![]() |
|
||||||||||
Elisabeth's Armory Precedents - Second Tenure | |||||||||||
Armory Precedents of the SCA College of Arms The Second Tenure of Countess Elisabeth de Rossignol Last Revised: 6 June 2015 These are the armory precedents from the second tenure of Countess Elisabeth de Rossignol as Laurel Principal Queen of Arms. During this period armory rulings were made by Master Tanczos Istvan, Wreath King of Arms(April -June) and Magistra Emma de Fetherstan, Wreath Queen of Arms (June - August). Cover Letter discussions are included in the compiled precedents; however, they are located under the relevant topic. A list of these discussions, with links to one of the categories each is included under, is included in the table of contents. These precedents are referenced by armory owner's name, the date of the Cover Letter (CL) or LoAR in month/year format (not the publication date), the action taken (A for acceptance, R for return, P for pend), and the kingdom where the action is listed under. Unless otherwise noted at the beginning of a section, the precedents are arranged in chronological order. The category VISUAL COMPARISON deals with rulings relative to a specific piece of armory (e.g., a branch is maintained) and descriptions of specific pieces of armory. These entries are listed alphabetically by the owner of the armory. The category MUNDANE ARMORY contains a list of real-world armory that has been ruled not important enough to protect. These entries are listed alphabetically by the owner of the armory. As much as possible, I have used the same categories as currently used in the Ordinary and Armorial. This means that in some case the categories differ from those used in precedents from prior tenures. The Table of Contents includes some cross-references; many of these begin with the category:
The following heralds are referred to by title: Batonvert (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme), Noir Licorne (Jeanne Marie Lacroix, 2009), Pelican (Juliana de Luna), Pelican (Talan Gwynek, 1996), and Wreath Emeritus (Tanczos Istvan). Jeanne Marie Lacroix ARCHITECTURE see also BEACON and CASTLE ARRANGEMENT ARROW and ARROWHEAD ARTHROPOD - Lobster ARTHROPOD - Scorpion see ARTHROPOD - Lobster AUGMENTATIONS AXE BALANCE BASE BEACON BEAST - Badger BEAST - Camel BEAST - Cat BEAST - Dog BEAST - General BEAST - Llama BEAST - Tiger see BEAST - Cat BEAST - Wolf see BEAST - Dog BIRD - Cock and Hen BIRD - Crane-shaped BIRD - Duck see BIRD - Swan-shaped BIRD - Falcon BIRD - Hen see BIRD - Cock and Hen BIRD - Heron see BIRD - Crane-shaped BIRD - Hummingbird see BIRD - Miscellaneous BIRD - Owl BIRD - Peacock BIRD - Penguin see BIRD - Miscellaneous BIRD - Raven BIRD - Simurgh see BIRD - Peacock BIRD - Swan see BIRD - Swan-shaped BIRD - Swan-shaped BIRD - Wren see BIRD - Miscellaneous BLAZON BOOK BOTTLE CASTLE CHAIN CHARGE - Overall CHARGE - Peripheral CHARGE - Restricted or Reserved CHARGE GROUP CHEVRON and CHEVRON INVERTED CHIEF COMPASS STAR and SUN COMPLEXITY CONTRAST COUNTERCHANGING Counting Differences see DIFFERENCE - Counting Cover Letters:
From Wreath: A Four-Pointed Problem [04/2011 CL]
CROSSFrom Wreath: Chevrons, Per Chevron, and Their Inversions [05/2011] From Wreath Emeritus: Lamps [06/2011] From Wreath: On Demons [08/2011] CROSS - Difference Between CROWN CUP and CHALICE DIFFERENCE - Counting DIFFERENCE - Group DOCUMENTATION EMBLAZON - Coloring Problems Enflamed see FIRE Entwined charges see CHARGE GROUP FESS and BAR FIELD DIVISION - Gyronny FIELD DIVISION - Per Chevron and Per Chevron Inverted FIELD DIVISION - Per Saltire FIELD DIVISION - Quarterly FIELD DIVISION - Vêtu FIMBRIATED and VOIDED CHARGES FIRE FISH FISH - Dolphin see FISH FLOWER - Cup shape FLOWER - Dogwood see FLOWER - Few petals FLOWER - Few petals FLOWER - Iris FLOWER - Rose FLOWER - Trumpet Shape FLOWER - Trillium see FLOWER - Few petals FLOWER - Tulip see FLOWER - Cup shape FLOWER - Twinflower see FLOWER - Trumpet Shape FLOWER - Water Lily see FLOWER - Cup shape Gate see ARCHITECTURE GRENADE and FIREBALL GURGES and SCHNECKEN HAND and GAUNTLET HEAD - Human KNOTS LAUBURU LAMP LEAF LIGHTNING BOLT LINES of DIVISION - Embattled see LINES of DIVISION - Square LINES of DIVISION - Indented see LINES of DIVISION - Jagged LINES of DIVISION - Jagged LINES of DIVISION - Long LINES of DIVISION - Miscellaneous LINES of DIVISION - Nebuly see LINES of DIVISION - Wavy LINES of DIVISION - Rayonny see LINES of DIVISION - Long LINES of DIVISION - Square LINES of DIVISION - Wavy LOZENGE LURE Marshalled Arms see PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION - Marshalling MOLLUST - Snail MONSTER - Cockatrice see MONSTER - Dragon and Wyvern MONSTER - Dragon and Wyvern MONSTER - Humanoid MONSTER - Oriental Dragon see MONSTER - Dragon and Wyvern MONSTER - Phoenix MONSTER - Pithon MONSTER - Wyvern see MONSTER - Dragon and Wyvern MULLET MUNDANE ARMORY PAW PRINT PLANT POSTURE/ORIENTATION - Animate Charges POSTURE/ORIENTATION - General PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION - Marshalling ROUNDEL Rune see SYMBOL Sail see SHIP - Part Saltcellar see CUP and CHALICE Scroll see BOOK SEMY SFPP see STEP FROM PERIOD PRACTICE SHELL SHIP - Part Sparks see ROUNDEL STEP FROM PERIOD PRACTICE STYLE SWORD SYMBOL TABLE Tassel see KNOTS TOOL - Textile TREE TRIANGLE TRIQUETRA TRISKELE and TRISKELION Valknut see TRIANGLE VISUAL COMPARISON Organized by the owner of the registered armory in question Wall see FESS and BAR Weirdness see STEP FROM PERIOD PRACTICE Windmill see ARCHITECTURE WREATH [device change] Unfortunately, this is being returned for lack of evidence of support. Per the Admin Handbook IV.C.5, submissions involving the branch arms must include evidence of support for the action. No petition of support for the device change was included. [Stedborough, Canton of, 07/2011, R-Trimaris] ARCHITECTURE see also BEACON and CASTLE There is a CD ... for the difference between a windmill and a castle. [Kara de Korte, 04/2011, A-Middle]There is sufficient visual difference between a door and a square weaver's tablet for another CD. [Beonne seo brune, 07/2011, A-Ansteorra] This is the defining instance of a drawbridge in Society armory. The charge in period heraldry can be found in Stemmario Trivulziano, a Milanese roll of arms dating to the mid-15th Century, on plates 278 and 282. A drawbridge is at least a CD from a portcullis ... [Illuminada Eugenia de Guadalupe y Godoy, 08/2011, A-Caid] [a fleur-de-lys inverted sable between a fleur-de-lys vert and a fleur-de-lys purpure] The other step from period practice is for inverting only one charge of a group of three charges: "Inverting one of three identical charges on a chief is poor practice." [Torgul Steingrimsson, R-03/1986] Since it has not been demonstrated to be period practice, inverting only part of a charge group (other than charges in annulo where the entire group is oriented radially) is a step from period practice. [Lillian atte Valeye, 