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

The Tenure of Jaelle of Armida

Precedents by Rouland le Carre
Webbed by Tanczos Istvan, 26 September, 2000
Introduction added by Frederic Badger, 11 December, 2001
Link to collected returns added by Lindorm, 14 December, 2002


ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS - ARMORY RULINGS - COLLECTED SUBMISSION RETURNS BY NAME (long; 889 kB) - NAME RULINGS


Introduction

This work contains rulings of precedential relevance from the tenure of Mistress Jaelle of Armida as Laurel Queen of Arms. The selection of material for this collection is my own, and tradition demands that it be disclaimed that this is not an official publication of the Society for Creative Anachronism nor its College of Arms. For the official texts of registrations and returns the reader is directed to the original documents.

I have largely maintained the format of the previous edition of precedents. The one significant exception results from there being a significant body of rulings of a largely administrative nature. I have reverted to the practice used by Owen ap Morgan in editing the first part of the second tenure of Da’ud ibn Auda, and seperated these administrative rulings into their own section.

The texts listed are taken directly from Letters of Acceptance and Return (LoAR), or from the accompanying cover letters (CL). Text in [square brackets] is mine, providing editorial comment, summaries of omitted text, or replacing specific charges or names with more generally applicable versions. In those rare instances where Laurel used square brackets in the original text I have replaced them with {round brackets}. I use ellipses (...) to indicate deleted text, except at the beginning or end of an excerpt, where deleted text is left unmarked. Minor corrections to spelling or grammar are left unmarked, as are my own contributions of such errors. The source of the text is cited at the end in round parentheses, by submitter’s name, date of the LoAR, and page number of the LoAR. Those texts excepted from a cover letter are cited by “CL” and the date of the cover letter.

In service,
Rouland Carre
Palimpsest Herald of Arms
mka Richard R. Hershberger


ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS


ARMORY RULINGS



NAME RULINGS

ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS

We have been asked what happens when someone who lives in one kingdom, owns regalia that is legal to him by Society and that kingdoms laws, then moves to another kingdom, where it is against the kingdom laws and or traditions. The answer is very simple; it is grandfathered to him, and he may wear it. Note: this same question has been ruled on, with the same answer, by at least two of my predecessors. (Cover Letter 3/97)

We want to remind the College that we register what is submitted, and not the blazon. We are getting more and more submissions that were done using color copiers or color printers. While we have nothing against using modern technology (Laurel has been known to use it now and then), the colors must be identifiable. If the copier/printer can not produce recognizable tinctures, it shouldn't be used. If it is used, the submission may be returned. (Cover Letter 6/97)

He has submitted a general permission to conflict... After much thought and reading of the commentary we are willing to give his arms an automatic CD against anything anyone wishes to register that conflicts with his arms... Even with permission to conflict we do not allow to submissions to be heraldicly identical when they are owned by different people/groups. If he registers any other armory, and wants to give them similar permissions, such permissions will have to be sent out on a letter of intent and judged on a case-by-case basis. We are not willing to give a blanket permission to conflict with his name, since this could impact our record keeping. (Lindorm Eriksson, 7/97 p. 9)

[registering A ram's head erased argent armed Or collared gules.] She has a letter of permission to conflict with... A ram's head erased argent armed Or collared sable.... The administrative handbook simply requires non-identity. Given the blazon for Catherine's badge, one would never draw John's badge and vice-versa (Catherine Lacy de la Roche, 12/97 p. 4)

This submission raised a question on administrative policy; can a submitter apply a free resubmission for an name to the submission of a badge. Free resubmissions for names are available from two different actions. First, a name only submission is returned outright or when both the name and armory is returned. Second, a holding name has been assigned in order to register armory when the submitted name required return. In the first case, the free name resubmission cannot be applied to a badge since armory cannot be registered without a registered name. In the second case, the administrative handbook specifically states holding names may be changed for free. If a submitter chooses to accept a holding name instead of resubmitting, this has the same effect as the submitted name being registered, no return exists and no free resubmission exists. Therefore, the swapping of a free resubmission of a name for an armory submission is not possible. (Gwyddno of Tempio, 2/98 p. 1)

We have been receiving letters of intent which cite web pages as part of their documentation. Let me remind the college that the only web pages that will be accepted across the board as documentation are the ones on the Laurel web page as part of the www.sca.org site. NO other sites are acceptable as they stand. For documentation to accepted from any other site, the entire page(s) of documentation must be sent with the Laurel package, along with information about the site itself. (Cover Letter 4/98)

