and a cross patonce. (Lloyd of Penrose, 2/96 p. 20)
[a cross of four lozenges vs a cross couped vs a Maltese cross] In each case there is a clear CD for the change to type of cross, but they are not sufficiently different for X.2. to apply here. To quote from the results of Palimpsest's research into what types of changes to a cross constitute a single cadency step (as opposed to sufficient difference): "The closest [analogues to the current submission] I have found are the various arms of Banester (spelled variously as Banester, Banaster, and Banastre) in Papworth pp. 606-607. In all cases with an argent field and a sable cross are crosses plain, flory, of four fusils, humetty pointed, patonce, patty, and sarcelly. All but the first two are explicitly period, the first two having no date given. If nothing else this shows a wide variety of cross changes used to show cadency. In particular this includes the cross of four fusils, equivalent to that submitted here. Various other doublets between various crosses can be found, but these are the most relevant I have found." Based on this research, it would appear that the type of change from a cross couped or a Maltese cross to a cross of four lozenges is but a single cadency step; sufficient for a Clear Difference, but insufficient to apply X.2. for sufficient difference. (Ariane de Brie, 4/96 p. 15)
Sufficient documentation having been received ... for the use of the Cross of Santiago as a period charge and in this form, we are happy to register such cross here and in the future. (Diego Sanchez Montoya de Cordoba, 5/96 p. 15)
[a cross moline vs an ankh] There is X.2. (Sufficient Difference) difference between these two crosses; the ends of the three lower arms have been changed significantly, and the looped chiefmost arm create an outline so different from a cross moline that it was felt that if X.2. difference can apply to crosses at all (and we believe it does), it should apply to these two. (Ursula of Kyleahin, 6/96 p. 8)
A cross estoile is a post-period
charge; combining it with an annulet to create a "Celtic cross estoile"
makes it two steps from period style. This second step is one step further
than the College is normally willing to go. (Aonghus Cu, 6/96 p.
10)
[a tankard vs a chalice] [There is a CD]
for
the very visible difference between a tankard and a chalice with its long
stem and unique outline. (Brigid O'Farrell of Beckery, 9/95 p. 7)
[a delf vs a cushion] There [is a CD] for type of primary (the softer lines and tassels at each corner are fairly conspicuous on [the proposed conflict's] device). [The device was returned for a different conflict.] (Tibor of Rock Valley, 2/95 p. 12) ARMORY PRECEDENTS
[a delf vs a cushion] There [is a CD] for type of primary
(the softer lines and tassels at each corner are fairly conspicuous on
[the proposed conflict's] device). [The device was returned for a different
conflict.] (Tibor of Rock Valley, 2/95 p. 12)
[a candle enflamed vs a candle and candlestick flammant] A visual check of the files indicates that [the] candlestick is the vertical type and therefore insufficient to grant a CD, leaving us with only the fieldless difference. (Thecla Doria of Andritsaena, 8/94 p. 15)
[a tree blasted and eradicated vs. a tree eradicated] As has been noted before, in period trees were often drawn with branches each ending in a single leaf, which is not sufficiently different from a tree blasted to allow us to grant a CD between them. (Ælfwine Akeworthe, 8/94 p. 18)
[a spider inverted vs a spider] Inverting a spider is visually akin to reversing a ship; the charges are sufficiently symmetrical that inversion/reversal is not a Clear Difference. (Richenza von Schwerin, 10/94 p. 18)
[a winged serpent vs a bat-winged tree python] The change to the type of wings is too slight to count for [a CD]. [I.e. there is not a significant difference between a bird-winged and a bat-winged creature.] (Onuphrius Dru Overende, 1/95 p. 14)
[urdy vs wavy] Urdy is not a CD from wavy. [Editor's note: this is inconsistant with earlier precedent. As no mention of this is made it is unclear if the intent is to overturn prior rulings or if this is an aberation.] (Irina Francesca degli Schiavoni, 2/95 p. 12)
[an otter couchant vs a ferret statant guardant] It is extremely hard to tell the difference between statant and couchant on very short-legged critters like otters and ferrets; so much so that a visual comparison of the emblazons showed very little difference between them. [No CD was given.] (Iain MacDhugal Cameron of Ben Liath, 5/95 p. 10)
[a goose displayed vs an eagle displayed] The goose displayed is insufficiently different from an eagle displayed to grant a CD. (Thosheim, Canton of, 5/95 p. 12)
[a salamander...enflamed vs a natural chameleon] A comparison of the two emblazons demonstrated that the two lizards are in identical postures and that the differences between them were all in the same categories as those considered to be too minor to grant a CD. (Balian de Brionne, 5/95 p. 14)
[Gyronny purpure and argent, a compass star elongated to base, a bordure counterchanged vs Gyronny of six purpure and argent, a mullet of six points azure within a bordure counterchanged.] There is a CD for the tincture of the primary charge, but there are no other countable differences between the two devices. [Editor's note: thus implying no significant difference between gyronny and gyronny of six, nor between a compass star elongated to base and a mullet of six points] (Raffaelle de Mallorca, 6/95 p. 23)
[a compass star vs a mullet of four points] The overwhelming visual similarities between a mullet of four points and a mullet of four greater and four lesser points/compass star, both of which are non-period charges, mandates against granting a ... CD for this relatively minor difference. (Raffaelle de Mallorca, 6/95 p. 23)
[a parrot vs a falcon] Though X.4.e. would normally grant a CD for difference between charges considered different in period, the bird here is drawn so that it appears to be more falcon-like than parrot-like, making this a visual conflict. (Aleksandr the Traveller, 6/95 p. 25)
[an astrolabe vs an armillary sphere] The difference between this astrolabe (which is missing its chart, the back plate) and an armillary sphere, which amounts to another round thing with openwork tracery, is insufficient to grant [a CD]. (Malcolm of Fife, 6/95 p. 26)
[an estoile of five rays vs an estoile of eight rays] The difference between the number of rays of one non-standard variant of a charge and another non-standard variant of the same charge is insufficient for [a CD]. (Trimaris, Kingdom of, 6/95 p. 29)
[a shark vs a catfish] We have not generally granted a difference between types of natural fish. (Agilwulf the Loud, 8/95 p. 17)
[a frauenadler displayed argent armed and crined Or vs a harpy displayed...proper] The harpy... is mostly argent with a "flesh-colored" upper torso, effectively also argent and, even if considered as Or, far less than one-half the charge (which would be necessary to allow a CD for tincture). [I.e. there is no CD for either type or tincture] (Aralyn Ermintrude of the Falling Waters, 8/95 p. 19)
[a stag's head cabossed argent vs a stag's head cabossed argent, orbed and attired of flames proper, resting on its head a chalice Or] The change of tincture of the attires is insufficient for [a CD], and the chalice is no more prominent than any other maintained charge. (Cynnwr of Glyndwr, 9/95 p. 23)
[mullets of seven points vs estoiles of eight rays] The differences between eight pointed mullets and seven rayed estoiles was insufficient for [a CD]. (Calum Mac Dhaibhidh, 9/95 p. 26)
[a Catherine's wheel vs a cog wheel] A visual comparison showed that the only difference between the two wheels is the shape of the "bumps" on the outer edge. [No difference was given.] (Adelicia Gilwell, 10/95 p. 15)
[a yale sable vs a yale sable platy] Given that the presence of plates on yales appear to be left to the artist's discretion and not necessarily blazoned, it seems that their presence, or disappearance, is not countable in terms of difference. (Ciarán Dubh Ó Tuathail, 11/95 p. 13)
Fitching a cross is not worth [a CD]. (Wolfger of Rheinfelden, 11/95 p. 15)
We do not grant difference for mullets of four points versus compass stars. (Ramon the Chronologer, 11/95 p. 16)
[a Bourchier knot vs a Wake knot] A visual comparison of the two blazons showed that the two knots are too similar to grant [a CD]. (Arwyn of Leicester, 12/95 p. 20)
[a sea-frauenadler vs a winged merman vs a winged mermaid displayed] In each case there is... nothing for posture (which is identical) or for the minor differences among the types of the winged humanoid sea-monsters. (Ancellin Fitzalan of Newe Castle, 1/96 p. 22)
Wyverns and dragons are merely artistic variants of the same charge, just as mermaids and melusines are. (Owen ap Robert, 1/96 p. 28)
A bird passant, that is to say, with one leg raised, is considered an unblazoned variant of close. (Arianna othe Windisle, 2/96 p. 1)
An unfletched arrow is visually and heraldically indistinguishable from a lance (Trimaris, Kingdom of, 2/96 p. 21)
[a lion passant vs a cat s'elongeant] A comparison of the two emblazons demonstrated the overwhelming similarity of the postures of the two cats. (Anthony Navarre, 4/96 p. 18)
[mullets vs mullets pierced] Current research seems to indicate that mullets and mullets pierced (or spur rowels) were used interchangeably in period. As a consequence, no difference is currently granted between them. (Agnes Daunce, 5/96 p. 20)
[a butterfly vs a butterfly inverted] Given the overall symmetry of a butterfly, the inversion here does not significantly change the outline, and no CD can be granted for inverting it. (Louise LaMotte, 5/96 p. 22)
[a fish vs a swordfish] There is [no difference]
for the type between a generic fish and a swordfish. (Yrsa kistill
Gunnarsdóttir, 5/96 p. 29)
[two charges in saltire vs one charge palewise] There are CDs for number and for orientation. Neither of the maces in this submission are palewise; hence, a CD may be allowed for orientation here. As noted in the LoAR of August 1992, p, 25, "Had none of the coneys in Daniel's device been in the same posture as Kineiland's coney, then we could indeed obtain a CD for posture as well as for number. But so long as one coney has no countable difference from Kineiland, then we can only grant a single CD for adding the other three coneys. The submitter might try putting his coneys in saltire, instead of in cross." (Middle Kingdom, 9/95 p. 14)
[Per chevron argent and sable, two towers and a horse rampant counterchanged vs Argent, upon a pile inverted throughout between two ravens sable a tower argent] [i.e. two {A's} and a {B} vs two {B's} and a {C}] Clear ..., because the type of each charge in the group has been substantially changed, even though each group contains a tower. RfS X.2. states that: "Simple armory does not conflict with other simple armory if the type of every primary charge is substantially changed." Laurel takes this to mean that the type of each charge must be substantially changed from its corresponding charge in the armory being compared, not that the type of every charge must be substantially changed from the type of every charge in the other armory. (There is no CD for the field, since we treat per chevron and a pile inverted as equivalent for purposes of difference.) (Tangwystl Tyriau Gleision, 12/95 p. 13)
[registering A sun Or charged with a fool's cap per pale
gules and vert] Versus Regula Alicia la Placida, On a mullet of eight
points Or another quarterly vert and gules, there is a CD for fieldlessness
and another for the change to the change of type and half of the tincture
of the tertiary charge. While each tertiary is half gules and half
vert, the arrangement of the tinctures is such that half of each tincture
has been reversed, which counts toward the necessary two changes for tertiary
charges on a complex charge. (Alaric the Fool, 3/96 p. 5)
[a lyre vs a harp] It was the consensus of the commenting heralds and those attending the Laurel meeting that there is (and should be) a CD between a lyre and a harp. [The submission was returned for a different reason.] (Wintermist, Shire of, 7/94 p. 10)
[a jester's cap vs a jester's hood] [There is a CD] for the difference between a jester's cap and a jester's hood; the latter has the fabric which would normally extend down over the shoulders and well onto the chest, with large dags, and a hole in the front for the face to show through. It was the consensus of those at the Laurel meeting that the difference was visually equivalent to the difference between a lion and a demi-lion, for which we also grant a CD. (Gautier d'Isigny-sur-Mer, 8/94 p. 3)
[a panther rampant guardant argent spotted sable incensed gules vs a lion rampant argent] There is a CD for type for the difference between the cats, but that is all. [I.e. there is a significant but not a substantial difference.] (Ulfhethinn the Bold, 8/94 p. 15)
[wavy vs nebuly] There [is a CD] for the difference between nebuly and wavy. [Editor's note: this ruling is inconsistant with previous established practice. Since Laurel did not state that he intended to overrule past precedent this may be an aberation.] (Joscelyn Jentyl, 9/94 p. 3)
[a sword inverted vs a sword] [There is a CD] for inverting the primary charge [i.e. the sword]. (Shamus Odyll, 9/94 p. 7)
[a winged unicorn vs a pegasus] There is one CD... for the difference between a pegasus and a winged unicorn. (...If we are going to grant a difference between a unicorn and a horse, I cannot see that we can justify not granting one just because they both have added wings.) (Thorkell Bloodaxe of Gardar, 9/94 p. 8)
[an armillary sphere vs an astrolabe or a sphere] There is in each case a CD (at least) for the change in type. (Brian Caradoc Walsh, 9/94 p. 11)
[dandelion blossoms vs carnations] Conflict with [N]...with only the fieldless difference. (Suzanna the Herbalist, 9/94 p. 16)
[a single-headed chess knight vs a horse's head] There is...nothing for single-headed chess knight versus horse's head. (Jonathan Thorne, 9/94 p. 18)
[a peacock head vs various specific birds' heads] While we do not believe that there would be a CD between a peacock's head and a phoenix's head, as both have a significant and similarly shaped crest, the difference between a peacock's head and any other specific bird's head are the equivalent of the difference between an eagle's head and a griffin's head, for which we also grant a CD. (Caitlyn Emrys, 10/94 p. 1)
[a Canterbury cross vs a cross potent quadrate] There is a CD for...the change to the type of cross (straight arms vs. Formy, plus the markedly rounded ends vs. straight) (Caithlyn O'Duirnin, 10/94 p. 2)
[a Canterbury cross vs a cross patty] There is a CD for...the change to the type of cross. (Caithlyn O'Duirnin, 10/94 p. 2)
[a seven-headed dragon vs a dragon] The change in number of heads, from one to seven, is the visual equivalent of adding wings; that it, worth a CD. While we do not normally grant a CD for change to the number of heads (e.g., eagles vs double-headed eagles), the difference between seven heads and one head is sufficiently remarkable that it should be worth such a difference on a primary charge.
[one orle vs two flaunches] There was some question whether there were CDs for both type (orle vs flaunches) and number (one vs two), as you cannot have a single flaunch. It is Laurel's opinion that there is indeed a CD for number here; while they may only come in pairs, there are quite clearly two of them, on opposite sides of the field. ... As a consequence, we believe we can reasonably grant a CD for flaunches being two charges, not one. (Oscar Einhard, 10/94 p. 10)
[a peacock vert vs a peacock proper] Conflict with [N] with only one CD for the addition of the [secondary charge]. (As noted before, a peacock proper has a vert body). [i.e. there is no CD for tincture.] (Caitlyn Emrys, 10/94 p. 12)
[tiger's jambes argent marked sable vs lions gambs argent] The sable markings on the jambes here are insufficient for another [CD]. (Fearghus O'Shannon, 10/94 p. 13)
[a pawprint vs a cat's pawprint] We do not grant difference between types of pawprint. (Radbot Gunter, 10/94 p. 13)
[bull's horns vs buglehorns] There is only one CD, for the change in type of charge. [i.e. there is a significant but not a substantial difference in type] (Weland Healfdene, 10/94 p. 14)
[a lily of the valley vs an iris] There is at best one CD, for the change in type of flower. [i.e. there may be a significant difference, but definitely not a substantial difference of type] (Thora Asbiornsdottir, 10/94 p. 14)
[lions heads gorged vs lions heads, in both cases as secondary charges around a chevron] While gorging may be worth a CD when the head is the primary charge, its visual impact is much reduced when occurring on secondaries, enough so that it was felt that it was not the equivalent of the addition of a group of tertiaries to the secondaries, but rather the equivalent of the addition of a maintained charge. (Iain Jameson of Kilronan, p. 17)
[an oar inverted vs an oar] There [is a CD] for inverting the primary (and only) charge. (Ardanroe, Shire of, 11/94 p. 4)
[a birch tree vs a tree blasted and eradicated] There are technically no CDs between the two devices. (Uma, Canton of, 11/94 p. 14)
[needles vs nails] The difference between nails and needles is not sufficiently large to grant a [CD]. (Siobhan Eliot, 11/94 p. 17)
[a bird striking vs a bird rising, wings elevated and displayed] ...there is a CD ...for the dramatic change in the posture and orientation of the bird's wings (elevated and addorsed vs displayed). (Sasha Dmitrievich Dozortsev, 12/94 p. 4)
[corbies close respectant vs doves respectant] The difference in type of bird is insufficient for [a CD]. (Ástrídr Oddsdóttir, 12/94 p. 12)
[crosses patonce vs a cross patty] There are CDs for changing both the type and number of the charge(s). (Elwyn Tenways, 1/95 p. 2)
[a falcon dexter wing expanded and inverted vs an eagle rising, wings displayed] Particularly when applied to the primary charge, "close, dexter wing expanded and inverted" is a significant outline change from "rising, wings displayed". (Friedrich der Falkner, 1/95 p. 5)
[a sword vs a sword inverted] There is a CD...for inverting the [sword]. (Dmitrii Volkovich, 1/95 p. 7)
[a pale between two <charges> vs a pale between in chief two <charges>] There [is a CD] for changing [the secondaries'] position on the field (from in chief to in fess). (Michael Philip de Vere, 2/95 p. 7)
[a Mugwort plant vert vs a slip of three leaves vert and an almond slip fructed proper and Rose-wort proper and St. John's wort proper] In each case there is ... nothing for either the type or tincture of the foliage. (Alysoun Beauchamp, 2/95 p. 11)
[a stump snagged vs a fracted stump] There is...nothing for the fracting of the stump. (William of Øland, 2/95 p. 11)
[urdy vs wavy] Urdy is not a CD from wavy. [Editor's note: this is inconsistant with earlier precedent. As no mention of this is made it is unclear if the intent is to overturn prior rulings or if this is an aberation.] (Irina Francesca degli Schiavoni, 2/95 p. 12)
[a delf vs a cushion] There [is a CD] for type of primary (the softer lines and tassels at each corner are fairly conspicuous on [the proposed conflict's] device). [The device was returned for a different conflict.] (Tibor of Rock Valley, 2/95 p. 12)
[a cross formy vs a Bowen cross] This is clear by application of X.2 for significant change of type of the primary charges. [editor's note: Laurel apparently meant that there is a substantial difference between these charges] (Grimbaldus Bacon, 5/95 p. 7)
[a hare vs a rabbit sejant guardant armed with a stag's attires argent] [There is a CD] for the removal of the attires, which a comparison of the emblazons showed to be the visual equivalent of removing wings, for which we also grant a CD. (Donata Ivanovna Basistova, 5/95 p. 9)
[a patriarchal cross vs a cross of Toulouse] There is one CD for the change to the type of cross, but the "voiding" of the cross of Toulouse is a part of its definition and is not the addition of a tertiary charge. (John of Blackhawk, 8/95 p. 22)
[geese vs martlets] There is a CD for the change in posture (enraged has the wings expansed, and bodies in more of a "rising" posture), and another, given the clearly separate heraldic identity of the two birds in period, for type of bird. (Ceri of Caermarthen, 9/95 p. 4)
[a tankard vs a chalice] [There is a CD] for the very visible difference between a tankard and a chalice with its long stem and unique outline. (Brigid O'Farrell of Beckery, 9/95 p. 7)
[a bird rising wings displayed vs a bird displayed] [There is a CD] for the posture of the primary charge; rising is basically bendwise while displayed has the body clearly palewise. (Lucia Ottavia da Siena, 9/95 p. 14)
[two charges in saltire vs one charge palewise] There are CDs for number and for orientation. Neither of the maces in this submission are palewise; hence, a CD may be allowed for orientation here. As noted in the LoAR of August 1992, p, 25, "Had none of the coneys in Daniel's device been in the same posture as Kineiland's coney, then we could indeed obtain a CD for posture as well as for number. But so long as one coney has no countable difference from Kineiland, then we can only grant a single CD for adding the other three coneys. The submitter might try putting his coneys in saltire, instead of in cross." (Middle Kingdom, 9/95 p. 14)
[a compass rose vs a compass star] [There is a CD] for the difference between a compass rose with its prominent annulet and a compass star. (Northshield, Principality of, 9/95 p. 15)
[a mascle vs a rustre] [There is a] CD for the difference between a mascle and a rustre. We have no evidence that mascles and rustres were considered interchangeable in period. (Daniel de Lincoln, 10/95 p. 4)
[mullety vs estoilly] [There is a CD] for the difference between mullets and estoiles. (Heather MakKinzie of Weir, 11/95 p. 6)
Laurel is at a loss to understand the comments of those who would have us refuse to grant a CD for orientation of a charge simply because it is registered without a field. The Rules for Submission were designed to have us apply a single standard to all armory; to do otherwise would be to return to a level of complexity in the Rules that we were trying to get away from when the current Rules were implemented. The Rules grant difference for the orientation of a charge: palewise is different from bendwise is different from fesswise, regardless of the shape of the field or even the presence of a field. (Atai Tetsuko, 12/95 p. 4)
[a rose vs a garden rosebud slipped and leaved] There are CDs for the field and for the type of charge. (Aonghus Lochlainn of Loch Fyne, 12/95 p. 11)
The créquier is sufficiently different from any other kind of tree to be considered a different charge, and its stylization is more than consistent enough for it to be unlikely to be mistaken for any other kind of tree. (Not to mention the fact that we regularly give a CD between radically different types of trees; for example, fir trees and oak trees.) All things considered, I have no problem granting at least a CD for a créquier versus any other tree. (Brian of the West, 1/96 p. 19)
There is a CD for...the difference between a saltire couped (with the normal "flat" ends) and a standard saltire throughout. (Kenric Bjarnarson, 2/96 p. 12)
Quatrefoils and roses do not appear to have been considered equivalent charges in our period. (Stormvale, Shire of, 2/96 p. 12)
[a hornless goat's head vs a mountain goat's head] There is a clear point for... the addition of the very prominent horns. (Tinoran's charge is a mountain goat, drawn with horns nearly as long as a gazelle's, and not a mountain sheep with the circular "Princess Leia bun" circular horns, which would not have as great a visual impact). (Lucia del Mar, 2/96 p. 14)
[a nautilus shell vs an escallop] There[is a CD] for the type of the charge. (Atlantia, Kingdom of, 4/96 p. 2)
[a cross of four lozenges vs a cross couped vs a Maltese cross] In each case there is a clear CD for the change to type of cross, but they are not sufficiently different for X.2. to apply here. To quote from the results of Palimpsest's research into what types of changes to a cross constitute a single cadency step (as opposed to sufficient difference): "The closest [analogues to the current submission] I have found are the various arms of Banester (spelled variously as Banester, Banaster, and Banastre) in Papworth pp. 606-607. In all cases with an argent field and a sable cross are crosses plain, flory, of four fusils, humetty pointed, patonce, patty, and sarcelly. All but the first two are explicitly period, the first two having no date given. If nothing else this shows a wide variety of cross changes used to show cadency. In particular this includes the cross of four fusils, equivalent to that submitted here. Various other doublets between various crosses can be found, but these are the most relevant I have found." Based on this research, it would appear that the type of change from a cross couped or a Maltese cross to a cross of four lozenges is but a single cadency step; sufficient for a Clear Difference, but insufficient to apply X.2. for sufficient difference. (Ariane de Brie, 4/96 p. 15)
[a mammoth's skull affronty vs a ram's skull cabossed] There is clearly a CD between the two charges, but it was the consensus of the commentary, and those attending the Laurel meeting comparing the two emblazons, that sufficient difference (per RfS X.2.) between two skulls is does not exist. (Gamli Œðikollr, 5/96 p. 19)
There is clearly a CD between a schnecke and a gurges, but the consensus of the commentary and those attending the meeting that RfS X.2. does not apply between them. (Peter Schneck, 5/96 p. 20)
[a stag vs an ibex] There [is] a CD between a stag and an ibex, though X.2., Sufficient Difference, [does] not apply between the two. (Declan de Burgo, 6/96 p. 6)
[a cross formy vs a Bowen cross]This is clear by application of X.2 for significant change of type of the primary charges. [Editor's note: Laurel apparently meant that there is a substantial difference between these charges] (Grimbaldus Bacon, 5/95 p. 7)
[a seeblatt vs an escallop inverted] It was the general consensus after a visual comparison of the emblazons that there are ... sufficient differences between an escallop inverted and a seeblatt to apply X.2. between them. (Cynthia du Pré Argent, 7/95 p. 5)
[a fret vs a Bowen cross] A visual comparison of the emblazons demonstrated that X.2. is reasonably applied between a fret and a Bowen cross. (Cynon Mac an Choill, 12/95 p. 5)
X.2 [does] not apply between a Latin cross and a cross patonce. (Lloyd of Penrose, 2/96 p. 20)
[wolf's heads erased vs unicorn's heads couped at the shoulder] X.2. applies to clear by substantial change to the type of all the charges. (Énán mac Fáeláin, 3/96 p. 3)
[a cross of four lozenges vs a cross couped vs a Maltese cross] In each case there is a clear CD for the change to type of cross, but they are not sufficiently different for X.2. to apply here. To quote from the results of Palimpsest's research into what types of changes to a cross constitute a single cadency step (as opposed to sufficient difference): "The closest [analogues to the current submission] I have found are the various arms of Banester (spelled variously as Banester, Banaster, and Banastre) in Papworth pp. 606-607. In all cases with an argent field and a sable cross are crosses plain, flory, of four fusils, humetty pointed, patonce, patty, and sarcelly. All but the first two are explicitly period, the first two having no date given. If nothing else this shows a wide variety of cross changes used to show cadency. In particular this includes the cross of four fusils, equivalent to that submitted here. Various other doublets between various crosses can be found, but these are the most relevant I have found." Based on this research, it would appear that the type of change from a cross couped or a Maltese cross to a cross of four lozenges is but a single cadency step; sufficient for a Clear Difference, but insufficient to apply X.2. for sufficient difference. (Ariane de Brie, 4/96 p. 15)
[a mammoth's skull affronty vs a ram's skull cabossed] There is clearly a CD between the two charges, but it was the consensus of the commentary, and those attending the Laurel meeting comparing the two emblazons, that sufficient difference (per RfS X.2.) between two skulls is does not exist. (Gamli Œðikollr, 5/96 p. 19)
There is clearly a CD between a schnecke and a gurges, but the consensus of the commentary and those attending the meeting that RfS X.2. does not apply between them. (Peter Schneck, 5/96 p. 20)
[a stag vs an ibex] There [is] a CD between a stag and an ibex, though X.2., Sufficient Difference, [does] not apply between the two. (Declan de Burgo, 6/96 p. 6)
[a cross moline vs an ankh] There is X.2. (Sufficient
Difference) difference between these two crosses; the ends of the three
lower arms have been changed significantly, and the looped chiefmost arm
create an outline so different from a cross moline that it was felt that
if X.2. difference can apply to crosses at all (and we believe it does),
it should apply to these two. (Ursula of Kyleahin, 6/96 p. 8)
[three otters statant in annulo vs six mice couchant in annulo and three cats couchant in annulo, each biting the tail of the cat previous] [vs the mice] No one...where the emblazons were compared could see granting another for either type or posture of the animals. [vs the cats] A visual comparison demonstrated insufficient difference in type or posture to overcome the vast visual similarities. (Miriam Engelke, 1/95 p. 13)
[returning Argent, within a vol an eagle's head erased gules] Visual conflict with ... Argent, a double-headed eagle displayed gules, and ... Argent, an eagle displayed gules crowned Or. While there is sufficient technical difference between them, the overwhelming visual similarities (here, that of an eagle with the tail and legs missing, as well as a little bit of the neck)... are simply too much to allow registration. (Wyll Hauk, 10/95 p. 15)
[A compass star issuant from each point a lightning bolt argent vs Purpure, an escarbuncle argent] There is a visual conflict... There is the fieldless CD, but it takes the eye too long to sort out the other differences between the two in all the "busy-ness" of the charges. (Achbar ibn Ali, 1/96 p. 22)
[Per bend Or and azure, a Celtic cross counterchanged vs Per pale azure and Or, a Celtic cross counterchanged] Visual conflict with [N]. While it is true that the line of division of both the field and the cross have been changed, in fact less than one-half of the tincture of the cross has actually been changed, and a visual comparison of the two emblazons demonstrated that in fact the only apparent change has been to the field. (Gregory of Saint Albans, 1/96 p. 23)
RfS X.5. states that "If the tinctures, shapes, or arrangement
of the charges in a submission create an overwhelming visual resemblance
to a piece of protected armory, the submission may be held to conflict
even if sufficient theoretical difference can be counted between them."
This "visual conflict" clause of the Rules runs only one way; we may find
that two devices look to similar, but not that they look too dissimilar
in spite of technical conflict. To do otherwise is to introduce a
very high level of subjectivity to the decision process, something the
College has worked very hard to get away from. (Edmund the Lame,
6/96 p. 12)
Buckets have not previously been registered in the SCA. As the defining instance, we normally require extra documentation for a new charge. Fortunately, Parker, p. 79, and Elvin, pl. 39, document something very close to what is drawn here as a bucket. These are, indeed, quite identifiable as buckets, and the term itself is period. Given that buckets may be made from wood, leather, and metal, we have determined that the default bucket is the wooden one; leather or metal buckets must be so specified. (Marcan O Brien, 10/95 p. 12)
Given only two prior SCA registrations, and the fact that the earliest documentary evidence outside the SCA for the charge dates from the last half of the Seventeenth Century, we feel that we need more support for the chevron disjoint as a period or at least SCA-compatible charge before we register it again. (Cecille Marie Gabryell Geneviève du Mont, 10/95 p. 16)
Though no columns fracted have been registered before, this seems a reasonable extension of the already-registered sword fracted. (Shimshon Aryeh ben Avraham, 11/95 p. 9)
[considering an owl's head jessant-de-lis] There
was ... some concern that we here we are getting too far from period practice.