06/2011, R-East] This device is returned for redraw of the broad arrow. Commenters were unable to identify it as such; we would have reblazoned it as a tyr rune, but expect that was not the submitter's intent, and so would prefer to give him the opportunity to resubmit a redrawing. A good broad-arrow can be seen at http://oscar.sca.org/index.php?action=145&id=1735, and a good pheon at http://oscar.sca.org/index.php?action=145&id=13201. [Ulrich Jagermeister, 07/2011, R-Meridies] There is a CD for inverting a scorpion, by precedent: [Comparing Gules, a scorpion inverted Or with Gules, a scorpion tergiant (and some maintained charges) Or] There is a CVD for the orientation of the scorpion. [Victor George Richard, September 1990, R-Caid][Ulrich Sturmaere, 05/2011, R-Trimaris] The use of a scorpion inverted is allowed by precedent: Noir Licorne presented evidence from a previous LoAR which documented the use of a scorpion tergiant inverted as a crest in period: "There is a tergiant inverted scorpion as the crest of Sir William Sharington/Sherrington c. 1547 in Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry, p. 104." Since the use of a scorpion tergiant inverted has been demonstrated in period, we rule that its use is not a step from period practice.[Alessandra Lorenza Simonetti, Oct 2009, A-An Tir][Walter æt Defenascire, 07/2011, A-Outlands] [Per pale gules and Or, on a pile throughout argent, a mullet purpure] This device is not a conflict with the augmentation of Stefan de Lorraine, (Fieldless) On a canton gules, a pile argent charged with a mullet pierced gules. Per the October 2003 Cover Letter, ...it is not necessary to check new devices or badges for conflict against previously existing augmentations that have the appearance of being independent armory. This is because the augmentations do not have an existence separate from the arms that they augment, and therefore are not independently protectable entities. Per the LoAR of October 1985: "Arms may be borne with or without an augmentation, but the augmentation should not be used separately from the arms." [Merewenne Selwude, 07/2011, A-Lochac] ... we do not grant a CD for difference between single-headed and double-headed axes ... [Iosif Volkov, 06/2011, R-Atenveldt] Commentary provided numerous examples of hanging balances in period, but brought up the strong possibility that standing balances may not be period. We decline at this time to rule the standing balance a step from period practice, but submitters interested in balances are encouraged to make use of a hanging balance instead. Examples of period balances may be found at http://larsdatter.com/weighing.htm. [Vilhjálmr bani, 06/2011, A-Atlantia] [a standing balance] The angle of the arm is an unblazonable artistic detail worth no difference. [Vilhjálmr bani, 06/2011, A-Atlantia] [a chief and a base] ... precedent disallows a design with a chief and a base: Blazoned on the LoI as Argent, a mullet of two interlocking mascles, a chief and a base vert, the use of a chief and a base together is unacceptably poor design... For all these reasons, then - the lack of period support for the motif; the tendency to misemblazon the "fess" too wide, or the "chief" and "base" too narrow; and most of all, the blurring of the distinction between this motif and a charged fess, against the heraldic precepts found in RfS VIII.3 - we affirm that the use of a chief and a base together is, in general, non-period heraldic style, and grounds for return. [Cynwrig de Montain, November 2006, R-Artemisia][Pompeia Karîna, 04/2011, R-Ealdormere] [a chief and a base purpure and overall three arrows] ... no evidence was presented as to whether an overall charge may overlie peripheral ordinaries. Commenters were able to find some evidence that overall charges occasionally were found overlying a single peripheral ordinary. However, to register this motif, evidence of an overall charge overlying multiple peripheral ordinaries would have to be found. [Pompeia Karîna, 04/2011, R-Ealdormere] There is a CD between a brazier and a beacon ... [Máel Brigte ingen Aimirgin, 04/2011, A-An Tir] We are blazoning the badger as a brock to preserve the cant. [Daniel the Broc, 07/2011, A-An Tir] The use of a llama, as New World fauna not used in period heraldry, is a step from period practice. [Victoria Philo, 08/2011, A-Gleann Abhann] This device is returned for having two steps from period practice. The first step is for the use of a natural tiger, which is an animal not native to Europe which was not used in period heraldry. ... [Ian the Red, 05/2011, R-Caid] [a wolf vs. a three-headed hound] There is no CD granted for the number of heads by precedent: "...the change from one head to three heads is not sufficient for another CD." [Rodrigo Hernandez de Toledo, December 1997, R-Atlantia] There is only a single CD for the change of tincture of the primary charge from argent to ermine. [Robert of Wolford, 04/2011, R-An Tir] Please instruct the submitter that, in order to avoid confusion with heraldic lions and tygers, that the wolf should be drawn with its ears more erect and with less appearance of having a lion's mane. The illustration in Parker (http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker/Jpglossw.htm#Wolf) shows a smooth neck, more typical of heraldic wolves. [Robert of Wolford, 04/2011, R-An Tir] The use of a wolf ululant is a step from period practice. [Dragano Sanuto da Firenze, 06/2011, A-An Tir] A tricorporate quadruped has its head guardant by default. [Cuno Groze, 06/2011, A-Atlantia] Animals in a 'dormant' posture have their limbs folded under them, not extending from the body. [Agnes von Heidelberg, 06/2011, R-Calontir] This device is returned for unidentifiability of the main charge: A dormant creature has its head in front of the body by default (i.e., couchant, but with the head lowered to the "ground"); if the head is curled around to face the tail, the fact must be blazoned. Note that the head should still be on the field; if it's tucked into the creature's body, the creature may well be returned as unidentifiable. A dormant creature should not be curled into a ball in a naturalistic depiction of the creature. A creature in a ball may warrant return for non-period style and an unblazonable position. [Isobel le Bretoun, Sep 2007, A-Lochac]This is the case here, as not only the head but the front paws are turned to face the viewer, curling the entire body. Combined with the knotted tail and the ermine, from any distance this is not identifiable as a cat. [Temair Donn ingen Donnchada, 07/2011, R-Meridies] [a cock rising contourny] This device conflicts with the device of Malcolm MacRuairidh of Blackoak, Argent, a raven striking to sinister gules. The bird conflict rules on the November 2003 Cover Letter require both birds to be in a period posture for that bird in order to gain a substantial difference between the two. As Malcolm's raven is not in a period posture, there is