Armory Precedents of the SCA College of Arms

The Tenure of Master François la Flamme

Last Revised: 5 February 2010
Period Covered: 08/2001 -- 03/2004

These are the armory precedents from the first tenure of Master François la Flamme as Laurel Principal King of Arms. During this period armory rulings were made primarily by Dame Zenobia Naphtali, Wreath Queen of Arms. Please verify all precedents you wish to use with the cited LoAR. There is an index. The index for the text version of these precedents is more detailed than for the on-line version. Other than that, the two version are identical.

If a charge is only referenced once in these precedents (and doesn't fall into a category such as BEAST -- Miscellaneous), it will be found under CHARGE -- Miscellaneous. A complete listing of these charges in found in the index. These charges are not currently cross-referenced in the index.

The category VISUAL COMPARISON deals with rulings relative to a specific piece of armory (e.g., a branch is maintained). These entries are listed alphabetically by the owner of the armory. A list of the owners is found in the index. 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.

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 following heralds are referred to by title: al-Jamal (Da'ud ibn Auda), Argent Snail (Jaelle of Armida), Brachet (Frederick of Holland), Clarion (Elsbeth Anne Roth), Crescent (Dietmar von Straubing), Eastern Crown (Tanczos Istvan), Kraken (Evan da Collaureo), Laurel Clerk (Daniel de Lincolia), Lions Blood (Teceangl Bach), Nebuly (Walraven van Nijmegen), Palimpsest (Rouland Carre), Pelican (Mari Elspeth nic Bryan), Rampart (Pendar the Bard), and Red Hawk (Gotfridus von Schwaben)

My thanks to al-Sayyid Amr ibn Majid al-Bakri al-Amra for proofreading these precedents.

Jeanne Marie Lacroix
Noir Licorne Herald

ADMINISTRATIVE
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Comments and Commenting
ADMINISTRATIVE -- A Cautionary Word Regarding "Conflict Tables"
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Devices for Consorts and Royal Heirs
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Generic Identifiers
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Permission to Conflict
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Registration Limit
AMPHIBIAN
ANNULET
ARCHITECTURE
ARRANGEMENT
ARRANGEMENT -- Conjoined
ARRANGEMENT -- Forced Move
ARROW and ARROWHEAD
ARTHROPOD -- Bee
ARTHROPOD -- Miscellaneous
ARTHROPOD -- Spider
AUGMENTATIONS
AXE
BALANCE
BASE
BEAST -- Badger
BEAST -- Bat
BEAST -- Bear
BEAST -- Beaver
BEAST -- Boar
BEAST -- Cat, Lion and Tiger
BEAST -- Deer
BEAST -- Dog and Wolf
BEAST -- Elephant
BEAST -- General
BEAST -- Goat
BEAST -- Miscellaneous
BEAST -- Mouse
BEAST -- Rabbit
BEAST -- Weasel
BEND and BEND SINISTER
BIRD -- Cock and Hen
BIRD -- Corbie see BIRD -- Raven
BIRD -- Cornish Chough
BIRD -- Dove
BIRD -- Duck
BIRD -- Eagle
BIRD -- Falcon and Hawk
BIRD -- Generic
BIRD -- Goose
BIRD -- Loon
BIRD -- Martlet
BIRD -- Miscellaneous
BIRD -- Owl
BIRD -- Peacock
BIRD -- Quail
BIRD -- Raven
BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds
BIRD -- Sparrow
BIRD -- Swan
BIRD -- Vulture
BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE see also APPENDIX A -- Some birds and the postures in which they are found in period English heraldry
BLAZON
BOOK
BORDURE
CANDELABRA
CANTING
CARD PIQUE
CASTLE and TOWER
CHARGE -- Maintained and Sustained
CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
CHARGE -- Overall
CHARGE -- Peripheral
CHARGE -- Restricted or Reserved
CHARGE GROUP
CHESS PIECE
CHEVRON and CHEVRON INVERTED
CHIEF
COLLAR
COMET
COMPASS STAR and SUN
COMPLEXITY
CONTRAST
COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK
CORONET and CROWN
COTISES
COUNTERCHANGING
COUPED and ERASED
COUPED and THROUGHOUT
CRESCENT
CROSS
CROSSBOW and BOW
CUP and CHALICE
DEFAULTS
DELF
DICE
DIFFERENCE -- Substantial
DIFFERENCE -- Groups
DOCUMENTATION
DOCUMENTED EXCEPTION
DOLPHIN see FISH and DOLPHIN
EMBLAZON
EMBLAZON -- Coloring Problems
ENFILE
ERASED and COUPED see COUPED and ERASED
ERMINE see FUR
ERMINE SPOT
ESCARBUNCLE
ESTOILE
FEATHER
FESS and BAR
FIELD DIVISION -- Barry
FIELD DIVISION -- Bendy and Bendy Sinister
FIELD DIVISION -- Chapé
FIELD DIVISION -- Checky and Party of Six
FIELD DIVISION -- Chevronelly
FIELD DIVISION -- Gyronny
FIELD DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
FIELD DIVISION -- Paly
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Bend and Per Bend Sinister
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Chevron and Per Chevron Inverted
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Fess
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Pall and Per Pall Inverted
FIELD DIVISION -- Quarterly
FIELD DIVISION -- Vêtu
FIELD PRIMARY ARMORY
FIELD TREATMENT -- Ermined see FUR
FIELD TREATMENT -- Honeycombed
FIELD TREATMENT -- Mailly and Other Field Treatments
FIELD TREATMENT -- Masoned
FIELD TREATMENT -- Miscellaneous
FIELD TREATMENT -- Semy see SEMY
FIELDLESS
FIMBRIATED and VOIDED CHARGES
FISH and DOLPHIN
FLAG and BANNER
FLAMES and FIRE
FLAUNCH see TIERCE and FLAUNCH
FLEUR-DE-LYS
FLOWER -- Lily
FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
FLOWER -- Rose
FLOWER -- Thistle
FLOWER -- Trillium
FLOWER -- Tulip
FOIL
FRET and FRETTY
FRUIT
FUR
GOUTTE
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE
GRENADE and FIREBALL
GURGES
HAND and GAUNTLET
HAT
HEAD -- Beast see also COUPED and ERASED
HEAD -- Bird see also COUPED and ERASED
HEAD -- Human
HEAD -- Monster
HEART
HELM and HELMET
HUMAN
IDENTIFIABILITY
JAPANESE MON and CHARGES
KNOTS
LABEL
LEAF
LEG and JAMBE
LIGHTNING BOLT
LINES of DIVISION -- Jagged
LINES of DIVISION -- Long
LINES of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
LINES of DIVISION -- Square
LINES of DIVISION -- Wavy
LOCATION see POSITION
LOZENGE
MAUNCH
MOLLUSK -- Snail
MONSTER -- Chimera
MONSTER -- Dragon and Wyvern
MONSTER -- Griffin
MONSTER -- Humanoid
MONSTER -- Merfolk
MONSTER -- Miscellaneous
MONSTER -- Panther
MONSTER -- Pegasus
MONSTER -- Phoenix
MONSTER -- Pithon
MONSTER -- Sea
MONSTER -- Winged
MOUNT and MOUNTAIN
MULLET
MUNDANE ARMORY
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
NESSELBLATT
OBTRUSIVE MODERNITY
OFFENSE
ORIENTATION see POSTURE categories
ORLE see CHARGE -- Peripheral
PALE
PALL and PALL INVERTED
Period Rolls of Arms and Armorials (discussion)
PIERCED
PILE and PILE INVERTED
PLANT
POSITION
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Animate Charges
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- General
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Inanimate Charges
PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION
PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION -- Crests and Supporters
PROPER see also PROPER -- Brown Precedent
PROPER -- Brown Precedent
PROTECTED and PROTECTABLE ITEMS
RAINBOW
RECONSTRUCTIBILITY
REPTILE -- Lizard
REPTILE -- Snake
RfS X.4.j.ii
ROGACINA
ROUNDEL
SALTIRE
SCHNECKE
SEMY
SHAKEFORK see PALL and PALL INVERTED
SHEAF
SHELL
SHIP
SPINDLE
STAFF
STYLE
SUN see COMPASS STAR and SUN
SUSTAINED see MAINTAINED and SUSTAINED
SWORD
SYMBOL
TIERCE and FLAUNCH
TINCTURE
TOOL -- Astronomical
TOOL -- Textile
TRADEMARK see COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK
TREE
TREE BRANCH
TRIDENT
TRIQUETRA
TRISKELE and TRISKELION
TROUSERS of NOBILITY
VISUAL COMPARISON
WEIRDNESS
WINGED OBJECTS
WINGS and VOLS
WREATH

ADMINISTRATIVE
see also PROTECTED and PROTECTABLE ITEMS

Beginning immediately, therefore, if two submissions at the same meeting are deemed to conflict, we will give preference to the submission from the paid member. If both submitters are (or aren't) paid members, then the first received takes priority, as before.