(Period practice being leopard's head jessant-de-lys; one step from period
practice being other beast's heads; and two steps from period practice
being other types of heads, including birds' heads.) Given that we
have in recent years a number of different types of heads (including humanoid)
jessant of items other than a fleur-de-lis (including a complex cross),
Laurel does not feel that this submission is so far from SCA practice as
warrant a return on that ground. [The submission was returned for a different
reason.] (Eudoxia d'Antioche, 3/96 p. 11)
[a bend sinister argent estencely sable vs a bend sinister ermine] There [are] two more [CDs] for the difference between a bend sinister ermine (a single tincture) and a bend sinister argent estencely sable (a single tincture with a semy of charges). (Elfwyn of Osprey, 5/96 p. 10)
[a seeblatt vs an escallop inverted] ...it was the general consensus after a visual comparison of the emblazons that there are ... sufficient differences between an escallop inverted and a seeblatt to apply X.2. between them. (Cynthia du Pré Argent, 7/95 p. 5)
[a nautilus shell vs an escallop] There [is a CD]
for the type of the charge. (Atlantia, Kingdom of, 4/96 p. 2)
[registering the liturgical fan] The LoI presented documentation,
which was confirmed and added to by some of the commenters, that this particular
form of fan was used to "keep flies from the sacred elements during the
celebrations of the Christian mysteries." (Encyclopedia Brittanica,
11th ed., vol. X, p. 168) Their basic shape was round and on a handle,
as the fans here are (see illustration in margin), though they were often
of openwork and made of precious metals. (Regina from Adiantum, 5/96
p. 2)
[a patriarchal cross vs a cross of Toulouse] There is one CD for the change to the type of cross, but the "voiding" of the cross of Toulouse is a part of its definition and is not the addition of a tertiary charge. (John of Blackhawk, 8/95 p. 22)
[returning a Jerusalem cross fimbriated] It is Laurel's belief that a cross potent, the central cross in a cross of Jerusalem, falls into the same "too complex to fimbriate" category as roses and suns. Even were that not felt to be the case, however, the amount of fimbriation, of both the cross potent and the four surrounding crosses couped, is excessive and sufficient grounds for return in and of itself. (Sebastian Blacke, 12/95 p. 22)
[returning vetu fimbriated] Both SCA and mundane
heralds agree, and in fact the name itself (which means "vested") shows,
that vêtu is a field division, not a charge. That it was allowed
to be fimbriated in the earlier days of the SCA does not change this fact.
(Barre FitzRobert of York, 4/96 p. 12)
[returning whales' tails] The "whale's tails" are not particularly identifiable, as tails or as some kind of bird displayed. We doubt that they should be added to the collection of allowable "animal parts" as heraldic charges. (Katherine Lamond, 6/95 p. 22)
[a shark vs a catfish] We have not generally granted a difference between types of natural fish. (Agilwulf the Loud, 8/95 p. 17)
[a fish vs a swordfish] There is [no difference]
for the type between a generic fish and a swordfish. (Yrsa kistill
Gunnarsdóttir, 5/96 p. 29)
[The] flames are not proper, but rather Or with a {prominent} interior line of gules. This is being returned for redrawing with either flames proper or flames Or. (Rúadhán Súil-glas, 9/94 p. 14)
The conclusion reached from this research is that to be truly proper, flames should be effectively a neutral charge, approximately half Or and half gules, and should generally take one of the forms as exemplified in Figs. 1, 3 or 4 above, with the "tongues" of flame being alternately Or and gules (or gules and Or). The practice in the SCA of making flames red on the outside and yellow in the center (or vice versa) appears to be based on incorrect assumptions and should be discontinued. (CL 4/95)
[returning a fox rampant...its tail flames...] Charges or, as here, parts of a charge "of flames" do not appear to be period style and tend to create the kind of visual confusion which heraldry normally attempts to avoid. (Hannah Cameron, 5/95 p. 11)
[returning two boar spears in saltire surmounted by another palewise argent enflamed sable] The "enflaming" here is not, but is rather "a sheaf of three spears-shaped flame" charged with a sheaf of three spears. This is much too complex for a flame to be. It's identifiability suffers sufficiently that it becomes next to impossible to identify it as a flame. (Picture it without the spears on it; they tend to give it better definition.) The flames here act only as a very complex fimbriation, which has been previously disallowed. (Red Spears, Barony of, 5/95 p. 14)
The charge as emblazoned could be better blazoned as on a flame a lizard gules. However, such a blazon demonstrates the main problem with the emblazon; the primary charge is a large, irregular blob, and the identifiability of the creature on the flames is impossible at any distance because both it and the flames are the same tincture. (See RfS VII.7.a. "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." and VIII.2. "All armory must have sufficient contrast to allow each element of the design to be clearly identifiable at a distance.") Were it to be redrawn in a more standard depiction (with only 1/2 to 1/3 the amount of flame as a number of gouts of flame issuant from rather than completely surrounding the lizard), it would probably be acceptable. (Giulietta da Firenze, 4/96 p. 20)
A daisy proper is argent, seeded Or. (Ardena Wildflower, 9/94 p. 11)
[dandelion blossoms vs carnations] Conflict with...only the fieldless difference. (Suzanna the Herbalist, 9/94 p. 16)
[a lily of the valley vs an iris] There is at best one CD, for the change in type of flower. [i.e. there may be a significant difference, but definitely not a substantial difference of type] (Thora Asbiornsdottir, 10/94 p. 14)
According to the OED, orchids "vary greatly in appearance, being often remarkable for brilliancy of colour or grotesqueness of form, in some cases, resembling various insects and other animals." This being the case, there is very little chance that the blazon will accurately reflect and recreate the emblazon. We are having to return this because orchids seem to have no standard or standardized form. (Alexandra Stremouchova, 11/94 p. 14)
As orchids do not have a standard or defined shape, but
come in many different shapes, the emblazon cannot be adequately blazoned,
nor would any blazon we could think of adequately reproduce the emblazon.
As a consequence, this falls afoul of RfS VII.7.a. and b. (Identification
Requirement and Reconstruction Requirement). (Dmitiri Alexandrovich
Liadov, 11/95 p. 12)
The commentary is in, with a clear majority of commenters in favor of adopting Baron Bruce's proposal that we continue to accept garden roses in SCA armory, but simply blazon them as roses. As a consequence, we will immediately and henceforth blazon a rose, whether the default heraldic rose or the garden rose, as a rose. (CL 11/94)
Commentary was nearly as strong in favor of banning garden rosebuds from armory. Consequently, we will accept whatever garden rosebuds may be in LoIs issued before December 1994, but no further registrations of this charge will be made. (CL 11/94)
Blazoned in the LoI and drawn on the emblazon as "four-lobed" roses, evidence was presented that the number of petals on roses was not blazoned in period, whether of four petals or more, and so we have blazoned these simply as "roses". As a consequence, we will no longer make a distinction among roses based on the number of petals. As with garden roses, a "rose is a rose", whether of five, six, or four petals. (Eleanor de Broke, 10/95 p. 4)
[a rose vs a garden rosebud slipped and leaved] There are CDs for the field and for the type of charge.� (Aonghus Lochlainn of Loch Fyne, 12/95 p. 11)
Quatrefoils and roses do not appear to have been considered equivalent charges in our period.� (Stormvale, Shire of, 2/96 p. 12)
Quatrefoils and roses do not appear to have been considered equivalent charges in our period.� (Stormvale, Shire of, 2/96 p. 12)
Armory Precedents
It was the consensus of the commentary that goutes are
voidable charges, per Baron Bruce's precedent. Thus, X.4.j.ii. applies
in granting a CD... (Austrechild von Mondsee, 1/95 p. 6)
Though it was argued that the Grandfather Clause should
apply here, because the submitter is the grandson of Taliesynne Nycheymwrh
yr Anghyfannedd, we are unwilling to extend that clause, heretofore limited
to members of the original registrant's immediate family, quite so far.
(Gwydion Siwrnaiydd ap Madog ap Taliesin Llan Rhyddlad, 4/95 p. 6)
There is clearly a CD between a schnecke and a gurges,
but the consensus of the commentary and those attending the meeting that
RfS X.2. does not apply between them. (Peter Schneck, 5/96 p. 2
[a jester's cap vs. a jester's hood] [There is a CD] for
the difference between a jester's cap and a jester's hood; the latter has
the fabric which would normally extend down over the shoulders and well
onto the chest, with large dags, and a hole in the front for the face to
show through. It was the consensus of those at the Laurel meeting
that the difference was visually equivalent to the difference between a
lion and a demi-lion, for which we also grant a CD. (Gautier d'Isigny-sur-Mer,
8/94 p. 3)
[a gorgon's head cabossed vs a maiden's head] There is a CD for ... type, in that a maiden's head also includes the shoulders and upper chest. This is sufficient to grant a CD from just a head. (Francesca Lucia d'Alberto dei Lorenzi, 7/94 p. 3)
[a single-headed chess knight vs a horse's head] There is...nothing for single-headed chess knight versus horse's head. (Jonathan Thorne, 9/94 p. 18)
[a peacock head vs various specific birds' heads] While we do not believe that there would be a CD between a peacock's head and a phoenix's head, as both have a significant and similarly shaped crest, the difference between a peacock's head and any other specific bird's head are the equivalent of the difference between an eagle's head and a griffin's head, for which we also grant a CD. (Caitlyn Emrys, 10/94 p. 1)
[lions heads gorged vs lions heads, in both cases as secondary charges around a chevron] While gorging may be worth a CD when the head is the primary charge, its visual impact is much reduced when occurring on secondaries, enough so that it was felt that it was not the equivalent of the addition of a group of tertiaries to the secondaries, but rather the equivalent of the addition of a maintained charge. (Iain Jameson of Kilronan, p. 17)
[The charge] here is not a unicorn's head, but a unicornate horse's head. Unicornate horses (and by extension, their heads) have been disallowed for some years now. [The device was returned] (Jean de Chauliac, 2/95 p. 12)
[a stag's head cabossed argent vs a stag's head cabossed argent, orbed and attired of flames proper, resting on its head a chalice Or] The change of tincture of the attires is insufficient for [a CD], and the chalice is no more prominent than any other maintained charge. (Cynnwr of Glyndwr, 9/95 p. 23)
[wolf's heads erased vs unicorn's heads couped at the shoulder] X.2. applies to clear by substantial change to the type of all the charges. (Énán mac Fáeláin, 3/96 p. 3)
[considering an owl's head jessant-de-lis] There was ... some concern that we here we are getting too far from period practice. (Period practice being leopard's head jessant-de-lys; one step from period practice being other beast's heads; and two steps from period practice being other types of heads, including birds' heads.) Given that we have in recent years a number of different types of heads (including humanoid) jessant of items other than a fleur-de-lis (including a complex cross), Laurel does not feel that this submission is so far from SCA practice as warrant a return on that ground. [The submission was returned for a different reason.] (Eudoxia d'Antioche, 3/96 p. 11)
[returning Per fess azure and or, in pale a stag's head caboshed conjoined at the muzzle to another caboshed inverted counterchanged] The style here (a mirror image in pale) is extremely unusual; indeed, the inversion of the basemost charge and the conjoining of the two charges so confounds their identifiability that many commenters, before hearing the blazon, thought that they were a single charge: a tree blasted and eradicated counterchanged. As such, it clearly falls afoul of the identifiability requirements of RfS VII.7.a. ("Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance."). (Eoin Mac Cainnigh, 4/96 p. 15)
[a wolf's head attired of a ram's horns vs a wolf's head] There is a CD...for the addition of the very prominent ram's horns, which are here clearly the equivalent of gorging of a coronet which has previously been granted difference in the case of a head. "When considering a full beast or monster gorged, the gorging is usually treated as an artistic detail, worth no difference. When consider the same creature's head gorged, however, the gorging is much more prominent in proportion --- and treated as a tertiary charge." (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR September 1993, p. 5) (Wolfram Faust, 5/96 p. 16)
[a mammoth's skull affronty vs a ram's skull cabossed]
There is clearly a CD between the two charges, but it was the consensus
of the commentary, and those attending the Laurel meeting comparing the
two emblazons, that sufficient difference (per RfS X.2.) between two skulls
is does not exist. (Gamli Œðikollr, 5/96 p. 19)
[returning on a heart two axes in saltire] ...RfS XI.4.
disallows having more than one charge on a shape which was used for the
display of armory. As a heart was such a shape, the presence of two
axes means we have to return this design. (Mary Black Axe, 2/95 p.
11)
[returning a Viking helm affronty] There were serious
identifiability problems with the charge in base. (See RfS VII.7.a.
"Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance.") The
"viking helm" is not a defined charge, and was not particularly identifiable
as any kind of a helm in this posture. (Except for ear pieces and
"affronty" posture, it is similar, but not sufficiently similar to be so
blazoned, to the Norman helm shown in the Pictorial Dictionary, 2d ed.,
#377b.) (Sigrid Tomasdottir, 4/96 p. 19)
[bull's horns vs buglehorns] There is only one CD, for the change in type of charge. [i.e. there is a significant but not a substantial difference in type] (Weland Healfdene, 10/94 p. 14)
[returning a stag's attires proper] Brown is not the "proper" tincture for stag's attires. (Gaston Pogue, 6/95 p. 22)
[a hornless goat's head vs a mountain goat's head] There is a clear point for... the addition of the very prominent horns. (Tinoran's charge is a mountain goat, drawn with horns nearly as long as a gazelle's, and not a mountain sheep with the circular "Princess Leia bun" circular horns, which would not have as great a visual impact). (Lucia del Mar, 2/96 p. 14)
[a wolf's head attired of a ram's horns vs a wolf's head]
There is a CD ... for the addition of the very prominent ram's horns, which
are here clearly the equivalent of gorging of a coronet which has previously
been granted difference in the case of a head. "When considering
a full beast or monster gorged, the gorging is usually treated as an artistic
detail, worth no difference. When consider the same creature's head
gorged, however, the gorging is much more prominent in proportion --- and
treated as a tertiary charge." (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR
September 1993, p. 5) (Wolfram Faust, 5/96 p. 16)
[returning a woman rampant] "Rampant" does not appear to be a human posture. ... Admittedly, there are a few registrations of such in the A&O, but the most recent appears to have been in 1985. (Robert Bedingfield of Lochmere, 1/95 p. 13)
[returning a dragon-tailed demi-woman] This...blurs the
distinctions between two existing period charges: the mermaid and the man-serpent.
... This charge fell into the same general category of "halfway between"
charges as unicornate horses... (Kriemhild Walther, 1/95 p. 14)
Identifiability & Reproducibility
The Japanese crane displayed in annulo was returned for being not identifiable some time ago, having more in common with roundels and crescents than European renditions of birds. (Patrick Donovan of Warwick, 9/94 p. 16)
[returning a spokeless Catherine wheel] The "spokeless Catherine wheel" is not really recognizable as such. Several commenters noted that it appeared to be " an annulet wavy-crested on the outer edge", which would fall afoul of the ban on the use of the wavy-crested line of division. (Catherine of Gordonhall, 9/94 p. 17)
[returning a bat close inverted] The bat is not at all identifiable in this posture. (Kiera Nighthawk, 9/94 p. 18)
[registering Per bend...on a roundel a horse rampant contourny, a bordure counterchanged.] The device is rather striking, but is also pushing at the limits of acceptable counterchanging. (Richard of Troll Fen, 11/94 p. 7)
[registering four Cavendish knots conjoined in cross] There was much commentary on the issue of whether the charge runs afoul of our long-standing ban on knotwork; the consensus here seems to be similar to that of several years ago when we were considering three Wake knots conjoined in pall: "The question is whether the conjunction of the knots diminishes their identifiability to the point where they should not be allowed. In this case, the answer seems to be 'no'. Note, however, that this would not be the case were the knots not of themselves clearly defined period heraldic charges, were the knot itself complex or requiring modification in shape to produce the conjunction (as would be the case with a Lacy knot) or were the numbers so increased...as to diminish the size seriously." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR of 26 November 1989, p. 9) It should be noted, however, that this badge is probably pushing right to the limits of the allowance; an increase of number would probably begin to reduce the identifiability of the separate knots. (Middle, Kingdom of the, 11/94 p. 8)
[returning a bow reversed sustained by a sinister cubit arm] The cubit/bow combination is insufficiently distinguishable from a crossbow. (Cyril Bowman, 11/94 p. 12)
According to the OED, orchids "vary greatly in appearance, being often remarkable for brilliancy of colour or grotesqueness of form, in some cases, resembling various insects and other animals." This being the case, there is very little chance that the blazon will accurately reflect and recreate the emblazon. We are having to return this because orchids seem to have no standard or standardized form. (Alexandra Stremouchova, 11/94 p. 14)
[returning gyronny, a maltese cross between three roundels counterchanged] This is excessively counterchanged, falling afoul of RfS VIII.3. (Dunstan Dangar of Shaddowe Woode, 11/94 p. 15)
The lute is unidentifiable as such... Lutes, like dice and tambourines, must be drawn in slightly trian aspect to be identifiable, i.e. so that the angled pegbox is visible. [The device was returned.] Kat'ryna Andreyevna Koshkina, 12/94 p. 10)
[registering gyronny, a mortar and pestle counterchanged] Only the extreme simplicity of the design allows such complex counterchanging of this relatively asymmetrical charge. (Rivka bat Shaul, 1/95 p. 4)
[returning Per pale gules and sable, an eagle checky Or and gules] The checky Or and gules eagle is completely unidentifiable on the gules portion of the field. While we have allowed checky ordinaries to share a tincture with the field, their simple outline makes it obvious what they are and identifiability is not lost. Here, because of the complex outline of the charge, that is not the case. (Rolland von Fries, 1/95 p. 13)
[returning a dragon-tailed demi-woman] This...blurs the distinctions between two existing period charges: the mermaid and the man-serpent. ...this charge fell into the same general category of "halfway between" charges as unicornate horses... (Kriemhild Walther, 1/95 p. 14)
[returning a fox rampant...its tail flames...] Charges or, as here, parts of a charge "of flames" do not appear to be period style and tend to create the kind of visual confusion which heraldry normally attempts to avoid. (See, e.g., RfS VIII.3.: "Armorial Identifiability - Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability.") (Hannah Cameron, 5/95 p. 11)
[returning whales' tails] The "whale's tails" are not particularly identifiable, as tails or as some kind of bird displayed. We doubt that they should be added to the collection of allowable "animal parts" as heraldic charges. (Katherine Lamond, 6/95 p. 22)
[returning "a quadruply-towered Eastern castle"] No one could create an adequate blazon for the primary charge, and it does not appear to follow any specific architectural type that could be blazoned. An "Eastern castle" does not appear in any of the general reference books of heraldic charges Laurel was able to consult, nor has it been registered before in the SCA. Laurel would note that the castle does not appear to match any middle eastern or Indian architecture he has seen in his studies of those areas (though he remembers seeing a not too dissimilar edifice in one of the early Sinbad movies.) As a consequence, this must be returned because the primary charge cannot be reconstructed from the blazon (as required by RfS VII.7.b), nor can it be readily identified from its appearance alone (as required by RfS VII.7.a). (Fucha de la Rua, 8/95 p. 19)
[returning a Japanese stream] The primary charge is not blazonable in standard heraldic terminology, as required by RfS VII.7.b. (Kusunoki Yoshimoto, 9/95 p. 23)
The primary charge is not a chimera of any defined type, having the body of a wingless dragon with the head of a goat and the head of a lion on either side of a dragon's head and neck. It is certainly not a "Greek" chimera, which has the body and head of a lion, a dragon's tail, and a goat's head grafted to the small of the back. As a consequence, both recognizability and reproducibility as required by RfS. VII.7.a. and b. suffer too much to allow us to register this. (Ancelin Daverenge, 9/95 p. 25)
[returning Gyronny...three Maltese crosses counterchanged] It was the consensus of those at the Laurel meeting looking at the emblazon that the counterchanging of the three crosses on the gyronny field significantly reduces their ready identifiability and thus should be considered "excessive", per RfS VIII.3. ("Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability"). (Brice Jacob, 11/95 p. 13)
[returning Per fess azure and or, in pale a stag's head caboshed conjoined at the muzzle to another caboshed inverted counterchanged] The style here (a mirror image in pale) is extremely unusual; indeed, the inversion of the basemost charge and the conjoining of the two charges so confounds their identifiability that many commenters, before hearing the blazon, thought that they were a single charge: a tree blasted and eradicated counterchanged. As such, it clearly falls afoul of the identifiability requirements of RfS VII.7.a. ("Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance."). (Eoin Mac Cainnigh, 4/96 p. 15)
[returning a Viking helm affronty] There were serious identifiability problems with the charge in base. (See RfS VII.7.a. "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance.") The "viking helm" is not a defined charge, and was not particularly identifiable as any kind of a helm in this posture. (Except for ear pieces and "affronty" posture, it is similar, but not sufficiently similar to be so blazoned, to the Norman helm shown in the Pictorial Dictionary, 2d ed., #377b.) (Sigrid Tomasdottir, 4/96 p. 19)
[returning Per fess gyronny gules and Or issuant from the line of division and Or] The use of a gyronny half of a field which shares a tincture with the other half of the field, so that in this case an Or gyron is next to the Or half of the field, makes creates a severe identifiability problem; it is extremely difficult to figure out just what the field division/s is/are. RfS VII.7.a. requires that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." To do so here requires more time and effort than is consistent with the general principles of armorial identifiability. (Stefan Remnaia Palatka, 4/96 p. 19)
The charge as emblazoned could be better blazoned as on
a flame a lizard gules. However, such a blazon demonstrates the main
problem with the emblazon; the primary charge is a large, irregular blob,
and the identifiability of the creature on the flames is impossible at
any distance because both it and the flames are the same tincture.
(See RfS VII.7.a. "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance."
and VIII.2. "All armory must have sufficient contrast to allow each element
of the design to be clearly identifiable at a distance.") Were it
to be redrawn in a more standard depiction (with only 1/2 to 1/3 the amount
of flame as a number of gouts of flame issuant from rather than completely
surrounding the lizard), it would probably be acceptable. (Giulietta
da Firenze, 4/96 p. 20)
[a spider inverted vs a spider] Inverting a spider is visually akin to reversing a ship; the charges are sufficiently symmetrical that inversion/reversal is not a Clear Difference. (Richenza von Schwerin, 10/94 p. 18)
[a butterfly vs a butterfly inverted] Given the
overall symmetry of a butterfly, the inversion here does not significantly
change the outline, and no CD can be granted for inverting it. (Louise
LaMotte, 5/96 p. 22)
[registering four Cavendish knots conjoined in cross] There was much commentary on the issue of whether the charge runs afoul of our long-standing ban on knotwork; the consensus here seems to be similar to that of several years ago when we were considering three Wake knots conjoined in pall: "The question is whether the conjunction of the knots diminishes their identifiability to the point where they should not be allowed. In this case, the answer seems to be 'no'. Note, however, that this would not be the case were the knots not of themselves clearly defined period heraldic charges, were the knot itself complex or requiring modification in shape to produce the conjunction (as would be the case with a Lacy knot) or were the numbers so increased...as to diminish the size seriously." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR of 26 November 1989, p. 9) It should be noted, however, that this badge is probably pushing right to the limits of the allowance; an increase of number would probably begin to reduce the identifiability of the separate knots. (Middle, Kingdom of the, 11/94 p. 8)
[a fret vs a Bowen cross] A visual comparison of the emblazons demonstrated that X.2. is reasonably applied between a fret and a Bowen cross. (Cynon Mac an Choill, 12/95 p. 5)
[a Bourchier knot vs a Wake knot] A visual comparison of the two blazons showed that the two knots are too similar to grant [a CD]. (Arwyn of Leicester, 12/95 p. 20)
The Fidelis knot, as an SCA invention with only two registrations to date (the 1980 defining instance and a 1993 registration), is not sufficiently well-known or defined (outside of the Pictorial Dictionary) to retain as a registrable charge, nor does there appear to be sufficient interest to continue to register it in the future. (Amice Fayel, 3/96 p. 11)
The mascle knot is an SCA invention, with only two registrations,
and is unattested anywhere else. As such, it is not sufficiently
well-known or defined (outside of the Pictorial Dictionary) to retain as
a registrable charge, nor does there appear to be sufficient interest to
continue to register it in the future. (Madigan of Kandahar, 3/96
p. 12)
An unfletched arrow is visually and heraldically indistinguishable
from a lance (Trimaris, Kingdom of, 2/96 p. 21)
A laurel wreath is nearly circular in shape; the "wreath" here is simply two sprigs of laurel, which does not meet the requirement that branch arms have a laurel wreath as a significant part of them. [The device was returned.] (Castillos del Oro, Stronghold of Los, 6/95 p. 28)
The laurel wreath is emblazoned as "lying as on a bordure", which has been disallowed for some time now. Please let them know that laurel wreaths are nearly circular in shape, and cannot follow the line of a bordure or orle. [The device was returned.] (Brennisteinvatn, Shire of, 12/95 p. 21)
Laurel wreaths are by their very nature nearly circular
in form. The "wreath" here is little more than two sprigs crossed
in saltire, and such have been cause for return ere this. [The device was
returned.] (Kestrelkeep, Canton of, 3/96 p. 10)
[tiger's jambes argent marked sable vs lions gambs argent]
The sable markings on the jambes here are insufficient for another [CD].
(Fearghus O'Shannon, 10/94 p. 13)
[urdy vs wavy] Urdy is not a CD from wavy. (Irina Francesca degli Schiavoni, 2/95 p. 12)
[registering a chief indented crusilly long at the upper
points] Pelican has found support for the unusual line of division
on the chief in a somewhat similar design element in Randle Holme's Book
(15th c.): a coat blazonable as Ermine, a chief indented flory at the upper
points sable is attributed to Adame Dovynt of Sowthereychyre (Surrey).
We find the line of division of the chief here to be a reasonable extension
of that period line. (Paul de Gorey, 5/96 p. 5)
Armory Precedents
[registering Quarterly embattled... ] In spite of the line of division, this looks like quartered arms. It is also, however, specifically legal by our rules, in this case XI.3.a. (Sean O'Nolan, 9/94 p. 4)
By current standards, a roundel invected is not considered a "standard vehicle" for the display of armory, and thus this is not considered arms of pretense under RfS XI.4. (Myron Duxippus Draco, 9/94 p. 11)
[returning on a heart two axes in saltire] RfS XI.4. disallows having more than one charge on a shape which was used for the display of armory. As a heart was such a shape, the presence of two axes means we have to return this design. (Mary Black Axe, 2/95 p. 11)
...it was a period practice for the holders of an office to marshal the arms of the office with their personal arms. This does not appear to apply to former holders of the office, but only to incumbents. As a consequence, this augmentation appears to be a claim to be the current Dragon Principal Herald, which does then fall afoul of our rules against the claim to "status or powers the submitter does not possess" (RfS XI). (Fiona Averylle of Maidenhead, 9/95 p. 27)
[returning Per pale sable and ermine, in canton a domestic
cat's face argent, a bordure counterchanged argent and sable.]
This falls afoul of RfS XI.3., which states that "Armory that appears to
marshall independent arms is considered presumptuous." The rule goes
on to note that such marshalled fields "may be used with identical charges
over the entire field, or with complex lines of partition or charges overall
that were not used for marshalling in period heraldry." The use of
a counterchanged bordure here is not used in the usual way of an overall
charge (indeed, bordures were, and are, used in a number of countries for
cadencing), and serves in no way to lessen the appearance of marshalling.
Indeed, the fact that the bordure is not counterchanged of the field only
serves to accent the appearance of the dimidiation of two independent coats,
Sable, in chief two cat's faces, a bordure argent and Ermine, a bordure
sable. (Yves le Chat Blanc, 6/96 p. 13)
[a mascle vs a rustre] [There is a] CD for the difference
between a mascle and a rustre. We have no evidence that mascles and
rustres were considered interchangeable in period. (Daniel de Lincoln,
10/95 p. 4)
The proposal lifting the restriction of the use of the
caduceus, rod of Aesculapius, and bowl of Hygeia to those with medical
credentials is affirmed. These charges are available for use by anyone
wishing to do so, regardless of their medical background, experience, or
credentials. (CL 10/95)
[registering a sea-pithon] There was some question as to whether the fish tail was sufficiently identifiable here. ...while we cannot see granting any difference at all between a pithon and a sea pithon because of the similarity of the fish and serpentine tails here, we saw no reason not to allow this variation here. (Windhaven, Shire of, 7/94 p. 5)
[a panther rampant guardant argent spotted sable incensed gules vs. a lion rampant argent] There is a CD for type for the difference between the cats, but that is all. [I.e. there is a significant but not a substantial difference.] (Ulfhethinn the Bold, 8/94 p. 15)
[a winged unicorn vs a pegasus] There is one CD... for the difference between a pegasus and a winged unicorn. (...If we are going to grant a difference between a unicorn and a horse, I cannot see that we can justify not granting one just because they both have added wings.) (Thorkell Bloodaxe of Gardar, 9/94 p. 8)
[a winged serpent vs a bat-winged tree python] The change to the type of wings is too slight to count for the necessary second. [i.e. there is not a significant difference between a bird-winged and a bat-winged creature.] (Onuphrius Dru Overende, 1/95 p. 14)
[a seven-headed dragon vs a dragon] The change in number of heads, from one to seven, is the visual equivalent of adding wings; that it, worth a CD. While we do not normally grant a CD for change to the number of heads (e.g., eagles vs double-headed eagles), the difference between seven heads and one head is sufficiently remarkable that it should be worth such a difference on a primary charge.