thus only one CD for the difference between a raven and a cock, not a substantial difference. [Loralei Fulderer, 06/2011, R-Atenveldt] There is at least a CD between a hen, a poultry-shaped bird, and a wren, a regular-shaped bird. [Dietrich Kempenich von Eltz, 08/2011, A-Ansteorra] Blazoned on the Letter of Intent as a heron, the charge lacks the long feathers atop the head which differentiate herons from cranes. We have, therefore, blazoned it as a crane. [Francesca Maria Lucretia Saracini, 06/2011, A-West] [a duck rousant vs. a falcon rising] Ducks and falcons are in different categories on the November 2003 Cover Letter: ducks are in the Swan-shaped and falcons are in the Regular-shaped category. However, those categories are for the establishing of substantial (i.e. X.2) difference, not significant (i.e 'CD') difference. Grounds for significant difference were established on the January 2000 Cover Letter. This cover letter says: The use of a hummingbird is a step from period practice. [Ealusaid inghean Mhaoil Choluim, 05/2011, A-Outlands] The use of a penguin is a step from period practice. [Kirsten Maria Matz, 06/2011, A-Atenveldt] There is at least a CD between a simurgh and an owl ... [Jade Redstone, 08/2011, A-An Tir] There is at least a CD between a simurgh and an owl ... [Jade Redstone, 08/2011, A-An Tir] [a cock rising contourny] This device conflicts with the device of Malcolm MacRuairidh of Blackoak, Argent, a raven striking to sinister gules. The bird conflict rules on the November 2003 Cover Letter require both birds to be in a period posture for that bird in order to gain a substantial difference between the two. As Malcolm's raven is not in a period posture, there is thus only one CD for the difference between a raven and a cock, not a substantial difference. [Loralei Fulderer, 06/2011, R-Atenveldt] [a raven volant vs. a swan rousant wings displayed] There is a CD for the change of type of bird and a CD for the change of posture of the bird. [Raven's Cove, Barony of, 07/2011, A-Atlantia] [a duck rousant vs. a falcon rising] Ducks and falcons are in different categories on the November 2003 Cover Letter: ducks are in the Swan-shaped and falcons are in the Regular-shaped category. However, those categories are for the establishing of substantial (i.e. X.2) difference, not significant (i.e 'CD') difference. Grounds for significant difference were established on the January 2000 Cover Letter. This cover letter says: [a raven volant vs. a swan rousant wings displayed] There is a CD for the change of type of bird and a CD for the change of posture of the bird. [Raven's Cove, Barony of, 07/2011, A-Atlantia] BLAZON ... a book is too complex a charge to fimbriate ... [Donnershafen, Barony of, 05/2011, R-Middle] [a wine amphora] Originally blazoned as an amphora, the default amphora is flat-bottomed whereas this pointed-bottomed form is a wine amphora. [Petronella Alexander, 07/2011, A-West] There is a CD ... for the difference between a windmill and a castle. [Kara de Korte, 04/2011, A-Middle] There is no CD between a castle and a tower ... [Louis Xavier de Navarre, 04/2011, R-Middle] [Sable, a pall of chain Or] Blazoned on the Letter of Intent as Sable, an annulet suspended by three chains in pall throughout Or, Batonvert provided evidence of a similar motif in period found in the family arms of Alberti or di Alberti in Italy: a saltire of chain, with the size of the central annulet varying widely. Two of the depictions had central annulets even larger than the one in this device. There was also found an instance of a pall of chain, in which the central annulet is only slightly larger than the chain links. This is therefore compatible with a period rendition of a pall of chain. [A'isha bint Shamir, 07/2011, R-Caid] There is a substantial difference between a cross moline disjointed and two links of chain fretted in cross. [Isobel Rosewell, 08/2011, A-Lochac] [a chief and a base purpure and overall three arrows] ... no evidence was presented as to whether an overall charge may overlie peripheral ordinaries. Commenters were able to find some evidence that overall charges occasionally were found overlying a single peripheral ordinary. However, to register this motif, evidence of an overall charge overlying multiple peripheral ordinaries would have to be found. [Pompeia Karîna, 04/2011, R-Ealdormere] In the past, we have allowed fimbriated overall charges. Commenters asked whether this was a documentable period practice and were unable to find documentation for this practice. Therefore, charges in overall charge groups will not be allowed to be fimbriated after the September 2011 decision meetings. [Ginevra Boscoli, 04/2011, A-Middle] This device is returned for having two steps from period practice. ... The second step is for the use of fimbriation and an overall charge in the same design, which was ruled a step from period practice on the March 2011 LoAR. [Ian the Red, 05/2011, R-Caid] CHARGE - Peripheral [Per saltire argent and purpure, a chief and a base] On resubmission, the submitter should be asked to draw the per saltire line of division so that it evenly divides the part of the field not covered by peripheral charges. [Pompeia Karîna, 04/2011, R-Ealdormere] The badge is also returned for violating our ban on so-called "barely overall" charges. The bear's head is nearly entirely on the saltire, but it projects past the edge in four places. Our ban on barely overall charges was originally stated: I confirmed with Mr. Brooke-Little at the Symposium the answer to a question that often arises ... consider the arms Argent, a lozenge gules ... if I instead have the lion surmount the lozenge, then the lion must be a color or a fur, but cannot be a metal or else it would not show against the field. Of course, the part of the lion on top of the lozenge would have poor contrast, and therefore it follows automatically that one draws the lion much bigger than the lozenge so that most of the lion's outline is on the field rather than on the lozenge. One should never have a charge just barely surmounting another charge, i.e., having only the very edge extend out into the field. [Cover Letter, June 1983]Since the area which projects beyond the edge of the underlying charge is less than a majority of the outline, but is larger than the standards for artistic mistakes set on the December 2008 LoAR, this badge must be returned. [Owen le Bere ap Rhys, 06/2011, R-Calontir] CHARGE - Restricted or Reserved This device submission is returned for the use of a charge reserved to SCA groups in personal armory. While submitters and heralds in our Society have become accustomed to the 'two crossed boughs with an opening at the top' style of laurel wreath, that is not the only depiction of laurel wreaths in period. The submitted annulets of leaves is an equally valid, registerable variant of laurel wreaths and we must treat them as such. [Marquesa de Carvalhal, 06/2011, R-East][(Fieldless) On