It sometimes happens that a submission is delayed so long by circumstances outside the submitter's control that changes in the Rules for Submissions or their interpretation make it unregisterable. Depending on the exact circumstances, and on a case-by-case basis, the submission may be judged according to the older Rules for Submissions and interpretations; this policy is popularly known as the Hardship Clause.

No evidence was presented that a roundel enchancré is a period charge. Therefore, barring period evidence of its usage, after the July 1997 Laurel meeting we will no longer register it. (LoAR March 1997 p. 2) [note: deadline set so that it will cover all LoIs issued on or before March 1997, when the decision was published]

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 for November 1994) [note: again, the deadline is set so that it will cover all LoIs issued on or before the Cover Letter date of November 1994.]

At their April 93 meeting, the Board of Directors decided to accept my recommendation on how to prevent SCA members from being disadvantaged by non-members during the heraldic submission process. Corpora explicitly forbids us to consider the membership status of an armory's owner, once the armory is registered; the Board agreed that the only time a member's submission could be returned for conflict by a non-member's armory is when the two were considered at the same Laurel meeting. Beginning immediately, therefore, if two submissions at the same meeting are deemed to conflict, we will give preference to the submission from the paid member. If both submitters are (or aren't) paid members, then the first received takes priority, as before.

This gives an advantage to members' submissions, without requiring anyone to check every submitter's membership status. Laurel need only call the Registrar, on those rare occasions when membership becomes important; this happens seldom enough to impose no undue burden on Laurel, the Registrar, or the College.

Since both submissions were from the same month, we followed the strictures from the Board which meant that we had to determine the membership status of the two submitters, since if one was a member and one was not, the member would get priority (LoAR September 1996).

According to the registry, both submitters were members in August 2001, and thus priority is determined by the date on the LoI (LoAR August 2001).

- Demonstrating a general pattern of interchangeability between the two types of charge: most armory using one sort of charge is also found using the other sort of charge, or there is a temporal trend so that earlier versions of the charge are drawn in one way and later forms are drawn in the other way.

- Demonstrating that the choice of how to draw the charge was most likely due to the artist, because the artist of one roll would draw the charge consistently in one fashion and the artist of another roll would draw the charge consistently in another fashion.

- Demonstrating that there are numerous cases in which a single individual bore variations of the same sort of cross.

One should always read any decision by Laurel as being prefixed by "Based on the available knowledge, research, and analysis available to us at this time, it is our understanding that ..."

Many heralds (on all levels of the hierarchy) often forget this and word statements of current knowledge as if they were Absolute Truth, but there's still an onus on the listener as well to insert the disclaimer.

In the last few months, there have been cases where the mini-emblazon included with the Letter of Intent did not accurately represent the emblazon on the submission form. If the emblazon does not match the form, the CoA cannot produce useful commentary, which in turn does not allow a decision on that item. The CoA has enough to review without commenting on the "wrong" item. A mismatch between the LoI emblazon and what is on the submission form can be reason for administrative return. If you produce LoIs, please double-check that the mini-emblazons on your letters are a good representation of the emblazons on the submission forms.

Photoreduction is recommended over redrawing. Scanning can be used with care. Many complaints have been received about mini-emblazons which were produced by scanning at inappropriate settings, rendering elements of the armory invisible or otherwise unidentifiable.

ADMINISTRATIVE -- Comments and Commenting

In this month's submission for Aethelwine Aethelredson (Calontir), a commenter raised the question of whether we should protect the non-SCA arms of the Earl of Atholl.

Ordinarily, such a request during the commentary cycle would cause a pend of the associated SCA armory and would be discussed there rather than in the Cover Letter. In this case, the armory in question was returned for a different reason, so there was no need for a pend. Laurel procedure in the past has been to rule on all requests for protection, whether they are raised in commentary pertinent to a submission in progress or whether they are raised in Letters of Intent to Protect. Therefore, this "orphaned" issue is presented for your consideration here in the Cover Letter.

ADMINISTRATIVE -- A Cautionary Word Regarding "Conflict Tables"

A piece of armory may not be too similar to other pieces of armory, as is required by General Principle 3a of these rules. Period armory frequently distinguished between immediate relatives, like a father and his son, by making a single change to the arms in a process called "cadency". The changes made in such circumstances can be considered the smallest change that period heralds would recognize. This section defines ways in which submitted armory must be changed to be sufficiently different from protected armory.

[A Celtic cross vs. a Celtic cross equal-armed, quarterly pierced and throughout] There is no heraldic difference for the charge being throughout, or not. However, there's a CD ... for the quarter-piercing, which is visually equivalent to adding a tertiary delf. (Toirrdelbach Ua Mel Doraid, October, 1992, pg. 16)

While we give a CD for a standard cross throughout [the ordinary] versus a cross couped, for most crosses (such as crosses fleury) we do not give such difference for couped [not-throughout] versus throughout. (LoAR February 2002).

ADMINISTRATIVE -- Devices for Consorts and Royal Heirs

ADMINISTRATIVE -- Generic Identifiers

King's battle flag, Ensign, Flag, War banner, populace badge

Champion, Defender, Kingdom Warlord, King's Champion, Queen's Bard, Queen's Champion, Children's Defender, Champion of Arts and Sciences

Baronial Guard, Guard, Queen's Guard

Archers, Archery Guild, Armourers' Guild, Bards' Guild, Brewers' Guild, Chirurgeon's Guild, Clothiers' Guild, Cooks' Guild, Equestrian Guild, Herbalist Guild, Needleworker's Guild, Scribes' and Illuminators' Guild, Waterbearers' Guild

Æthelmearc Equestrian Guild, Equestrian Guild of Calontir, Outlands Equestrian Guild

Carolingian Brewers' Guild, Drachenwald Brewer's Guild, East Kingdom Brewer's Guild

Atlantian Pages Academy, University of Drachenwald, University of the East Kingdom

Office of the Chatelaine, Ministry of Children, Office of the Minister of Children, Kingdom Chirurgeon, Chronicler, Chronicler's Office, Hospitaller, Office of the Lists

ADMINISTRATIVE -- Permission to Conflict

Permission to Conflict - If permission to conflict has been granted, a written statement of permission must be included, signed by the owner of the conflicting item with both Society Name and name used outside the Society. (See Appendix D for a standard form for granting permission to conflict.)

Unfortunately, the letter of permission provided is not valid. According to the Administrative Handbook, section IV.C.3, a written statement of permission must be included, signed by the owner of the conflicting item with both Society Name and name used outside the Society. The letter provided was not signed. Note that a signature is not a computer generated line of typescript giving the name of the submitter, it is a handwritten signature or a copy thereof. Perhaps in the future we might wish to consider e-mail headers, or electronic signatures, as valid signatures. However, it is worth noting that neither of these were present in this letter of permission either.

ADIMINSTRATIVE -- Registration Limit

No formal restriction is placed on the number of badges a branch may be submit because it is assumed that branches may have good and constructive reasons for more than one badge. This is an abuse of the privilege. Please advise them to pick one.