[registering the blazon a phoenix rousant wings addorsed] The phoenix is not truly "rising", a posture which for phoenices is the equivalent of "displayed". We have modified the blazon to better match the emblazon. (Battle Rock, Canton of, 2/95 p. 9)
[The charge] here is not a unicorn's head, but a unicornate horse's head. Unicornate horses (and by extension, their heads) have been disallowed for some years now. [The device was returned] (Jean de Chauliac, 2/95 p. 12)
[a hare vs a rabbit sejant guardant armed with a stag's attires argent] [There is a CD] for the removal of the attires, which a comparison of the emblazons showed to be the visual equivalent of removing wings, for which we also grant a CD. (Donata Ivanovna Basistova, 5/95 p. 9)
[a salamander...enflamed vs a natural chameleon] A comparison of the two emblazons demonstrated that the two lizards are in identical postures and that the differences between them were all in the same categories as those considered to be too minor to grant a CD. (Balian de Brionne, 5/95 p. 14)
[a frauenadler displayed argent armed and crined Or vs a harpy displayed...proper] The harpy... is mostly argent with a "flesh-colored" upper torso, effectively also argent and, even if considered as Or, far less than one-half the charge (which would be necessary to allow a CD for tincture). [i.e. there is no CD for either type or tincture] (Aralyn Ermintrude of the Falling Waters, 8/95 p. 19)
The primary charge is not a chimera of any defined type, having the body of a wingless dragon with the head of a goat and the head of a lion on either side of a dragon's head and neck. It is certainly not a "Greek" chimera, which has the body and head of a lion, a dragon's tail, and a goat's head grafted to the small of the back. As a consequence, both recognizability and reproducibility as required by RfS. VII.7.a. and b. suffer too much to allow us to register this. (Ancelin Daverenge, 9/95 p. 25)
[a yale sable vs a yale sable platy] Given that the presence of plates on yales appear to be left to the artist's discretion and not necessarily blazoned, it seems that their presence, or disappearance, is not countable in terms of difference. (Ciarán Dubh Ó Tuathail, 11/95 p. 13)
The Lisbjerg gripping-beast seems to have been registered only once, in March 1978 to Bjorn of Havok. In the November 1986 LoAR a `borre-style gripping beast' was returned in part because `[t]he gripping beast is not a consistent heraldic charge which could reliably be rendered by a competent heraldic artist'. Such appears also to be the case with the Lisbjerg gripping beast. Indeed, no one was able to find a source for it outside the Pictorial Dictionary, which is, it must be remembered, but a compilation of charges which have been registered in the SCA even if only, as with this charge, once. Given the obscurity of the charge, its difficulty of reproduction from the blazon, and the fact that it has not been registered since the time of the original registration some 17 years ago, we do not feel that it remains appropriate for registration in the SCA. (Thyra Thorkilsdottir, 12/95 p. 21)
[a sea-frauenadler vs a winged merman vs a winged mermaid displayed] In each case there is... nothing for posture (which is identical) or for the minor differences among the types of the winged humanoid sea-monsters. (Ancellin Fitzalan of Newe Castle, 1/96 p. 22)
Wyverns and dragons are merely artistic variants of the
same charge, just as mermaids and melusines are. (Owen ap Robert,
1/96 p. 28)
Mullet, Compass Star, & Estoile
[Gyronny purpure and argent, a compass star elongated to base, a bordure counterchanged vs Gyronny of six purpure and argent, a mullet of six points azure within a bordure counterchanged.] There is a CD for the tincture of the primary charge, but there are no other countable differences between the two devices. [Editor's note: thus implying no significant difference between gyronny and gyronny of six, nor between a compass star elongated to base and a mullet of six points] (Raffaelle de Mallorca, 6/95 p. 23)
[a compass star vs a mullet of four points] The overwhelming visual similarities between a mullet of four points and a mullet of four greater and four lesser points/compass star, both of which are non-period charges, mandates against granting a ... CD for this relatively minor difference. (Raffaelle de Mallorca, 6/95 p. 23)
[an estoile of five rays vs an estoile of eight rays] The difference between the number of rays of one non-standard variant of a charge and another non-standard variant of the same charge is insufficient for [a CD]. (Trimaris, Kingdom of, 6/95 p. 29)
[a compass rose vs a compass star] [There is a CD] for the difference between a compass rose with its prominent annulet and a compass star. (Northshield, Principality of, 9/95 p. 15)
[mullets of seven points vs estoiles of eight rays] The differences between eight pointed mullets and seven rayed estoiles was insufficient for [a CD]. (Calum Mac Dhaibhidh, 9/95 p. 26)
[mullety vs estoilly] [There is a CD] for the difference between mullets and estoiles. (Heather MakKinzie of Weir, 11/95 p. 6)
We do not grant difference for mullets of four points versus compass stars. (Ramon the Chronologer, 11/95 p. 16)
[mullets vs mullets pierced] Current research seems to indicate that mullets and mullets pierced (or spur rowels) were used interchangeably in period. As a consequence, no difference is currently granted between them. (Agnes Daunce, 5/96 p. 20)
[returning mullets [of five points] voided and interlaced]
Despite all of the commentary on this submission which discussed such things
as anti-discrimination law and various other issues, as it was in the prior
submission of this device in July 1994, "`the issue in question is modern
offense', and consideration of this device has to focus on that issue as
the central one here." [Editor's note: the entire text of this return is
approximately two pages long. Interested readers are directed to
the LoAR.] (Elzabeth Osanna Zelter, 5/96 p. 26)
[a lyre vs a harp] It was the consensus of the commenting heralds and those attending the Laurel meeting that there is (and should be) a CD between a lyre and a harp. [The submission was returned for a different reason.] (Wintermist, Shire of, 7/94 p. 10)
The lute is unidentifiable as such... Lutes, like
dice and tambourines, must be drawn in slightly trian aspect to be identifiable,
i.e. so that the angled pegbox is visible. [The device was returned.] Kat'ryna
Andreyevna Koshkina, 12/94 p. 10)
[returning a scandicus neume] The scandicus neume is not
only a very specialized (read: obscure and hard to look up) musical notation,
from the documentation the one submitted is only one of several of different
specific forms that it may take. As a consequence, there is no reasonable
way of ensuring that the blazon will recreate the emblazon. (See
RfS VII.7.b.) Even blazoning it as only a "musical note" is not adequate,
as the scandicus neume is not anything like what most people picture as
a musical note. (Arlith Arliss o' Gordon, 9/94 p. 14)
[needles vs nails] The difference between nails and needles
is not sufficiently large to grant a [CD]. (Siobhan Eliot, 11/94
p. 17)
[needles vs nails] The difference between nails and needles
is not sufficiently large to grant a [CD]. (Siobhan Eliot, 11/94
p. 17)
[an oar inverted vs an oar] There [is a CD] for inverting
the primary (and only) charge. (Ardanroe, Shire of, 11/94 p. 4)
[registering Argent, crusilly fitchy sable, a horned demon's head couped gules.] It was the consensus...that while this probably pushes the limits of offensive symbolism, it does not push them hard enough to go beyond acceptability. (Martin le Mechant, 11/94 p. 10)
[returning mullets [of five points] voided and interlaced]
Despite all of the commentary on this submission which discussed such things
as anti-discrimination law and various other issues, as it was in the prior
submission of this device in July 1994, "`the issue in question is modern
offense', and consideration of this device has to focus on that issue as
the central one here." [Editor's note: the entire text of this return is
approximately two pages long. Interested readers are directed to
the LoAR.] (Elzabeth Osanna Zelter, 5/96 p. 26)
The charge in chief is drawn too deeply into the field to be a chief triangular, not deeply enough to be a pile (which would not issue from the corners of the chief), and cannot be a per chevron inverted field because it does not issue from the sides of the shield. It needs to be drawn as clearly one or another of these instead of, as here, somewhere in between. (Aethelred of Ambrevale, 9/94 p. 21)
[one orle vs two flaunches] There was some question whether there were CDs for both type (orle vs flaunches) and number (one vs two), as you cannot have a single flaunch. It is Laurel's opinion that there is indeed a CD for number here; while they may only come in pairs, there are quite clearly two of them, on opposite sides of the field. ... As a consequence, we believe we can reasonably grant a CD for flaunches being two charges, not one. (Oscar Einhard, 10/94 p. 10)
There was a fair bit of discussion as to whether the grillage should be considered as a primary charge, as is the case with fretty. However, fretty is only considered that way because of evidence that it was an artistic variation of the fret; no such consideration can be given to grillagy, lacking a separate charge, the "grill". As a consequence, it seems the most consistent way to treat grillagy is as we treat other strewn charges and field treatments such as masoned. (Avisa of Dun Carraig, 12/94 p. 10)
[registering three scarpes enhanced and in base a mullet] In neither this case or [another on the same letter] are the bendlets nearly as enhanced as those in the returns cited in the commentary from September 1992, which amounted to the equivalent of three bendlets "in canton". The scarpes here are only slightly more "enhanced" than one would expect for three scarpes with a secondary charge only in base. (Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 2/95 p. 1)
[returning a chevronel rompu and another fracted Or] It was the consensus of the commenters and those attending the Laurel meeting that two different treatments should not be used on a group of identical charges. Though it makes a certain amount of "visual sense" here, it really is the equivalent of a chevronel indented and a chevronel embattled, or, perhaps even more parallel to this submission, a chevronel invected and a chevronel engrailed. (Johann Dähnhardt von Kniprode, 7/95 p. 7)
Given only two prior SCA registrations, and the fact that the earliest documentary evidence outside the SCA for the charge dates from the last half of the Seventeenth Century, we feel that we need more support for the chevron disjoint as a period or at least SCA-compatible charge before we register it again. (Cecille Marie Gabryell Geneviève du Mont, 10/95 p. 16)
[registering a chief...within a bordure] While, as Parker notes, the usual form is for a chief to overlie a bordure, sufficient period examples of the contrary were presented to support the bordure overlying the chief here. (Ambrosius MacDaibhidh, 12/95 p. 3)
[a fret vs a Bowen cross] A visual comparison of the emblazons demonstrated that X.2. is reasonably applied between a fret and a Bowen cross. (Cynon Mac an Choill, 12/95 p. 5)
"A pile should extend most if not all the way to the base;
properly drawn, there would not be enough room for a charge ... to fit
between the pile and the base." [Baldwin of Erebor, LoAR 16 December
1984, p. 18] "There is a long-standing precedent in the College for
banning charges, including laurel wreaths, below piles on the grounds that
a properly drawn period pile would not allow space for another charge to
rest, in whole or in part, below the pile." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane,
LoAR 25 February 1990, p. 19) "[A] pile would issue from farther
in on the chief (rather [than] from the corners) and would almost touch
the base point of the shield and would not have room for a charge beneath
it". (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR October 1990 p.21) "Piles are properly
drawn throughout, or nearly so; they would not come to a point at the point
of the [per chevron inverted] field division, as here." (Bruce Draconarius
of Mistholme, LoAR August 1992, p. 31)
As noted in all of the precedents above, piles
should be nearly throughout; these do not even come to the fess line.
(Gregory of Saint Albans, 1/96 p. 24)
There is a CD for ... the difference between a saltire
couped (with the normal "flat" ends) and a standard saltire throughout.
(Kenric Bjarnarson, 2/96 p. 12)
[a pawprint vs a cat's pawprint] ...we do not grant difference
between types of pawprint. (Radbot Gunter, 10/94 p. 13)
[returning a pentaskelion arrondy] We need some documentation
of the pentaskelion arrondy as a period or compatible charge. It
is so large a step from a triskele (which itself is not a period charge
so far as we can tell) that we need additional evidence of its acceptability
before we can register it. (Anne Isabella del Gardin, 10/94 p. 18)
[concerning a conflict with the arms of a fictional character]
The submitter has received a letter of permission to conflict from [the
author] Katherine Kurtz. We must agree, as did almost all of the
commentary, with Palimpsest, who said that "Katherine Kurtz {as a member
of the SCA} knows what her permission to conflict means and does indeed
have the right to give it." (Elspet NicDhubhghlaise bean Iain MhicThomaidh,
8/94 p. 10)
[a Mugwort plant vert vs a slip of three leaves vert and
an almond slip fructed proper and Rose-wort proper and St. John's wort
proper] In each case there is a CD for the field, but nothing for either
the type or tincture of the foliage. (Alysoun Beauchamp, 2/95 p.
11)
Pretense & Presumption
see also Marshalling
By current standards, a roundel invected is not considered a "standard vehicle" for the display of armory, and thus this is not considered arms of pretense under RfS XI.4. (Myron Duxippus Draco, 9/94 p. 11)
Several commenters stated some concern about the use of the name Cerridwen with a charge which could be perceived as a moon. However, even had the crescent been a moon, the standard in effect is excessive allusion, not just allusion. To paraphrase Baron Bruce when he instituted this more relaxed standard: One allusion to the name is not considered excessive, two allusions may be, three or more is probably right out. (Cerridwen Maelwedd, 1/95 p. 1)
[returning on a heart two axes in saltire] RfS XI.4. disallows having more than one charge on a shape which was used for the display of armory. As a heart was such a shape, the presence of two axes means we have to return this design. (Mary Black Axe, 2/95 p. 11)
[registering Per pale azure and sable, two chevronels inverted between a sun and two fleurs-de-lys Or] Though this does, in fact, have a gold fleur-de-lys on the azure portion of the field, the fleur is clearly part of a charge group, and in no way duplicates the augmentations normally associated with French royalty (a chief of France, a bordure of France, etc.). Further, a single gold fleur-de-lys on a blue field does not appear to violate the restriction actually in place. "The period examples are so numerous that I feel I must uphold the Society's ban on gold fleurs-de-lys on blue backgrounds --- and make it explicit. Neither France Ancient (Azure semy-de-lys Or) nor France Modern (Azure, three fleurs-de-lys Or) may be used in SCA heraldry, either as the field (or part thereof) or on a charge. To do so constitutes a claim to connection to French royalty, prohibited under Rule XI.1." (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR July 1992, pg. 23) It is thus the use of three or more fleurs-de-lys Or on azure which is restricted; not a single gold fleur on a blue field. (Henri Michel du Bois, 6/95 p. 13)
[returning pendant from a chain five hawk's bells] It was the consensus of some of the commenters and of all those attending the Laurel meeting that this badge pushes the line a little to far and does infringe upon the restricted knight's chain, A closed loop of chain. Indeed, given the fact that the default heraldic chain has "large, open links", only the hawk's bells keep this submission from being the restricted knight's chain (on a blue field). While the bells are arguably a significant design element, they are equally arguable as the equivalent of maintained charges worth no heraldic difference. Especially given the fact that the restricted chain is an emblem of a Society-wide order, we felt it best to take the conservative approach here and return this for conflict with the badge for the knights. (Trimaris, Kingdom of, 6/95 p. 28)
Two submissions this month required a review of our policy of banning the use of a field of Bavaria. As Laurel, Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, in the September 18, 1992 Cover Letter, pp. 2-3. reinstituted the ban on armory using a field of Bavaria (lozengy bendwise azure and argent or paly bendy azure and argent). The ban on Bavaria goes back to the tenure of Wilhelm von Schlüssel, who noted that "This field is used extensively in German civic heraldry, especially in those parts of Germany that are now or were under Bavarian influence.... Furthermore, although it usually appears in modern civic arms as a plain chief or base, or as a quarter or half of a shield, it can also be charged, as in the arms of the `Landkreis' of Riedenburg: Bavaria charged with a harp Or and on a chief gules three roses argent, seeded Or. (Unter rotem Schildhaupt, darin nebeneinander drei silbern heraldishe Rosen mit goldenen Butzen, die mit einer goldenen Harfe belegten bayerischen Rauten.) (Deutsche Wappen: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Band I, Die Landkrieswappen. Klemens Stadler, Angelsachsen-Verlag, Bremen, 1964)." Baron Bruce confirmed this "by numerous examples in Siebmacher's Wappenbuch, 1605, which gives (among other things) the important civic arms in the Holy Roman Empire. The arms of Schrobenhausen, Schärding, Dillingen, Teckendorf (Deggendorf), Weiden, Schwandorf, and Burglengenfeld, all incorporate Bavaria as part of the field; in some cases the Bavarian portion is charged. (Two other civic arms, those of Nevenstat and Schongau, use Bavaria as an inescutcheon of pretense.) Further examples are found in Neubecker & Rentzmann's 10 000 Wappen von Staaten und Städten, pp. 53-54." (18 September, 1992 Cover Letter (August, 1992 LoAR), pp. 2-3) He concluded that, "in Germany, the field of Bavaria is used in very much the same way as the arms of France were used in France." However, we protect the French motif not because of its use in French civic and other corporate heraldry, but because it was so frequently used in augmentations and to indicate a close connection to the ruling house. (See, for example, Ji í Louda's European Civic Coats of Arms, pp. 77-78.) No evidence has been proffered that Bavaria was or is used in either of these ways. In the absence of such evidence, I see no reason to continue to prohibit the use of the field lozengy bendwise azure and argent, paly bendy azure and argent, or any other near variant, such as lozengy azure and argent. (CL 8/95)
It was a period practice for the holders of an office to marshal the arms of the office with their personal arms. This does not appear to apply to former holders of the office, but only to incumbents. As a consequence, this augmentation appears to be a claim to be the current Dragon Principal Herald, which does then fall afoul of our rules against the claim to "status or powers the submitter does not possess" (RfS XI). (Fiona Averylle of Maidenhead, 9/95 p. 27)
The proposal lifting the restriction of the use of the
caduceus, rod of Aesculapius, and bowl of Hygeia to those with medical
credentials is affirmed. These charges are available for use by anyone
wishing to do so, regardless of their medical background, experience, or
credentials. (CL 10/95)
[registering a zebra proper] Though several commenters recommended blazoning the charge here as argent, striped sable, it seems that this is a "widely understood default coloration" and is therefore permissible to blazon as proper. (Sarmasia Lakadaimoniote, 5/95 p. 3)
[returning a stag's attires proper] Brown is not the "proper" tincture for stag's attires: "'There have been attires proper registered in the past, but I believe the correct policy is the one stated for ivory proper: `[It] has no fixed color. It can go from clear white to dirty yellow as it ages.' The [charge] here is yellowish, so I have made it Or.' (Wilhelm von Schlüssel, LoAR 21 February 1984, p. 5)" (Gaston Pogue, 6/95 p. 22)
PRECEDENT: Henceforward, and more in line with period heraldic practice, animals which are normally brown may be registered simply as an {X} proper (e.g., boar proper, hare proper). Animals which are frequently found as brown but also commonly appear in other tinctures in the natural world may be registered as a brown {X} proper (e.g., brown hound proper, brown horse proper).
This precedent does not, however, loosen the ban on "Linnaean proper" (Cover Letter, May 13, 1991); proper tinctures for flora and fauna which require the Linnaean genus and species to know how to color them. For example, a falcon proper will be considered to be all brown, not brown head, wings and back, buff breast with darker spots, and a tail striped with black; a hare proper will be considered to be all brown, not brown with white underbelly and tail and pink ears. This also appears to be more in keeping with period heraldic practice. (CL 10/95)
Buckets have not previously been registered in the SCA. As the defining instance, we normally require extra documentation for a new charge. Fortunately, Parker, p. 79, and Elvin, pl. 39, document something very close to what is drawn here as a bucket. These are, indeed, quite identifiable as buckets, and the term itself is period. Given that buckets may be made from wood, leather, and metal, we have determined that the default bucket is the wooden one; leather or metal buckets must be so specified. (Marcan O Brien, 10/95 p. 12)
[returning a red-tail hawk proper] Though under the new precedent for animals proper, we could have registered this had it been emblazoned as brown or even, presumably, brown with red tail feathers, the bird on the submission forms was quite clearly drawn as a red-tailed hawk in light phase proper. (According to the sources we checked, the red- tailed hawk also has a "dark phase".) This is exactly the type of "Linnaean heraldry" that has been banned for some time now, for the reason that one would have to consult a specialized non-heraldic source (in this case, a book on North American birds) to adequately reproduce the emblazon from a blazon. RfS VIII.4.c. notes that "[Proper] is not allowed if many people would have to look up the correct coloration, or if the Linnaean genus and species (or some other elaborate description) would be required to get it right." Such is the case here. (Hachille de Remiercourt, 12/95 p. 18)
[returning loaves of bread proper] Given the wide variety of colors for bread loaves in their "natural" state, dependent upon, among other things, the type(s) of flour used and the baking methods utilized, bread comes in a range of colors from almost white to almost black, and there does not appear to be a "widely understood default coloration" for bread proper. Neither does there appear to be an heraldic default. The submitter should choose one of the standard heraldic tinctures. [Editor's note: this ruling was overturned on the LoAR of 7/97 p. 8] (Gwenhwyvar Ywein, 1/96 p. 22)
[returning a chestnut Berber sagittary proper] The
charge is entirely brown; the term "Berber" was intended to reflect that
the human portion is not "flesh"-colored, but brown. Unfortunately,
"Berber" is not a synonym for "brown- skinned"; no more than "Tuareg" would
be a synonym for "blue-skinned". (Indeed, most commenters thought
it referred to the fact that the sagittary had a torse about its head.)
Nor does a mythological creature such as a sagittary fall under the "natural
critters brown proper" precedent. As a consequence, we are forced
to return this as being essentially unblazonable. (Alan atte Highcliffe,
4/96 p. 18)
ARMORY PRECEDENTS
[a salamander...enflamed vs a natural chameleon] A comparison
of the two emblazons demonstrated that the two lizards are in identical
postures and that the differences between them were all in the same categories
as those considered to be too minor to grant a CD. (Balian de Brionne,
5/95 p. 14)
The ribbon is an SCA invention. ... There seems to be
no compelling reason to register the ribbon as an heraldic charge. [i.e.
the charge is banned from registration.] (Marlene Moneta, 9/94 p. 15)
The frame saw is fesswise, cutting blade to base, which
would seem to be the most reasonable default posture. (Agnese Canigiano,
11/94 p. 1)
There is clearly a CD between a schnecke and a gurges,
but the consensus of the commentary and those attending the meeting that
RfS X.2. does not apply between them. (Peter Schneck, 5/96 p. 20)
[a seeblatt vs an escallop inverted] ...it was the general
consensus after a visual comparison of the emblazons that there are ...
sufficient differences between an escallop inverted and a seeblatt to apply
X.2. between them. (Cynthia du Pré Argent, 7/95 p. 5)
[a nautilus shell vs an escallop] There [is a CD] for
the type of the charge. (Atlantia, Kingdom of, 4/96 p. 2)
[returning a quill pen enwrapped with a snake] All of the period examples of this motif which could be found use a rod (as in the rod of Aesculapius) or column around which the snake is entwined. The use of a feather here does not seem to be a reasonable extension of period practice. (Ciar O'Byrne, 9/94 p. 19)
[registering two roses and a goblet, a serpent nowed about
the stem] There was some discussion about whether this was "slot-machine"
heraldry... Given the pattern of practice of wrapping snakes about
other charges in period, we believe that the visual reality of this is
that there are only two types of charge in the primary group: the roses
and the cup/snake combination. (Tatiana Patrovna Ilina, 11/94 p.
11)
There was very little commentary on the issue of snowflakes,
and only a small portion of that was in favor of retaining snowflakes as
charges acceptable for registration in armory in the SCA. As a consequence,
we will cease registering snowflakes in the future. (As always, people
who already have registered snowflakes may apply the grandfather clause
to future submissions.) If someone desires a snowflake, please try
to steer them to an escarbuncle. (CL 8/94)
We have decided to bring the SCA back in line with real
world heraldry, at least in one area. Spurs will be palewise, rowel
to chief by default. Prior registrations of spurs in the former SCA
default in the A&O will be corrected to "fesswise in profile, rowel
to sinister". (Harrys Rob of Wamphray, 2/96 p. 2)
There has been an increasing number of comments in recent months to the effect that a piece of submitted armory is "too complex for a badge". I am at a bit of a loss to figure out where this opinion comes from. The Rules for Submissions in effect for five years now have a single standard regarding complexity for all armory submission. There is no such standard in the Rules as too complex "for a badge", particularly since most of the "badges" about which this comment is made have fields. Such fielded badges are not "badges" at all in the classical sense, but are rather secondary armory (or armorial ensigns, or armorial cognizances, if you will). It may be that we would not have this problem to the degree that we do if we called what we register as "badges" by some other name, but every proposal which has been made in the past (e.g., "badge" for "fieldless" badges and "ensign" for "fielded" badges), has been rejected by the College. That being the case, the term "badge" as used by the SCA College of Arms is loosely defined as including all armory which is not the arms/primary device of a submitter. Such category includes secondary arms, household arms, ensigns and, yes, badges, and all of these various types of "badges" are subject to a single standard of complexity, as expressed in RfS VIII.1.a. (CL 3/95)
Another "complexity" comment which has been appearing periodically in commentary is the inclusion of a complex line of division in a submission with the "complexity count". The "rule of thumb" included in RfS VIII.1.a. is clear: "the total of the number of tinctures plus the number of types of charges in a design should not exceed eight." While it is true that a complex line of division may add some "busy-ness" to a piece of armory, it does not do so nearly to the same extent as adding different types of charges or more tinctures. As a consequence, a complex line of division should not be included in an VIII.1.a. "complexity count" when addressing an armory submission. (CL 3/95)
[registering Or, a beacon sable enflamed gules atop a mount sable, a bordure vert semy of oak leaves Or.] Though this has a technical complexity count of nine with five types of charges (beacon, flames, mount, bordure and leaves) and four tinctures (Or, sable, gules, and vert), it is at the same time so visually simple that its technical complexity is not sufficiently excessive as to warrant return under the rule of thumb of RfS VIII.1.a. (Isabel of Biconyll, 4/95 p. 2)
[registering Or, a pale gules surmounted by a boar's head erased sable armed argent, in chief two trees proper] Though as a number of commenters noted, this has a technical complexity count of nine with three types of charge (pale, head, trees) and six tinctures (Or, gules, sable, argent, vert and brown), the device is relatively simple, well- balanced, and all of the charges are clear and identifiable. Given that the rule of thumb for complexity is simply that, a rule of thumb rather than an absolute cutoff, we feel that this submission is registrable. (Bothvar Ruriksson, 5/95 p. 7
[registering Azure, a pale erminois between two panthers rampant guardant addorsed Or pellety, incensed gules, on a chief argent three fleurs-de-lys azure] While this exceeds the rule of thumb limit of RfS VIII.1.a. with four types of charges and five (or six, counting erminois as a separate tincture), it is very well-balanced and visually cohesive. That being the case, we have no qualms about registering it in spite of its technical "complexity count". (Dennet de Poitou, 8/95 p. 11)
[registering Per chevron Or and vert, two chalices vert
and a flaming brazier within a laurel wreath Or] The question arose
in commentary about when an arrangement such as this is "slot machine"
heraldry in violation of the strictures of RfS VIII.1.a., and when it is
not. There really is not a hard a fast rule one can give as an answer.
In general, however, if all of the charges in a group (here, a primary
group) are of equal visual "weight", then the arrangement will usually
be considered to be that of three or more different types of charge in
a single group. If, however, as here, the charges do not have the
same visual "weight" (here, for example, the laurel wreath does not have
the same visual weight as the other charges), then it usually will be considered
to not violate VIII.1.a.
I realize that this is not an entirely happy ruling.