a county coronet vert a bezant] The roundel in this submission appears to be the sort of artistic decoration one would expect to see on a crown; therefore it is not significant enough to count as a true tertiary charge. Considered as (Fieldless) A county coronet vert, this conflicts with the Society regalia (Tinctureless) A coronet embattled. Registered regalia is protected both as regalia and as a badge. The January 1999 LoAR Cover Letter gives a good example: A pelican in its piety is protected as both a badge and as regalia, and so only members of the order of the Pelican may wear or display it.While the submitter is entitled by rank to wear or display a county coronet, or to include a coronet as a charge in her armory which is otherwise clear of conflict, she may not register armory that conflicts with registered regalia. [Octavia Laodice, 07/2011, R-An Tir] CHARGE GROUP In this submission the chevron inverted and the tree can only be interpreted as co-primary charges, as they are of approximately equal visual weight and neither occupies the center of the shield. This combination of ordinary with non-ordinary charge in a single charge group produces an unbalanced design. Without period evidence for such a design, it is not registerable. [Issobell nic Gilbert, April 2005, R-Caid]This precedent was upheld as recently as November 2010. The current submission has the same problem: none of the charges occupies the center of the field, and they are all of equivalent visual weight. [Layla al-Zarqa', 04/2011, R-Middle] [Azure vetu, an owl contourny between four roundels in cross argen] By long-standing precedent, we cannot have multiple different tertiary charge groups on the same charge. Precedent also says "Since the unregisterable blazon is the only blazon under which the conflict exists, this is not a conflict." [June 2004 CL]. Therefore, this device does not need to be considered for conflict as Argent, on a lozenge azure an owl contourny between four roundels in cross argent. [Karin del Apelyard, 07/2011, A-Gleann Abhann] [Azure, a chevron and in chief a cat and a weasel passant respectant argent] This device is returned for violating the following precedent: In this submission the chevron inverted and the tree can only be interpreted as co-primary charges, as they are of approximately equal visual weight and neither occupies the center of the shield. This combination of ordinary with non-ordinary charge in a single charge group produces an unbalanced design. Without period evidence for such a design, it is not registerable. [Issobell nic Gilbert, April 2005, R-Caid]This precedent was upheld as recently as November 2010. The current submission has the same problem: none of the charges occupies the center of the field, and they are all of equivalent visual weight. [Layla al-Zarqa', 04/2011, R-Middle] From Wreath: Chevrons, Per Chevron, and Their Inversions On the Cover Letter for the December 2010 LoAR, published in February 2011, we asked commenters for their opinions on a proposal regarding more proper depictions of chevrons, the per chevron line of division, and their inversions. We proposed putting strong limitations on charges above the tip of a chevron or a per chevron line of division, or below the tip of a chevron inverted or a per chevron inverted line of division. Many examples were presented of charges above a chevron or per chevron line of division, or below the point of a chevron inverted or per chevron inverted line of division in period heraldry, so we will not be limiting that practice. Examples provided in commentary did present evidence that in period, chevrons and the per chevron line of division were typically drawn to take up as much space as possible; this generally meant that the line was fairly steep, throughout, or nearly so. However, in some heraldic jurisdictions, the chevron was much shallower. Therefore, we will not regulate the steepness of chevrons or the per chevron or per chevron inverted lines of division at this time. What was found, however, was that in every case, the chevron or per chevron line was vertically centered in the area available to it, taking the placement of any secondaries present into account. The notional mid-line of the charge or line of division would nearly always line up with a per fess line drawn centered on the available space. Pictures help: Notice that on the escutcheon attached as figure 1, the dashed line X is the per fess line of the entire escutcheon. However, in the presence of the chief, the available space has a notional mid-point line marked by the dashed line labeled Y. Similarly, both chevrons (figures 2 and 3) have a notional mid-point line at c, and the distance above the mid-line (a) and below it (b) should be the same. The following guidelines on chevrons and per chevron field divisions, and their inversions, will be enforced starting at the November 2011 Laurel meetings:
More information on the research that led to this decision, including a large number of period exemplars, can be found in the article "A Visual Survey of the Chevron and Friends: Fun with Triangular Field Divisions" by Emma de Fetherstan in the Proceedings of the 2011 Known World Heraldic and Scribal Symposium. [05/2011 CL] [JML: see the Cover Letter for the illustrations] [Per saltire argent and purpure, a chief and a base purpure and overall three arrows in pile conjoined in base counterchanged] ... precedent disallows a design with a chief and a base: Blazoned on the LoI as Argent, a mullet of two interlocking mascles, a chief and a base vert, the use of a chief and a base together is unacceptably poor design... For all these reasons, then - the lack of period support for the motif; the tendency to misemblazon the "fess" too wide, or the "chief" and "base" too narrow; and most of all, the blurring of the distinction between this motif and a charged fess, against the heraldic precepts found in RfS VIII.3 - we affirm that the use of a chief and a base together is, in general, non-period heraldic style, and grounds for return. [Cynwrig de Montain, November 2006, R-Artemisia][Pompeia Karîna, 04/2011, R-Ealdormere] [a chief and a base purpure and overall three arrows] ... no evidence was presented as to whether an overall charge may overlie peripheral ordinaries. Commenters were able to find some evidence that overall charges occasionally were found overlying a single peripheral ordinary. However, to register this motif, evidence of an overall charge overlying multiple peripheral ordinaries would have to be found. [Pompeia Karîna, 04/2011, R-Ealdormere] The use of a chief doubly enarched is a step from period practice. [Cassandra la Rose, 04/2011, A-Meridies] [a chief indented flory at the points argent] Commenters asked if the chief flory at the points was a period practice. Precedent says: [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, May 1996, A-Drachenwald]Adding fleurs-de-lys at the lower, as