AMPHIBIAN

ANNULET

ARCHITECTURE

A registration of this submission would apparently be the first, and therefore defining, instance of such a charge. Especially in the case of charges not registered previously, the College requires documentation that the charge (a) has been used in period armory or (b) is compatible with similar charges in period armory, and (c) has a standardized depiction which would make reproducability [sic] from the blazon possible. We need such documentation here.

A question of reproducibility was raised in commentary in regards to this submission. Of particular relevance to this case are period heraldic depictions of buildings. There are, particularly in Continental heraldry, many coats incorporating everything from individual buildings up to entire cities. Even a casual examination of multiple sources will show that there was little regularity in depiction. The blazon for such charges is characteristically vague: "a church" or "a city". Clearly any variation in depiction is a matter of artistry, not heraldry.

In this case, anyone viewing the emblazon will recognize the charge as a mosque. A competent heraldic artist may not produce this particular mosque, but will presumably produce a drawing which, again, the viewers will recognize. This situation is no different from period heraldic depictions of churches.

This is a change to our normal policy of having the first registration of a charge not documented as having been used in period heraldry be the defining example of the charge. In this specific case, since the period usage of buildings varied so widely, we are comfortable with not having a defining example.

ARRANGEMENT
see also ARRANGEMENT -- Forced Move and ARRANGEMENT -- Conjoined

[A coney courant and another courant contourny inverted conjoined at the paws argent] The rabbits were originally blazoned as conjoined in annulo. However, the beasts were not drawn in annulo, where the two animals are embowed, but were drawn as courant and courant inverted. By precedent we do not register inverted animals unless they are part of an arrangement in annulo. (LoAR October 2000)

[Per pale and per chevron argent and sable, in chief two <charges> counterchanged vs. Huffam, Per bend sable and argent, two <charges> counterchanged ] Because the charges are counterchanged, they could legitimately be placed anywhere on the field, even over the line(s) of division. As a consequence, the change in position of the <charges> cannot be considered to be "forced" by the field division (though in Huffam they are in the expected position, one on either side of the line of division), thus giving a CD for position on the field

[an octofoil within eight octofoils in annulo] Size is not the only thing that determines a primary charge. We were unable to devise a way to describe arrangement of the charges in a way that did not imply that they were a primary charge surrounded by a secondary group. Such arrangements cannot use the same type of charge. The problem could be solved by arranging them in a diamond (1,2,3,2, and 1) or in a square (3,3, and 3).

ARRANGEMENT -- Conjoined

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.

Rouland Carre. Device. Argent, on a bend cotised azure within an orle gules, in chief a Latin cross argent.

The LoAR blazoned this as "cotised couped", which would not have the bend throughout within the orle.

ARRANGEMENT -- Forced Move

ARROW and ARROWHEAD

[considering a strung bow and arrow along with another charge] The question was raised as to whether or not this is considered slot machine since it has three dissimilar charges in one group. While it is true that it has three charges, when a bow and arrow are in their standard, expected position they are considered one charge, just like a sword in a scabbard is considered one charge. It is only when they are separated, or put into non standard positions for their normal use, such as being crossed in saltire, that they become two separate charges. (LoAR April 1999 p. 6)

ARTHROPOD -- Bee

ARTHROPOD -- Miscellaneous

ARTHROPOD -- Spider

AUGMENTATIONS

The basic question raised by this submission is can an augmentation break the rule of tincture? ... only one example of period use of an augmentation breaking the rule of tincture was found. Barring documentation of large numbers of period augmentations that break the rule of tincture, we are unwilling to register this practice. (LoAR August 1997 p. 26)

[Concerning an augmentation whose form was specified by the granting Crown] At the time of the August [1987 Laurel] meeting this submission was pended, despite the strong conviction of most of the College that it infringed on the proper usage of [a reserved charge]. Since it involved a "constitutional issue", i.e., in the event of conflict between the will of the Crown and the decision of the College, which takes priority. As the Board of Directors at its January meeting has now decided that the College may not be compelled to register that which is in violation of its existing rules, this submission is now formally returned. (LoAR February 1988)

For the ... conflict, we need to receive a letter of permission to conflict signed by the Crown or the kingdom Seneschal. It has always been the policy of the College not to assume that permission is given even if explicitly stated in a LoI (which was not the case here), but to require a copy of a written letter of permission to conflict.

The exact conflict with the seal of the office of the ... Principal Herald is more troublesome for a couple of reasons... [one reason that] it is troublesome is that 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 ... Principal Herald, which does then fall afoul of our rules against the claim to 'status or powers the submitter does not possess' (RfS XI).

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."

Some commenters have theorized that if a person registers an augmentation that appears to be independent armory, the independent armory is somehow grandfathered to the kingdom that originally bestowed the augmentation, and thus (the theory continues) the independent armory could be registered by any new recipient of an augmentation from that kingdom. But this cannot be the case, because the augmentation does not have an independent existence, and because the kingdom has no ownership of, or even control of, the form taken by an individual's augmentation.

AXE

BALANCE

BASE
see also MOUNT and MOUNTAIN

Although all three 'points' are mentioned in heraldic tracts, in practice only the base one appears to have been used; and even in the tracts, the dexter and sinister points are described as abatements of honor, to be used separately, and not in conjunction." (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR 4/92, p. 19) No documentation was presented to contradict this precedent. As a consequence, the precedent disallowing the use of dexter and/or sinister points remains in place (LoAR December 1993).

BEAST -- Badger

BEAST -- Bat

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] (LoAR September 1994)

A significant number of commenters felt that inverting a tergiant charge which is commonly found as tergiant (such as a tergiant scorpion or a frog) does not hamper the identifiability of the charge so much as to render it unidentifiable, and they felt that it should be acceptable. The frog in this submission certainly retains its identifiability very clearly in the inverted posture. As a result, inverting a tergiant charge is acceptable as long as it does not otherwise violate any basic heraldic principles, including the requirement for identifiability. Because of the lack of period evidence for tergiant inverted charges, the posture will be considered a clear step from period practice (also known informally as a "weirdness") for any charge that cannot be found in this posture in period (LoAR May 2002).

BEAST -- Bear

BEAST -- Beaver

• What natural animal (if any) is the origin of the sea-dog?

• If the sea-dog originates from some natural animal, should we give difference between the sea-dog and the heraldic version of that originating animal? (and in any case, should we give difference between a sea-dog and a beaver?)

BEAST -- Boar

[A winged wolf] Conflict with ... a wolf ... there is only one CVD for adding the wings. (LoAR October 1991 p.16).

BEAST -- Cat, Lion and Tiger

BEAST -- Deer

BEAST -- Dog and Wolf

Dalmatians are probably a period breed, there is a mention of spotted dogs in an Elizabethan Journal (National Geographic Book of Dogs). As the shape of the dog resembles a Dalmatian, we might as well use it. I would still give its color as argent spotted sable, especially as modern Dalmatians can have brown spots as well.

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. (Cover Letter for the October 1995 LoAR)

BEAST -- Elephant

BEAST -- General

BEAST -- Goat

BEAST -- Miscellaneous

It was long supposed that the apes encountered on an island off the west coast of Africa by Hanno, the Carthaginian, were gorillas, but in the opinion of some of those best qualified to judge, it is probable that the creatures in question were really baboons. The first real account of the gorilla appears to be the one given by an English sailor, Andrew Battel, who spent some time in the wilds of West Africa during and about the year 1590; his account being presented in Purchas's Pilgrimage, published in the year 1613. From this it appears that Battel was familiar with both the chimpanzee and the gorilla, the former of which he terms engeco and the latter pongo-names which ought apparently to be adopted for these two species in place of those now in use. Between Battel's time and 1846 nothing appears to have been heard of the gorilla or pongo, but in that year a missionary at the Gabun accidentally discovered a skull of the huge ape; and in 1847 a sketch of that specimen, together with two others, came into the hands of Sir R. Owen, by whom the name Gorilla savagei was proposed for the new ape in 1848.