The alternatives, however, are to either rule that all such arrangements
of charges violate VIII.1.a., even when the visual weight of the various
charges is quite different, or to rule that none of such arrangements violate
VIII.1.a., even when all the charges are of clearly similar or identical
visual weight. Either of these choices would "straightjacket" the
College more than I believe the we would be comfortable. (Bryniaid,
Shire of, 10/95 p. 13)
[returning an armored cubit arm bendwise grasping a thistle...and a Latin cross bottony] As in the return of the badge of Timothy of Arindale (November 1992), "The three charges are of equal visual weight, making this a group of three dissimilar charges (colloquially known as `slot-machine heraldry'. This must be returned, per Rule VIII.1.a." (Iain McConnor McCrimmon of Lymavady, 10/95 p. 21)
[registering Or, a pale azure and on a chief sable three plates, all within a bordure gules.] Though as noted by many of the commenters this submission had a complexity count of nine, with five tinctures and four types of charges, it is nonetheless well-balanced, relatively simple overall, and certainly well within the spirit of the rule of thumb limits for complexity of RfS VIII.1.a. (It must also be kept in mind that the rule of thumb contained in RfS VIII.1.a. is just that, a rule of thumb and not a hard and fast limit.) (Ambrosius MacDaibhidh, 12/95 p. 3)
[returning Per pale sable semy of arrows inverted Or and
argent semy of swords inverted azure, a griffin contourny gules]
Having the halves of the field with strewn with different charges adds
a great deal of complexity to an otherwise simple design. This is
especially so since the two different charges are both long and slender,
and both are inverted from their normal default postures, which increases
the chances of them being confused. That alone might be sufficient
to require a return for simplification. Combined with a complexity
count which is right at the rule of thumb limits of RfS VIII.1.a. (sable,
Or, argent, azure, gules, arrows, swords, and griffin), however, definitely
pushes it over the edge of acceptability. (Isabel Tamar Le Fort,
5/96 p. 18)
The College has a long standing practice of disallowing mixed charge semys. Though the commentary noted two late period examples of mundane armory with mixed-charge semys, two examples are insufficient to establish a pattern or practice sufficient to overturn the current restriction. (Brennan Halfhand, 7/94 p. 13)
[returning Per pale embattled gules and vert, in dexter a seawolf argent and in sinister two arrows Or.] Though technically this is not, by the Rules, marshalled arms (because of the complex line of division), the arrangement of the charges is so unbalanced that it cannot be considered to be period style (per RfS VIII.1.b.). (Kathryn of Wolf's Glen, 8/94 p. 14)
[returning a quill pen enwrapped with a snake] All of the period examples of this motif which could be found use a rod (as int he rod of Aesculapius) or column around which the snake is entwined. The use of a feather here does not seem to be a reasonable extension of period practice. (Ciar O'Byrne, 9/94 p. 19)
The charge in chief is drawn too deeply into the field to be a chief triangular, not deeply enough to be a pile (which would not issue from the corners of the chief), and cannot be a per chevron inverted field because it does not issue from the sides of the shield. It needs to be drawn as clearly one or another of these instead of, as here, somewhere in between. (Aethelred of Ambrevale, 9/94 p. 21)
[returning a bordure compony erminois and sable on an Or field] The ermine spots do not serve to adequately delineate the Or portions of the compony bordure from the Or field. (Aileve of Windhaven, 10/94 p. 14)
[registering a pegasus..surmounted by a chevron charged with three cinquefoils] Though at first blush this appears to be four layers, which is forbidden by the rules, RfS VIII.1.c.ii. notes that "All charges should be placed either directly on the field or entirely on other charges that lie on the field." During the tenure of Mistress Alisoun this was interpreted to mean that overall charges may be charged (especially when they are ordinaries, for which period precedent exists), as they are considered to lie "on the field". (Roheis Ireton of Attenborough, 11/94 p. 10)
[registering two roses and a goblet, a serpent nowed about the stem] There was some discussion about whether this was "slot-machine" heraldry... Given the pattern of practice of wrapping snakes about other charges in period, we believe that the visual reality of this is that there are only two types of charge in the primary group: the roses and the cup/snake combination. (Tatiana Patrovna Ilina, 11/94 p. 11)
[registering a sheaf of three rapiers surmounted by a dragon's scale] Though it could be argued that "the area of overlap is not small" in this fieldless badge, nevertheless all of the charges remain quite identifiable, and so this certainly meets the spirit of the precedents on fieldless badges with overall charges. (Dragonsspine, Barony of, 12/94 p. 7)
[returning the letter U entwined on the sinister side of a blackberry bramble] While we have allowed entwining, most entwined charges were either snakes (of which entwining around a column or rod is a period motif) or larger, more readily identifiable charges such as a rose, its slip entwined around a long, thin object (again, rather like a column or rod). The use of a letter here does not seem to be a reasonable extension of period practice. (Una of Blackberry Hollow, 1/95 p. 14)
[registering three scarpes enhanced and in base a mullet] In neither this case or [another on the same letter] are the bendlets nearly as enhances as those in the returns cited in the commentary from September 1992, which amounted to the equivalent of three bendlets "in canton". The scarpes here are only slightly more "enhanced" than one would expect for three scarpes with a secondary charge only in base. (Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 2/95 p. 1)
[returning a chevronel rompu and another fracted Or] It was the consensus of the commenters and those attending the Laurel meeting that two different treatments should not be used on a group of identical charges. Though it makes a certain amount of "visual sense" here, it really is the equivalent of a chevronel indented and a chevronel embattled, or, perhaps even more parallel to this submission, a chevronel invected and a chevronel engrailed. (Johann Dähnhardt von Kniprode, 7/95 p. 7)
[returning Argent, on a mullet of seven points vert a griffin couchant, wings close, Or, in chief two mullets of seven points vert...] The use of two different sizes of the same charge, especially when they then cause some confusion as to whether there is one group of primary charges or a primary charge and group of secondary charges, as here, has been cause for return in the past. (See, e.g., LoAR of March 1992, p. 15). Drawing all three mullets the same size, or choosing a different set of charges to go in chief, would cure this problem. (Alexandria Elizabeth Vallandigham of Cambria, 7/95 p. 7)
[returning Sable, on an annulet within an ivy vine in orle Or, three foxes courant contourny in orle azure] The overall effect of the design of this device is not period heraldic style but rather a more modern style of art. While any individual element -- the ivy vine in orle, the annulet (which in the design here reminded many of the commenters of nothing so much as a life preserver), the rotational symmetry of the charges on the annulet, the modern balance -- may not have been sufficient cause for return in and of itself, the combination works to create a design which is neither period nor heraldic. (Arslan Sanjarzade Yildirim-Kilij, 8/95 p. 20)
[returning A mullet Or charged with a fleur-de-lys florency between five daggers points outwards sable] None of the commenters could find a similar motif: a primary charged with a tertiary X and a group of five tertiary Y's. Barring documentation of such an arrangement of tertiary charges, we believe that the motif is not a period one and therefore unregistrable. [The submission was returned for this reason and for conflict.] (Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 10/95 p. 15)
[returning Per bend sinister enarched to base...] No period exemplars were noted which bent a line of division to base in this way. All of the examples noted were enarched to chief. Enarching a line of division to base in this manner does not appear to be compatible with period style. [The submission was returned for this as well as other reasons.] (Gentle Dirk, 10/95 p. 15)
The mullet here is not gyronny, which is the equivalent of quarterly and per saltire; the divisions here have been rotated roughly 22 degrees from the vertical, leaving the effect of a quilt pattern. While two commenters discussed the possibility of blazoning the motif as gyronny in cross, only two examples were cited, both of fields divided this way rather than charges. We would prefer to have more examples of such fields and/or period examples of charges being divided this way. There was additionally some concern about the reproducibility of the blazon gyronny in cross given its rarity and hence obscurity in armory. For all these reasons we are compelled to return this. (Egill the Dane, 12/95 p. 17)
[returning A compass star issuant from each point a lightning bolt argent] The overall effect of this badge is very modern, consisting as it does of a non-period charge treatment (the thunderbolts) of another non-period charge (the compass star). As such, it falls afoul of the strictures of RfS VIII.4. (Obtrusive Modernity) and VIII.4.d. (Modern Style). (Achbar ibn Ali, 1/96 p. 22)
[returning (Fieldless) An equal-armed Celtic cross vert
pierced of a mullet] The "piercing" of the cross here is essentially an
attempt to use a tinctureless (or rather, omni-tinctured) tertiary charge.
Such have been disallowed for some time. "It is not possible to eclipse
something `of the field' on a fieldless badge." (Da'ud ibn Auda,
LoAR February 1991, p. 18)
It is true that we have registered fieldless badges
consisting of a charge which has been pierced, but in these cases the piercing
was part of the definition of the charge (e.g., a mascle, a rustre) and
can hardly be considered as being in the same category as a "cross pierced
of an (omni-tinctured) mullet". (Anlon MacMatha, 1/96 p. 25)
[registering Purpure, a lion dormant and on a chief argent three lions dormant contourny purpure] While, as several commenters noted, there are precedents prohibiting the use of two different sizes of the same charge in a device, this prohibition does not run to the combination of primary and tertiary charges. It has almost always been applied to, e.g., primary and secondary, or primary and semy, groups containing two different sizes of the same charge. The use of the same charge as a primary and again as tertiary charges does not fall afoul of the prior precedents, and, indeed, can be documented as occurring in period arms. (Gwylym Penbras, 2/96 p. 12)
[returning a chevron embattled between a fox sejant gules, a demi-eagle reguardant sable, and a fox sejant gules.] Only one period example of something similar was found in the arms of Henri Habervile, Azure, in dexter chief a lion passant guardant and in sinister chief and in base cinquefoils pierced Or, and even that one had the divergent charge in the more to be expected dexter chief. We need more documentation of this motif in period before we register it. (Robert Fitz Samson, 4/96 p. 18)
[returning a caltrap within and conjoined to an annulet] This submission, especially as it was drawn with the bottom central leg extended to touch the annulet, was overwhelmingly too similar to the "peace" symbol. As such, it falls afoul of RfS VIII.4.b. "Modern Insignia - Overt allusions to ... common designs may not be registered." The peace symbol (the old "Nuclear Disarmament" symbol) is a common modern design, and as such is not registrable. (Garmon Woodworth, 6/96 p. 9)
A cross estoile is a post-period charge; combining it
with an annulet to create a "Celtic cross estoile" makes it two steps from
period style. This second step is one step further than the College
is normally willing to go. (Aonghus Cu, 6/96 p. 10)
Style-Pictorial & Naturalistic
[returning Per fess Or and sable, a tree blasted issuant from the line of division sable and a hind lodged reguardant argent bearing in its mouth a branch proper.] This does cross over the line of RfS VIII.4.a., the prohibition of "overly pictorial designs". The tree issuant from the line of division and the deer in base make an unmistakable foreground/background image which is not found in examples of period heraldry. (Katherine of Greentree, 4/95 p. 9)
[returning a cross crosslet within a mascle all between in saltire four billets saltirewise] This incarnation of the submitter's armory falls afoul of RfS VIII.4. ("Obtrusive Modernity - Armory may not use obtrusively modern designs"). "Modern" is defined there as "anything outside the period of the Society". Even Laurel, who's interests in aircraft lies in the WWII era rather than modern jets, immediately recognized this as a depiction of a HUD (heads up display) gunsight. This obtrusiveness was not so obvious in earlier submissions because of the use of a saltire rather than four billets.
[returning a sloth pendent] RfS VIII.4.c. notes
that "Excessively naturalistic use of otherwise acceptable charges may
not be registered. Excessively natural designs include those that
depict animate objects in unheraldic postures, ..." The sloth here
appears to be simply a photocopy of a drawing of the natural animal.
It is certainly in no heraldic posture, even inverted, and no one was able
to suggest either (1) a blazonable posture for it, or (2) that this would
be the default posture for a sloth. (Sven Örfendur, 10/95 p.
18)
[a sword inverted vs a sword] [There is a CD] for inverting the primary charge [i.e. the sword]. (Shamus Odyll, 9/94 p. 7)
[a sword vs a sword inverted] There is a CD..for inverting the [sword]. (Dmitrii Volkovich, 1/95 p. 7)
[returning whales' tails] The "whale's tails" are
not particularly identifiable, as tails or as some kind of bird displayed.
We doubt that they should be added to the collection of allowable "animal
parts" as heraldic charges. (Katherine Lamond, 6/95 p. 22)
[returning sharks teeth] It was the overwhelming consensus of the commentary that the "shark's teeth" were unrecognizable, as is required by RfS VII.7.a., Identification Requirement. (Agilwulf the Loud, 9/94 p. 15)
[returning a fang] It is not identifiable as drawn
here. The charge was registered in August 1991 in a Middle Kingdom
badge, but only on appeal and against Laurel's inclinations; more recently
there is a return of shark's teeth for lack of identifiability ("It was
the overwhelming consensus of the commentary that the "shark's teeth" were
unrecognizable, as is required by RfS VII.7.a., Identification Requirement."
Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR September 1994, p. 15) (Mar Arthursson, 5/96 p. 20)
[a tree blasted and eradicated vs. a tree eradicated] As has been noted before, in period trees were often drawn with branches each ending in a single leaf, which is not sufficiently different from a tree blasted to allow us to grant a CD between them. (Ælfwine Akeworthe, 8/94 p. 18)
[a birch tree vs a tree blasted and eradicated] There are technically no CDs between the two devices. (Uma, Canton of, 11/94 p. 14)
[a stump snagged vs a fracted stump] There is...nothing for the fracting of the stump. (William of Øland, 2/95 p. 11)
The créquier is sufficiently different from any
other kind of tree to be considered a different charge, and its stylization
is more than consistent enough for it to be unlikely to be mistaken for
any other kind of tree. (Not to mention the fact that we regularly
give a CD between radically different types of trees; for example, fir
trees and oak trees.) All things considered, I have no problem granting
at least a CD for a créquier versus any other tree. (Brian
of the West, 1/96 p. 19)
[returning a spokeless Catherine wheel] The "spokeless Catherine wheel" is not really recognizable as such. Several commenters noted that it appeared to be " an annulet wavy-crested on the outer edge", which would fall afoul of the ban on the use of the wavy-crested line of division. (Catherine of Gordonhall, 9/94 p. 17)
[a Catherine's wheel vs a cog wheel] A visual comparison
showed that the only difference between the two wheels is the shape of
the "bumps" on the outer edge. [No difference was given.] (Adelicia Gilwell,
10/95 p. 15)
[ a winged serpent vs a bat-winged tree python] The change
to the type of wings is too slight to count for the necessary second. [i.e.
there is not a significant difference between a bird-winged and a bat-winged
creature.] (Onuphrius Dru Overende, 1/95 p. 14)
NAME PRECEDENTS
A combination of an Old English forename with what can only be a fairly late English form of an Irish surname is too far from period practice. [The name was returned.] (Wege Teague, 10/94 p. 12)
The modern English form of the Irish patronym is entirely inconsistent with an Old English given name. [The name was returned.] (Beornheard O'Dea, 10/94 p. 14)
Submitted as William Ethelwulf Bruce, Ethelwulf is entirely out of place in the remainder of the name. (Please remember, Anglo-Saxon and 17th Century English are two entirely different languages. We have dropped the problematic element in order to register the name. (William Bruce, 2/95 p. 7)
No evidence has been presented that kennings and other poetic expressions were used as bynames. Previous returns for this reason involved Old Norse names, but the limited evidence available for Old English bynames suggests that they were equally down-to-earth. We are therefore returning this name and broadening the precedent to include Old English as well as Old Norse bynames. (Eadwine Rune-Deniga, 2/96 p. 17)
The combination of Old English and Old Norse can probably
be justified for the Danelaw, though the available evidence suggests that
such spellings as Ulfric and Wlfric (probably representing Old Swedish
or Old Danish Ulfrik) were the norm. (Wulfric Gylðir, 3/96 p.
8)
[returning the byname al-Hilal] Hilal is a given name which does not appear to have been used with the article al-. Nor does "the Crescent" appear to follow the pattern of Arabic bynames with which we are familiar. (Rashid al-Hilal, 11/94 p. 16)
Turkish does not appear to have used the Arabic bint in patronymic formations. [The name was returned.] (Atesh al- Nasmeh bint Omer, 1/95 p. 12)
[returning the epithet al-Zaa'ir] Zaa'ir was documented as a name but not as a word, so it is not clear that al-Zaa'ir is an acceptable byname. (Tadg in Sinnach, 8/95 p. 20)
[returning Arslan Sanjarzade Yildirim-Kilij] On the basis of the available information, Arslan Sanjarzade appears to be modern, Western-style Turkish name constructed from period elements; Schimmel, Islamic Names, p. 80, says, however, that the family name preceded the given name in those few families that had family names before this century. The submitter's documentation shows some period examples of names compounded from what are either simpler names or a combination of a nickname and a name, but there is no documentation for compound nicknames, nor is there evidence to show where in a period Turkish name a nickname should be placed. (Arslan Sanjarzade Yildirim-Kilij, 8/95 p. 20)
...none of the Arabic-speaking peoples seems to have used double given names, and this practice has been grounds for return in the past (Nasr Hasan ibn Muhammad Abdullaziz, Calontir, 11/93 LoAR). (Ja'mala Junaida al-Badawi, 10/95 p. 17)
[returning Umm Yaasmeen Sahar] The kunya (honorific) Umm Yaasmeen `mother of Yaasmeen' is in effect an `upside-down metronymic'; and just as metronymics do not seem to have been part of Arabic naming practice, no one has found a kunya based on a feminine name. We have previously returned Arabic names for incorporating metronymics (e.g., Raym 'Inan bint Rabi'ah, Atenveldt, 8/95 LoAR, and Aliyah bint Leyla, Middle, 4/94 LoAR); given the equal lack of evidence for the reciprocal practice and its equal implausibility in the male-oriented Arab culture, consistency requires that we return this name as well. (Umm Yaasmeen Sahar, 12/95 p. 22)
[registering Abu Isma'il Ibrahim 'Abdu'llah al Gharnatawayyi] The construction of the name is a bit questionable: Ibrahim and 'Abdu'llah are both given names, and Arabic does not seem to have used double given names. It seems possible, however, that 'Abdu'llah, literally `servant of Allah', can function here as an epithet. We do not know whether epithets of this type were used, but the idea is plausible enough to justify giving the name the benefit of the doubt. (Abu Isma'il Ibrahim 'Abdu'llah al Gharnatawayyi, 1/96 p. 1)
[returning Jaida Badr al-Din] We must return this name for violation of RfS VI.1 (Names Claiming Rank): laqabs of the form <noun> al-Din '<noun> of the Faith' were bestowed upon princes, statesmen, generals and high officers of state by the Caliph as titles and so constitute implicit claims to rank and station (Jaida Badr al-Din, 2/96 p. 18)
It still does not appear that metronymics based on personal
names were used in Arabic-speaking cultures. Laurel has found just
one example (apart from the inherently exceptional 'Isa ibn Maryam 'Jesus
son of Mary'), and Ensign has one example of a metronymic apparently based
on the mother's occupational byname. This latter discovery indicates
the desirability of further research, but for now the overwhelming weight
of cultural and onomastic evidence argues against overturning the precedents
against registering Arabic metronymics. [The name was returned.]
(Sadira bint Raya al-Asiri, 5/96 p. 23)
Celtic see Gaelic and Welsh
Wherefore art thou Gwendolyn? Two submissions this month raised the question of the name Gwendolyn. To quote Harpy Herald: `Gwendolyn is a modern spelling variant of the name of a fictional character (Guendolen) in the Historia Regum Brittaniae whose name is based on a misreading of the masculine name Guendoleu. The name was not in common use in period, in my experience, although it certainly is in the SCA. We should probably just go ahead and declare it in the same category as Ceridwen and Rhiannon as "not historically justifiable but too deeply rooted to get rid of without a fuss".' The name is certainly quite common in the SCA: in one spelling or another it has been registered to more than 50 different people. Given this level of popularity, I am reluctant to ban the name outright despite the lack of any real justification for it. I am equally reluctant to extend the allowance to modern forms of the name, however. Therefore the name will henceforth be considered `SCA-compatible' in the forms Guendolen and Gwendolen but not the modern Gwendolyn, and the underlying principle will be extended to any other forms that are proposed. (This decision can be thought of as an extension of the `Rule of Two Weirdnesses': the name itself is one weirdness, and a modern spelling is another.) (CL 8/95)
Rowen is a documented period spelling of a name used by Geoffrey of Monmouth for a fictional character; it was not used by human beings in our period but is considered `SCA-compatible'. (Rowen the Shiftless, 9/95 p. 3)
Latinized forms of Continental Germanic masculine names were not uncommonly feminized by change of ending (e.g., Amalrada from Amalradus), but the process does not appear to have operated on Irish masculine names; despite early Latinization of Brian to Brianus, the feminine Brian(n)a is modern. The name has been registered so often, however, that we are unwillingly obliged to declare it `SCA-compatible' (Brianna of Sylverwode, 12/95 p. 4)
SCA-Compatibility is Weird. This month's submission
of the name Rhonwen Briana MacLean (Atlantia) raised in almost its purest
form the question of just what is meant by `SCA-compatibility' of a name.
(Ceridwen Rhiannon MacLean might have posed the question a little more
bluntly.) Does `SCA-compatibility' give a name the same status as
an attested period name, or does it represent a kind of second-class onomastic
citizenship?
In actual usage the term SCA-compatible, when applied
to a name, appears to mean `not used by human beings in period (so far
as we know), but too popular in the SCA to be disallowed'. Thus,
use of one of these names is (on the best available evidence) a non-period
practice.. We allow many practices that were non-existent or nearly
so in period, both in our names and in our armory, but in general we stigmatize
them as `weirdnesses' and do not allow too many of them to be combined
in a single name or armory. They are `compatible' in the sense that
they are not completely disallowed, but they are still not considered fully
acceptable. It is consistent with this approach to allow a name to
include a single `SCA-compatible' element but no more; each such element
added to a name further removes it from the realm of authentic period practice.
Indeed, we see no reason to distinguish between `SCA- compatible' names
and other non-period names permitted under the provisions of RfS II.4 (Legal
Names): both are allowed as concessions to modern sensibilities despite
their inauthentic nature.
Beginning with the 5/96 meeting, therefore, use
of two individually permissible non-period elements in a single name will
be considered two `weirdnesses' and will be grounds for return. Such
elements include non-period names allowed under the Legal Name Allowance
as well as those names, apparently not used by human beings in period,
that have been declared `SCA-compatible', e.g., Briana, Ceridwen (in several
variants), Gwendolen/Guendolen, R(h)onwen, and Rowena. (CL 1/96)
Rhonwen does not seem to have been used by human beings in our period; it is the modern Welsh form of a name used by Geoffrey of Monmouth for a fictional character. Briana is a modern name that does not appear to have been used at all in period. Both have been ruled `SCA-compatible'; in accordance with current practice, we are therefore registering the name. However, we consider the use of one these names a `weirdness'; use of two is excessively weird and will be grounds for return as of the May, 1996, Laurel Meeting (Rhonwen Briana MacLean, 1/96 p. 7)
Not Another 'SCA-Compatible' Name. According to Harpy, Myrddin is a unique legendary name. Henceforth it will not be acceptable (unless, of course, evidence of actual period use can be found). (CL 4/96)
What Names Are 'SCA-Compatible'?... Having found that my own baronial herald was slightly confused on the subject of 'SCA-compatibility', I thought that it might be helpful to list the status of some of the most common names that have been considered under this rubric. The post-period English name Fiona, which is not to be confused with the period Irish name Fíona (earlier Fíne), has long been considered 'SCA-compatible'. So have the names Cer(r)idwen (Ker(r)idwen), Rhiannon, Bronwen, Branwen, Rowen(a), and Rhonwen, all of which may be found in Welsh myth and legend, but none of which seems to have been in actual use by real people in our period. Guendolen/Gwendolen, a name based on a misreading of a masculine name and attested only in fiction, was declared 'SCA-compatible' in the 8/95 Cover Letter; more modern spellings of the name were disallowed. Brian(n)a, a modern feminization of Brian that follows no known period model, was declared 'SCA-compatible' in the 12/95 Cover Letter.
The name Amber has had a checkered history in the SCA, but at present it is not considered 'SCA- compatible', and its use was disallowed in the 3/94 Cover Letter. Three months later the use of Cedric was also disallowed, and in the 4/96 Cover Letter Myrddin was disallowed. (In each case the reasons can be found in the appropriate Cover Letter.) (CL 6/96)
The names Morgana and Alana, as well as any other
similarly feminized masculine names for which there is no evidence of period
use (and which have not already been declared 'SCA-compatible'), are not
considered 'SCA- compatible'. In other words, the argument based
on the Latin/Romance practice of using inflectional endings to change the
gender of a name is not automatically valid; it must be supported either
by evidence of period use of the specific name or by evidence that the
practice was in general use in the linguistic culture of that name.
(CL 6/96)
[Morwenna 'r Glyn vs. Morwen o'r Llyn] Per RfS V.1.a., which notes that "two name phrases are considered significantly different if they differ significantly in sound and appearance" (emphasis added). It was the consensus of those at the Laurel meeting that the differences between the two names are not sufficiently "significant". (Morwenna 'r Glyn, 7/94 p. 13)
In the recent name rules revision, in Rule for Submission V.1.b.ii (Number of Name Phrases), the existence of a few anciently-registered names consisting of just a single element was overlooked. To restore the intended usage, this Rule is being modified to read: "ii. Number of Name Phrases - A personal name containing at most two name phrases does not conflict with any personal name containing a different number name phrases." The subtext remains the same. (CL 10/94)
[House Dragonmoor vs Shire of Draca Mor] The two names here are significantly closer in sound to each other than the "Auda/Ali" test. [The name was returned.] (Petrus von Burghausen, 12/94 p. 11)
[Canton of Caer Dreath vs Shire of Caer Darth] This does not conflict aurally with the registered name of the Shire of Caer Darth; the difference in pronunciation between Darth and Draeth is essentially the same as the difference between tart and trite. (Caer Draeth, Canton of, 8/95 p. 12)
[Wyll Hauk vs William of Havoc] The possibility of conflict with William of Havoc... depends on the fact that Middle English hauk derives from Old English hafoc `hawk'. Nevertheless, Hauk and Havoc look and sound significantly different. They are also not really variant forms in a single language: hauk is best viewed in this context as a late Middle or early Modern English translation of the late Old English havoc, and we don't protect translations unless they preserve both the appearance and the sound. [The name was registered.] (Wyll Hauk, 10/95 p. 3)
Under RfS V.1.i (Given Names) the given names Elizabeth and Isabeau do not conflict: they differ significantly in sound and appearance, and neither is a diminutive of the other. (It is true that Isabel/Isabeau began as a form of Elizabeth, but the two were differentiated quite early, just as Margery was from Margaret.) (Elizabeth de Valence, 12/95 p. 11)
[Mathieu Bohemond vs Matthew de Beaumont] Unfortunately, this fine name conflicts with Matthew de Beaumont, registered 9/93; they simply sound too much alike. (Mathieu Bohemond, 12/95 p. 21)
The name does not conflict with Bridgit Ruadh, registered 8/90: the Irish and English bynames look and sound substantially different. (Brighid the Red, 1/96 p. 2)
It is a close call, but the extra syllable is just enough to bring this name clear of Conn MacNeill. (Conor MacNeil, 1/96 p. 3)
[registering the Order of the Cordon Rouge] A possible aural conflict was noted with the Couronne Rouge Herald of An Tir. They are very close, but we agree with Palimpsest that they are just clear: the addition of the d and the change in the vowel of the first syllable constitute a significant difference. (There is also a quite noticeable difference in the second syllables if they are pronounced in the French style.) (Politarchopolis, Barony of, 1/96 p. 20)
[Jehan Fitz Alan vs Jonn Elynn] he question is much more difficult than most commenters realized. As Black Dove pointed out, Jehan was monosyllabic; the h was silent, and the name sounded rather like 'zhonn'. Thus, Jonn and Jehan should sound very similar despite their very different appearances and are therefore not significantly different in the sense of RfS V.1.a.i (Given Names). The question of conflict therefore depends on the bynames.
It is also quite possible that the difference in sound between Alan and Elynn is insufficient to bring them clear of each other. Nevertheless, we agree with the majority who thought that the names oughtn't to conflict; and by good fortune a strict interpretation of RfS V.1.a.ii (Bynames) justifies the conclusion that Fitz Alan is significantly different from Elynn. Certainly the two are quite different in sound and appearance; the only question is whether it is necessary to compare Elynn with Alan rather than with Fitz Alan. The rules do not explicitly cover this situation. However, any conflict between Alan and Fitz Alan lies in their potential interchangeability. Elynn, on the other hand, is not a variant of Alan and is therefore not interchangeable with Fitz Alan; consequently, the reasoning that brings Richard into conflict with Richardson does not apply to Fitz Alan and Elynn. Therefore the names need only meet the basic criterion of significant difference in sound and appearance, which, as we already noted, they clearly do. (Jehan Fitz Alan, 2/96 p. 8)
Moro and (della) Mare are sufficiently different to bring this clear of Maria Beatriz Moro. (Maria Beatrice del Mare, 2/96 p. 8)
[registering House Loch Mor] This is clear of the registered branch names Lochmorrow and Lochmere. (Alina of Loch Mor, 2/96 p. 9)
[Bridget Killeen vs Brighid Ni Chillin] As RfS V.1.b
(Conflict of Personal Names) is written, these names conflict unless either
Bridget differs significantly from Brighid, or Killeen differs significantly
from Ní Chillín. In each case the names will be considered
significantly different only if they differ significantly in sound and
appearance.
In the case of the patronymic, the particle Ní
is ignored in the comparison. Even without it, Killeen and Chillín
look significantly different. The difference in pronunciation, however,
which is mostly the difference between the sounds of k and kh, is too small
to be considered significant. The bynames, therefore, are not sufficiently
different to avoid conflict.
The situation in respect of the given names is
quite different: they do differ significantly in sound. Irish Brighid
is pronounced roughly 'breed'; a slightly earlier pronunciation would more
resemble 'bree-yid'. Both pronunciations are clearly quite different
from the usual English pronunciation of Bridget. It is less clear
how much the names differ in appearance, and unfortunately commentary dealt
only with the issue of sound.