This is being returned for violating the procedures set forth in the Administrative Handbook. The Administrative Handbook, IV.C.6, states: Any submission involving the transfer of a registered item from one individual or branch to another must include both a statement from the owner authorizing the transfer and a statement from the recipient accepting the transferred material. There was no transfer on the LoI, there was no letter of acceptance from AEthelmearc, and no letter of transfer from [the owner]. (Aethelmearc, Kingdom of, 6/98 p. 12)

While the picture is as [blazon], the blazon on the LoI which matched the blazon on the petition was [different]. Since the petition does not match the submitted armory, it must be returned. (Shire of Ard Ruadh, 6/98 p. 12)

Names and Devices for Incipient Principalities

III.C.5 of the Administrative Handbook currently reads:

"Evidence of Support -- Submissions involving the name or arms of an active branch must include evidence of support for the action on the part of a majority of the active members of the branch. In the case of branches with no ruling noble, this support may be demonstrated by a petition of a majority of the populace and officers or by a petition of the seneschal and at least three-quarters of the other local officers. In the case of branches with ruling nobles, such petitions must also include a statement of support from the ruling noble. If a submission would result in the registration or modification of the Branch Name or Branch Arms of a kingdom, principality or equivalent branch, support must be demonstrated by the results of a poll conducted in the relevant official newsletter and certified by the seneschal of the appropriate branch. Branch badge(s), order or award names, and other Branch names (such as names for guilds, Herald's Titles in the case of Kingdom, etc.) do not require support at the Laurel level. Kingdom may require it if they so desire, for their internal procedures."

However, this does not cover the situation for groups that wish to become principalities, since Corpora says the groups have to have a passed name and device, and we don't normally register names and devices for groups of that level until they become official. Therefore, we are planning to add the following to the above to handle those situations:

"If, in the opinion of the crown of the kingdom, the kingdom seneschal and the Society Seneschal a group is making progress towards becoming a principality and has a proven track record, the kingdom may submit a name and device for the group, subject to the requirements above.

"If the group is not approved by the BoD as an official principality within two years of registration, unless a request is made from the Society Seneschal asking for a one year extension, the name and device will be released.

"The format on the LoI would therefore read like this:

"Lower NorthSouth, Kingdom of. Name and device for Incipient Principality. Principality of Lower Pismire. Gules, an aardvark gorged of a crown between three Laurel wreaths Or." (Cover Letter 7/98)

[registering Daniel Theoson of Mightrinwood] Daniel is the legal son of Theo of Mightrinwood whose name was registered in 1979. Theo of Mightrinwood died in October 1997. Normally we would not register a name of this form, since it is a violation of VI.3 begins, "Names that unmistakably imply ... close relationship to a protected person ... will generally not be registered." However, based on prior instances of allowing the legal heir to grant permission to conflict or releasing submissions, we will register this, since Daniel is Theo's legal son and heir. (Daniel Theoson of Mightrinwood, 7/98 p. 9)

This [change to the consort's arms] is being returned for not providing enough support for the change. The Administrative Handbook says: "... If a submission would result in the registration or modification of the Branch Name or Branch Arms of a kingdom, principality or equivalent branch, support must be demonstrated by the results of a poll conducted in the relevant official newsletter and certified by the seneschal of the appropriate branch. ..." It has been ruled by Laurel that the polling in the newsletter is required for changes to consort's arms as well. We received no such certification. (Kingdom of Artemesia, 12/98 p. 13)

[registering the Order of theTour d'Or]This conflicts with Tour d'Or Herald, registered to the Kingdom of Caid. However, ... if the crown and the kingdom herald agree, the barony can use the name of the heraldic title for an order name. We have received a statement to that effect from Crescent. [Editor's note: the barony is in the Kingdom of Caid and the herald's title is traditionally used by the barony's herald.] (Barony of Southron Gaard, 1/99 p. 6)

No documentation was provided for [name] outside of the statement that the group used to have this name registered to them, it was released many years ago, and they want to use the name again. However, once an item is released, to be registered it must be registerable under the current rules. (Orion's Gate, Stronghold of, 2/99 p. 10)

This was registered on the LoAR of April, 1999 as his device, and former device was released. This was not what the submitter wished, and he notified us immediately upon receiving notice of registertration. Therefore, we are correcting the situation, and correcting this registration to a badge as the submitter wished. (Brandr ţorfinnsson, 6/99 p. 7)


ARMORY RULINGS

Antlers see Horns

Architecture

[banning the gateway] After some thought we have decided to register this submission, but not register this charge again after the April 1997 Laurel meeting. (Eleanor del Yete, 11/96 p. 1)