BEAST -- Mouse

BEAST -- Rabbit

BEAST -- Weasel

BEND and BEND SINISTER

There seem to be few ermine bends in period, but they may be found throughout the heraldic period. Those which [Maister Iago ab Adam] found are all depicted with the ermine spots tilted bendwise on the bend.

Out of seven period examples of ermine bends studied, two had two offset rows of spots (like footprints up the bend), one had seven spots arranged 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, one was charged and had the spots arranged to fit around the charges, and three were drawn as in this submission, with a single row of five spots (although it should be noted that these last three examples are all mid-16th C. or later.)

[a bend sinister fusilly vs. a bend sinister dancetty] Evidence taken from the Dictionary of British Arms strongly indicates that bends dancetty were not used interchangeably with bends fusilly; in fact, they were used by different people and in different ways. Thus there is a CD for changing the line of division on the bend ... (LoAR April 2001)

As a bend sinister of fusils is an artistic variant of indented, there is not a CD between it and a bend sinister indented (LoAR April 2001, p. 13)

...the distinction between 'dancetty' and 'indented' when applied to ordinaries being not one of amplitude, as White Stag suggests, but a distinction parallel to that between counterembattled and bretassed (LoAR December 1988)

BIRD -- Cock and Hen

BIRD -- Cornish Chough
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

BIRD -- Dove
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

BIRD -- Duck

BIRD -- Eagle
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

BIRD -- Falcon and Hawk
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

BIRD -- Generic
see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

BIRD -- Goose

BIRD -- Loon
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

BIRD -- Martlet
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

BIRD -- Miscellaneous
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

BIRD -- Owl
see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

BIRD -- Peacock
see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

BIRD -- Quail
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

BIRD -- Raven
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds
see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

BIRD -- Sparrow
see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

BIRD -- Swan

BIRD -- Vulture
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

The conflict rules make a rigid distinction between the type of a charge and its posture. This works well most of the time, but less so for birds, where the type and the posture are often closely connected. In particular, with vanishingly rare exceptions the eagle is the only bird found displayed in period heraldry. Therefore any other bird displayed will arguably be visually similar to an eagle...

The new solution to the problem is to sacrifice some of the theoretical purity of separation of type and posture. Because only eagles among birds are attested as displayed in period, any other bird in a displayed posture will be compared to any bird in a displayed posture usuing [sic] the visual test of rule X.4.e for non-period charges. Thus there will not be a CD between an owl displayed and an eagle displayed, because they are too visually similar, but there will be a CD between an owl displayed and a penguin displayed, because there is still significant visual difference. Additionally any bird other than an eagle in a displayed posture will be considered a "weirdness" [step from standard period practice].

In the future I expect that I will be more likely to grant difference between different types of birds when (a) [sic] they are (a) different in period, (b) in a period posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is some visual difference (i.e., there is really no visual difference between a popinjay and a hawk).

1. The change from one type of bird to the other type of bird must "not usually [have been] used to indicate any form of cadency" in period (RfS X.2). The two types of bird must of course also have been considered different in period, or they would not even be significantly different (RfS X.4.e).

2. Each bird, in both the new and the old submissions, must be in a posture which was period for that type of bird.

3. Each bird, in both the new and the old submissions, must be drawn correctly.

4. The two types of bird must have been drawn in fashions that were consistently very different from each other throughout period heraldry.

• Barring evidence to the contrary for a particular type of bird, it may be assumed that any type of bird is in a period posture when it is close.
• If a bird is found in a rising posture in period, it is reasonable to assume that both rising wings addorsed and rising wings displayed are standard variants of that posture.
• Period birds that are reguardant are considered a standard posture variant of period birds that are not reguardant. So, if a bird is found in the rising posture in period, it is reasonable to assume that rising reguardant is also a period posture. One cannot make the same assumption about guardant.
• Turning any type of bird to sinister is considered a standard posture variant for all period heraldic postures, due to long-standing SCA practice. So, if a bird is found in the naiant posture in period, then for purposes of SCA heraldic rulings we will also consider the naiant to sinister posture to be period.

• Swan-shaped birds, including swans, geese, and ducks: waterfowl with long necks, rounded bills, long heavy bodies, webbed feet.
• Crane-shaped birds, including cranes, herons, and storks: tall thin birds with long necks, long pointed beaks, medium-weight bodies, very long legs.
• Poultry-shaped birds, including chickens, quail, partridge, and peacocks: compact rounded birds with short to medium necks, short beaks, heavy rounded bodies, medium or short legs, often with distinctive tails or head details (combs, crests).
• "Regular-shaped" birds, including martlets, ravens and other corbies, raptors (hawks, eagles, and owls), and doves: birds with the classic "bird shape". Compact light- or medium-weight birds with small necks and beaks, short to medium legs, plain tails.

• Birds within a category are not substantially different from each other. They may be (but are not always) significantly different from each other based on the criteria in RfS X.4.e. Within the "regular-shaped birds" category, there is significant difference between an owl (close guardant) and a dove (close), but not substantial difference. However, in the same category, there is no difference between a falcon rising and an eagle rising.
• Birds in different categories are given substantial difference from each other as long as they meet the general requirements for substantial difference listed above. Thus, a correctly drawn dunghill cock (close), in the "poultry-shaped" bird category, is substantially different from a "crane-shaped" heron (close), a "swan-shaped" swan close, or a "regular-shaped" martlet (close). However, a "poultry-shaped" dunghill cock volant is not substantially different from a "regular-shaped" dove volant, because, while the dove is found in the volant posture in period heraldry, the dunghill cock is not.
• Birds that are not mentioned as part of the categories above must have their eligibility for substantial difference determined on a case by case basis. In particular, SCA-compatible birds that are not found in period heraldry, such as some New World birds, may be considered in a category with very similar Old World birds, on a case by case basis.

BLAZON
see also POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Animate Charges and POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- General and POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Inanimate Charges

[An arrow argent enfiling a serpent involved] The definition of the term enfile has changed over the years. Boutell (English Heraldry, 1902) equates it with "pierce": a sword passing through a crown would enfile the crown. Brooke-Little (An Heraldic Alphabet 1975) equates it with "encircle": a sword passing through a crown would be enfiled by the crown. The confusion is sufficient reason to avoid the use of the term, but sometimes (as with this submission) it's hard to avoid. Friar (Dictionary of Heraldry, 1987, p.137) agrees with Boutell's definition; and that definition does follow more naturally from the etymology of the word (from French fil, "thread": beads are threaded on a string, crowns are enfiled on [by] a sword). That is the definition used here.

Vêtu fields should not have charges in the "vested" portions of the field --- and although this was blazoned on the LOI as a lozenge concave throughout, the latter two adjectives almost mandate this be considered a vêtu field. (LoAR December 1992, pg. 15)

[Per pale and per chevron argent and sable, in chief two <charges> counterchanged vs. Huffam, Per bend sable and argent, two <charges> counterchanged ] Because the charges are counterchanged, they could legitimately be placed anywhere on the field, even over the line(s) of division. As a consequence, the change in position of the <charges> cannot be considered to be "forced" by the field division (though in Huffam they are in the expected position, one on either side of the line of division), thus giving a CD for position on the field

The submission was blazoned on the LoI as Per chevron in chief. It is a clear drawing of modern chapé: it's throughout and high on the field. Note the following precedent: "Listed on the LoI as having a per chevron line of division, the location of the line of the division and the relative sizes of the charges makes this an example of chapé. Therefore, it must be returned ... for charging its upper portions" (LoAR January 2000).

Occasionally, the very diversity of the Society dictates that some details shouldn't be blazoned. For instance, we don't normally blazon the local drawing style: a fleur-de-lys is blazoned a fleur-de-lys, whether drawn in the Italian style (sometimes blazoned a fleur-de-lys florencée by modern heralds) or the French style. In this way, we permit the broadest mix of cultures; we don't micro-manage the scribes, but allow them the fullest creativity and expression; and we make it possible for someone to change persona without requiring a reblazon.