well as upper, points is consistent with period practice. [Josseline de la Cour, 05/2011, A-Lochac] COMPASS STAR and SUN There is a step from period practice for the use of a compass star. [Brendan Hunterston, 04/2011, A-Ealdormere] Past precedent, from 1987, says that a compass star is too complex a charge to fimbriate. However, more recent precedent says that a compass star is simple enough to void: "... a compass star is simple enough to void" [Sunniva Kyrre, April 2006, A-Atlantia]. Since we consider voiding and fimbriation to be artistic variants, and since a compass star passes the so-called "photocopy test" specified by Bruce Laurel, we are explicitly overturning the 1987 precedent and declaring that compass stars are simple enough to both void and fimbriate. [Jean Corbeau de Montaigne, 06/2011, A-East] COMPLEXITY CONTRAST ...flames proper cannot be placed on either a gules or Or field. [Ulrich Einarsson, Jan 2006, R-Caid]While this is a properly enflamed tower, the proper flames here are alternately on the Or tower or gules field. [Johan Craft, 07/2011, R-Trimaris] [Per saltire argent and purpure, a chief and a base purpure and overall three arrows in pile conjoined in base counterchanged] ... current precedent says that complex charges may not be counterchanged over other charges (such as this chief and base). This was upheld as recently as January 2011: Blazoned on the Letter of Intent as Paly of five argent and azure, this device actually depicts an argent field with two azure pallets, over which the crosses are counterchanged. Precedent says: "by longstanding policy, the College disallows complex charges counterchanged over other charges" [Grethfurth Wulfstan, May 1993, R-Atlantia] Therefore, this device is returned for counterchanging a complex charge over an ordinary. [Gynter Eiriksson, January 2011, R-East][Pompeia Karîna, 04/2011, R-Ealdormere] CROSS [a cross fleury] The cross as drawn has both fesswise arms much longer than the palewise arms, and a single example was provided in commentary. Commenters asked if this was sufficient, given the recent revision in the rules for documented exceptions. While the submitted cross is not identical to the documented cross, we remind commenters that the same precedent ruled that a single example of a charge is sufficient for documentation purposes. [Burghardt von der Brandenburg, 04/2011, R-Lochac] The cross gurgity appears to be an invention of period heralds, mentioned in tracts, but never seen in period heraldry. The same sort of curved ends can be seen, in mirror pairs, in the cross moline. Therefore, though this cross was never used in period heraldry, its use is only a step from period practice. [Alfarr Utherson, 04/2011, A-West] On resubmission, the submitter should be aware that the cross barby is the outlawed symbol of the white supremacist movement in Hungary, similar to the use of the swastika/fylfot in Germany, and there was some discussion of banning the cross barby as an offensive charge. We are not ruling on that issue at this time. However, research provided no examples of crosses barby in period heraldry. Any submitter wishing to register this charge after the December 2011 Laurel meeting must provide documentation that it is, in fact, a period charge. [Jon Lutherson, 05/2011, R-Ansteorra] [cross flory disjointed] Commenters asked about the registerability of crosses flory disjointed. Crosses moline disjointed are period charges. Therefore, the cross flory disjointed is no more than a single step from period practice. Since that is the only step present in this submission, it is registerable. Crosses 'disjointed' are split along the long axis of the arms. Crosses 'dismembered' have their arms separated from the center of the cross (across the long axis). Crosses disjointed are not considered equivalent to "on a cross, a cross", since the ends of the cross disjointed are open, not closed. [Elinor Clifford, 05/2011, A-Lochac] Crosses moline disjoint are period heraldic charges, distinguished from regular crosses moline, so we consider them to be significantly different. [Symon Fitz Gilbert, 06/2011, A-East] CROSS - Difference Between Crosses moline disjoint are period heraldic charges, distinguished from regular crosses moline, so we consider them to be significantly different. [Symon Fitz Gilbert, 06/2011, A-East] ... "there is no significant difference between a cross fleury and a cross of Calatrava [Girard le Bourguignon and Guenièvre de Monmarché, Jan 2005, R-Atlantia]" ... [Amos the Pious, 07/2011, R-Atlantia] There is a substantial difference between a cross moline disjointed and two links of chain fretted in cross. [Isobel Rosewell, 08/2011, A-Lochac] [(Fieldless) On a county coronet vert a bezant] The roundel in this submission appears to be the sort of artistic decoration one would expect to see on a crown; therefore it is not significant enough to count as a true tertiary charge. Considered as (Fieldless) A county coronet vert, this conflicts with the Society regalia (Tinctureless) A coronet embattled. Registered regalia is protected both as regalia and as a badge. The January 1999 LoAR Cover Letter gives a good example: A pelican in its piety is protected as both a badge and as regalia, and so only members of the order of the Pelican may wear or display it.While the submitter is entitled by rank to wear or display a county coronet, or to include a coronet as a charge in her armory which is otherwise clear of conflict, she may not register armory that conflicts with registered regalia. [Octavia Laodice, 07/2011, R-An Tir] [a covered saltcellar Or shedding salt argent] As this depiction of a saltcellar matches a period depiction of a heraldic charge, there is a CD between it and covered goblets, cups, and chalices. We are declaring, based upon appearance, that there is substantial (X.2) difference between a saltcellar and a tankard. [Isobel of Werchesope, 08/2011, A-East] This device is not in conflict with the device of Dierdriana of the Misty Isles, Azure, a lotus goblet argent and on a chief argent three lotus blossoms inverted throughout gules. There is a substantial difference between Dierdriana's primary charge, a goblet, and a tulip. [Alis ingen Fhinn, 08/2011, R-Gleann Abhann] [Quarterly azure and argent, four domestic cats sejant counterchanged] The device is also returned for conflict with ... Quarterly argent and azure, four ounces sejant counterchanged. There is certainly a CD for the field, but there is not a CD for changing the tincture of the cats, because the move is forced. This overturns the following precedent: [Quarterly embattled Or and gules, four horses rampant counterchanged sable and argent] The badge is clear of Aethelnoth of Alebridge, Quarterly sable and argent, four horses rampant reguardant counterchanged. In Aethelnoth's device, the horses in bend are argent and those in bend sinister are sable. In Wolfram's badge, the tincture of the horses is reversed. Therefore