People tend to look first at the beginnings of
words, so that privet and pricks are likely to be perceived as more similar
than pricks and trucks. Moreover, the fact that the kinship between
these names is widely recognized also tends to increase the perceived visual
similarity. After much consideration we have therefore reluctantly
decided that Brighid and Bridget are not significantly different in appearance
and in consequence are forced to conclude that the submitted name does
conflict with the Irish version already registered.
In some ways this is a regrettable decision even
apart from the question of whether the concept of name conflict is a reasonable
one. If the names were considered as wholes, rather than by elements,
there would be no conflict, since the names themselves do differ significantly
in sound and appearance. On the other hand, one of the considerations
that went into the present version of RfS V (Name Conflict) was that names
that were interchangeable in period probably ought to conflict. (For
an example see RfS 1.a.ii(b) (Locative Bynames).) Since Bridget Killeen
and Brighid Ní Chillín could indeed have signified the same
person very late in our period, it is at least consistent with other parts
of the rules to say that they conflict (Bridget Killeen, 3/96 p. 10)
The name is clear of Ian MacCoinnich, registered 9/90; Eoin and Ian are significantly different in sound as well as appearance. (Eoin Mac Cainnigh, 4/96 p. 1)
The name does not conflict with Conor MacPherson (3/96, Meridies); the forenames are markedly different in sound. (Conan MacPherson, 4/96 p. 4)
[Aethon Herald vs Aten Principal Herald] This does not conflict with the registered title of the Aten Principal Herald; both the medial consonants and the initial vowels are different. (In the quasi-Classical pronunciation usually taught nowadays, the Latin diphthong ae rhymes with eye; in the traditional English pronunciation it rhymes with me.) (Middle, Kingdom of, 5/96 p. 13)
[registering Michael Kellahan] As was noted in commentary,
the name conflicts with that of the bartender in Spider Robinson's Crosstime
Saloon books; the question is whether that character's name should be protected.
Commentary on this was light and not unanimous. Silver Crescent noted
that the name is very generic; unlike Richard Nixon of Watergate, say,
it does not demand identification with a particular person, real or fictitious,
and for this reason it is much less jolting than the latter name.
Another commenter, though arguing for protection, underlined the generic
nature of the name by remarking that he was personally acquainted with
a bartender named Michael Callahan. While granting that many members
of the Society have read the novels in question, we find ourselves in agreement
with Silver Crescent: the name is far too unremarkable to be considered
intrusively modern in an SCA context.
According to the revised wording of section III.A.4
(Names of Major Characters from Literary Works) of the Administrative Handbook,
'[c]haracters from period or modern literary works of all genres may be
considered major if they play a significant role in the action of the work
in which they appear' [emphasis added]. We do not think that it serves
the best interests of the submitter, the College, or the Society to protect
the name of every significant character in every work of fiction; only
those that would be genuinely intrusive or out of place in a Society context
warrant such protection, and as we have already explained, Michael Callahan
does not appear to us to satisfy this criterion. In contrast, Oliver
Twist is perhaps an example of a name that does satisfy it: its elements,
especially the surname, are somewhat unusual, and the widely recognized
literary reference is therefore almost inescapable. (Michael Kellahan,
5/96 p. 15)
Name Precedents
Documentation & Documentable Names
Submitted as Tamora Enderkelyn, that spelling was only documented from "Titus and Andronicus", one of Shakespeare's plays appearing in 1594, and there was no documentation that it ever entered into general use. We have therefore substituted the documented form. [Editor's note: the play in question, which is eminently missable, is Titus Andronicus.] (Tamara Enderkelyn, 8/94 p. 10)
Brianne is a modern name and apparently could only arise as a French version of Brianna; a hypothetical French form of a probably non-existent Latinized feminine form of a masculine Irish name [to borrow Palimpsest's wording] is farther from documented practice then we are willing to go. (Brianne nic Auslan de Buchanan, 8/94 p. 18)
[changing the byname Capulet] Shakespeare's use of Capulet is insufficient to establish it as an actual name. The available Italian sources suggest that Capulet is probably a distortion of Cap(p)elletti (and that Montague is similarly a distortion of Montecchi). We have substituted...Capelet, an occupational byname for maker of chaplets (small hats; chaplets, garlands). (Cecelya Capelet, 9/94 p. 2)
Submitted as ...Silverferret, the existence of Silver and Ferret as period surnames, as noted in the LoI, no more justifies Silverferret than the existence of Smith and Jones justifies Smithjones. We have therefore registered the name as an (extremely rare in period) double surname. (Eirik Silver Ferret, 9/94 p. 3)
Submitted as ...Mieleska, there already exists a feminine occupational surname meaning "miller"; as such, there is no need to construct such a name, especially without input from someone with a good knowledge of the language. We have therefore substituted the documented byname. (Agnieszka Mlynarska, 9/94 p. 10)
[returning the given name Albion] Albion is the oldest known name for Great Britain as a whole as early as circa 500 B.C.E. The mythological figure...was created to explain the ancient place-name. Names of mythological figures are generally disallowed unless shown to have been used by real humans in period. Albion appears never to have been anything but a place-name. (Albion, Son of Robyn, 9/94 p. 16)
The byname is inadequately documented. We need more than that an unnamed "native speaker" said so. Dictionary or language book citations (or better, photocopies), or a more complete explanation from an identified native speaker as to why it is correctly formed would be helpful. (A'isha al-Aneed, 9/94 p. 21)
The submitted form mixes two different transliteration systems, which has the effect of changing the pronunciation of the names. The name in its entirety should adopt a single system of transliteration. (Katia Stesnaya, 9/94 p. 21)
[returning the given name Xavier] No evidence has been found that Xavier was anything but a placename in period. The use of Xavier as a given name comes after the canonization of St. Francis Xavier, which occurred in 1622. (Xavier Tormod Macleod, 10/94 p. 15)
[returning the byname the Artful] The epithet, though the word was dated to 1613 (inside our "gray area" for documentation) is far too late to have been used in this kind of epithetical formation. (Edward the Artful, 10/94 p. 16)
A new names book to watch out for (in the negative sense) is Julia Cresswell's Bloomsbury Dictionary of First Names. I saw a copy in one of the local half-price bookstores just a few days before the Laurel meeting, thumbed through it, found several errors and immediately put it down. Then in processing the submissions at the January 1995 Laurel meeting, one of the submissions quoted it to support Llewellyn (the submitted name was changed at kingdom to the more usual Welsh spelling). Ms. Cresswell's book appears to be one that SCA heralds and submitters would do well to avoid. (CL 1/95)
The word barrister came into use so late that the form of the byname here is essentially impossible. However, names with similar meanings which were documented by the commenters included le Lawyer (1336), Lawman (1279), le Legistere (1286), and derived from OE mótere (public speaker) and OFr plaideor, plaitier (pleader), le Motere (1175), le Mouter (1327), Plaitere (1216), le Pleytour (1327), and le Pledour (1331). [The name was registered] (Ansel the Barrister, 5/95 p. 7)
Caelica appears as the title to a collection of sonnets by Sir Fulke Greville, Lord Brook, which appeared only after his death, having first been published in 1633. As such, it could not have been a part of the name pool before 1600, and must be considered to be in the same category as other similar names, such as Miranda, as out of period. [The name was returned.] (Caelica of Argyll, 5/95 p. 14)
There have been some commenters of late who have been
calling for the return of name submissions where the various elements of
the name are not dated to within 300 years of each other. Other commenters
are apparently under the impression that some names have already been returned
because their various elements are not dated to within 300 years of each
other. Laurel is at a loss to understand how a precedent set by Baron
Bruce which said specifically that a temporal discontinuity of 300 years
or more was not, in and of itself, sufficient reason to return a name,
has become in recent times the "300 year rule" requiring the return of
a submission. So that we may all be clear on the topic, I quote the
relevant precedent here:
In a number of my recent rulings, I've ruled that
excessive temporal mismatching can be considered a "weirdness", costing
the submitter the benefit of the doubt. With this LoAR [March 1993],
I hereby make the new policy official: 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. The greater the temporal divide, the
greater the anomaly: a given name and byname whose spellings are
documented within, say, a century of each other will probably be all right,
but a three-century divide is pushing it.
By itself, temporal incompatibility is still not
sufficient reason for return. I haven't yet been faced with a case
so extreme (a couple of millennia, say) to require a return; our worst
instance of temporal mismatch (Tamas of Midian) also involved geographic
mismatch as well. But henceforth, excessive temporal mismatch may
contribute to a name's unacceptability; another problem with the name may
cause it to be returned. [Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, 8 May 1993 Cover
Letter, pg. 4] (CL 6/95)
Please add Augustus Wilfrid Dellquest's These Names of Ours: A Book of Surnames (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell) to the list of name books that are unacceptable as documentation. I haven't seen the book in its entirety, but in this case even a few pages submitted as documentation are enough to show that it is worthless for our purposes. (CL 9/95)
[returning the occupational byname the Lamp Lighter] No evidence was presented that lamp-lighting was a period occupation. We shouldn't be surprised to find that it was, but given the doubts expressed by several commenters, we need some actual evidence that the byname is reasonable. The closest that we can come are some period occupational terms for lantern-bearers or candle-bearers, e.g., Latin lanternarius and the derived French surname Lanternier. (The situation is analogous to the first registration of a previously-unused charge.) (Natalie the Lamp Lighter, 11/95 p. 11)
Lea is the submitter's modern middle name. As Laurel noted in returning Needham Bledsoe (10/91 LoAR, Outlands), a modern middle name may be used as a Society given name only if it is a given name by type, and Lea is not; originally: it is a locative surname derived from Old English leah `glade; meadow; wood'. [The name was returned for this and other reasons.] (Lea of Crystal Mountain, 11/95 p. 12)
[returning Vairocana Belnon of Uddiyana] Significant interaction between Tibet and pre-seventeenth century Western culture has not been demonstrated. The Encyclopædia Britannica dates the first visits to Tibet by Western missionaries to the 17th century, and the fact that the 8th century Tibetan kingdom had some contact with the Arab conquerors of Iran still leaves Tibetans at least two removes from Western Europe. [The name was returned for this and other problems.] (Ko Fujibayashi Tashikage of Togakure, 11/95 p. 15)
[returning the byname the Whaleseeker] No one found Whaleseeker a plausible period byname, and most commenters found it intrusively modern in form. Despite the Norse trade in narwhal horns, the large Icelandic-English Dictionary compiled by Cleasby, Vigfusson, and Craigie has only one hval- (`whale-') compound describing an occupation, namely, hvalskyti `harpooner', and it seems unlikely that whaleseeking was a discrete occupation separate from command and navigation. Geirr Bassi notes the Old Norse byname hvalaskúfr `a seabird which follows the whales', which would certainly seem to be appropriate for a notably successful whaler; unfortunately, it is questionable whether it could reasonably be combined with the Latin Patricia. (Patricia the Whaleseeker, 1/96 p. 21)
The names Morgana and Alana, as well as any other similarly
feminized masculine names for which there is no evidence of period use
(and which have not already been declared 'SCA-compatible'), are not considered
'SCA- compatible'. In other words, the argument based on the Latin/Romance
practice of using inflectional endings to change the gender of a name is
not automatically valid; it must be supported either by evidence of period
use of the specific name or by evidence that the practice was in general
use in the linguistic culture of that name. (CL 6/96)
Submitted as Francis Thorppe, the double "p" is an orthographical device used to indicate that the immediately preceding vowel is short; as the vowel does not immediately precede the "p" (as it does in Throp, Thropp), the doubling of the "p" is extremely unlikely and unattested in the documentation. (Francis Thorpe, 7/94 p 1)
This spelling of the byname appears in the OED as the Danish form. Given the Danish presence in England, I can find no compelling reason not to give the submitter his desired spelling. (Ædward Stadefæste, 7/94 p. 6)
Though registered a number of times in the SCA, "dark" does not appear to be an element used in English placenames. You might tell the submitter that she would do better with Blackmoor or Swarthmoor. [The name was registered.] (Aveline of Darkmoore, 8/94 p. 5)
Submitted as ...Silverferret, the existence of Silver and Ferret as period surnames, as noted in the LoI, no more justifies Silverferret than the existence of Smith and Jones justifies Smithjones. We have therefore registered the name as an (extremely rare in period) double surname. (Eirik Silver Ferret, 9/94 p. 3)
[registering Patrick Donovan of Warwick] Submitted as Patrick Donovan Warwick, the use of double surnames (or double given names) in English was very late period, and rare enough to be remarkable. ... Since the submitter allowed changes, we have added the [preposition] to make a more likely form. (Patrick Donovan of Warwick, 9/94 p. 4)
[deleting the byname Thin Oak] Thynchere (thin cheer (face)") and Thynnewyt ("thin wit") offer only very weak support for Thinoak (let alone Thin Oak). Both describe directly some feature of the person in question. Jönsjö has no nicknames containing the word oak, and the examples of Oak at (Reaney & Wilson, 327) are all locative. (John Edward, 9/94 p. 6)
Submitted as ...the Brown-Eyed, English bynames were not formed from adjectival past participles. We have substituted the documented form. (Elisabeth Browneye, 9/94 p. 10)
[returning the byname Blackwing] None of the commenters could find any surnames based on the English word wing. (The surname Wing itself is apparently locative.) Indeed, no examples of <color><animal part> were found. Nor is there an English tradition of surnames based on armorial bearings (as there is in Germany, for example. (William Blackwing, 9/94 p. 16)
[returning the given name Albion] Albion is the oldest known name for Great Britain as a whole as early as circa 500 B.C.E. The mythological figure...was created to explain the ancient place-name. Names of mythological figures are generally disallowed unless shown to have been used by real humans in period. Albion appears never to have been anything but a place-name. (Albion, Son of Robyn, 9/94 p. 16)
[returning the byname the Crusader] Crusader appears not to be a period word. The earliest citation in the OED for crusader is from 1743. Given the history of the word crusade in the same source, a date much earlier than c. 1700 seems out of the question. (Cornelius the Crusader, 9/94 p. 17)
[returning House of the Argent Horse] "Argent" is not a common English element; as an adjective referring to a color, its use is confined almost entirely to heraldry. English, unlike German, has no tradition of house names based on armory; the authentic usage would be White Horse. (Jonathan Thorne, 9/94 p. 18)
The patronymic was Gaelic with the remainder of the name was Englished. As no examples have yet been adduced for combining fully Gaelic forms with Englished forms, we have made the smallest change possible and Englished the patronymic. (Ian MacIneirie of Inverary, 10/94 p. 7)
A combination of an Old English forename with what can only be a fairly late English form of an Irish surname is too far from period practice. [The name was returned.] (Wege Teague, 10/94 p. 12)
The modern English form of the Irish patronym is entirely inconsistent with an Old English given name. (Beornheard O'Dea, 10/94 p. 14)
[returning the byname the Artful] The epithet, though the word was dated to 1613 (inside our "gray area" for documentation) is far too late to have been used in this kind of epithetical formation. (Edward the Artful, 10/94 p. 16)
Submitted as Kendric, son of Godric, the comma is not a period usage, and we have dropped it here. (Kendric son of Godric, 11/94 p. 3)
This would be better as Alexander Kyppyn of Kirkcaldy -- the use of double surnames in English is vanishingly rare. [The name was registered anyway.] (Alexander Kyppyn Kirkcaldy, 11/94 p. 4)
All the evidence found...was that in the British Isles the "e" in "de" was not elided in the same way it was in France. The evidence shows that the byname would either have been de Arden or possibly (on the model of "de Arraz" and "Darraz") Darden. [The name was returned.] (Crispin d'Arden, 12/94 p. 13)
Sufficient documentation for the general form of <fitz><mother's name> was presented to show a practice of this pattern. (Valentine fitz Katherine, 1/95 p. 11)
Submitted as Sundered Oak, the use of the adjectival past participle in placenames has not been documented as a period pattern or practice. [The name was registered in the altered form.] (Sunderoak, Canton of, 2/95 p. 5)
Submitted as William Ethelwulf Bruce, Ethelwulf is entirely out of place in the remainder of the name. (Please remember, Anglo-Saxon and 17th Century English are two entirely different languages. We have dropped the problematic element in order to register the name. (William Bruce, 2/95 p. 7)
No documentation has been fund for combined Norse-English/Arabic names. [The name was returned.] (Eric Ibrahim Mozarab, 2/95 p. 14)
Submitted as Dustin the Mostly Harmless, the construction of the byname appears to follow no period exemplars that any of the commenters could find. We have dropped the most problematic element. (Dustin the Harmless, 4/95 p. 3)
[registering the epithet Breakring] Submitted as ... Ringbreaker..., the byname was formed in a manner which does not follow the examples (e.g., Brekedore `break door', cited in Jönsjö) for such names in period. We have modified the byname to correspond to the historical models. (Conrad Breakring of Ascalon, 5/95 p. 1)
[registering the epithet Hæweneage] Submitted as ...Haewen Eagen, all of the period exemplars of similar names are compounded into a single word. Jönsjö has a number of compounds of the form <color>+<eye>, again always as a single word and always with "eye" in the singular. The submitted form is using the plural eagan, where the singular eage is better supported by the historical examples. The OE noun eage `eye' is neuter. The adjective will be in the indefinite declension here and in the nominative singular neuter, so it will receive no ending. The byname would then be hæweneage, which we have registered. (Ælfgar Hæweneage, 5/95 p. 1)
The word barrister came into use so late that the form of the byname here is essentially impossible. However, names with similar meanings which were documented by the commenters included le Lawyer (1336), Lawman (1279), le Legistere (1286), and derived from OE mótere (public speaker) and OFr plaideor, plaitier (pleader), le Motere (1175), le Mouter (1327), Plaitere (1216), le Pleytour (1327), and le Pledour (1331). [The name was registered] (Ansel the Barrister, 5/95 p. 7)
Caelica appears as the title to a collection of sonnets by Sir Fulke Greville, Lord Brook, which appeared only after his death, having first been published in 1633. As such, it could not have been a part of the name pool before 1600, and must be considered to be in the same category as other similar names, such as Miranda, as out of period. [The name was returned.] (Caelica of Argyll, 5/95 p. 14)
The combination of the late-period Damaris with the mediaeval de Sheldon is unlikely. No convincing evidence was adduced that the preposition 'de' continued to be used with purely English place-names after the middle of the 15th century. (The example of George de Clifford in the LoI appears to result from a misreading of the source.) We are registering the name as submitted on the slim possibility that Damaris might have been used during the brief flowering of unusual and imaginative women's names c. 1200. Damaris Sheldon would be an excellent late-period Puritan name. (Damaris de Sheldon, 6/95 p. 1)
[changing the epithet the Confused] Adjectival past participles are vanishingly rare in the context of epithetical bynames. Moreover, the full text of the 1382 citation in the COED clearly shows that the author did not expect his readers necessarily to recognize the word confusid: the word is immediately explained in more familiar terms. A word that was rare and unfamiliar in 1382 (and for which the COED has no further citations in this sense until well past even the gray area of 1600-1650) is difficult to believe as a byname of this type; there simply wasn't time for it to have become familiar while such names were still being formed. However, the usual adjective form in the 14th Century appears to have been confuse, which would make an acceptable byname and which we have substituted here. (Ciaran the Confuse, 6/95 p. 9)
[returning the byname of the Thorny Rose] Inn names, which the byname here is said to be based on, were not expressed by the term "of the"; the form used was "atte" (at the). No documentation whatsoever was presented for the byname (other than it "is an Inn that [her] parents run"), and "thorny" seems somewhat redundant for roses. Kytte atte Rose would be a fine name, but is beyond the purview of "minor changes", which the submitter did not allow in any case. (Kytte of the Thorny Rose, 6/95 p. 22)
[changing Dirk Ivanovich] No one produced evidence of sufficient interaction between the Low Countries and Russia in period to justify the combination. (Direk Ivanovich, 8/95 p. 5)
Despite the lack of early citations in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary for keep as part of a castle, the citation Thomas ate Kepe 1327 from Reaney & Wilson shows that it is a legitimate mediæval topographical element. (Henry of Stone Hill Keep, 9/95 p. 8)
Such a Russian/English combination is extremely improbable in period. [The name was registered.] (Tatiana Mitford, 9/95 p. 9)
In the absence of any evidence for Polish/English names, this combination seems a bit too improbable to register. (Ladislaus de Brady, 9/95 p. 25)
[The] Lefthanded doesn't follow the syntactic pattern of attested period nicknames. [the byname was registered as [the Lefthand] (Thomas Blackswann the Lefthand, 10/95 p. 11)
[returning the epithet the Melancholy Procrastinator] The byname does not follow period models. To quote Harpy: `Independently, the concepts, linguistic patterns, and actual vocabulary of this byname can be shown to be period. It's in putting them together that it flies beyond the limits of anything we have any experience with in period.' Nicknames describing mental and moral characteristics tend in English to use native rather than learned words, and they tend to relate to everyday experience. A melancholy person might be called Chirelitle `cheer little', Waneles `without hope', or Malore `unhappy and unlucky'; a lazy or slow person, Comelate, Dolitel, Hasteles `without haste', or Lenealday `lean or rest all day' (Jönsjö, Middle English Nicknames, p. 21). (Judith the Melancholy Procrastinator, 11/95 p. 15)
The given name was submitted as Catriona, which cannot be justified as an English spelling, while the surname can only be English. Since the two spelling systems do not seem to have been combined in period, we have substituted the English spelling Catrina (pronounced almost identically). (Catrina MacKinnon, 12/95 p. 4)
The Wanderer is not a standard English byname; it is a standard SCA byname for which no period citation has yet been found. [The name was registered.] (Johan Gregor the Wanderer, 12/95 p. 7)
The epithet appeared as le Normand on the LoI; the upper-case L, which appears on his form, is rare but documentable. (Roger fitzRolf Le Normand, 1/96 p. 4)
Catriona is not a reasonable period Anglicization of Gaelic Caitriona and its variants, as may be seen from the recorded Anglo-Scottish forms Catrina and Katrina. However, the lingua anglica allowance permits it to be combined with the English version of the locative. (Catriona of Downpatrick, 1/96 p. 14)
[registering the byname Gentlehand] The byname is very unlikely. For most of our period gentle referred to good birth and breeding; the sense of softness and tenderness seems not to have appeared until the 16th century. A period expression of the idea is seen in Godhand c.1095 `good hand', which might later have appeared as Godehand. Swethand' `sweet hand' is also attested, and Mild(e)hand would be a reasonable construct. (Ragnar Gentlehand, 1/96 p. 18)
[returning the byname the Whaleseeker] No one found Whaleseeker a plausible period byname, and most commenters found it intrusively modern in form. Despite the Norse trade in narwhal horns, the large Icelandic-English Dictionary compiled by Cleasby, Vigfusson, and Craigie has only one hval- (`whale-') compound describing an occupation, namely, hvalskyti `harpooner', and it seems unlikely that whaleseeking was a discrete occupation separate from command and navigation. Geirr Bassi notes the Old Norse byname hvalaskúfr `a seabird which follows the whales', which would certainly seem to be appropriate for a notably successful whaler; unfortunately, it is questionable whether it could reasonably be combined with the Latin Patricia. (Patricia the Whaleseeker, 1/96 p. 21)
[returning the Shire of Cloudy River] The name was chosen on account of a `large, murky river' running through the shire; however, cloudy does not seem to have been used in this sense in period place-names. The Old English place-name elements fûl `foul, dirty, filthy', fennig `dirty, muddy, marshy', blæc `black, dark-colored, dark', êa `river, stream', and wæter `water, an expanse of water; lake, pool; stream, river' can be used to construct a variety of period-style place-names with basically the desired meaning. In likely Middle English forms some of these would be: Fuleye, Fulewatere, Fennywatere, Blakeye, and Blakewatere (actually attested from 1279). (Cloudy River, Shire of, 1/96 p. 23)
[returning the given name Kestrel] While some names of birds can be found as personal names in some European languages, documented examples all existed as name elements since the earliest records of the languages in question. But the earliest instance of kestrel (in any form) in the OED is from the 15th C., and if the etymology suggested there is right, the word derives from French forms that are quite different. Thus, it did not exist when such personal names of this type were still being created. It might make an acceptable byname, though it is a bit late to be very convincing even in that rôle, but it cannot have been a given name in our period. We must therefore return the name for lack of a given name (required by RfS III.2.a (Personal Names)). (Kestrel Corsayre, 1/96 p. 29)
In period Arianna is Italian, so the locative, which was submitted as of the Windy Isles, is best interpreted as a translation, permitted under the lingua anglica allowance. The extent of this allowance was discussed in detail in the 12/95 return of Ananda the Fiery (Middle); according to the precedent there cited, it covers translations of 'documented period epithets', provided that the translation has been chosen to minimize any intrusive modernity. Actual practice has been somewhat looser: not only has the College allowed non-intrusive translations of epithets thought to be compatible with the naming practices of the source language, but it has even allowed fairly generic English epithets without requiring a demonstration that they were plausible translations of period epithets from the language of the rest of the name. This latter practice can easily result in names that have very little to do with period practice in any language. Consequently, we have no qualms about requiring in such cases -- of which this is one -- that the epithet be put into a period English form. (Arianna othe Windisle, 2/96 p. 1)
The byname was submitted as Shieldbreaker. The concept is excellent, but the construction does not follow period patterns: in such nicknames the verb comes first. (Compare the 5/95 registration of Conrad Breakring of Ascalon (An Tir), whose nickname was submitted as Ringbreaker, and the 11/93 registration of Christoph Breakshield (Meridies), whose byname was submitted as Shieldbreaker.) The example of Geoffrey le Seldmakere 1285, noted in the LoI, illustrates one of the few general exceptions to this rule, namely, occupational names in -makere; it does not support a more general agent construction of the form <verb> + -er in nicknames. The spellings Brekes(h)eld would be more characteristic of the period in which such names are commonly found. (Corwin Breakshield, 2/96 p. 4)
[registering House Drakenmarsh] The household name was submitted as House Dragonmarsh, but as several commenters noted, the French import dragon does not seem to have been used in English place-names. The usual word is drake, from Old English draca, and Drakemarsh would undoubtedly be the most likely modern form. However, we were able to find one name, Drakenage (from dracen ecg 'dragon's edge (probably of an escarpment)'), in which the Old English genitive singular dracan has been preserved. It is likely that the inflectional -n owes its preservation in this name to the initial vowel of the second element; before m it would probably have been lost. Nevertheless, we have given Drakenmarsh the benefit as a possible period descendant of an Old English dracan mersc 'dragon's marsh' in order to stay as close as possible to the submitted form. (Mora Naturalist of Blackmarsh, 4/96 p. 6)
[registering the byname of the Thornes] By far the most frequent English preposition in topographical bynames is atte, though other locative prepositions are also found (e.g., by, in, under). However, we have found a few topographical bynames uncharacteristically formed with othe and recently even a very few with the uncontracted form of the. Much as we dislike reïnforcing the widespread misconception, fed by modern fantasy, that of the X is a standard sort of mediæval English byname, these examples do justify the submitted form. (Possible 15th and 16th century alternatives with a similar sound are A'Thornes and A Thornes, from the usual mediæval atte Thornes.) We note, however, that we have not found any examples of non-topographical bynames of the form of the X; apart from sign names, which use atte, the period construction is with the X (in various spellings). (Rowena of the Thornes, 5/96 p. 2)
[registering the locative of Huntingdon Loxley] There are many period English place-names of this type, i.e., a place- name followed (and modified) by another. Sometimes the second place-name is just that, as in Kirkby Laythorpe (Kirkeby Leylthorp 1316), which apparently combined earlier communities of Kirkby and Laythorpe; in other cases, like that of Farleigh Hungerford (Farlegh Hungerford 1404), an apparent second place-name is actual the surname of an early owner. On either basis Huntingdon Loxley is a possible 13th century place-name. (Anne of Huntingdon Loxley, 6/96 p. 6)
The locative was submitted as of the Broken Tower, a form
that seems to owe more to fantasy than to history. The syntax is
atypical for a topographical byname, no evidence is adduced to support
idiomatic use of broken in this sense, and tower is a 16th century spelling
in a byname of a type that is rare after c.1400. We agree with Black
Dove that this is least implausible if interpreted as a sign (or inn) name,
though such bynames are rare in English usage. We have therefore
adjusted the preposition to match the documented examples of such bynames
and used a spelling contemporary with this type of name. (Marion
atte Broken Towre, 6/96 p. 7)
[registering Seitsemän Pyhän Unikeon veljeskunta]
The household name means 'Brotherhood of the Seven Holy Sleepers'; it refers
to the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, who according to 6th c. legend were early
Christians who were walled up in a cave near Ephesus while taking refuge
from the persecution of Decius. God put them to sleep, and 200 years
later they awoke to find their city Christian; soon afterward they died
and were venerated as saints. The story was popularized by Gregory
of Tours in the 6th century. Albion provided examples of 14th and
15th century guilds with similar names, e.g., Kolmen Pyhän Kuninkaan
kilta 'Guild of the Three Holy Kings'. (Peter Schneck, 5/96 p. 5)
[returning the locative du Croissant d'Argent] The parallel made with the many croix placenames is not apt; Dauzat, in discussing the placename Croix states, "These localities take their name from a cross erected either for a pious purpose, or to mark a crossroads or simply a boundary." Crescents were not used as landmarks; the only documented Croissant is in Finisterre in Brittany and comes from the Breton word kroazhent meaning "crossroads." (Charlotte du Croissant d'Argent, 7/94 p. 9)
[returning the locative du Croissant d'Argent] No documentation has been presented for inn names in French. (Charlotte du Croissant d'Argent, 7/94 p. 9)
Palimpsest noted some support for late period French double-given hyphenated names. [The name was registered.] (Anne-Marie l'Amasseresse, 8/94 p. 1)
Submitted as [N] de La Tour-du-Pin, the hyphens in the placename are modern. [The name was registered without the hyphens.] (Perronnelle Charrette de La Tour du Pin, 9/94 p. 4)
[registering the byname de la Forest] Though it looks a little out of place, this form of the byname is actually the period spelling; forêt is a modern spelling, of which the carat of the "e" indicates the missing "s". (Mirabella Christian du Lac de la Forest, 10/94 p. 8)
[returning Karolyne] Caroline does not appear to be a period name. The poem from which it was documented here, quoted by Ensign, and accompanying glosses indicate that Caroline is "little Charles, one loyal to Charles" and "one loyal to Charles". It is apparent from the context and glosses that Caroline was not used as a personal name in this poem. And the November 1994 registration of Caroline was based on a faulty inference of French use from the establishment of a Fort Caroline in Florida in 1564 by French Huguenots. However, in French, carolin(e) is the adjective formed from the Latin Carolus (Charles); the fort was probably named in honor of Charles IX, who succeeded to the throne of France in 1560. (Karolynbe Wanderer, 4/95 p. 9)
This name contains four given names and a locative surname, more elements than are supported by the period evidence, even for French. We have dropped the fourth given as the submitter specifically allowed to register the name. (Jean Paul Étienne de La Chaise Dieu, 6/95 p. 19)
[registering the byname du Belier] The byname is analogous to the source of the modern surname Duboc `[son] of the buck'; it signifies a son of a man nicknamed `the ram'. (Lucas du Belier, 8/95 p. 3)
Four given names goes well beyond documented French usage even at the very end of our period. For that matter, we have no evidence of French use of five-element names of any kind; until such evidence is presented, we are extending the existing ban on five-element names in English (Catherine Elizabeth Holly Winthrop of Lincolnshire, Caid, 7/92 LoAR), Italian (Marco Giovanni Drago Bianco Vento, Ansteorra, 9/92 LoAR), and German (Susanna Elizabeth Marie Wiegner von Kassel, Trimaris, 10/92 LoAR) to include French as well. (Cecille Marie Gabryell Geneviève du Mont, 10/95 p. 16)
There is no more evidence for mixing French and Gaelic spelling conventions than there is for mixing those of English and Gaelic, so one convention or the other must be used throughout. (Chrétienne Aingeal nic Chaoindealbháin, 10/95 p. 18)
The epithet appeared as le Normand on the LoI; the upper-case L, which appears on his form, is rare but documentable. (Roger fitzRolf Le Normand, 1/96 p. 4)
The French surname tacked onto an otherwise thoroughly Russian name is implausible. Justification would appear to depend on a persona story rather than on evidence from period naming practice. Nevertheless, the persona story in question - Russian girl marries French trader and adopts his surname - is probably within current limits of acceptability. [The name was registered.] (Dasha Miloslava Broussard, 1/96 p. 6)
No evidence has been presented to support French use of prefixed nicknames other than gros `large' and petit `small', whose use is inferred from such extant surnames as Grosclaude and Petitjean. The widespread surnames Rouge and Lerouge clearly indicate that the epithet rouge was used, but we need evidence for this unusual placement before we can register it. We would have dropped the problematic element, but she allows no changes, so we must return the name. (Rouge Anne Marie de Maurier, 1/96 p. 24)
[registering the byname LeFleur] The French noun
fleur 'flower' (from Latin florem) is feminine, and the standard French
feminine definite article is la, so the surname is usually found as LaFleur.