• The arms of Alberta are not stylistically compatible with pre-1600 heraldry, and are thus not easily described by SCA blazon.

• ...

The most definitive information we have here is found on page 209 of Conrad Swan's, (now Sir Conrad Swan) landmark study entitled 'Canada: Symbols of Sovereignty' (University of Toronto Press, 1977). In the chapter on Alberta, Sir Conrad notes that the arms were assigned by Royal Warrant on 30 May 1907 and were blazoned as follows: 'Azure, in front of a range of snowy mountains proper a range of hills Vert, in base a wheat field surmounted by a prairie both also proper, on a chief Argent a St. George's cross.' The reference he gives is College of Arms 175.127. As he was York Herald at the time of writing and had full access to the records of the College, I believe it is fair to assume that this blazon can be considered absolutely accurate.

BOOK

BORDURE

The device was blazoned as having three triangles issuant from chief. This style of indentation can be found in period (for example Lowell of Balumbye (Lindsay of the Mount, pl. 107)), but it was blazoned as either indented or three piles. As current scholarship believes that such chiefs were originally indented with deep indentations, we decided to blazon it as indented and leave the depth to artistic license (LoAR July 2000).

CANDELABRA

CANTING

CARD PIQUE

CASTLE and TOWER

CHARGE -- Maintained and Sustained

Either sustaining or supporting will be used when a "held" charge is of comparable size to the beast holding it; maintaining will continue to be used when the held charge is of negligible heraldic difference. (Brayden Avenel Durrant, July, 1992, p. 6)

[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. (LoAR September 1994 p. 9)

[registering Azure, a bear rampant contourny sustaining a halberd between, in chief, two mullets of eight points argent.] 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. (LoAR September 1994)

CHARGE -- Miscellaneous

The type [of catapult] in most common use in medieval times was called a "trebuchet" or "swepe": powered by gravity, it used a long lever arm and a heavy counterweight. This is the most common type in Society heraldry... All types of catapult are depicted by default in their "rest" position, with the arm neither cocked and ready, nor at full release.

• The depiction of the vessel in the submission was not documented as having been used in Western Europe in period. The vessel depicted here resembles a common form of modern teapot: it is a squat cylindrical vessel, with a domed top (with a ball handle in the middle of the top), a "[" shaped handle on the dexter side of the cylinder, a curved spout coming up from the lower part of the sinister side of the cylinder, and a short wide flared foot extending down from the bottom of the cylinder. No documentation was presented or found indicating that this form of vessel was known in Western Europe in period, either under the name "teapot" or under another name.
• No evidence was presented that a teapot would have been known in Western Europe before 1600. The research on the history of tea in the West (as provided by the submitter, the College, and Wreath's staff) reached the general consensus that tea arrived in Europe via the Portuguese directly from China in the early or mid 17th C. Thus, unlike coffee (which was present in the neighboring Middle East during our period, and known to Western Europeans), it is quite likely that the beverage now known as tea, and any vessels used to brew it, would not have been known to Western Europeans in our period.

CHARGE -- Overall

[Purpure, a bend sinister between two falcons rising wings addorsed Or] This is clear of ... Purpure, a bend sinister between two glaive heads addorsed Or; there is a CD for the type of secondaries, as well as a CD for orientation. (This CD is granted because both charges have the ability to be addorsed, and the falcons are not.) (LoAR 9/00)

CHARGE -- Peripheral
see also individual peripheral ordinaries: BASE, BORDURE, CHIEF, and TIERCE and FLAUNCH.
see also MOUNT and MOUNTAIN

Rouland Carre. Device. Argent, on a bend cotised azure within an orle gules, in chief a Latin cross argent.

The LoAR blazoned this as "cotised couped", which would not have the bend throughout within the orle.

Mountains, as variants of mounts, should be emblazoned to occupy no more than the lower portion of the field. (Barony of Blackstone Mountain, September, 1993, pg. 10)

[a wolf statant gules atop a mount vert] The wolf appears to be neither on nor atop the mount; a blazon which more accurately reproduces the emblazon is Argent, a mount vert, overall a wolf statant gules. However, we do not register charges that overlap peripheral ordinaries. [Bastian Wolfhart, 11/99, R-Middle]

There was a strong feeling in the College that the double tressure dancetty braced was non-period style, and at first I was inclined to agree. On reflection, however, I found I couldn't put a name to exactly why I felt so. Visually, this is not so different from an orle masculy, or saltorels couped and conjoined in orle, either of which would have raised far less objection. (LoAR 1/93)

Although all three 'points' are mentioned in heraldic tracts, in practice only the base one appears to have been used; and even in the tracts, the dexter and sinister points are described as abatements of honor, to be used separately, and not in conjunction." (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR 4/92, p. 19) No documentation was presented to contradict this precedent. As a consequence, the precedent disallowing the use of dexter and/or sinister points remains in place (LoAR December 1993).

The original blazon of the surrounding charge was a "tressure triskele" and it was stated that this was to refer to the submittor's [sic] services to Trimaris in the heraldic sphere since there is an award for heralds in that Kingdom called the Tressure Triskele. It was noted by more than one individual that we do not use single diminutives and so this has to be an orle and also that it is not possible to figure out what this is from the blazon 'triskele' (one person suggested that this could be an orle semy of triskeles). Neither the name nor any armoury for the award alluded to has ever been registered by the College and thus it cannot be considered to be 'grandfathered.'"

CHARGE -- Restricted or Reserved

CHARGE GROUP
see also DIFFERENCE -- Groups

[returning a mullet of four points throughout ... between four mullets of four points ...] This is being returned for violating the long-standing precedent of using two different sizes of the same charge on the field. (LoAR 3/98 p. 15)

[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 a mullet of four points throughout ... between four mullets of four points ... ] This is being returned for violating the long-standing precedent of using two different sizes of the same charge on the field. (LoAR 3/98 p. 15)

[An arrow argent enfiling a serpent involved] The definition of the term enfile has changed over the years. Boutell (English Heraldry, 1902) equates it with "pierce": a sword passing through a crown would enfile the crown. Brooke-Little (An Heraldic Alphabet 1975) equates it with "encircle": a sword passing through a crown would be enfiled by the crown. The confusion is sufficient reason to avoid the use of the term, but sometimes (as with this submission) it's hard to avoid. Friar (Dictionary of Heraldry, 1987, p.137) agrees with Boutell's definition; and that definition does follow more naturally from the etymology of the word (from French fil, "thread": beads are threaded on a string, crowns are enfiled on [by] a sword). That is the definition used here.

[...on a chevron between three hearts argent three hearts sable] There is no problem with having the same type of charge as both secondaries and tertiaries. Submissions are only returned if the same type of charge is used as primary and secondary charges. (LoAR September 1999.)

It is certainly possible to have more than one secondary charge group on the field. In the hypothetical arms Argent, a bend cotised between a mullet and a crescent all within a bordure gules, the primary charge group is the bend, the cotises are one secondary charge group, the mullet and crescent are, together, a second secondary charge group, and the bordure is a third secondary charge group (of the type often termed peripheral). (LoAR of October 2001)

[Argent, on a fess cotised embattled on the outer edges between three leopard's faces sable three crescents argent] This is clear of the flag of Meridies, Argent, on a fess sable, a crown of three points between two mullets argent, with one CD for the removal of the cotises and a second for the removal of the leopard's faces as they are two different charge groups (LoAR of March 2001)

The cotises are clearly a second group of secondary charges so that an additional point of difference can be obtained from adding them (LoAR of 27 November 1988, p.12)

CHESS PIECE

... the reason for the conflict of the single-headed chess knight and a horse's head is visual. The double-headed chess knight is a period charge (found in Siebmacher in the arms of Hertzheim) so the visual standard does not apply. Even were it to apply it would clear the conflict, but the applicable standard is whether the charges were considered equivalent by period heralds. There is no reason to believe that this was the case for double-headed chess knights and horse's heads, so this submission is clear.