there is one CD for changes to the field and one CD for changing the tincture of all the primary charges. [Wolfram Brant, 12/00, A-Atlantia]That precedent is not logically consistent with other rulings and guiding principles ... We consider Quarterly azure and argent, two cats sejant argent to conflict with Quarterly argent and azure, two cats sejant argent. Adding two blue cats does not change the fact that the charges can be considered to move. The June 2004 LoAR (From Wreath: Counting Differences) Says that we must "Use the minimum number of steps or changes between the armory to determine the number of CDs." The minimum number of steps is one. [Nicole de Say, 04/2011, R-Middle] [Argent, four arrows in saltire, heads outward, sable and four roses in cross sable barbed argent]. This badge is returned for conflict with... Argent, two arrows in chevron sable. There is a single CD for adding six co-primary charges. In understanding this conflict, commenters should remember that additional charges are added in their final form: we are not adding six arrows and then changing half of the charges to roses, we add two arrows and four roses to the existing group in a single step. [Black Rose, March of the, 06/2011, R-East] DIFFERENCE - Groups While commentary was somewhat split on this issue, the general feeling was that to modify the Rules to define half of a group by line of division or as those charges on either side of an ordinary would only serve to encourage unbalanced armory. On the other hand, there are times when the visual impact of changes to charges which amount to "less than half the group" should be granted more difference. As a consequence, we are adopting Lady Dolphin's (now Lady Crescent) suggestion of allowing two changes to the minority of a group (i.e., the "lesser" half of a group of charges lying on either side of a line of field division or an ordinary) being sufficient for a Clear Difference. For example, "Per bend sinister sable and Or, a decrescent moon Or and three fir trees proper" would be allowed two CDs from "Per bend sinister azure and argent, a bear's head argent and three fir trees vert" with one CD for the field and another for the two changes to the charge in dexter chief. [Nov 1991 CL][Amos the Pious, 07/2011, A-Atlantia] DOCUMENTATION This device is returned for a redraw. The argent portions of the device have been colored a medium-to-dark grey instead of leaving them white, which seriously hampers identifiability against the dark colored field, particularly of the Lacy knot. This is a violation of section VII.7.a of the Rules for Submissions which requires that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." [John La Savage, 08/2011, R-Northshield] There is a CD between a wall and a demi-wall ... [Cassandra Attewoode, 06/2011, A-Atenveldt] ... we do not grant a CD for the difference between gyronny and gyronny arrondi. [JML: referring to a field] [Tryggr Tyresson, 04/2011, R-An Tir] FIELD DIVISION - Per Chevron and Per Chevron Inverted From Wreath: Chevrons, Per Chevron, and Their InversionsOn the Cover Letter for the December 2010 LoAR, published in February 2011, we asked commenters for their opinions on a proposal regarding more proper depictions of chevrons, the per chevron line of division, and their inversions. We proposed putting strong limitations on charges above the tip of a chevron or a per chevron line of division, or below the tip of a chevron inverted or a per chevron inverted line of division. Many examples were presented of charges above a chevron or per chevron line of division, or below the point of a chevron inverted or per chevron inverted line of division in period heraldry, so we will not be limiting that practice. Examples provided in commentary did present evidence that in period, chevrons and the per chevron line of division were typically drawn to take up as much space as possible; this generally meant that the line was fairly steep, throughout, or nearly so. However, in some heraldic jurisdictions, the chevron was much shallower. Therefore, we will not regulate the steepness of chevrons or the per chevron or per chevron inverted lines of division at this time. What was found, however, was that in every case, the chevron or per chevron line was vertically centered in the area available to it, taking the placement of any secondaries present into account. The notional mid-line of the charge or line of division would nearly always line up with a per fess line drawn centered on the available space. Pictures help: Notice that on the escutcheon attached as figure 1, the dashed line X is the per fess line of the entire escutcheon. However, in the presence of the chief, the available space has a notional mid-point line marked by the dashed line labeled Y. Similarly, both chevrons (figures 2 and 3) have a notional mid-point line at c, and the distance above the mid-line (a) and below it (b) should be the same. The following guidelines on chevrons and per chevron field divisions, and their inversions, will be enforced starting at the November 2011 Laurel meetings:
More information on the research that led to this decision, including a large number of period exemplars, can be found in the article "A Visual Survey of the Chevron and Friends: Fun with Triangular Field Divisions" by Emma de Fetherstan in the Proceedings of the 2011 Known World Heraldic and Scribal Symposium. [05/2011 CL] [JML: see the Cover Letter for the illustrations] [Per saltire argent and purpure, a chief and a base] On resubmission, the submitter should be asked to draw the per saltire line of division so that it evenly divides the part of the field not covered by peripheral charges. [Pompeia Karîna, 04/2011, R-Ealdormere] [Quarterly azure and argent, four domestic cats sejant counterchanged] The device is also returned for conflict with ... Quarterly argent and azure, four ounces sejant counterchanged. There is certainly a CD for the field, but there is not a CD for changing the tincture of the cats, because the move is forced. This overturns the following precedent: [Quarterly embattled Or and gules, four horses rampant counterchanged sable and argent] The badge is clear of Aethelnoth of Alebridge, Quarterly sable and argent, four horses rampant reguardant counterchanged. In Aethelnoth's device, the horses in bend are argent and those in bend sinister are sable. In Wolfram's badge, the tincture of the horses is reversed. Therefore there is one CD for changes to the field and one CD for changing the tincture of all the primary charges. [Wolfram Brant, 12/00, A-Atlantia]That precedent is not logically consistent with other rulings and guiding principles ... We consider Quarterly azure and argent, two cats sejant argent to conflict with Quarterly argent and azure, two cats sejant argent. Adding two blue cats does not change the fact that the charges can be considered to move. The June 2004 LoAR (From Wreath: Counting Differences) Says