In the Picard dialect of Old French, however, while florem still became
fleur, the feminine article was le. Picard forms like LeFleur have
largely been supplanted by the corresponding Francien forms with La, but
Picard LeFleche (from feminine flèche 'arrow') survives beside the
more common LaFleche, and it seems likely that more forms of this type
existed in period. (Sebastian LeFleur, 3/96 p. 5)
Name Precedents
No examples have yet been found of a woman using a masculine patronymic when the name is written in Irish. We have therefore substituted the feminine patronymic form. (Eibhilín Nic Thighearnáin, 8/94 p. 3)
[returning Caitlyn] The given is documented only as Caitlin (even in the submitter's own documentation -- photocopies from Today's Best Baby Names by Alfred J. Kolatch!), and Irish does not use the English "i/y" switch. (Caitlyn of Dolwyddelan, 8/94 p. 19)
Period names even in Britain did not mix Gaelic and Anglicized form. We have therefore substituted the Gaelic form of the patronymic to match the given. (Coinneach Ó Domhnaill, 9/94 p. 5)
A mixture of ON and Gaelic isn't in itself out of the question, and both in ON and in Gaelic a two-generation patronymic is possible, but none of the commenters could find support for a mixed-language, two-generation patronymic. [The name was returned.] (Eirik Gunnolfsson Mac an Ghabhann, 9/94 15)
Irish usage doesn't seem to allow either double given names or unmarked patronymics. In some cases we have been able to get around the problem by interpreting the second element as a nickname, but it is not possible to do so here: as a nickname Rígán could only be 'sub-king, chief', which would fall afoul of RfS VI.1. [The name was returned.] (Mór Rígán, 9/94 p. 16)
The patronymic was Gaelic with the remainder of the name was Englished. As no examples have yet been adduced for combing fully Gaelic forms with Englished forms, we have made the smallest change possible and Englished the patronymic. (Ian MacIneirie of Inverary, 10/94 p. 7)
There is so far no evidence for double given names in Irish; every apparent example found so far has proven to be of the form <name> <byname>, though many of these bynames are also used as given names. As the submitter allowed changes, we have modified the name into a more standard three-generation patronymic form. (Lorccan mac Cinaetha meic Dara, 10/94 p. 10)
Margaret is far, far too late to be combined with the name of an early Irish tribe (they arrived in Ireland between 500 and 100 B.C.) with a temporal difference of a millennium or more. [The name was returned.] (Margaret of the Érainn, 10/94 p. 16)
There is no documentation whatsoever for double given names in Gaelic. [The name element was deleted for this and other problems.] (Eithne Cameron, 12/94 p. 5)
The combination of German forename and Gaelic byname needs justification, at the very least. [The name was returned for this and another problem. (Hagen Seanaeiche, 12/94 p. 10)
No evidence has yet been presented for the use of double given names in Irish. We have been able to register some where the second name was also meaningful as a byname, but that is not the case with Seán, the Irish borrowing of the French Jehan. [The name was returned.] (Cormac Seán MacCárthaigh, 12/94 p. 12)
The question of mixed Gaelic/English names appears to
have been widely misunderstood. The legitimacy of combining names
of Gaelic origin with names of English (or for that matter French or Norse)
origin has never been in question; but it should be done in a reasonable
way. What distinguishes this particular combination from most others
is that Gaelic orthographic conventions are startlingly different from
those of English; the English and Gaelic "codes" for representing sounds
are very dissimilar. For example, English doesn't use bh or mh for
the sound of v; Gaelic does not use the letter v. Writing Gaelic
names in an English setting is therefore akin to transliterating Chinese,
Russian, Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic names: although the alphabet is largely
familiar, many of the phonetic values of its letters and letter combinations
are not. For example, the symbols Ainmire Ó Catháin
are in English a very poor representation of the name; the Anglicization
Anvirre O Kaane, on the other hand, is an excellent representation according
to the conventions of sixteenth century English. Note that differences
in spelling conventions between such languages as French and German are
small by comparison and were even smaller in period.
We regularly require that Chinese names use a single
transliteration system throughout, whether Pinyin or Wade-Giles.
Similarly, we have required reasonable consistency of transliteration of
Russian and Arabic names, modifying submitted forms to avoid glaring inconsistencies.
Are we then to ignore the documentary evidence and allow widely divergent
transliteration systems in this instance? All of the evidence found
to date demonstrates that mixed Gaelic and English names were written according
to a single set of spelling conventions, either Gaelic or English.
(This is not to claim that either of these systems was itself entirely
uniform, of course.) After all the discussion on this issue, no one
yet has presented any evidence that supports anything but consistency of
transliteration in either Gaelic or Anglicized Gaelic (well, okay, or Latin)
for Gaelic/English names; consistency which we already require for names
in a number of other languages.
As a consequence, it is my belief that we should require
consistent transliterations of Gaelic/English names: such names should
be spelled according to Gaelic conventions or according to English conventions,
but should not drastically switch spelling conventions from Gaelic to English
or vice versa in mid-name. (CL 5/95)
There is apparently some confusion about the difference
between ní and nic. The article in Tournaments Illuminated
notwithstanding, it isn't primarily the difference between Irish and Scottish
(as the submitter believes). Ní X simply means "the daughter
of a man named X" while nic X means "the daughter of a man surnamed Mac
X"; though ní is primarily an Irish form, nic was used in both varieties
of Gaelic. (Caitlin nic Aindreis of Dumbarton, 5/95 p. 2)
Sineidin is apparently late-period, and Toran, if it was actually used as a personal name, seems to be early. But the discontinuity is not arresting, and this seems the least problematical way to give the submitter a surname that can be interpreted as 'wife of Thorin', that being her husband's registered name. (Sinéidín Bean Thoráin, 6/95 p. 1)
The name was submitted as Cáelán ap Llwyd, in which Cáelán is Irish, and the rest, Welsh. There is a reasonable amount of evidence for Welsh/Irish combinations in names, but they should still follow one spelling convention or the other, so we have removed the distinctively Irish accents to produce what Harpy calls a `plausible Welsh borrowing of an Irish given name'. (Caelan ap Llwyd, 10/95 p. 8)
The name was submitted as Muireann Ingen Eoghain uí Maoilmheana. The early spelling of ingen (which should not be capitalized) is inconsistent with the late-period or modern Irish spellings of the rest of the name, so we have substituted the later spelling inghean. (Muireann inghean Eoghain uí Maoilmheana, 10/95 p. 10)
There is no more evidence for mixing French and Gaelic spelling conventions than there is for mixing those of English and Gaelic, so one convention or the other must be used throughout. (Chrétienne Aingeal nic Chaoindealbháin, 10/95 p. 18)
There is ... still no persuasive evidence for Liam as a period diminutive of Uilliam, so we are following the suggestion in the LoI and substituting the full form of the name. (Uilliam Óg Ó Manacháin, 11/95 p. 2)
The given name was submitted as Catriona, which cannot be justified as an English spelling, while the surname can only be English. Since the two spelling systems do not seem to have been combined in period, we have substituted the English spelling Catrina (pronounced almost identically). (Catrina MacKinnon, 12/95 p. 4)
Catriona is not a reasonable period Anglicization of Gaelic Caitriona and its variants, as may be seen from the recorded Anglo-Scottish forms Catrina and Katrina. However, the lingua anglica allowance permits it to be combined with the English version of the locative. (Catriona of Downpatrick, 1/96 p. 14)
[registering Clann an Chullaich Bhain] The name was justified as an inn name in the LoI, but this is impossible: the root meaning of clann is 'plant', whence 'off-shoot; children, family, offspring; descendants, race'. Thus, the name must be justified as a clan name. Extant examples of these take the form Clann <genitive case of personal name>; strict adherence to these examples would obviously rule out the present submission. However, the Dictionary of the Irish Language cites mediæval use of an Cullach 'the Boar' as an epithet. This opens the possibility that the descendants of a warrior called an Cullach Bán 'the White Boar' might have taken his epithet as their clan name. In view of the loose standard of authenticity to which the College has traditionally held household names, we are willing to give the name the benefit of the doubt on this point. (Somhairle O Laidhigh, 2/96 p. 15)
[returning Aoife ingen Gharbain] Aoife is a late spelling of the given name, while ingen is an early spelling, and the use of gh in the patronym but not in ingen is inconsistent. The name would be fine as Aífe ingen Garbáin, which is early, or as Aoife inghean Gharbháin, which uses a later orthography. It seems very likely that mixtures of early and late orthographic features can be found at some point; conceivably a combination like this one can be justified. But it is an exception to the patterns found in the available data; lacking both specific justification and detailed information on the sequencing of Irish orthographic changes, we are unwilling to depart from documented practice. (Aoife ingen Gharbain, 2/96 p. 21)
On Clan Names ... In the... the registration of Clan MacKenzie of Ben Duff to Eoin Mac Cainnigh (An Tir), we had to consider what a Gaelic form of the name would look like (though we ended up registering the English form). It very quickly became apparent that an English Clan MacKenzie would be a Gaelic Clann Chainnigh, literally the 'clan of Cainnech'; the mac is dropped. More generally, a Gaelic clan name takes the form Clann <aspirated genitive case of personal name>; household names of this type should therefore omit the mac in Gaelic, though it appears to be perfectly acceptable in the English equivalents of such names. (CL 4/96)
The other matter came up in the registration of the name
Óengus mac Domnaill Glinne Chomair (Atlantia), a Gaelic name that
could be translated 'Angus son of Donald of Glencoe'. As it happens,
there is a clan known in English as MacDonald of Glencoe, and it was suggested
that the combination of patronymic and locative was for that reason a claim
to chieftainship of the clan. However, Gaelic usage in such matters
can be surprising: it turns out that the chief is in Gaelic simply MacIain
(after the clan's progenitor). Thus, the submitted bynames are in
Gaelic simply descriptive, meaning only what they seem to say. It
appears that this example is not unique, so there may be a number of superficially
disallowed combinations that in Gaelic are not at all presumptuous; the
facts will have to be ascertained on a case-by-case basis. (CL 4/96)
[returning the locative vom Dunkelschloss] The usual generics for castle, etc. were -burg, -berg, and -stein, and somewhat less often -fels, -eck, and -feste. The few examples of schloss, none of which are clearly period, use the word as a prefix: Schloss X. Given the extreme rarity of dunkel as a placename element at all, the combination seems to make Dunkelschloss far too improbable to register. Dunkelstein, Dunkelburg, Dunkelberg, and Dunkelfels would probably all be registerable: the first element is still somewhat unlikely, but the overall construction is fine, and so the use of dunkel would be only "one weirdness". (Any of these would make as good a name for a town as for a castle, so the article dem could be dispensed with, e.g., Conrad von Dunkelfels.) If he really wants to get Schloss in there somewhere, Palimpsest recommended Conrad von Schloss Dunkelfels (or one of the other variants); this matches the actual use of Schloss in the few examples that he could find. (Again the article dem is unnecessary.) (Conrad vom Dunkelschloss, 8/94 p. 18)
The combination of German forename and Gaelic byname needs justification, at the very least. [The name was returned for this and another problem. (Hagen Seanaeiche, 12/94 p. 10)
There is ample evidence of period German use of double
given names. (Anne Liese Wolkenhaar, 5/96 p. 5)
[registering the byname Monomakh] The byname does
not seem to be presumptuous. Deriving from Greek monomakhéô
`to fight in single combat', monomákhos `fighting in single combat'
appears to be a reasonable byname for a fighter. It was used by the
Byzantine emperor Constantine IX Monomachus and by his grandson, the Kievan
prince Vladimir II Monomakh, but it does not seem to have been hereditary
or even used by anyone else in either line. Vladimir says in his
Testament that he was given the baptismal name Vasili by his grandfather
Yaroslav `but was commonly known by [his] Russian name Vladimir, and surnamed
Monomakh by [his] beloved father and mother'; we suspect that this was
to honor his other grandfather, Constantine. (Hrothger Monomakh,
9/95 p. 18)
Group & Household see also Names-Order
[returning House of the Argent Horse] "Argent" is not a common English element; as an adjective referring to a color, its use is confined almost entirely to heraldry. English, unlike German, has no tradition of house names based on armory; the authentic usage would be White Horse. (Jonathan Thorne, 9/94 p. 18)
[registering Moneyers Guild of An Tir] Though a couple of commenters suggested that the name was too generic to register, the fact that "of An Tir" is an integral part of the name keeps it from being so. "Moneyers Guild" probably would be too generic to register. "Moneyers Guild of An Tir" is sufficiently specific to be registered. (An Tir, 4/95 p. 1)
There was a clear consensus ... that university is not an appropriate alternate designator for household. We will continue to reserve the designator university to groups approved at the kingdom or principality level either for a branch (in the same way that college is used currently as, for example, in the already registered L'Universite de la Tour d'Yvoire) or for educational institutions (for example, the already registered University of Atlantia, Royal University of Scirhafoc, University of the East Kingdom, and Royal University of Ithra). (Aliena von Bingen, Household of Saint Hildegard, 6/95 p. 1)
Some commenters were not entirely comfortable with registering this as the Household of Saint Hildegard, but as a number of equivalents for the designator (Company of Saint Hildegard, Abbey of Saint Hildegard) not only follow period exemplars but also do not cause such discomfort (probably because they follow period examples), we felt it would be unreasonable to disallow the equivalent specifically acceptable to the submitter here. (Aliena von Bingen, Household of Saint Hildegard, 6/95 p. 1)
[registering the hourshold name Ty Gafrewig Wen] `House of the White Antelope' does not seem to follow period Welsh practice in naming families and buildings, but it is well within our rather loose standards for household names. (Bronwen o Gyeweli, 9/95 p. 7)
[returning the Canton of Athanor Tor] While it is not especially unusual for place-names to refer to such common, visible pieces of equipment as mills, there is no evidence that topographic features were named after obscure pieces of alchemical equipment. (Athanor Tor, Canton of, 11/95 p. 13)
According to the Administrative Handbook, Registerable Items, B.1 (Branch Name), `[b]ranch designations included in the Branch Name are determined by the current status of the branch, not by the designation used when the Branch Name is registered'. Requests to change the designation in the SCA Armorial are not name changes and should not be included in Letters of Intent; they should be addressed directly to Laurel and Morsulus. (Ealdormere, Principality of, 12/95 p. 10)
[returning House Syrocco] The spelling syrocco is found in an English work of 1617, where it is described as the name given by the Italians to the South-East wind; this puts it within the Grey Area as a word. (The actual Italian term was apparently s(c)irocco or scilocco.) However, socio-political units do not seem to have been named after atmospheric phenomena in period. There are a few examples in which a fairly standard place-name element is modified by a word naming an atmospheric phenomenon; one is Windhill (Yorkshire West Riding). But before registering what is essentially House North-East Wind, we need evidence that such a name conforms to period practice. (Masala a'Laon, 1/96 p. 21)
[returning Haus Kaperschiff] Kaperschiff is German for a ship used by privateers. Haus Kaperschiff is therefore analogous to House Warship, House Q-Ship, and House Trawler. Such names are too generic to be registered and in any case do not follow any of the usual period models for household names (e.g., names of Scottish clans, ruling dynasties, professional guilds, military units, inns). Ships' names are probably another reasonable model, so perhaps the submitter should simply name his Kaperschiff. (Randwulf Widefarer, 1/96 p. 29)
[registering Clann an Chullaich Bhain] The name was justified as an inn name in the LoI, but this is impossible: the root meaning of clann is 'plant', whence 'off-shoot; children, family, offspring; descendants, race'. Thus, the name must be justified as a clan name. Extant examples of these take the form Clann <genitive case of personal name>; strict adherence to these examples would obviously rule out the present submission. However, the Dictionary of the Irish Language cites mediæval use of an Cullach 'the Boar' as an epithet. This opens the possibility that the descendants of a warrior called an Cullach Bán 'the White Boar' might have taken his epithet as their clan name. In view of the loose standard of authenticity to which the College has traditionally held household names, we are willing to give the name the benefit of the doubt on this point. (Somhairle O Laidhigh, 2/96 p. 15)
On Clan Names ...In the... the registration of Clan MacKenzie of Ben Duff to Eoin Mac Cainnigh (An Tir), we had to consider what a Gaelic form of the name would look like (though we ended up registering the English form). It very quickly became apparent that an English Clan MacKenzie would be a Gaelic Clann Chainnigh, literally the 'clan of Cainnech'; the mac is dropped. More generally, a Gaelic clan name takes the form Clann <aspirated genitive case of personal name>; household names of this type should therefore omit the mac in Gaelic, though it appears to be perfectly acceptable in the English equivalents of such names. (CL 4/96)
The other matter came up in the registration of the name Óengus mac Domnaill Glinne Chomair (Atlantia), a Gaelic name that could be translated 'Angus son of Donald of Glencoe'. As it happens, there is a clan known in English as MacDonald of Glencoe, and it was suggested that the combination of patronymic and locative was for that reason a claim to chieftainship of the clan. However, Gaelic usage in such matters can be surprising: it turns out that the chief is in Gaelic simply MacIain (after the clan's progenitor). Thus, the submitted bynames are in Gaelic simply descriptive, meaning only what they seem to say. It appears that this example is not unique, so there may be a number of superficially disallowed combinations that in Gaelic are not at all presumptuous; the facts will have to be ascertained on a case-by-case basis. (CL 4/96)
Shadewe is an attested surname; Shadewes Company is a reasonable name for a military unit organized or commanded by someone with that surname. Shadow Legion, returned 5/92 (Ilissa the Nightwatcher, Meridies), exemplifies a different construction, just as Shadewes (i.e., Shadow's) Cabinet is different from a shadow cabinet. (Olaf Blodhøx, 4/96 p. 11)
[registering Seitsemän Pyhän Unikeon veljeskunta] The household name means 'Brotherhood of the Seven Holy Sleepers'; it refers to the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, who according to 6th c. legend were early Christians who were walled up in a cave near Ephesus while taking refuge from the persecution of Decius. God put them to sleep, and 200 years later they awoke to find their city Christian; soon afterward they died and were venerated as saints. The story was popularized by Gregory of Tours in the 6th century. Albion provided examples of 14th and 15th century guilds with similar names, e.g., Kolmen Pyhän Kuninkaan kilta 'Guild of the Three Holy Kings'. (Peter Schneck, 5/96 p. 5)
[registering Brotherhood of the Seven Holy Sleepers of Ephesus] The submitter has chosen to protect the household name in English as well as in Finnish. Since they differ markedly in sound and appearance, the names would be independently registerable even if they were exact translations of each other, which they are not. (The English version is a trifle more explicit than the Finnish, which has nothing corresponding to of Ephesus.) No evidence has been offered for the use of such names in English, but even in the worst case the household name would be allowable as a lingua anglica version of its Finnish translation. (Peter Schneck, 5/96 p. 5)
[returning Canton of the Baronial Colleges of Nordleigh] Stylistically the name is said to be modelled on that of Kings College (Cambridge), though the obvious analogical construction would be Barons College. This is probably too generic to be registered, but we see no serious stylistic bar to registering Barons College at Nordleigh, say. Barons Colleges at Nordleigh is another matter: it seems very unlikely that two colleges within a single university would have been given the same name. We are also reluctant to allow Baronial in lieu of Barons without some support from period usage. In addition to Kings College, there are the Queens Colleges at Cambridge and Oxford, Bishops Castle in Shropshire, Countesthorpe 'the countess's village' in Leicestershire, and other similar constructs to support Barons College; as a model for Baronial only Royal comes to mind. Moreover, the OED does not attest baronial until the middle of the 18th century (though it probably existed at least a bit earlier). (Baronial Colleges of Nordleigh, Canton of the, 5/96 p. 24)
[returning Canton of the Baronial Colleges of Nordleigh]
The administrative problem concerns the use of college, an officially approved
designator for an institutional branch based at a school, research facility,
or the like. The submitted name implies that the group is administratively
a canton, and it is so listed in the most recent Middle Kingdom newsletter.
The distinction is significant, since cantons and colleges are subject
to different administrative requirements. If in fact the group is
administratively a college, there is no problem: they need only drop the
words Canton of (and indeed must do so). Assuming that it is a canton,
however, the question arises: May a canton use the word college, which
as a designator has a specific (and in this case inappropriate) meaning,
as a non-designating part of its name? The relevant part of RfS III.2.b
says that a branch name 'must consist of a designator that identifies the
type of entity and at least one descriptive element' and that '[t]he designator
must be appropriate to the status of the submitter'. In Canton of
the Baronial Colleges of Nordleigh it is clear from the syntax that Canton
is the required designator; the rule says nothing about the use of designators
in the descriptive part of the name, so the first requirement is technically
met, and if the group is a canton, the second requirement is met as well.
In the absence of stylistic problems we would therefore not have returned
the name. Nevertheless...the use of an administratively inappropriate
standard designator in the descriptive part of a branch name is potentially
confusing and urge the group to consider this issue before resubmitting
their name. [The name was returned for a different reason.]
(Baronial Colleges of Nordleigh, Canton of the, 5/96 p. 24)
It is customary not to capitalize the particle ben.