CHEVRON and CHEVRON INVERTED

Rouland Carre. Device. Argent, on a bend cotised azure within an orle gules, in chief a Latin cross argent.

The LoAR blazoned this as "cotised couped", which would not have the bend throughout within the orle.

Questions were raised regarding having ... three roundels in three different tinctures. While we were unable, in a quick look, to find an example of the same charge in three different tinctures, the Dictionary of British Armory, 2 shows the arms of Milo Fitzwalter of Glouster as Gules, two bends the upper Or and lower argent., making the use of the same charge in three different tinctures only one weirdness. (LoAR February 1998)

CHIEF

The problem [of lack of contrast] is not unique to this field division: Per bend gules and Or is a neutral field, but Per bend gules and Or, a chief sable still suffers a lack of contrast. (LoAR June 1993)

A demi-sun throughout on a chief must have good contrast with the charge upon which it lies (the chief). It will automatically by definition have poor contrast with the field which it adjoins (assuming that the field is not neutral). This will be permissible so long as the demi-sun is not of the same tincture as the field." (CL November 30 1990 p.1)

COLLAR

COMET

COMPASS STAR and SUN
see also MULLET

Current precedent is that we only allow the piercing of charges on fieldless badges when those charges were found pierced in period armory (thus disallowing omni-tinctured tertiary charges). While a compass star is closely related to a mullet, it is nevertheless a different charge, one not found in period armory. Therefore we are not inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt and allow it to be pierced as we would a mullet or spur rowel.

A demi-sun throughout on a chief must have good contrast with the charge upon which it lies (the chief). It will automatically by definition have poor contrast with the field which it adjoins (assuming that the field is not neutral). This will be permissible so long as the demi-sun is not of the same tincture as the field." (CL November 30 1990 p.1)

COMPLEXITY
see also STYLE

[considering a strung bow and arrow along with another charge] The question was raised as to whether or not this is considered slot machine since it has three dissimilar charges in one group. While it is true that it has three charges, when a bow and arrow are in their standard, expected position they are considered one charge, just like a sword in a scabbard is considered one charge. It is only when they are separated, or put into non standard positions for their normal use, such as being crossed in saltire, that they become two separate charges. (LoAR April 1999)

CONTRAST

The problem [of lack of contrast] is not unique to this field division: Per bend gules and Or is a neutral field, but Per bend gules and Or, a chief sable still suffers a lack of contrast. (LoAR June 1993)

RfS VIII.2.b.iii: Elements evenly divided into two parts, per saltire, or quarterly may use any two tinctures or furs.

RfS VIII.2.b.iv: Elements evenly divided into multiple parts of two different tinctures must have good contrast between their parts.

RfS VIII.2.b.v: Elements evenly divided in three tinctures must have good contrast between two of their parts.

The submitter has provided examples from Siedmacher's [sic] 1605 Wappenbuch of armory that could be blazoned Per chevron ployé pointed with a linden leaf argent and gules., and Per bend Or and sable with trefoils counterposed and issuant from the center of the line., thereby showing period evidence for this motif. However, all exemplars provided used difference tincture classes for each half of the field.

This design motif is essentially a divided field with leaves as counterchanged charges. Therefore, this submission violates the Rule of Tincture. Barring period evidence of this motif using two tinctures from the same class, it can only be used in the SCA with tinctures from the different classes.

COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK

CORONET and CROWN

The quadruple mount overwhelmingly resembles a crown, and the submitter is not entitled to display one on her arms. (Laurel had been inclined to allow the charge, but at the Laurel meeting where it was viewed, my staff, who had not seen the LoI, immediately started looking for evidence of her entitlement to use a crown, since they all thought it was one until the blazon was read. This served to change our mind.). The submitter is correct in stating that it is a period charge. However, that is not relevant in matters of presumption. (LoAR 5/99)

COTISES

It is certainly possible to have more than one secondary charge group on the field. In the hypothetical arms Argent, a bend cotised between a mullet and a crescent all within a bordure gules, the primary charge group is the bend, the cotises are one secondary charge group, the mullet and crescent are, together, a second secondary charge group, and the bordure is a third secondary charge group (of the type often termed peripheral). (LoAR of October 2001)

[Argent, on a fess cotised embattled on the outer edges between three leopard's faces sable three crescents argent] This is clear of the flag of Meridies, Argent, on a fess sable, a crown of three points between two mullets argent, with one CD for the removal of the cotises and a second for the removal of the leopard's faces as they are two different charge groups (LoAR of March 2001)

The cotises are clearly a second group of secondary charges so that an additional point of difference can be obtained from adding them (LoAR of 27 November 1988, p.12)

COUNTERCHANGING

The only time we permit a charge to be counterchanged over another is when they are both ordinaries. (Shire of Crystal Crags, 12/98 p. 13)

[Per pale and per chevron argent and sable, in chief two <charges> counterchanged vs. Huffam, Per bend sable and argent, two <charges> counterchanged ] Because the charges are counterchanged, they could legitimately be placed anywhere on the field, even over the line(s) of division. As a consequence, the change in position of the <charges> cannot be considered to be "forced" by the field division (though in Huffam they are in the expected position, one on either side of the line of division), thus giving a CD for position on the field

COUPED and ERASED
see also HEAD -- Beast and HEAD -- Bird

For purposes of recreating period armorial style for erasing, the erasing should (1) have between three and eight jags; (2) have jags that are approximately one-sixth to one-third the total height of the charge being erased; and (3) have jags that are not straight but rather are wavy or curved. The predominance of the three-jag erasing is such that it can be recommended throughout our period and across Europe...

Submissions which contain ... erased charges that diverge significantly from the guidelines above risk being returned for unidentifiability or non-period style unless they are accompanied by documentation.

COUPED and THROUGHOUT

CRESCENT

CROSS

- Demonstrating a general pattern of interchangeability between the two types of charge: most armory using one sort of charge is also found using the other sort of charge, or there is a temporal trend so that earlier versions of the charge are drawn in one way and later forms are drawn in the other way.

- Demonstrating that the choice of how to draw the charge was most likely due to the artist, because the artist of one roll would draw the charge consistently in one fashion and the artist of another roll would draw the charge consistently in another fashion.

- Demonstrating that there are numerous cases in which a single individual bore variations of the same sort of cross.

Divisions commonly used for marshalling, such as quarterly or per pale, may only be used in contexts that ensure marshalling is not suggested.

a. Such 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.

PRECEDENT: A cross throughout which overlies the line of division on a quarterly field does not remove the appearance of marshalling by quartering, even if the cross throughout is treated with a complex line (such as engrailed) or has complex ends (such as formy or moline.) A cross which is not throughout, or which does not overlie the quarterly line of division (such as a Tau cross), will remove the appearance of marshalling unless evidence is presented that the cross under discussion was used for marshalling in period heraldry.

[A Celtic cross vs. a Celtic cross equal-armed, quarterly pierced and throughout] There is no heraldic difference for the charge being throughout, or not. However, there's a CD ... for the quarter-piercing, which is visually equivalent to adding a tertiary delf. (Toirrdelbach Ua Mel Doraid, October, 1992, pg. 16)

While we give a CD for a standard cross throughout [the ordinary] versus a cross couped, for most crosses (such as crosses fleury) we do not give such difference for couped [not-throughout] versus throughout. (LoAR February 2002).