[returning a mosque] We can find no indication that a mosque has ever been registered before in the SCA. As a consequence, this would be the defining instance of the charge. ... Therefore, we need evidence that this depiction of a mosque is a period depiction before we can decide if it is a registerable charge. [This decision was overturned on appeal 5/98.] (`Afra' bint Tamir al-Sahrahwayyiah, 9/97 p. 19)

[a dolmen vs a dolmen of three uprights capped by two lintelsI] This conflicts with ..., a dolmen of three uprights capped by two lintels argent. [i.e. the difference is insignificant]. (David O Kellahan, 11/97 p. 15)

[registering a domed mosque of one minaret] 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. ('Afra' bint Tamir al-Sahrahwayyiah, 5/98 p. 5)

Arrow

The client has documented [the forked arrow] to 14th century Europe. This is the defining instance of this charge, and a forked arrow is now acceptable for SCA usage. (Kuji Ka Onimusashi, 7/96 p. 13)

Attires see Horns

Augmentations

The basic question raised by this submission is can an augmentation break the rule of tincture? While there is period evidence of the arms of the Empire (Or, an eagle displayed sable) being used as an augmentation (and the proposed augmentation here is the arms of the Middle Kingdom, minus the laurel wreath), 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. (Eliahu ben Itzhak, 8/97 p. 26)

Banner see Flag

Beast-Bear

This is being returned for a redraw. As drawn, the bear looks like a teddy bear, and not a medieval bear. Furthermore, it is not clearly in a sejant erect affronty position; normally we would not see the bottom of the animal's feet. (Lezlee of Sundragon, 1/99 p. 13)

Beast-Beaver see Beast-Otter

Beast-Bull & Cow

[returning a brown bull of Saint Luke] While we register brown beasts proper if the animal is found naturally brown, such as a brown rabbit, or a brown hound, this is not a beast, but rather a monster, because of the wings and halo. Since monsters do not have proper coloration, they cannot be brown. (Kamle Kropotove, 5/98 p. 28)

[a cow argent pied sable vs a bull argent pied gules] Pied is not a heraldic charge division nor is it a recognized field treatment. ... While we may allow it as an artistic detail, we do not give any difference for it. (Damyana Luisa Jacinta Abril, 6/98 p. 12)

Beast-Cat & Lion

Calico cats come in a variety of different patterns and color combinations so there is no way to accurately reproduce this emblazon. (Catherine of Gordonhall, 2/97 p. 19)

We are also no longer going to register Bengal tigers proper. They must be in a standard, heraldic tincture (with or without markings). We have registered as proper both gules and Or Bengal tigers, leaving them with no default tincture. Plain natural tigers proper, are still Or, marked sable. (Cover Letter 3/97)

[returning natural tigers proper] The tigers were blazoned as natural tigers on the LoI. Natural tigers, proper, are Or, marked sable. These tigers were actually orange, marked sable... orange tigers are not acceptable for use in the SCA. (Oriana of Bonwicke, 3/97 p. 11)

A question was raised regarding the use of herissony in our blazonry. While the term itself, to the best of our knowledge, is not period, the posture was done in period. Hierosme de Bara's Le Blason des Armoiries (1581) shows a cat in this position. [The submission was blazoned as herissony] (Rowan of Iron Mountain, 8/97 p. 10)

[returning a cat spotted of various tinctures] The use of multi colored spots appear to be unique to the heraldic panther in period. Just as we do no longer allow the use of unicorn horns on random animals, neither do we allow the use of variously tinctured spots. (Caintigern of Ainsley, 3/98 p. 19)

Beast-Deer

[a deer vs a bagwyn] The LoI argued that there should be a CD between a deer and a bagwyn because they were considered different charges in period. However, the bagwyn is visually a deer with an odd tail. The question then is how distinct was the bagwyn considered in period? Its having a distinct name is prima facie evidence for its being distinct, but otherwise the evidence is not encouraging. It apparently had no existence outside of heraldry, as compared with the antelope which is found in bestiaries. The word is not found in the OED (first edition). As a charge it is a very late invention, with its first attested appearance being from c. 1539. (By way of comparison, the antelope is found in English heraldry from the reign of Henry IV.) Finally, it seems to only occur in the heraldry of one family, albeit a prominent one. Denys points out that the putative bagwyn as the supporter of the 17th century Lords Hunsdon is actually a yale. Based on this, we feel that the bagwyn is an insignificant variant of a stag which happens to have its own name, and there is no countable difference between it and a deer. (Felix Selwyn, 11/98 p. 13)