Had he not forbidden spelling and grammar changes, we'd have changed the
name to Eleazar ben Judah. We'd still much prefer this form; but
period practice in respect of capitalization was erratic enough that we
are not willing to return the name solely for that reason. (Eleazar
Ben Judah, 9/95 p. 12)
The consensus of the College being that we should drop
the unhistorical practice of the form of address "Lord [Heraldic title]"
and "Lady [Heraldic title]", the use of placenames for heraldic titles
need no longer be prohibited on the grounds that "Lord/Lady [placename]"
could be considered a claim to "landedness". As a consequence, the
subtext of Rule for Submission III.2.b.iii (Heraldic Titles) is hereby
replaced with the following sentence:
These are generally drawn
from surnames (Chandos Herald, Percy Herald), place-names (Windsor Herald,
Calais Pursuivant, Sicily 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). (CL 10/94)
[returning Ordonnance Pursuivant] The title's meaning here ("systematic arrangement, esp. of written materials ... a plan or method of literary or artistic composition") does not appear to follow any of the period exemplars for heralds' titles. (West, Kingdom of, 4/95 p. 11)
[returning Vox Draconis Pursuivant] The previous version, Dragon's Voice Pursuivant, was returned 3/95 for failure to emulate period models as required by RfS III.2.b.iii; translation into Latin doesn't bring it any closer. It was suggested that it might derive from a motto Vox draconis sum `I am the voice of the dragon', but the period examples noted all comprise the entire motto, and no evidence was presented that Vox draconis sum is a reasonable imitation of a period motto. (Caid, Kingdom of, 10/95 p. 18)
[registering Hapenny Herald] Although the submitted spelling has not been documented, it can reasonably be extrapolated from the 16th century spellings Hapeney and Happenny. The common noun halfpenny became a surname and thus a potential heraldic title. (Calontir, Kingdom of, 11/95 p. 5)
[returning Ursine Pursuivant] Ursine `bearlike' is neither a plausible motto nor a description of character or spirit and therefore does not appear actually to follow the period models that it most nearly resembles. (Meridies, 12/95 p. 19)
[returning Jessant-de-lys Pursuivant] The few apparently
adjectival period heraldic titles do not support the indiscriminate use
of adjectives as heraldic titles; all of them name qualities of character
or spirit and could reasonably serve as mottos. Jessant-de-lys is
neither a plausible motto nor a description of character or spirit, nor
is it the name of an heraldic charge; it therefore does not appear actually
to follow the period models that it most nearly resembles. (Middle,
Kingdom of, 1/96 p. 29)
Household see Group &
Household
Irish see Gaelic
[changing the byname Capulet] Shakespeare's use of Capulet is insufficient to establish it as an actual name. The available Italian sources suggest that Capulet is probably a distortion of Cap(p)elletti (and that Montague is similarly a distortion of Montecchi). We have substituted...Capelet, an occupational byname for maker of chaplets (small hats; chaplets, garlands). (Cecelya Capelet, 9/94 p. 2)
Though the LoI noted some discomfort with the use of a double surname, the byname here actually follows a period Italian practice: di {father's given name}{father's surname}. Guendalina Francesca di Antonio Cristiano, 11/94 p. 4)
This was submitted as Caterina Verdeschi on the LoI, the de' having been dropped at kingdom for lack of documentation. However, it appears that Verdeschi is interpretable as a plural or collective surname; de' Verdeschi `of the [family] Verdeschi' is then analogous to de' Medici. We have therefore restored the submitter's original form. (Caterina de'Verdeschi, 12/95 p. 12)
In period Arianna is Italian, so the locative, which was submitted as of the Windy Isles, is best interpreted as a translation, permitted under the lingua anglica allowance. The extent of this allowance was discussed in detail in the 12/95 return of Ananda the Fiery (Middle); according to the precedent there cited, it covers translations of 'documented period epithets', provided that the translation has been chosen to minimize any intrusive modernity. Actual practice has been somewhat looser: not only has the College allowed non-intrusive translations of epithets thought to be compatible with the naming practices of the source language, but it has even allowed fairly generic English epithets without requiring a demonstration that they were plausible translations of period epithets from the language of the rest of the name. This latter practice can easily result in names that have very little to do with period practice in any language. Consequently, we have no qualms about requiring in such cases -- of which this is one -- that the epithet be put into a period English form. (Arianna othe Windisle, 2/96 p. 1)
We agree with the commenters who found the use of three
given names unlikely even in Italian. However, this is just one step
beyond documented practice, so the name is registerable. (Five-element
Italian names have been banned since the 9/92 return of Marco Giovanni
Drago Bianco Vento (Ansteorra).) (Matteo Alessandro Ulisse Rugieri,
6/96 p. 3)
Submitted as Lung Bai Xiong, the surname was documented from a different book than the other parts of the name, one which used a different (Wade-Giles) transliteration system from the other (Pinyin). We have modified that surname to match the transliteration system of the remainder of the name. (Long Bai Xiong, 2/95 p. 7)
No evidence has been presented for multiple surnames in Japanese. [The name was returned.] (Ko Fujibayashi Tashikage of Togakure, 11/95 p. 15)
[returning Vairocana Belnon of Uddiyana] Significant interaction between Tibet and pre-seventeenth century Western culture has not been demonstrated. The Encyclopædia Britannica dates the first visits to Tibet by Western missionaries to the 17th century, and the fact that the 8th century Tibetan kingdom had some contact with the Arab conquerors of Iran still leaves Tibetans at least two removes from Western Europe. [The name was returned for this and other problems.] (Ko Fujibayashi Tashikage of Togakure, 11/95 p. 15)
This particle [i.e. "no"] is never written out in Chinese
characters, though it is spoken and may be included when the name is written
in Roman characters. (Sekimura no Minamoto Akiranaga, 12/95 p. 11)
[registering Rígnach of Argyll] The byname is registerable by virtue of the lingua anglica allowance. (Rígnach of Argyll, 10/95 p. 14)
In period Arianna is Italian, so the locative, which was
submitted as of the Windy Isles, is best interpreted as a translation,
permitted under the lingua anglica allowance. The extent of this
allowance was discussed in detail in the 12/95 return of Ananda the Fiery
(Middle); according to the precedent there cited, it covers translations
of 'documented period epithets', provided that the translation has been
chosen to minimize any intrusive modernity. Actual practice has been
somewhat looser: not only has the College allowed non-intrusive translations
of epithets thought to be compatible with the naming practices of the source
language, but it has even allowed fairly generic English epithets without
requiring a demonstration that they were plausible translations of period
epithets from the language of the rest of the name. This latter practice
can easily result in names that have very little to do with period practice
in any language. Consequently, we have no qualms about requiring
in such cases -- of which this is one -- that the epithet be put into a
period English form. (Arianna othe Windisle, 2/96 p. 1)
This spelling of the byname appears in the OED as the Danish form. Given the Danish presence in England, I can find no compelling reason not to give the submitter his desired spelling. (Ædward Stadefæste, 7/94 p. 6)
The patronymic was Gaelic with the remainder of the name was Englished. As no examples have yet been adduced for combing fully Gaelic forms with Englished forms, we have made the smallest change possible and Englished the patronymic. (Ian MacIneirie of Inverary, 10/94 p. 7)
A combination of an Old English forename with what can only be a fairly late English form of an Irish surname is too far from period practice. [The name was returned.] (Wege Teague, 10/94 p. 12)
The modern English form of the Irish patronym is entirely inconsistent with an Old English given name. [The name was returned.] (Beornheard O'Dea, 10/94 p. 14)
Margaret is far, far too late to be combined with the name of an early Irish tribe (they arrived in Ireland between 500 and 100 B.C.) With a temporal difference of a millennium or more. [The name was returned.] (Margaret of the Érainn, 10/94 p. 16)
The combination of German forename and Gaelic byname needs justification, at the very least. [The name was returned for this and another problem. (Hagen Seanaeiche, 12/94 p. 10)
While the Rules for Submission on "Name Grammar and Syntax" do note in the subtext that "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.", the requirement in the statement of the rule itself is that such combinations must follow documented patterns". No one yet has presented any documentation for mixed Gaelic/English names, either in period or since. Such a combination therefore follows no documented pattern whatsoever. [The name was returned.] (Duncan MacGriogair of Hawkwood, 1/95 p. 12)
Submitted as William Ethelwulf Bruce, Ethelwulf is entirely out of place in the remainder of the name. (Please remember, Anglo-Saxon and 17th Century English are two entirely different languages. We have dropped the problematic element in order to register the name. (William Bruce, 2/95 p. 7)
No documentation has been found for combined Norse-English/Arabic names. [The name was returned.] (Eric Ibrahim Mozarab, 2/95 p. 14)
The question of mixed Gaelic/English names appears to
have been widely misunderstood. The legitimacy of combining names
of Gaelic origin with names of English (or for that matter French or Norse)
origin has never been in question; but it should be done in a reasonable
way. What distinguishes this particular combination from most others
is that Gaelic orthographic conventions are startlingly different from
those of English; the English and Gaelic "codes" for representing sounds
are very dissimilar. For example, English doesn't use bh or mh for
the sound of v; Gaelic does not use the letter v. Writing Gaelic
names in an English setting is therefore akin to transliterating Chinese,
Russian, Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic names: although the alphabet is largely
familiar, many of the phonetic values of its letters and letter combinations
are not. For example, the symbols Ainmire Ó Catháin
are in English a very poor representation of the name; the Anglicization
Anvirre O Kaane, on the other hand, is an excellent representation according
to the conventions of sixteenth century English. Note that differences
in spelling conventions between such languages as French and German are
small by comparison and were even smaller in period.
We regularly require that Chinese names use a single
transliteration system throughout, whether Pinyin or Wade-Giles.
Similarly, we have required reasonable consistency of transliteration of
Russian and Arabic names, modifying submitted forms to avoid glaring inconsistencies.
Are we then to ignore the documentary evidence and allow widely divergent
transliteration systems in this instance? All of the evidence found
to date demonstrates that mixed Gaelic and English names were written according
to a single set of spelling conventions, either Gaelic or English.
(This is not to claim that either of these systems was itself entirely
uniform, of course.) After all the discussion on this issue, no one
yet has presented any evidence that supports anything but consistency of
transliteration in either Gaelic or Anglicized Gaelic (well, okay, or Latin)
for Gaelic/English names; consistency which we already require for names
in a number of other languages.
As a consequence, it is my belief that we should require
consistent transliterations of Gaelic/English names: such names should
be spelled according to Gaelic conventions or according to English conventions,
but should not drastically switch spelling conventions from Gaelic to English
or vice versa in mid-name. (CL 5/95)
[changing Dirk Ivanovich] No one produced evidence of sufficient interaction between the Low Countries and Russia in period to justify the combination. (Direk Ivanovich, 8/95 p. 5)
Three given names are almost non-existent in period, but Ensign noted the Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia (of Austria), 1566-1633, daughter of Philip II of Spain and Elizabeth of Valois. (Ana Isabella Julietta Borja, 9/95 p. 1)
Such a Russian/English combination is extremely improbable in period. [The name was registered.] (Tatiana Mitford, 9/95 p. 9)
In the absence of any evidence for Polish/English names, this combination seems a bit too improbable to register. (Ladislaus de Brady, 9/95 p. 25)
The name was submitted as Cáelán ap Llwyd, in which Cáelán is Irish, and the rest, Welsh. There is a reasonable amount of evidence for Welsh/Irish combinations in names, but they should still follow one spelling convention or the other, so we have removed the distinctively Irish accents to produce what Harpy calls a `plausible Welsh borrowing of an Irish given name'. (Caelan ap Llwyd, 10/95 p. 8)
[registering Rígnach of Argyll] The byname is registerable by virtue of the lingua anglica allowance. (Rígnach of Argyll, 10/95 p. 14)
There is no more evidence for mixing French and Gaelic spelling conventions than there is for mixing those of English and Gaelic, so one convention or the other must be used throughout. (Chrétienne Aingeal nic Chaoindealbháin, 10/95 p. 18)
The French surname tacked onto an otherwise thoroughly Russian name is implausible. Justification would appear to depend on a persona story rather than on evidence from period naming practice. Nevertheless, the persona story in question - Russian girl marries French trader and adopts his surname - is probably within current limits of acceptability. [The name was registered.] (Dasha Miloslava Broussard, 1/96 p. 6)
Catriona is not a reasonable period Anglicization of Gaelic Caitriona and its variants, as may be seen from the recorded Anglo-Scottish forms Catrina and Katrina. However, the lingua anglica allowance permits it to be combined with the English version of the locative. (Catriona of Downpatrick, 1/96 p. 14)
[returning Lassarina of Esclavonia] Esclavonia is an older name for Slavonia, once the eastern part of the kingdom of Croatia and later a part of Yugoslavia [editor's note: now an independent nation]; Lassarina is an Anglicized (or Latinized) Irish given name. No evidence was offered of cultural contact sufficient to support this combination, which seems quite improbable. (Lassarina of Esclavonia, 2/96 p. 20)
The combination of Old English and Old Norse can probably
be justified for the Danelaw, though the available evidence suggests that
such spellings as Ulfric and Wlfric (probably representing Old Swedish
or Old Danish Ulfrik) were the norm. (Wulfric Gylðir, 3/96 p.
8)
The Legal Name Allowance in Practice, or How to Appeal to RfS II.4. A submitter who wishes to appeal to RfS II.4 (Legal Name Allowance) must provide evidence justifying the appeal. A photocopy of a driver's license, passport, birth certificate, or other standard form of identification will do nicely. In general we are willing to accept the word of the herald preparing the LoI that he or she knows so-and-so to be the submitter's mundane name, but documentation removes all doubt. We do need to know the full name, however, since the application of RfS II.4 to a name element depends on how that element is used in the modern name. (CL 8/95)
Lea is the submitter's modern middle name. As Laurel noted in returning Needham Bledsoe (10/91 LoAR, Outlands), a modern middle name may be used as a Society given name only if it is a given name by type, and Lea is not; originally: it is a locative surname derived from Old English leah `glade; meadow; wood'. [The name was returned for this and other reasons.] (Lea of Crystal Mountain, 11/95 p. 12)
The name was submitted as Bryn y Pobydd, intended to mean
'Bryn the Baker', Bryn being the submitter's modern given name. However,
bryn is also Welsh for 'hill', and the name is a Welsh phrase meaning 'the
baker's hill'; it would have made an excellent place-name. In this
context the modern name Bryn is unusually intrusive; if the language involved
were as widely known as French, say, we would have returned the name.
(Thus, for example, we would not register Champ des Croix 'field of the
crosses' even to someone whose modern given name was Champ.) Welsh
being much less familiar, we have given the name the benefit of the doubt,
but we have also thought it desirable to bring the name closer to normal
Welsh naming practice by dropping the definite article and leniting the
byname. (Bryn Bobydd, 4/96 p. 2)
Name Precedents
A mixture of ON and Gaelic isn't in itself out of the question, and both in ON and in Gaelic a two-generation patronymic is possible, but none of the commenters could find support for a mixed-language, two-generation patronymic. [The name was returned.] (Eirik Gunnolfsson Mac an Ghabhann, 9/94 15)
[returning the byname sverð-Freyr] Sverð-Freyr is not a straightforward word for 'warrior'; rather it is a kenning taken from a form of court poetry. It is quite different from the more straightforward, earthy examples of bynames shown in Geirr Bassi and other sources. Without evidence for the use of such fanciful bynames by real people, we are reluctant to register it here. (Hrolfr sverð-Freyr, 9/94 p. 18)
No documentation has been fund for combined Norse-English/Arabic names. [The name was returned.] (Eric Ibrahim Mozarab, 2/95 p. 14)
[registering the epithet Greyslátr] The byname, a compound of grey `a greyhound, a bitch; a paltry fellow, a coward' and slátr `butcher's meat; meat that has been slaughtered', is clearly derogatory, but so were many Old Norse bynames. A weaker form of the same idea is found in the attested slagakollr `brisket; cut of meat'. (An attested Old Norse byname for a mercenary is hei menningr, from hei `stipend'.) (Eiríkr Greyslátr, 10/95 p. 1)
[registering the patronymic Haraldson] Haraldsson is the usual Old Norse form, but there are a few examples showing loss of the genitive marker -s. (Mikjal Haraldson, 10/95 p. 10)
No Room for Runes. The submission of Thyra Thorkilsdottir
(Middle) raised another interesting question. The submitter justified
some unusual spellings on the grounds that she was transliterating Scandinavian
runes. On the face of it this should be acceptable enough, since
we allow a variety of transliterations of Arabic, Hebrew, and Cyrillic
writing, among others. On further investigation, however, this proved
to be a rather different situation.
It's true that transliterations of runic inscriptions
are often quite different from the usual forms of the same words and names
when they are written in Roman letters. The most common Scandinavian
runic alphabets had fewer letters than the Roman alphabet, and as a result
several runes can represent more than one letter or combination of letters.
For example, a single rune was used for o and u. But when a word
was written in the Roman alphabet, the distinction between the two was
maintained; we do not find simple transliterations from the runic futhark
to the Roman alphabet. Thus, for example, the name Gormr, when written
in Roman letters, is written Gormr, even though the runic version is generally
transliterated kurmR.
We record a Roman alphabet version of registered
names; when necessary, we transliterate. In the case of Arabic names,
say, transliteration is necessary, though we may use either ours or some
mediæval version. But in the case of Old Norse names, transliteration
is unnecessary, because there was already a standard way to write these
names in the Roman alphabet. Therefore we will follow period usage
and write Old Norse names as they would have been written in the Roman
alphabet. Of course, just as Demetrios, Vasilii, and Haroun are welcome
to write their names in Greek, Cyrillic, and Arabic script, respectively,
Steinólfr and Ingrí r may surely write theirs in runes; but
for documentary purposes we will use only the Roman alphabet forms. (CL
12/95)
The byname, given as inn Hárlogi on her form, is
incorrectly constructed for the desired meaning of `the Flame-hair', which
in any case does not appear to be compatible with the literal nature of
Old Norse bynaming. (The only period language in which a byname with
this meaning has been found is Greek; synonymous constructions in other
languages have consistently been returned, most recently Fiona Flamehair
(5/93 LoAR, An Tir).) The actual meaning of the byname seems to be
no more suitable...
Hárlogi, from hár `hair' and logi
`[a] flame', isn't analogous to the attested hárfagri `fair-hair',
since fagri `fair' is an adjective. Such noun-noun compounds are
possible in Old Norse, but as in similar English compounds (e.g., sunrise)
the first noun modifies the second. The construction hárlogi
would therefore mean something like `hair-like flame, filamentous flame';
log(a)hár would be `hair of flame', but probably only in an unfortunately
literal sense. Similarly, hárbrandr would mean `hair-like
firebrand'. Two attested Old Norse words with meanings close to the
desired sense are hárbjartr `bright-haired' (which probably refers
to a very blond person) and rau hárr `red- haired'; as feminine
adjectival bynames with the definite article these would become in hárbjarta
and in rau hára, respectively. (Aesilief inn Harlogi, 12/95
p. 15)
[returning Grímr Blóðúlfr Berserkr] Blóðúlfr 'blood-wolf' was justified in the LoI on the basis of the attested bynames blóðøx 'blood-axe' and kveldúlfr 'evening-wolf, werewolf'. We aren't sure that these are sufficient justification for the meaning 'blood-wolf', but we agree with the Caidan CoH that it is likelier than 'wolf-blood'; had there been no other question about the name, we'd have given it the benefit of the doubt. However, the double nickname is even more problematical. It's true that Geirr Bassi says that some Norseman had more than one nickname simultaneously; however, he does not say that more than one would actually have been used in a given instantiation of the name, and we have no examples to show what kinds of combinations were actually used. Two purely descriptive nicknames with roughly the same sense seems an unlikely combination. It seems especially unlikely for someone who is apparently a slave: Geirr says that in general only slaves had no patronymic or metronymic. Had one of the nicknames been preposed, we'd have given the construction the benefit of the doubt on the grounds that in some of the historical examples a preposed nickname seems almost to have become part of the given name; unfortunately, it is not clear that either of them can be. It is possible that with further research this name could be adequately justified; at present, however, it contains too many problematic elements for comfort. (Grímr Blóðúlfr Berserkr, 2/96 p. 18)
The combination of Old English and Old Norse can probably be justified for the Danelaw, though the available evidence suggests that such spellings as Ulfric and Wlfric (probably representing Old Swedish or Old Danish Ulfrik) were the norm. (Wulfric Gylðir, 3/96 p. 8)
The name was submitted as Blund-Úlfr Kleykir.
Though we have no evidence for Old Norse use of more than one nickname
at a time, there is some indication that at times a preposed nickname combined
with the given name to produce what was effectively a new given name.
We are therefore giving the name the benefit of the doubt, though we have
followed what seems to have been normal documentary practice in fusing
nickname and name. (Blundúlfr Kleykir, 5/96 p. 15)
[returning The Order of the Dreamer's Cup] The order name does not appear to follow any period exemplars that any of the commenters could find. (Caerthe, Barony of, 2/95 p. 14)
[returning the order name Plume of the Ange Rouge]
In addition to lacking a designator, the "Feather of the Red Angel" seems
to be a step too far from even the exemplars presented by Archive for knightly
orders: e.g., Order of the Golden Angel. See RfS III.2.b.ii.
(An Crosaire, Barony of, 4/95 p. 10)
Submitted as ...Mieleska, there already exists a feminine occupational surname meaning "miller"; as such, there is no need to construct such a name, especially without input from someone with a good knowledge of the language. We have therefore substituted the documented byname. (Agnieszka Mlynarska, 9/94 p. 10)
In the absence of any evidence for Polish/English names,
this combination seems a bit too improbable to register. (Ladislaus
de Brady, 9/95 p. 25)
[registering the patronym Jarlsson] There was some discussion whether the byname was a pretentious claim ("son of the Jarl" ("Earl" or "Count")). Given the citation of the name Nils Jarlsson (dated 1355), and our clear rules on titles documented as names or name elements so long as there is "no suggestion of territorial claim or explicit assertion of rank" (RfS VI.1.), the use here is undoubtedly registrable. (Thorfinn Jarlsson, 8/94 p. 9)
Irish usage doesn't seem to allow either double given names or unmarked patronymics. In some cases we have been able to get around the problem by interpreting the second element as a nickname, but it is not possible to do so here: as a nickname Rígán could only be 'sub-king, chief', which would fall afoul of RfS VI.1. (Mór Rígán, 9/94 p. 16)
Several commenters stated some concern about the use of the name Cerridwen with a charge which could be perceived as a moon. However, even had the crescent been a moon, the standard in effect is excessive allusion, not just allusion. To paraphrase Baron Bruce when he instituted this more relaxed standard: One allusion to the name is not considered excessive, two allusions may be, three or more is probably right out. (Cerridwen Maelwedd, 1/95 p. 1)
[returning the byname of the Rose] The byname...implies membership in the Order of the Rose as much as 'of the Laurel', 'of the Chivalry', or 'of the Pelican' imply membership in those orders. (Barbara of the Rose, 1/95 p. 13)
The format of the name (it means "Ieuan, son of someone called `the Red Dragon'") is not as peculiar in Welsh as it might seem. It is possible to find examples of patronyms using the father's nickname rather than given name (often using the definite article) (the best example for this name as a whole, in fact, is that of the 13th century poet Gruffudd ab yr Ynad Coch "Gruffudd son of the Red Judge"). In spite of the appearance at first blush to pretention (the Red Dragon is one of the two premier national symbols of Wales), it isn't really correct to say that the byname is "presumptuous" in a technical sense because there is no evidence for it being used historically as a personal byname, and thus there can be no assumed importance attached to it. (Ieuan ab y Draig goch, 6/95 p. 4)
[registering Kristof Fugger von Augsburg] It was suggested that this name violates RfS VI.3 (Names Claiming Specific Relationships), since the well-known Fugger family of bankers was based in Augsburg. However, the specific prohibition is against `[n]ames that unmistakably imply identity with or close relationship to a protected person or literary character'. Since no significant member of the banking family seems to have been named Kristof or any variant thereof, the name does not violate RfS VI.3. (Kristof Fugger von Augsburg, 8/95 p. 3)
[registering the byname Monomakh] The byname does not seem to be presumptuous. Deriving from Greek monomakhéô `to fight in single combat', monomákhos `fighting in single combat' appears to be a reasonable byname for a fighter. It was used by the Byzantine emperor Constantine IX Monomachus and by his grandson, the Kievan prince Vladimir II Monomakh, but it does not seem to have been hereditary or even used by anyone else in either line. Vladimir says in his Testament that he was given the baptismal name Vasili by his grandfather Yaroslav `but was commonly known by [his] Russian name Vladimir, and surnamed Monomakh by [his] beloved father and mother'; we suspect that this was to honor his other grandfather, Constantine. (Hrothger Monomakh, 9/95 p. 18)
[registering the locative of Ragnars Rock] There should be no confusion with Ragnarök; it is not a place and therefore could not appear in a locative byname. (Ragnar of Ragnars Rock, 10/95 p. 4)
[registering the epithet the Serene] The byname... verges on the pretentious. The first citation in the OED in the sense `calm, untroubled' is from about 1635; in period citations the word is used as an honorific epithet for a reigning prince or other member of a royal house. Given 'Grey Area' citations showing the modern usage, however, we must give it the benefit of the doubt. (Tamar the Serene, 12/95 p. 1)
This specifically overturns the old precedent (set during the tenure of Karina of the Far West) that one may not combine the name Corwin with a unicorn in the armory. "For those names that are well documented as period human names, that also happen to be the names of gods, one armorial allusion to the god will no longer be considered excessive." (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR October 1992, p. 27) By this registration, we add to that allowance the combination of Corwin and a unicorn. (Corwin Breakshield, 2/96 p. 4)
[returning Jaida Badr al-Din] We must return this name for violation of RfS VI.1 (Names Claiming Rank): laqabs of the form <noun> al-Din '<noun> of the Faith' were bestowed upon princes, statesmen, generals and high officers of state by the Caliph as titles and so constitute implicit claims to rank and station (Jaida Badr al-Din, 2/96 p. 18)
The other matter came up in the registration of the name Óengus mac Domnaill Glinne Chomair (Atlantia), a Gaelic name that could be translated 'Angus son of Donald of Glencoe'. As it happens, there is a clan known in English as MacDonald of Glencoe, and it was suggested that the combination of patronymic and locative was for that reason a claim to chieftainship of the clan. However, Gaelic usage in such matters can be surprising: it turns out that the chief is in Gaelic simply MacIain (after the clan's progenitor). Thus, the submitted bynames are in Gaelic simply descriptive, meaning only what they seem to say. It appears that this example is not unique, so there may be a number of superficially disallowed combinations that in Gaelic are not at all presumptuous; the facts will have to be ascertained on a case-by-case basis. (CL 4/96)
Some commenters wondered whether the combination Senatori
da Firenze was presumptuous, taking it to be 'senator of Florence'.
However, senatori is the plural of senatore 'senator', and a reasonably
exact translation of the phrase senatori da Firenze appears to be 'senators
from Florence', which is clearly not a byname claiming rank. The
name admits only one interpretation: Senatori is the hereditary surname
of a lady from Florence. (Claudia Lisabetta Senatori da Firenze,
5/96 p. 14)
Since Romany has been an unwritten language for most of
its 1000-year history, the choice is essentially between accepting such
documentation and assuming that Romany names have not changed too greatly
in the last 400 years, and not accepting Romany names at all; we have chosen
the more generous course. (Keja Tselebnika, 9/95 p. 14)
The submitted form mixes two different transliteration systems, which has the effect of changing the pronunciation of the names. The name in its entirety should adopt a single system of transliteration. (Katia Stesnaya, 9/94 p. 21)
[changing Dirk Ivanovich] No one produced evidence of sufficient interaction between the Low Countries and Russia in period to justify the combination. (Direk Ivanovich, 8/95 p. 5)
Such a Russian/English combination is extremely improbable in period. [The name was registered.] (Tatiana Mitford, 9/95 p. 9)
The French surname tacked onto an otherwise thoroughly Russian name is implausible. Justification would appear to depend on a persona story rather than on evidence from period naming practice. Nevertheless, the persona story in question - Russian girl marries French trader and adopts his surname - is probably within current limits of acceptability. [The name was registered.] (Dasha Miloslava Broussard, 1/96 p. 6)
[registering Makedonii Dmitrii Aleksievich Kolchin]
The name is extremely unlikely, owing to the fact that the given names
Makedonii and Dmitrii are both Christian given names. Double given
names are not especially remarkable in period Russian naming, but almost
invariably one was Slavic and the other Christian. There are apparently
isolated examples of double Christian names, but they are most uncharacteristic
of normal Russian practice. (Makedonii Dmitrii, Aleksievich Kolchin,
5/96 p. 16)
Submitted as ...De Córdoba, the [preposition] is not normally capitalized. [It was registered as de Córdoba] (Juana de Córdoba, 9/94 p. 3)
[returning the given name Xavier] ...no evidence has been found that Xavier was anything but a placename in period. The use of Xavier as a given name comes after the canonization of St. Francis Xavier, which occurred in 1622. (Xavier Tormod Macleod, 10/94 p. 15)
It is very unlikely that a Spanish name would consist solely of three given names, but Díez Melcón, Apellidos Castellanos-Leoneses, p. 299, has one and possibly two such names. [The name was registered.] (Juan Miguel Cezar, 8/95 p. 9)
[returning the byname de la Rama Caida] Most of those who commented on the byname, which means `of the fallen branch', found it implausible, and in fact it departs from available models of period Spanish bynames in both form and meaning. In the available period examples of the form de <article> <object>, the object of the preposition is an unmodified noun. Moreover, such bynames seem to correspond semantically to Middle English bynames with atte and with the: de la Puente and atte Brigge `at the bridge'; de los Mulos `of the mules' and Withehounds `with the hounds' (occupational, for a handler); de la Calza `of the hose' and Wythemantel `with the cloak'; and de illa Fornera `of the (female) baker' (for a son, servant, or husband) and atte Maydenes (for a servant of the maidens). Fallen branches are both ordinary and ephemeral; it is hard to see how anyone would have come to be known either for having a noteworthy fallen branch (`with the fallen branch') or for living near one (`at the fallen branch'). (Armando de la Rama Caida, 10/95 p. 16)
[returning the byname de la Rama Caida] Perhaps la Rama Caída can be justified as the name of an establishment; but at present we have no evidence for Spanish use of sign names, let alone their nature. (Armando de la Rama Caida, 10/95 p. 16)
This name, with two given names and three surnames, is significantly more complex than any available documented Spanish name. [The name was returned.] (Domingo Diego Diaz de la Vega y Martin, 10/95 p. 18)
[registering the byname da Montanha do Fogo] Magellan
coined the Spanish name Tierra del Fuego `Land of Fire' in 1520; a period
Portuguese analogue does not seem to be out of the question, though we
would expect it to be a specific toponym, not a generic expression for
`volcano'. We do not know what the normal Portuguese syntax would
have been; given the close relationship between Portuguese and Spanish,
we have frankly guessed that it should follow the Spanish model, in which
del Fuego is literally `of the fire', and have therefore changed de Fogo
to do Fogo `of the fire'. (Brigitta da Montanha do Fogo, 1/96 p.
1)
[considering the locative of St. Ninian's Isle] We do not register the scribal abbreviation (St.) But the full form (Saint), and the use of the apostrophe in possessives is not period. (Severian the Northumbrian of Saint Ninians Isle, 9/94 p. 7)
While cross-gender names have long been allowed in the SCA, mixed-gender names have not. This has a masculine given with a feminine given with a surname. [The name was returned.] (Cristall Madeleine Moore, 5/95 p. 15)
[registering Jan Kees Dudel] The...question is whether
its resemblance to Yankee Doodle is too intrusive. On this issue
commentary was almost evenly divided between those who found the name intrusively
modern and those who thought it a `funny-once' to which the so-called Toyota
principle should apply, with a slight edge to the latter group. Returns
for matters of taste, like armorial returns for visual conflict, should
be avoided whenever possible; in the absence of a clear consensus that
the name is intrusively modern, we cannot justify returning it. (Jan
Kees Dudel, 1/96 p. 14)
Welsh does not normally use the definite article for placenames in names. We have therefore dropped it. (Daffydd ap Owain ap Cadell Caer yn Arfon, 10/94 p. 3)
The format of the name (it means "Ieuan, son of someone called `the Red Dragon'") is not as peculiar in Welsh as it might seem. It is possible to find examples of patronyms using the father's nickname rather than given name (often using the definite article) (the best example for this name as a whole, in fact, is that of the 13th century poet Gruffudd ab yr Ynad Coch "Gruffudd son of the Red Judge"). In spite of the appearance at first blush to pretention (the Red Dragon is one of the two premier national symbols of Wales), it isn't really correct to say that the byname is "presumptuous" in a technical sense because there is no evidence for it being used historically as a personal byname, and thus there can be no assumed importance attached to it. (Ieuan ab y Draig goch, 6/95 p. 4)
[registering the household name Ty Gafrewig Wen] 'House of the White Antelope' does not seem to follow period Welsh practice in naming families and buildings, but it is well within our rather loose standards for household names. (Bronwen o Gyeweli, 9/95 p. 7)
The name was submitted as Cáelán ap Llwyd, in which Cáelán is Irish, and the rest, Welsh. There is a reasonable amount of evidence for Welsh/Irish combinations in names, but they should still follow one spelling convention or the other, so we have removed the distinctively Irish accents to produce what Harpy calls a `plausible Welsh borrowing of an Irish given name'. (Caelan ap Llwyd, 10/95 p. 8)
Double descriptive Welsh bynames are rare but not unknown; Harpy provides the example Gwen Vaur Goch `Big Red Gwen' 1292-3. (Morwenn Ddu Wystl, 11/95 p. 7)
According to Harpy, y Gwibddyn Dyrys `the wild vagabond' is a correctly constructed Welsh phrase that resembles period Welsh bynames as little as the Melancholy Procrastinator resembles their English counterparts. The latter was returned last month (Judith the Melancholy Procrastinator, Middle) for failure to follow period models, and we do not think that the inability of most SCA folk to understand Welsh is sufficient reason to treat the present submission more leniently. (Eleri y Gwibddyn Dyrys, 12/95 p. 17)
This appendix contains all rules changes implemented during this period:
In the recent name rules revision, in Rule for Submission V.1.b.ii (Number of Name Phrases), the existence of a few anciently-registered names consisting of just a single element was overlooked. To restore the intended usage, this Rule is being modified to read: "ii. Number of Name Phrases - A personal name containing at most two name phrases does not conflict with any personal name containing a different number name phrases." The subtext remains the same. (CL 10/94)
The consensus of the College being that we should drop
the unhistorical practice of the form of address "Lord [Heraldic title]"
and "Lady [Heraldic title]", the use of placenames for heraldic titles
need no longer be prohibited on the grounds that "Lord/Lady [placename]"
could be considered a claim to "landedness". As a consequence, the
subtext of Rule for Submission III.2.b.iii (Heraldic Titles) is hereby
replaced with the following sentence:
These are generally drawn
from surnames (Chandos Herald, Percy Herald), place-names (Windsor Herald,
Calais Pursuivant, Sicily 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). (CL 10/94)
The time for final discussion on the "Escape Clause"
being passed, and no objection having been noted, the following clauses
are added to the Rules for Submissions:
I.1.c. Documented Exceptions - A submission that is adequately documented as a period practice may be deemed acceptable even if it violates the stylistic requirements set forth in Parts III (Compatible Naming Style) or VIII (Compatible Armorial Style) of these rules.