CROSSBOW and BOW

[considering a strung bow and arrow along with another charge] The question was raised as to whether or not this is considered slot machine since it has three dissimilar charges in one group. While it is true that it has three charges, when a bow and arrow are in their standard, expected position they are considered one charge, just like a sword in a scabbard is considered one charge. It is only when they are separated, or put into non standard positions for their normal use, such as being crossed in saltire, that they become two separate charges. (LoAR April 1999)

CUP and CHALICE

DEFAULTS

DELF

Fieldless badges consisting only of forms of armorial display, such as escutcheons, lozenges and delfs, are not acceptable since in use the shield shape does not appear to be a charge, but rather the field itself. This presents an entirely different armory for view. (LoAR 9/93 p.25)

DICE

DIFFERENCE -- Substantial
This category lists only rulings where a substantial difference is granted. In cases with extended discussion, the complete ruling can be found in the indicated section.
see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE

DIFFERENCE -- Groups
see also CHARGE GROUP

After much thought and discussion, it has been decided, for purposes of X.4.d, e and h of the Rules for Submission, that the bottommost of three charges, either on the field alone or around an ordinary, is defined as one-half of the group...multiple changes to the basemost of three charges under this definition will be granted a maximum of one CVD. (CL 9/6/90 p.2)

[Per chevron argent and sable, two towers and a horse rampant counterchanged.] Clear of ... Argent, upon a pile inverted throughout between two ravens sable a tower argent, 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.) (LoAR December 1995)

There is ... a CD for the change to the field and another for changing the type and tincture of the primary charge group on one side of the line of division, even though numerically this is not "one half" of the primary charge group. For a fuller discussion of this precedent granting a CD for two changes to charges on one side of a line of division even when less than half the charge group is affected, see the December 21, 1991 Cover Letter (with the November 1991 LoAR).

[Per pale and per chevron argent and sable, in chief two <charges> counterchanged vs. Huffam, Per bend sable and argent, two <charges> counterchanged ] Because the charges are counterchanged, they could legitimately be placed anywhere on the field, even over the line(s) of division. As a consequence, the change in position of the <charges> cannot be considered to be "forced" by the field division (though in Huffam they are in the expected position, one on either side of the line of division), thus giving a CD for position on the field

One cannot get a CD for adding charges, then another CD for changing the charges just added. This has been an underlying principle of the last three sets of Rules: see the LoAR of 25 Aug 85, p.14, for a full discussion. The difference obtained for adding, say, a bordure engrailed ermine, is exactly the same as for adding a bordure Or. (One does not get a CD for adding the bordure, then a CD for changing its tincture, then another CD for making it engrailed.....)

The device conflicts with the important non-SCA arms of Bohun, Earl of Hereford, Constable of England, Azure, a bend argent cotised between six lions rampant Or. There is no difference for changing the type of one of a group of six lions, leaving only one CD for changing the number of secondary charges.

[Per bend sinister purpure and vert, a bend sinister between a butterfly and three bells one and two Or] This is clear of conflict with Yusuf Ja'baral-Timbuktuwwi, Per bend sinister purpure and vert, a bend sinister cotised between an elephant's head couped close and a decrescent with a mullet suspended between its horns Or. The cotises, in Yusuf's device, form a distinct charge group apart from the group consisting of the elephant's head and decrescent/mullet. "While cotises and other charges on the field would be considered separate charge groups on the same armory, they are still secondary charges and can be compared to other secondary charges. (LoAR 6/98 p. 17)." In other words, Yusuf's device has two secondary charge groups: the cotises, and the other charges around the bend. Comparing Yusuf's device with this submission, there are three CDs: one for the removal of the cotise group and two for changing the type and number of the other secondary group.

Jan van Antwerpen. Device. Quarterly argent and azure, two lymphads sails unfurled azure Conflict with Lee Sharpeyes, Quarterly argent and azure, four dhows reversed counterchanged. As noted in the LoAR of July 2001, "There is ... nothing for the change in the type of ship, [or] for reversing a ship." There is one CD for removing the two argent ships, but no other difference may be obtained from this change. One cannot argue, as was done on the Letter of Intent, that "there is a CD for the number of charges, and a CD for changing color of half the primary charges." That is equivalent to saying that there is a CD for removing two of the charges, and another CD for the changing the tincture of the charges that have just been removed. The rules have been interpreted consistently for years, and the following discussion from the LoAR of July 1992 still applies:

One cannot get a CD for adding charges, then another CD for changing the charges just added. This has been an underlying principle of the last three sets of Rules: see the LoAR of 25 Aug 85, p.14, for a full discussion. The difference obtained for adding, say, a bordure engrailed ermine, is exactly the same as for adding a bordure Or. (One does not get a CD for adding the bordure, then a CD for changing its tincture, then another CD for making it engrailed.....)

We have held previously that the addition of a modified charge (such as a roundel engrailed ermine) contributes no more difference than adding an unmodified charge (e.g. a roundel gules). This gets us away from absurdities such as the following: to "Azure, a fleurdelys [sic] Or" we add two bars Or and a bordure argent. We engrail the bordure, change the bars from Or to argent, and then delete the bordure. Depending on how creative you are at counting, you could get anywhere from two to five points for the addition of a pair of silver stripes. Not bad for a couple of minutes' work ...

It is certainly possible to have more than one secondary charge group on the field. In the hypothetical arms Argent, a bend cotised between a mullet and a crescent all within a bordure gules, the primary charge group is the bend, the cotises are one secondary charge group, the mullet and crescent are, together, a second secondary charge group, and the bordure is a third secondary charge group (of the type often termed peripheral). (LoAR of October 2001)

[Argent, on a fess cotised embattled on the outer edges between three leopard's faces sable three crescents argent] This is clear of the flag of Meridies, Argent, on a fess sable, a crown of three points between two mullets argent, with one CD for the removal of the cotises and a second for the removal of the leopard's faces as they are two different charge groups (LoAR of March 2001)

The cotises are clearly a second group of secondary charges so that an additional point of difference can be obtained from adding them (LoAR of 27 November 1988, p.12)

It should be recalled that the SCA protects REGISTERED armory. Because of this, the SCA considers changes to have been made from the registered armory to the armory currently under submission, and has interpreted the Rules for Submission in the manner that gives the greatest protection to the registered armory, and allows the fewest possible differences for a change to armory. This implies a certain lack of symmetry to the ruling, because the interpretation of a change from "registered" to "considered" does not necessarily match the change from "considered" to "registered"...

In [this] case, the submitter is changing one of the lions into a castle, which leaves us with a charge group consisting of five lions and one castle. This change is to less than half of the charges in that group, so there is no CD under RfS X.4.e.

After the change of the type (a lion into a castle), we apply the change to the number by removing all but one of the lions and the castle. Of six charges, we remove four of the lions, leaving a total of two charges in the group, which is a change from six to two. RfS X.4.f notes that two and six are signficantly different, and therefore, entitled to a CD.

DOCUMENTATION
See individual charges for instances when Wreath required additional documentation for defining instances of charges or accepted such documentation.

One should always read any decision by Laurel as being prefixed by "Based on the available knowledge, research, and analysis available to us at this time, it is our understanding that ..."

Many heralds (on all levels of the hierarchy) often forget this and word statements of current knowledge as if they were Absolute Truth, but there's still an onus on the listener as well to insert the disclaimer.

DOCUMENTED EXCEPTION

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

I believe the standards proposed by Master Bruce in his thoughts on this submission are the ones to be applied to submissions requesting an exception to any of our Rules in the future.

The documentation must consist of multiple examples, not two or three but at least a dozen, and not limited to a single heraldic regime, but be from across Europe. The examples must be of the exact form used in the submission: if the submitter wants a green trimount on blue, that's what must be documented -- and that documentation cannot then be used as an argument for, say, a green fess on blue. The examples must be of comparable simplicity and style as the submission. And finally, even if the evidence is accepted, it only applies to the item at hand.

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

[Gules, a bear passant sable between three mullets of six points Or] The submitter asked that this be registered under RfS VIII.6, Documented Exceptions. She included numerous examples of sable charges on gules from different areas of Europe. While there was enough evidence given to support Gules, a bear passant sable ... the only examples the submitter presented of a low contrast charge between high contrast secondaries the central charge was an ordinary. As ordinaries have a different level of complexity from an animate charge, we cannot consider their examples as sufficient. None of the examples present showed the case Gules, <an animate charge> sable between <charges> Or (or argent). The Documented Exceptions rule is by nature very conservative; one needs multiple examples of very similar patterns to allow extrapolations. Therefore, we must return the device. (LoAR of March 2000)

EMBLAZON
see also EMBLAZON -- Coloring Problems

EMBLAZON -- Coloring Problems

Color Computer Printers: the colors may change even in the few months between the time the forms leave the kingdom and when they are ruled on by Wreath. Computer printer colors sometimes continue to change while the forms are in the files.