that we must "Use the minimum number of steps or changes between the armory to determine the number of CDs." The minimum number of steps is one. [Nicole de Say, 04/2011, R-Middle] While you can blazon your way out of a style problem, you cannot blazon your way out of a conflict. Under current precedent, vetu fields must also be checked as a lozenge throughout .... Considered as a charged lozenge instead of a field division, there is only one CD for change in type of tertiary charge. [Tomyris Benenati, 07/2011, R-Atenveldt] [Azure vetu, an owl contourny between four roundels in cross argen] By long-standing precedent, we cannot have multiple different tertiary charge groups on the same charge. Precedent also says "Since the unregisterable blazon is the only blazon under which the conflict exists, this is not a conflict." [June 2004 CL]. Therefore, this device does not need to be considered for conflict as Argent, on a lozenge azure an owl contourny between four roundels in cross argent. [Karin del Apelyard, 07/2011, A-Gleann Abhann] In the past, we have allowed fimbriated overall charges. Commenters asked whether this was a documentable period practice and were unable to find documentation for this practice. Therefore, charges in overall charge groups will not be allowed to be fimbriated after the September 2011 decision meetings. [Ginevra Boscoli, 04/2011, A-Middle] This device is returned for having two steps from period practice. ... The second step is for the use of fimbriation and an overall charge in the same design, which was ruled a step from period practice on the March 2011 LoAR. [Ian the Red, 05/2011, R-Caid] ... a book is too complex a charge to fimbriate ... [Donnershafen, Barony of, 05/2011, R-Middle] ... an escallop is too complex to fimbriate ... [Donnershafen, Barony of, 05/2011, R-Middle] Past precedent, from 1987, says that a compass star is too complex a charge to fimbriate. However, more recent precedent says that a compass star is simple enough to void: "... a compass star is simple enough to void" [Sunniva Kyrre, April 2006, A-Atlantia]. Since we consider voiding and fimbriation to be artistic variants, and since a compass star passes the so-called "photocopy test" specified by Bruce Laurel, we are explicitly overturning the 1987 precedent and declaring that compass stars are simple enough to both void and fimbriate. [Jean Corbeau de Montaigne, 06/2011, A-East] Please instruct the submitter that the flames in enflaming should be touching the charge they are enflaming, they should not be disjoint as in the submitted emblazon. [Cera the Pottere, 06/2011, R-Meridies] The flame is best described as a chevron inverted couped of flame, but per long-standing precedent we do not register ordinaries of flame: Without evidence that ordinaries of flame were used in period armory, or that such are compatible with period armory, we will not register ordinaries of flames. [Désirée Gabriel de Lav, Feb 1994, R-Middle][Bronwen Du, 07/2011, R-Meridies] This device is returned for poor contrast issues with the flames. Per precedent: ...flames proper cannot be placed on either a gules or Or field. [Ulrich Einarsson, Jan 2006, R-Caid]While this is a properly enflamed tower, the proper flames here are alternately on the Or tower or gules field. [Johan Craft, 07/2011, R-Trimaris] This device is returned for using an ordinary of flame, which is a violation of precedent: Without evidence that ordinaries of flame were used in period armory, or that such are compatible with period armory, we will not register ordinaries of flames. [Désirée Gabriel de Laval, R-Middle, February 1994]While blazoned on the Letter of Intent as a flame issuant from base , overwhelming consensus in commentary was that the emblazon depicted a base of flame. Since we register the emblazon, not the blazon, we are forced to return this device. [Emeric of Zara, 08/2011, R-Gleann Abhann] ... the use of a natural dolphin is not a step from period practice... [Ruaidhri mac Seamuis, 04/2011, A-Meridies] [JML: see STEP FROM PERIOD PRACTICE for the complete discussion] [a natural dolphin] This is returned for redraw; a natural dolphin has a dorsal fin, which is missing from this emblazon, greatly hampering the identifiability. This is a violation of section VII.7.a of the Rules for Submissions, which requires that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." [Ariel Longshanks, 06/2011, R-Atenveldt] This device is returned for using a tulip bud instead of a mature flower. Rose buds have been disallowed since the November 1994 Cover Letter; while roses are quite common in period armory, tulips are rather less so, and thus it makes sense to extend the ban on rose buds to tulip buds as well. A mature tulip flower is turned out at the tips of the petals, not drawn in tight as in this depiction. [Alis ingen Fhinn, 08/2011, R-Gleann Abhann] There is a CD between a tulip and a water lily ... [Alis ingen Fhinn, 08/2011, R-Gleann Abhann] This device is not in conflict with the device of Dierdriana of the Misty Isles, Azure, a lotus goblet argent and on a chief argent three lotus blossoms inverted throughout gules. There is a substantial difference between Dierdriana's primary charge, a goblet, and a tulip. [Alis ingen Fhinn, 08/2011, R-Gleann Abhann] Pelican noted that the dogwood depicted here is a New World species Cornus florida, but that its native range includes the area of St. Augustine, Florida, which has been continuously occupied since 1565, and the area of the Roanoke settlement, in the 1580s. While it was first discovered in the South in 1773 by William Bartram, we can find no record of when it was known near Roanoke. We will give submitters the benefit of the doubt that the Europeans that settled in these locations knew of this species. There is, therefore, a step from period practice for the use of New World flora not found in period armory. [Úrsúla of Rouen, 04/2011, A-Æthelmearc] By precedent, irises take their tincture from their slips and leaves, not from the blossoms: [Returning {field} three iris blossoms sable, slipped and leaved vert, conjoined at the bases.] Conflict with ... {Fieldless} Three irises in fess argent slipped, conjoined and leaved vert. There is a CD for fielded versus fieldless but nothing for the change to the tincture of the blossoms only. [Cassandra Palfrey, November 1993, R-Ansteorra][Isabella Maria della Rosa, 04/2011, A-Ansteorra] Commenters should note that while we no longer distinguish "garden roses" from heraldic roses in blazon, their use has not been ruled to be a step from period practice. [Cassandra la Rose, 04/2011, A-Meridies] This is the defining instance of a twinflower in Society armory. As neither the submitter nor commenters could find a common period vernacular term for the flower which wasn't its period taxonomic classification, we have chosen to use the post-period vernacular term. [Editha filia Rolandi, 08/2011, A-Outlands] The flames on