VIII.6. Documented Exceptions - An armorial design element
that is adequately documented as a period practice may be deemed acceptable
even if it violates other sections of Part VIII (Compatible Armorial Style).
Such design elements will be accepted only on
a case-by-case basis and only in armory comparable in style and complexity
to the documented period examples. The strength of the case for such
an exception increases in proportion to: the similarity of the documented
examples to the submitted armory; and the number of independent period
examples offered as evidence.
a. General Exceptions - In most cases the documentation
for a proposed exceptional armorial design element should be drawn from
several European heraldic jurisdictions.
The strength
of the case for such an exception increases in proportion to the geographical
and chronological breadth of the supporting period evidence.
b. Regional Style - Alternatively, a proposed exceptional
armorial design element may be documented as characteristic of a specific
regional armorial style.
In such cases the submitted armory
may be registered provided that all of the following conditions are met.
(1) The submitter explicitly requests an exception to the other sections
of Part VIII (Compatible Armorial Style) on the grounds that the submitted
armory exemplifies a specific regional style. (2) Documentation is
adduced to show that exceptional design element was not uncommon in the
regional style in question. (3) Documentation is adduced to show
that all elements of the submitted armory can be found in the regional
style in question. (CL 8/95)
The following is the new revision of RfS X.4.a., field only and field primary difference:
X.4.a. Field Difference - Significantly changing the tinctures,
direction of partition lines, style of partition lines, or number of pieces
in a partition of the field is one clear difference.
In general, if the tincture of at least half the
field is changed, the fields will be considered different. Per chevron
azure and gules has one clear difference from Per chevron azure and sable.
Per pale azure and Or has one clear difference from Per bend azure and
Or and from Per pale embattled azure and Or. Bendy argent and sable
has one clear difference from Per bend argent and sable. Barry gules
and argent has one clear difference from Barry and per pale gules and argent.
There is a clear difference for reversing the tinctures of a field evenly
divided into two parts, per saltire, or quarterly, but not for reversing
the tinctures of a field divided in any other way; Per pale nebuly ermine
and gules has one clear difference from Per pale nebuly gules and ermine,
but Paly ermine and gules has no clear difference from Paly gules and ermine.
Field treatments are considered an aspect of tincture, so Per fess gules
and argent has one clear difference from Per fess gules and argent masoned
sable. Per fess dovetailed gules and argent has no clear difference
from Per fess embattled gules and argent because the difference between
dovetailed and embattled lines is not significant. It suffices to
change significantly the style of at least half of the partition lines,
so Quarterly per fess wavy argent and sable has one clear difference from
Quarterly argent and sable; Paly and per fess argent and sable has no clear
difference from Paly and per fess indented argent and sable, however.
Gyronny Or and sable has no clear difference from Gyronny of twelve Or
and sable because the difference between eight and twelve pieces is not
significant.
i. Charged Fields - If charges other than an uncharged
peripheral ordinary are present, at most one clear difference may be counted
for changes to the field.
For the purposes of this rule the peripheral
ordinaries are the chief, the bordure, the base (including the point pointed),
the quarter, the canton, the gyron, the orle, the double tressure, and
flaunches. There is just one clear difference between Per chevron
ermine and azure, a pale gules and Per bend wavy Or and vert, a pale gules.
ii. Field-Primary Armory - If neither of two pieces
of armory being compared has charges, or if each has the same uncharged
peripheral ordinary, they may derive greater difference from changes to
the field. Such armory will be called field-primary armory.
For the purposes of this rule the peripheral
ordinaries are the chief, the bordure, the base (including the point pointed),
the quarter, the canton, the gyron, the orle, the double tressure, and
flaunches.
(a) Substantial Change of Partition - If two pieces
of field-primary armory have substantially different partitions, they are
considered sufficiently different and do not conflict, irrespective of
any other similarities between them.
Any divided field is substantially
different from any plain field: Per pale azure and vert is substantially
different from Azure. Any two of the following partitions are substantially
different from each other except the pairs per fess and barry, per bend
and bendy, per pale and paly, per bend sinister and bendy sinister, and
per chevron and chevronelly: per fess, per bend, per pale, per bend sinister,
per saltire, per chevron, quarterly, checky, lozengy, gyronny (of any number
of pieces), barry, bendy, paly, bendy sinister, and chevronelly.
Checky is substantially different from all other grid-like partitions (i.e.,
those formed by two sets of parallel lines, like lozengy and barry-bendy);
these other grid-like partitions are not substantially different from one
another. Barry and per pale argent and vert is substantially different
from Checky argent and vert, but it has only a clear difference from Bendy
and per pale argent and vert. Per chevron Or and gules is not substantially
different from Chevronelly Or and gules, nor is Per pale wavy purpure and
argent substantially different from Paly wavy argent and purpure, though
in each case there is a clear difference between the fields.
(b) Complete Change of Tincture - If the fields
of two pieces of field-primary armory have no tinctures in common, they
are considered completely different and do not conflict, irrespective of
any other similarities between them.
The ermine furs and their variants
are considered to be different tinctures, so Per bend ermine and azure
is completely different from Per bend erminois and gules and from Per bend
argent ermined gules and sable. The addition of a field treatment
is also a change of tincture, so Per fess argent and gules is completely
different from Per fess argent masoned gules and sable.
(c) Other Field-Primary Armory - In any case, independent
changes to the tincture, direction of partition lines, style of partition
lines, or number of pieces in the partition may be counted separately when
comparing two pieces of field-primary armory.
There are two clear differences between
Per chevron argent and azure and Per pale nebuly argent and azure.
iii. Fieldless Difference - A piece of fieldless
armory automatically has one clear difference from any other armory, fielded
or fieldless.
Tinctureless armory and Japanese mon are
considered to be fieldless for this purpose. (CL 10/95)
We have for some time been able to print such characters as ü, ê, ó, à etc. in the LoAR; these letters have been correctly registered even if this fact wasn't necessarily apparent in the Armorial. But we have not heretofore allowed the letters ð (edh) and þ (thorn) to be registered, though they also can be printed in the LoAR. With the adoption of a standard ASCII representation, this restriction seems unnecessary, especially considering that these letters were more frequently used in period than many that we routinely allow. This month we have therefore registered two names with the letter ð, Freydís Kausi Fiðardóttir (An Tir) and Ragnarr Grásíða (Middle), in each case taking our cue from the submitter's forms. Please note, therefore, that it is no longer necessary to choose an arbitrary transliteration of these letters in submitting an Old Norse or Old English name. Of course, period transliterations are still acceptable as well.
{For those of you who do not recall the list of equivalents, it is reproduced here.} (CL 2/96)
á = {a'}
à = {'a}
â = {a^}
ä = {a"}
å = {ao}
æ = {ae}
Æ = {AE}
ç = {c,}
é = {e'}
è = {'e}
ê = {e^}
ë = {e"}
É = {E'}
í = {i'}
ì = {'i}
î = {i^}
ï = {i"}
ñ = {n~}
ó = {o'}
ò = {'o}
ô = {o^}
ö = {o"}
ø = (o/}
Ó = {O'}
Ö = {O"}
Ø = {O/}
ú = {u'}
ù = {'u}
û = {u^}
ü = {u"}
ð = {dh}
þ = {th}
The initial implementation list for the Modest Proposal
was adopted in December, 1994 as an addendum to the usual LoAR. In
the months following there were various additional items of non-SCA armory
set forward for similar registration. This appendix contains the
resulting decisions.
In this appendix the usual format is set aside.
The various items are divided into two groups: those which were registered
and those which were not registered. The various proposals were typically
presented in large groups, and the rulings to some extant addressed the
groups as a whole. In order to accomidate this the submissions are
here presented grouped by LoAR, with specific page number citations omitted.
May 1995:
DRACHENWALD LETTER OF INTENT TO PROTECT
Of the items in this Letter of Intent to Protect, the
ones immediately below were generally felt to warrant protection by the
SCA and will be added to the Armorial and Ordinary. [Editor's note: while
many of these persons are unfamiliar to even educated Americans, they are
better known to Europeans in general and Scadanavians in particular.
They were added in order to address Anglo-centric bias in the initial implementation
list.]
Bernadotte. Azure, an eagle displayed facing sinister perched upon a marshal's baton in chief the constellation of Ursa Major Or and a bridge of three arches issuant from a base wavy argent.
Birger Jarl. Azure semy of hearts gules, three bendlets sinister argent overall a lion rampant Or.
Brahe, Tycho. Sable, a pale argent.
Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson. Azure, a sinister and a dexter half of a fleur-de-lys in chevron throughout and in base a dexter half of a fleur-de-lys fesswise Or.
Fugger. Per pale Or and azure, two fleurs-de-lys counterchanged.
The Fugger family were on a par with the de' Medicis
in banking and finance.
Oxenstierna, Axel. Or, a bull's scalp (oxenstjärna)
gules.
A bull's scalp is the cow equivalent to a deer's massacre;
it is the horns with a bit of the scalp attached.
Painters, Swedish Guild of. Azure, three inescutcheons
argent.
This coat appears to have been widely used by painters
and their guilds throughout Europe. As a consequence, it is in all likelihood
more familiar to people than many of the other coats we already protect.
June 1995:
SCRIBE ARMARIUS LETTER OF INTENT TO PROTECT
It was unfortunate that many of the items in this Letter of Intent to Protect were unaccompanied by any justification as to why they should merit protection by the SCA. The very broad range of commentary on the arms of these cities also tended to complicate the decisions here. (They ranged from "enthusiastically support" protecting all of the proposed armory to the position that to be fully consistent, we should "unprotect" the arms of Rome. The most unusual position, at least to Laurel, taken by one of the commenters was that if the arms of a city were familiar to the residents of that city, the SCA should protect them. It is Laurel's belief that adoption of this proposal would lead us to protect the arms of every city in the world which has arms, whether properly matriculated or otherwise assumed; even small towns in Texas place some sort of insignia or armorial display on their official letterhead, municipal buildings, etc., and so the residents of those towns must be assumed as being familiar with them. As a consequence, we cannot imagine a city with arms with which the residents of that city would not be familiar.) We have tried here to strike a tenuous balance between the "arms" school and the "man" school, fully realizing that no such "balance" is going to make everyone happy, and that it cannot help but appear to be somewhat arbitrary. As a general rule, national capitals received more consideration for protection than non-capitals. And in every case, all of the commentary was carefully reviewed and considered in the decision of whether or not to protect (though, of course, those who gave specific reasons for their support or lack of support could be given fuller consideration in the deliberations than those who simply said they supported registration but gave no reasons for their support).
The following civic arms will be protected and added to the SCA Armorial and Ordinary.
AMSTERDAM, City of. Gules, on a pale sable three saltorels couped argent.
BERLIN, City of. Device. Argent, a bear rampant sable.
As canting arms, the device shows up in a number of heraldry
books. As a national capital, the city itself is widely known.
BERN, City of. Device. Gules, on a bend Or a bear passant
sable.
Same basic rationale as for Berlin. (The fact that Laurel
personally has a small stained glass window hanging of these arms did
not influence the decision; in spite of personal knowledge of the armory,
I counseled against adding Bern to the initial implementation list.)
CINQUE PORTS, Cities of the. Per pale gules and azure,
in pale three demi-lions passant guardant Or conjoined to three demi-hulks
argent.
The arms show up in so many heraldic and history books
that they may be said to be nearly as familiar in the SCA as the arms of
England, and thus warrant protection.
FLORENCE, City of. Device. Argent, a fleur-de-lys gules.
The arms appear in a number of heraldic and historical
texts, and so seem through identifiability to warrant our protection.
LONDON, City of. Device. Argent, a cross and in dexter
chief a sword gules.
The capital of England, and the arms themselves seem
reasonably well known to a number of non-heralds. (This arguably may be
the most recognizable civic armory in this letter.)
OXFORD, City of. Argent, an ox statant gules atop a ford
proper.
While arguably these arms are no more important than
many others on the Letter of Intent to Protect which we have chosen not
to protect, they are more familiar to many Americans and English because
the obvious cant has placed them in many heraldry and historical texts.
STOCKHOLM, City of. Azure, a king's head coupled affronty
and crowned Or.
The arms are those of a national capital and have appeared
in a number of historic and heraldry texts, which probably makes them sufficiently
familiar to warrant protection.
VENICE, City of. Azure, a lion of St. mark statant guardant
Or atop a base vert, forepaw raised and maintaining a book argent.
The arms seem to be fairly well known, primarily because
of the lion of St. Mark and its frequent depiction in relationship to the
city.
August 1995:
PALIMPSEST LETTER OF INTENT TO PROTECT
Folkunga, House of (Modern). Azure semy of hearts gules,
three scarpes wavy argent and overall a lion rampant crowned Or. {This
is the House founded by Birger Jarl of Sweden.}
This is the modern form of the coat for this family,
already protected in the MPII List (and modified in the accompanying Errata
Letter).
September 1995:
MAXEN LETTER OF INTENT TO PROTECT
[Editor's note: This letter consists of national flags
omitted or incorrectly blazoned on the initial implementation list.]
Afghanistan. Per fess vert and sable, a fess argent surmounted by an arch within a wreath environed of two scimitars crossed at the hilts tips in base gules.
Benin. Per fess Or and gules, a dexter tierce vert.
Cambodia. Azure, on a fess gules the temple of Angkor Wat argent.
Cape Verde. Azure, on a abased fess argent a bar gules, overall to dexter ten mullets in annulo Or.
Congo. Per bend sinister vert and gules, a bend sinister Or.
Czech Republic. Per fess argent and gules, a dexter tierce
triangular azure.
This is currently blazoned incorrectly as Per pall azure,
gules and argent. It could, however, also be accurately blazoned as Per
pale argent and gules, a chief triangular azure.
Eritrea. Per fess vert and bleu-celeste, on a pile issuant from dexter throughout gules a sprig issuant from and within a laurel wreath Or.
Iraq. Per fess gules and sable, on a fess argent between three mullets in fess the words Allahu akbar in Arabic vert.
Kazakhstan. Azure, in pale a sun and an eagle volant affronty wings displayed voided, in the hoist a pallet of lace Or.
Kyrgyzstan. Gules, on a sun Or three bendlets and three bendlets sinister, all enarched, within and conjoined to an annulet gules.
Lithuania. Per fess Or and gules, a fess vert.
Namibia. Per bend sinister azure and vert, a bend sinister gules fimbriated argent, in dexter chief a sun Or.
Slovenia. Per fess argent and gules, a fess and in dexter
chief on an escutcheon azure fimbriated gules on a mountain of three peaks
argent two bars wavy azure and in chief three mullets two and one Or.
This is currently blazoned Azure in chief three mullets
Or and on a trimount argent two bars wavy azure.
South Africa. Per pall fesswise gules, sable, and azure,
a pall fesswise vert fimbriated to dexter Or and to sinister argent.
This could also be blazoned as Per pall sable, gules
and azure, a pall vert fimbriated to chief Or and to dexter and sinister
argent.
Tajikistan. Per fess gules and vert, on a fess argent a crown and to chief an arc of seven mullets all in annulo Or.
Turkmenistan. Vert, in dexter chief between the horns of a crescent bendwise five mullets two and three in bend argent, to dexter a pale gules marked as a Turkmen carpet Or, argent and azure.
Yemen. Per fess gules and sable, a fess argent.
May 1995:
DRACHENWALD LETTER OF INTENT TO PROTECT
Of the items in this Letter of Intent to Protect, the ones immediately below were generally felt to be insufficiently important to warrant protection by the SCA. Specific reasons are given with each proposal.
Birger Persson. Gules, two wings inverted argent.
Persson is primarily known for being the father of St.
Bridget. The general feeling among the commenters is that this alone is
not sufficient to warrant protection (see, e.g., Harpy's letter of intent
to "un"protect the arms of Owen Tudor).
Bo Jonsson. Argent, a griffin's head erased sable.
There was a fair consensus among the commenters that
this person did not come up to the general standards of importance to warrant
protection.
De Geer, Louis. Argent, on five fusils in fess gules three
fleur-de-lys in pale Or.
There was a fair amount of consensus among the commenters
that money alone (de Geer was a merchant, industrialist, and entrepreneur)
was not a sufficient basis for protecting these arms, and that he did not
seem to be more significant than others we have chosen not to protect.
Erik Magnusson. Azure semy of hearts gules, three bendlets
sinister argent, overall a lion rampant crowned Or.
These arms are protected already, as they are identical
to the arms of Birger Jarl, above.
Hvide. Barry of six azure and argent.
There was a fair consensus among the commenters that
this family did not come up to the general standards of importance to warrant
protection.
Karl Knutsson. Or, a hulk gules.
Better known to Americans as King Charles VIII of Sweden,
these were his family rather than the royal arms; the equivalent of being
the "father of somebody". The general consensus among the commenters was
that these arms need not be protected.
Linné, Carl von. Tierced per pall gules, vert and
sable, on a pall argent between three coronets Or, a torteau charged with
an egg inverted argent.
There was a fair consensus among the commenters that
these arms did not come up to the general standards of importance to warrant
protection. Not even a commenter who collects the arms of great scientists
was familiar with these arms.
Oxenstierna, Jöns Bengtsson. Or, a bull's scalp (oxenstjärna)
gules.
These arms are already protected in the identical arms
of Axel Oxenstierna, above.
Sten Gustavsson Sture. Or, three seeblatter in bend sable.
The feeling among the commenters was somewhat borderline,
with a slight edge to those who felt that the arms were not sufficiently
important to protect.
Sten Svantesson Sture. Per fess Or and azure.
The feeling among the commenters was somewhat borderline,
with a slight edge to those who felt that the arms were not sufficiently
important to protect.
Tott. Quarterly gules and Or. Sometimes, Quarterly Or
and gules.
There was nothing from the description given which led
the commenters to believe that these arms were sufficiently important to
protect.
June 1995:
Simon de Vere Gules, three cinquefoils [sometimes pierced, sometimes sexfoils] argent. [Editor's note: this coat was set forward for protection in response to the submission of Jonas Aquilian, following]
[registering Azure, three roses argent] Versus Simon
de Vere (Papworth, p. 872), Gules, three cinquefoils [sometimes pierced,
sometimes sexfoils] argent {sometimes ermine}, nothing about Simon de Vere
(of Sproatley, Yorkshire; he was the son of Walter de Vere, who was son
of Adam of Goxhill, Lincolnshire, Gundreda, daughter and heir of Guy de
Vere; and in 1267 he was described as the King's enemy, and his lands were
granted to John Comyn) places him in the same category as other historical
persons whose arms we have decided to protect. (Now, John de Vere, 13th
Earl of Oxford (and who bears an entirely different coat), is a different
matter.) Similarly, the Frasers of Clan Fraser (Azure, three roses argent)
do not approach the significance of the people
initially protected (for example, none of the chiefs
has an article in the GL).
HARPY LETTER OF INTENT TO {UN}PROTECT
Owain Tudor. Release of protection of arms. Gules, a chevron
between three helms argent.
[Editor's note: this coat was on the original implementation
list, but was here removed on the grounds that simply being the father
of somebody famous is insufficient to merit inclusion.]
SCRIBE ARMARIUS LETTER OF INTENT TO PROTECT
ANTWERP, City of. Gules, a castle triple-towered
between in chief a pair of hands in chevron inverted argent.
Though the city itself is important in later period,
and its arms relate to the legend of how the city received its name, the
arms do not otherwise appear to be of sufficient importance for us to protect
them.
AVIGNON, City of. Gules, in pale three keys fesswise
wards to dexter Or.
Though the site of the "Babylonian captivity" of the
Papacy, that seems to be pretty much Avignon's sole claim to fame, and
the arms themselves do not appear to be particularly well known.
BASEL, City of. Argent, a crook of Basel sable.
The arms seem important only in the uniqueness of the
primary charge.
BREMEN, City of. Gules, a key bendwise ward to
chief argent.
Though a large port city (one from which a large percentage
of emigrants leaving for America sailed in the last 150 years), nothing
else about the city or its arms seems to place it in the same category
as those considered important enough to protect.
BRUSSELS, City of. Gules, the Archangel Michael
statant affronty Or vanquishing underfoot a demon sable.
Though the capital of Belgium, nothing else about either
the city or its arms seems to warrant protection by the SCA. Moscow is
probably better known for this motif than Brussels is.
COLOGNE, City of. Ermine, on a chief gules three
crowns Or.
Nothing about either the city or the arms seems sufficient
to warrant protection by the SCA.
DUBLIN, City of. Azure, three castles argent, the
battlements enflamed proper.
Though the capital of Eire, nothing else about the city
or its arms seems of sufficient importance to warrant protection.
EDINBURGH, City of. Argent, a castle triple-towered
sable atop a rocky mount proper.
Though arguably more familiar to non-heralds in America
than some of the other civic armory on the Letter of Intent to Protect,
the arms do not otherwise seem sufficiently important to warrant protection.
GDANSK, City of. Gules, in pale two crosses formy
argent, in chief a crown Or.
Nothing in the Letter of Intent to Protect nor in the
commentary suggested anything about the city or its arms that warrant protection.
GENOA, City of. Argent, a cross gules.
This is already protected (as the ensign of England).
Nothing else about either the city or its arms seemed sufficiently important
to otherwise warrant protection.
LONDONDERRY, City of. Sable, a human skeleton seated
and facing dexter Or atop a mount vert, contemplating a tower in dexter
chief, on a chief argent a cross and in dexter chief a sword gules.
The odd charge and chief of London notwithstanding, the
arms do not even appear in most of the heraldic texts familiar to members
of the College. If they do not even appear at all in most of the heraldic
texts we use, it is hard to understand how they can be considered sufficiently
important to protect.
MAINZ, City of. Gules, in bend two wheels yoked
by a cross couped argent.
The charge is an unusual one which occasionally gets
it mention in some heraldic texts. Other than that, nothing about the city
or its arms seems sufficiently important to warrant our protection.
MARSEILLES, City of. Argent, a cross azure.
This is already protected as the flag of Finland. Nothing
else about the city or its arms seems sufficiently important to warrant
our protection.
MUNICH, City of. Argent, a monk statant affronty
arms outspread proper vested sable maintaining in his sinister hand a book
gules.
While some argued that these arms were in the same category
as Bern, that city is a national capital. The arms, while canting, do not
otherwise appear to warrant our protection.
PARIS, City of. Gules, a lymphad under sail atop
waves of the sea issuant from base argent, a chief azure semy-de-lys Or.
The city is important, and a capital, but the arms themselves
appear to be relatively obscure (even Laurel himself never saw them before
their appearance in this Letter of Intent to Protect).
PISA, City of. Gules, a key cross argent.
The only "claim to fame" that the arms have is that they
appear to be the defining instance of a key cross. That alone does not
appear to be sufficient to warrant our protection.
REGENSBURG, City of. Gules, two keys in saltire
wards to chief argent.
Nothing in the Letter of Intent to Protect nor in the
commentary suggested anything about the city or its arms that warrant protection.
STUTTGART, City of. Or, a horse rampant sable.
The fact that Porsche uses the horse from the city's
arms on its automobiles does not make the arms sufficiently important to
warrant our protection.
TRIESTE, City of. Gules, a spearhead stylized as
a fleur-de-lys argent.
While the charge on the arms appears to be unique and
therefore gets it occasional mention in heraldic texts, nothing else about
either the city or its arms seems sufficiently important to warrant protection.
TURIN, City of. Azure, a bull rampant Or.
Nothing in the Letter of Intent to Protect nor in the
commentary suggested anything about the city or its arms that warrant protection.
ULM, City of. Per fess sable and argent.
Nothing in the Letter of Intent to Protect nor in the
commentary suggested anything about the city or its arms that warrant protection.
VIENNA, City of. Sable, a double-headed eagle displayed
and haloed Or, in chief an Imperial crown proper with fibulae Or, as an
augmentation, the eagle's breast charged with an inescutcheon gules, thereon
a cross argent.
The arms, as the LoItP notes, have an interesting story.
Nothing else about them seems sufficiently important to warrant our protection.
And, as noted, the original arms of the city (Gules, a cross argent), are
already on the protected list under the arms of Savoy.
WARSAW, City of. Gules, a mermaid proper tailed
argent brandishing a sword and targe Or.
Nothing in the Letter of Intent to Protect nor in the
commentary suggested anything about the city or its arms that warrant protection.
WÜRZBURG, City of. Sable, a banner quarterly
gules and Or flying from a pole bendwise Or.
Nothing in the Letter of Intent to Protect nor in the
commentary suggested anything about the city or its arms that warrant protection.
YORK, City of. Argent, on a cross gules five lions
passant guardant Or.
Nothing in the Letter of Intent to Protect nor in the
commentary suggested anything about the city or its arms that warrant protection
(aside from one commenter who was familiar with them from having traveled
there, and another who was marginally willing to protect them "on the grounds
of rampant Anglocentrism").
ZÜRICH, City of. Device. Per bend argent and
azure.
Nothing in the Letter of Intent to Protect nor in the
commentary suggested anything about the city or its arms that warrant protection.
August 1995:
BRACHET LETTER OF INTENT TO PROTECT
Gondor. Sable, a tree blossoming argent.
The commentary on this and the other proposals from Tolkien
was somewhat mixed. However popular the Lord of the Rings trilogy is among
older members of the SCA, it appears to have lost much of its status over
the intervening years. Here, the commentary generally favored not protecting
these arms.
Heirs of Elendil. Sable, a tree surmounted by a
crown in the midst of seven estoiles [each of six rays] in annulo, all
argent.
The commentary on this and the other proposals from Tolkien
was somewhat mixed. However popular the Lord of the Rings trilogy is among
older members of the SCA, it appears to have lost much of its status over
the intervening years. Here, although the commentary slightly favored protecting
these arms, the problem here is that the description given in Lord of the
Rings does not lead to an unambiguous blazon. The verbal description given
therein (Professor Tolkien appears never to have drawn this himself) regarding
Aragorn's standard, which has a black field, is: "There flowered a White
Tree, and that was for Gondor; but Seven Stars were about it, and a high
crown above it, the signs of Elendil that no lord had borne for years beyond
count." The depictions which have been made of this standard have the stars
in a variety of arrangements, including strewn, in annulo, and in an arc
above the tree. Given the lack of a standard blazonable depiction and variety
of ways in which the description in the book might be blazoned (each of
which is at least one CD apart from the others), added to which is the
question of whether the "stars" are mullets or estoiles, we are extremely
hesitant to register something which can be depicted in so many widely
varying ways.
Rohan. Vert, a horse courant argent.
The commentary on this and the other proposals from Tolkien
was somewhat mixed. However popular the Lord of the Rings trilogy is among
older members of the SCA, it appears to have lost much of its status over
the intervening years. Here, the commentary generally favored not protecting
these arms.
Hospital of St. Mary Bethlem. Azure, an estoile
of eight rays argent.
While the name of the hospital was reasonably well-known
to many of the commenters (because of its status as the origin of the word
bedlam) the armory itself appears to be entirely obscure. As a consequence,
there was very little support for protection of these arms.
John de Vere. Gules, three cinquefoils argent.
As noted in some of the commentary, the arms of John
de Vere are already on the protected list. However, these arms are not
those, and no one presented any evidence that these arms are of sufficient
import to protect as well. [Editor's note: i.e. these are the arms of an
obscure family coincidentally synonymous with the famous Earls of Oxford.]
Table of Contents of Precedents of Da'ud Ibn Auda, 2nd Tenure