Metallic Markers and Paints: These tend to oxidize over time, so that what began as gold or silver ends up as dull brown or dark grey. If the marker or paints are used to detail an underlying dark charge, this oxidation may cause the details to be almost invisible when the form is viewed in later years.

Colored Pencils: The pale shades of color pencil cause difficulties in identifying tinctures and charges on the forms. Colored pencil is the only standard medium in which a 'light grey' (and thus argent) tincture is often difficult to distinguish from a 'black' (and thus sable) tincture. The pale shades also make it hard to get good identifiability of charges due to the low contrast between tinctures when viewing the form. We try hard at the Wreath meetings to keep any emblazon's medium from interfering with our decisions about identifiability and visual difference, but it is best to choose a pigment that avoids the problem.

Wax Crayons, Oil Paints, Oil Pastels, Other Sticky Pigments: These pigments can cement paperwork together in the files. It is hard to do a visual comparison with a form which is stuck ineradicably to the paper in front of it, or has had half its pigment peel off onto the paper in front of it.

We want to remind the College that we register what is submitted, and not the blazon... If the copier/printer [or other medium] can not produce recognizable tinctures, it shouldn't be used. If it is used, the submission may be returned.

ENFILE

[An arrow argent enfiling a serpent involved] The definition of the term enfile has changed over the years. Boutell (English Heraldry, 1902) equates it with "pierce": a sword passing through a crown would enfile the crown. Brooke-Little (An Heraldic Alphabet 1975) equates it with "encircle": a sword passing through a crown would be enfiled by the crown. The confusion is sufficient reason to avoid the use of the term, but sometimes (as with this submission) it's hard to avoid. Friar (Dictionary of Heraldry, 1987, p.137) agrees with Boutell's definition; and that definition does follow more naturally from the etymology of the word (from French fil, "thread": beads are threaded on a string, crowns are enfiled on [by] a sword). That is the definition used here.

ERMINE SPOT
see also FUR

There seem to be few ermine bends in period, but they may be found throughout the heraldic period. Those which [Maister Iago ab Adam] found are all depicted with the ermine spots tilted bendwise on the bend.

Out of seven period examples of ermine bends studied, two had two offset rows of spots (like footprints up the bend), one had seven spots arranged 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, one was charged and had the spots arranged to fit around the charges, and three were drawn as in this submission, with a single row of five spots (although it should be noted that these last three examples are all mid-16th C. or later.)

ESCARBUNCLE

ESTOILE

FEATHER

FESS and BAR

[a bend sinister fusilly vs. a bend sinister dancetty] Evidence taken from the Dictionary of British Arms strongly indicates that bends dancetty were not used interchangeably with bends fusilly; in fact, they were used by different people and in different ways. Thus there is a CD for changing the line of division on the bend ... (LoAR April 2001)

As a bend sinister of fusils is an artistic variant of indented, there is not a CD between it and a bend sinister indented (LoAR April 2001, p. 13)

...the distinction between 'dancetty' and 'indented' when applied to ordinaries being not one of amplitude, as White Stag suggests, but a distinction parallel to that between counterembattled and bretassed (LoAR December 1988)

FIELD DIVISION -- Barry

• The arms of Alberta are not stylistically compatible with pre-1600 heraldry, and are thus not easily described by SCA blazon.

• ...

The most definitive information we have here is found on page 209 of Conrad Swan's, (now Sir Conrad Swan) landmark study entitled 'Canada: Symbols of Sovereignty' (University of Toronto Press, 1977). In the chapter on Alberta, Sir Conrad notes that the arms were assigned by Royal Warrant on 30 May 1907 and were blazoned as follows: 'Azure, in front of a range of snowy mountains proper a range of hills Vert, in base a wheat field surmounted by a prairie both also proper, on a chief Argent a St. George's cross.' The reference he gives is College of Arms 175.127. As he was York Herald at the time of writing and had full access to the records of the College, I believe it is fair to assume that this blazon can be considered absolutely accurate.

FIELD DIVISION -- Bendy and Bendy Sinister

FIELD DIVISION -- Chapé
see also PILE and PILE INVERTED

[a chevron ployé vs. a chevron] Conflict ... there is only a single CD for the type of the secondary charges. [implying no CD for ployé vs. plain] (LoAR 4/00)

[returning chapé ploye engrailed] While it is true that lines [of division] could be enarched and also embattled, engrailed, etc., the enarching was basically to show the curvature of the shield. We do not believe that such is the case of a chapé ployé. (LoAR 6/97 p. 12)

Listed on the LoI as having a per chevron line of division, the location of the line of the division and the relative sizes of the charges makes this an example of chapé. Therefore, it must be returned ... for charging its upper portions. (LoAR January 2000).

The submission was blazoned on the LoI as Per chevron in chief. It is a clear drawing of modern chapé: it's throughout and high on the field. Note the following precedent: "Listed on the LoI as having a per chevron line of division, the location of the line of the division and the relative sizes of the charges makes this an example of chapé. Therefore, it must be returned ... for charging its upper portions" (LoAR January 2000).

FIELD DIVISION -- Checky and Party of Six

FIELD DIVISION -- Chevronelly

FIELD DIVISION -- Gyronny

[Gyronny arrondi of six argent and gules] This is being returned for a redraw. As Master Bruce as Laurel said in his 3/93 cover letter "Parker, p.301, states that gyronny of six should be symmetric around the horizontal axis, not the vertical axis; and this is borne out by such period examples as I've been able to uncover."

We will register Gyronny of sixteen in simple cases, but nothing more, barring period evidence (LoAR June 1999).

[Gyronny of sixteen argent and sable, a salamander statant regardant gules enflamed Or and a bordure counterchanged sable and Or] In this submission, all the charges maintain their identifiability despite the visual complexity of the device. While the salamander's identifiability is somewhat confused by the field, it is no less identifiable than the salamander in Johannes' previous submission [the same but without the bordure], which Laurel ruled to be stylistically acceptable. The counterchanged bordure is clearly identifiable as well. This submission is therefore acceptable. However, it is at the absolute limit of complexity for accepting gyronny of sixteen without documentation showing that the overall design of the armory is consistent with period practice. (LoAR June 2002)

FIELD DIVISION -- Miscellaneous

RfS VIII.2.b.iii: Elements evenly divided into two parts, per saltire, or quarterly may use any two tinctures or furs.

RfS VIII.2.b.iv: Elements evenly divided into multiple parts of two different tinctures must have good contrast between their parts.

RfS VIII.2.b.v: Elements evenly divided in three tinctures must have good contrast between two of their parts.

• The arms of Alberta are not stylistically compatible with pre-1600 heraldry, and are thus not easily described by SCA blazon.

• ...

The most definitive information we have here is found on page 209 of Conrad Swan's, (now Sir Conrad Swan) landmark study entitled 'Canada: Symbols of Sovereignty' (University of Toronto Press, 1977). In the chapter on Alberta, Sir Conrad notes that the arms were assigned by Royal Warrant on 30 May 1907 and were blazoned as follows: 'Azure, in front of a range of snowy mountains proper a range of hills Vert, in base a wheat field surmounted by a prairie both also proper, on a chief Argent a St. George's cross.' The reference he gives is College of Arms 175.127. As he was York Herald at the time of writing and had full access to the records of the College, I believe it is fair to assume that this blazon can be considered absolutely accurate.

FIELD DIVISION -- Paly

Armory using three or more pallets is interchangeable with paly on visual grounds and on grounds of historical heraldic difference. Armory using two pallets is visually distinct from paly, and evidence was neither presented nor found that paly and two pallets should be considered artistic variants of each other in period. (LoAR of May 2002)