the fireballs are Or fimbriated gules; by long-standing precedent, flames proper have alternating tongues of Or and gules. [Domenico Barbiere da Mantova, 08/2011, R-Atlantia] There is at least a CD between a snail and a schnecke ... [Ogedai Qara, 06/2011, A-Atenveldt] There is a step from period practice for the use of a schnecke with secondary charges ... [Ogedai Qara, 06/2011, A-Atenveldt] There is an additional CD for the change of the orientation of the schnecke, from issuing from chief to issuing from sinister. [Stella della Luna, 08/2011, A-Atenveldt] There is not a CD between a hand of Fatima and a human hand ... [Yitzchak ben Menashe, 04/2011, R-Middle] [a human face crined and bearded of oak leaves] This device is returned because the head is not identifiable. Commenters pointed out, rightly, that the head is not only crined and bearded of leaves, it is entirely composed of leaves. Precedent says: [returning a charge blazoned as a mans head cabossed crined and bearded of leaves] This is being returned for non-reproducibility. If the submitter had drawn what was blazoned we would consider registering it. However, the blazon does not adequately describe the emblazon. While the head could be described as bearded of leaves, we could come up with no heraldic way to describe the hair - crined of leaves does not describe it. (Shane McNeil de la Forest, Sembember 1996, R-An Tir]Kingdom noted the following precedent: Blazoned on the LoI as a wildman's head, a wildman or savage is a period heraldic charge that looks little like the charge submitted here: a wildman's head would be a normal human head, bearded, wearing a wreath of leaves. Some commenters suggested this was a greenman's head. The term greenman was coined in 1939 for a medieval artistic motif. There are period examples online (such as at http://www.chrispye-woodcarving.com/greenman/gm_index.html) that look nothing like this submission -- or each other. Some don't even look like human faces. As there is no fixed form (and therefore no heraldic form) for this motif, a greenman's head is not registerable per se. However, as emblazoned the head can be blazoned as a human face crined and bearded of foliage and we will so register it. [Santiago Carrillo de Guadalupe, March 2006 A-Outlands]Santiago's head, however, is a face outlined with leaves as if they were the beard and hair, not a complete face entirely constructed of leaves, in the modern "green-man" style, and thus the 2006 registration does not overturn the precedent. Bran's is a face entirely composed of leaves, with eyes, nose, and mouth drawn in. Unless period evidence is produced for such a charge in period heraldry, charges composed of leaves will be considered unblazonable and, therefore, unregisterable. [Bran ap Rees, 05/2011, R-East] The strewn charges are not recognizable heraldic charges. Trefoil knots would be interlaced and have rounded ends, as seen at http://www.aeheralds.net/Links/AE_Traceable_Art/IndivPDFs/Knot_trefoil_2.pdf. Triquetras inverted would be interlaced, as seen at http://www.aeheralds.net/Links/AE_Traceable_Art/IndivPDFs/Triquetra.pdf. It was suggested that we could blazon these as three leaves conjoined in pall Or fimbriated azure. However, strewn charges are only considered to be "in the center of the design" when the strewn charges are the primary charge group. [Edmund Halliday, 04/2011, R-An Tir] [a hawk's lure] Blazoned on the Letter of Intent as a tassel, tassels do not have cords. [Theodora Bryennissa, 06/2011, A-East] LAUBURU This device must be returned for lack of documentation of the lauburu as a period design. While the submitter provided a number of documents that appear to show this charge in use, under various names, in modern heraldry, none of them provided evidence that it was used in our period. [Brunihelt de Ravenel, May 2005 LoAR, East-R][Zianna de Lequeitio, 08/2011, R-Artemisia] Commentary on a submission this month raised the question of the depiction of our default lamp in the SCA. Lamps in medieval times appear to have been short, flared cups, similar to the bowl area of a Champagne cup, but not as wide. They can be seen in the arms of Witwang, c.1520, in Heraldry by Bedingfeld & Gwynn-Jones. In contrast, the Society has uniformly not blazoned the type of lamp solely when the emblazon uses an Arabic lamp. Since there does not seem to be a way to blazon the default real-world lamps with a qualifier, this month, we have reblazoned all the 'default' lamps in the Ordinary as 'Arabic lamps' and declare that the SCA-default lamp will match the real-world default. At least, it will once someone registers one. [06/2011 CL] [a ginkgo leaf] This device is also returned for lack of documentation for European knowledge of ginkgo before 1650. This is a violation of Section VII.4 of the Rules for Submissions, which says "The use of flora and fauna native to the New World, Africa, Asia, and other non-European locales will be registerable if it is reasonable to believe that Europeans knew them in period." [Matsunaga Haru, 05/2011, R-Caid] Registered in April 2003 as Vert, on a pale bretessed Or three leaves vert, the submitter requested that we reblazon from having generic leaves to specify nettle leaves. However, nettle leaves are fatter at the base and narrower at the tip, instead of more oval like the ones in her depiction. Her leaves do have jagged edges, and so we have chosen to reblazon them as elm leaves to help in reproducibility. [Christina O'Cleary, 08/2011, A-Caid] The use of a lightning bolt not as part of a thunderbolt is a step from period practice. [Septimus Marius Belisarius, 08/2011, A-Atlantia] [Per pale indented argent and azure] This device is clear of ... Per pale indented, the points ending in mullets, purpure and argent. Precedent says: [Per fess indented...] This device is clear of the badge..., Per fess indented crusilly.... There is a CD for changing the tincture of half the field, and another under X.4.a.ii.c for the difference between per fess indented and per fess indented crusilly. Precedent says:The only difference in the fields in the precedent are the mullets at the end of the indents. That is the case here with the crosses. [Hugh Tauerner, A-East, LoAR 2/2009][Jayme Dominguez del Valle, 04/2011, A-Ansteorra] |
|||||||||||
Maintained by Codex Herald. This page was last updated on Tuesday, May 16, 2023. The heraldry.sca.org site is copyright 1995-2023 Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc. The copyright of certain portions of heraldry.sca.org are retained by the original contributors as noted. External links are not part of the heraldry.sca.org web site. Inclusion of a page or site here is neither implicit nor explicit endorsement of the site. Further, SCA, Inc. is not responsible for content outside of heraldry.sca.org. For information on how SCA uses collected and submitted data, please see the Privacy Policy. Paper texture used with permission from GRSites.com. |