Beast-Dog & Wolf

[a wolf vs a seadog] There is a CD between the two critters, but not substantial difference. (Llyr ap morgwn, 3/98 p. 22)

Beast-Elephant

Elephants proper are gray, which is treated the same as stone (gray) and natural dolphins (also gray) for purposes of contrast, as a metal. (Ekatarina Iadoroyna Kharlampieva, 7/96 p. 2)

Beast-Goat see Beast-Sheep & Goat

Beast-Hedgehog

Hedgehogs impaling grapes are found in period rolls. (Mergriet van Edelare, 7/96 p. 3)

Beast-Horse

[returning a grey horse proper] ...grey tends to blur the line between argent and sable. Of the people attending the Laurel meeting, roughly half of them saw this horse as black and the other half as white. Barring period evidence of grey being used for horses in armory, this submission will have to be returned. (Ivan the Illustrated, 7/96 p. 20)

Beast-Lemming see Beast-Rat

Beast-Lion see Beast-Cat & Lion

Beast-Otter

[returning a sea otter flotant supine] The posture flotant supine is not heraldic. It is no more acceptable than mortant. (Iago ap Heilin, 9/97 p. 23)

[There is] nothing for the difference between a beaver and an otter. (Otto Castor, 5/98 p. 25)

Beast-Rat

[a lemming vs a rat] There is ... nothing between a lemming and a rat. (Ekaterina Volkova, 3/99 p. 10)

Beast-Sheep & Goat

[returning a sheep mullety of various tinctures] This is at least a two-fold extension of known period practice. The panther's variegated spots weren't an arbitrary armorial invention; he appears with them in medieval bestiaries. In this submission not only have they been changed to stars, but also they've been applied to a beast with which they were never associated. Therefore we are returning this for non-period style. (Anna Stitcher, 7/96 p. 15)

[blazoning a lamb] Normally we do not permit the "baby" forms of an animal. For the sake of the cant on the name, Lambert, we are permitting it here. (Gwendolen Lambert, 8/96 p. 4)

[returning a Paschal goat] Just as a unicornate horse is banned because it blurs the distinction between a unicorn and a horse, the use of a Pascal goat blurs the distinction between a goat and a Paschal lamb, making this run afoul of RfS VII.7.a. (Tryphena von Stargard, 2/97 p. 24)

Beast-Wolf see Beast-Dog & Wolf

Bell

[a church bell vs. a hawk's bell] [There is a] CD for difference in type of the bells. (Helena O'Shea, 6/97 p. 6)

[a handbell vs a church bell] We give no difference between a handbell and [a] church bell. (Carillion, Barony of, 3/99 p. 13)

Bend & Bendlet see Ordinary

Bird

[cranes in their vigilance vs owls close] There is a CD for the difference in type between owls and cranes, but not substantial difference between the types of birds as required by RfS X.2. (Calontir, Kingdom of, 10/96 p. 10)

[a duck close vs an eagle close] There is nothing for type of ... charges. (Jean le Confus, 11/96 p. 14)

[a duck statant, wings elevated vs a dove and a falcon rising, wings addorsed and inverted] There is only one CD for change of bird [i.e. the change of type is significant but not substantial, and any change of posture is insignificant]. (Helvig Ulfsdotter, 1/97 p. 16)

[an owl vs. an owl affronty] This conflicts with... [i.e. there is no CD for posture]. (Euphemia Acropolites, 7/97 p. 14)

[falcons rising wings addorsed respectant vs vultures combattant, wings elevanted and addorsed] This is clear... with one CD for type of primary charge and one for [a separate difference]. (Thorfinnr inn vegsvinni Ingason, 2/ 98 p. 11)

[birds rising, wings elevated and addorsed vs birds volant, wings addorsed] A possible conflict was called against Gavin Hawkins Per chevron embattled argent and vert, three hawks volant, wings addorsed, counterchanged. Since volant and rising are both period postures (albeit rare ones), and are visually distinct, we are willing to grant [a] CD for changes to the charges. (Alan of Gravesend 3/98 p. 6)

Blazoned on the LoI as an osprey, as drawn it is not clearly any species of bird, so we have reblazoned it as a generic bird. Unfortunately, generic birds conflict with all birds, so this conflicts with ... (Gwenfron Bran, 4/98 p. 24)

[peacocks vs geese and vs martlets] In each case there is a CD between the birds but not complete difference of charge. (Eleanora Salutati, 9/98 p. 8)

Blazonry

While it is indeed quite tempting to call the four crescents conjoined in saltire a "Cross of Caid", we feel that named SCA motifs make reconstruction of blazons more difficult for heralds and scribes. (Caitríona ní Bhriain 7/96 p. 9)

...there are several distinct forms of the vajhra based on how many prongs it has; we have blazoned this as a three pronged vajhra to distinguish it from a five pronged one. (Kuji Ka Onimusashi, 7/96 p. 13)

[blazoning a lamb] Normally we do not permit the "baby" forms of an animal. For the sake of the cant on the name, Lambert, we are permitting it here. (Gwendolen Lambert, 8/96 p. 4)

Maintained charges are small and do not count for difference. Sustained charges are large - large enough in fact that if they were not being held that they would be considered a co-primary, and do count for difference. (Cover Letter 10/96)

[a field blazoned bendy of eight] It has been our custom not to [blazon the number of pieces], on the grounds that the precise number makes no difference. Certainly the number of pieces makes no difference under our rules. And there is ample evidence that during much of our period, at least, it made no heraldic difference. However, Fause Losenge has been able to provide evidence that in period it was a distinction that was not infrequently blazoned in period. Therefore, since it appears to be important to the submitter, we will go on the side of period evidence, and blazon it. (Gene the Black, 12/96 p. 4)

[registering nine lozenges three, three, and three] While we would normally blazon this as a semy, this form was important to the submitter, and Fause Losenge provided documentation for period blazons that were equally as precise. (Ximena Maria de Padilla, 1/97 p. 12)

[registering a cross couped of three crossbars, missing the dexter base arm] This cross is a period charge, found in a collection of Polish armory [cited from 1584]. On a case by case basis, if the charge can be documented as period, and be blazoned in a manner such that we can reproduce the emblazon accurately, we will register charge from cipher heraldry. (Antek Ignatovich, 2/97 p. 7)

A question was raised about heraldic seahorses versus natural ones. Going through the files, and pulling most of what we have blazoned as a seahorse, natural seahorse, or hippocampus, we found out that a number of them were either misindexed, and/or misblazoned. Since we give a CD between the seahorse (the heraldic monster, half horse and half fish), and the natural seahorse (the fish), this could lead to problems. Additionally, some of the scribes were confused as to which one a hippocampus was, since it glosses both ways, depending on what source you use.

Therefore, we have reblazoned all the misblazons, and have substituted the term natural seahorse for hippocampus. As with all heraldic versus natural charges, the default is the heraldic item, so a seahorse is the monster, and the natural seahorse the fish. (Cover Letter 3/97)

We are also no longer going to register Bengal tigers proper. They must be in a standard, heraldic tincture (with or without markings). We have registered as proper both gules and Or Bengal tigers, leaving them with no default tincture. Plain natural tigers proper, are still Or, marked sable. (Cover Letter 3/97)

The monk-fish... could also be blazoned as a mer-monk vested... However, since the submitters have provided a picture from the 1491 edition of Hortus Sanitatis which states "a passing monk-fish steers a course through busy sea traffic while scholars discourse." The 'monk-fish' is in the company of a mermaid, a lobster and miscellaneous fish and a boat in this sea. Furthermore, the submitted monk fish is drawn virtually identical to the one from period. Therefore, we have opted for the period term, even though it could lead to confusion in the future, should someone wish to register the natural fish which is called a monkfish. If this is done, it would be blazoned as a natural monk-fish. (Saint Giles, College of, 5/97 p. 1)

A question was raised regarding the use of herissony in our blazonry. While the term itself, to the best of our knowledge, is not period, the posture was done in period. Hierosme de Bara's Le Blason des Armoiries (1581) shows a cat in this position. [It was blazoned as herissony] (Rowan of Iron Mountain, 8/97 p. 10)

[registering Sable, three squirrels rampant surrounding a laurel wreath Or] We are aware this is not a very elegant blazon. However, the laurel wreath is significantly smaller than the squirrels, and we wanted to make it clear which was the primary charge. (Canton of Nordleigh, 2/98 p. 8)

The catamount was blazoned on the LoI as effarouché. While al-Jamal has done a good job of documenting the term, none of the documentation points to it as a period term. Since it is not clear that it is period, we are blazoning the catamount as rampant since that is a standard blazonary term. If period evidence is found, we would be willing to reconsider our decision. (Margret nic Kinnon, 3/98 p. 12)

There is a well-established rule that one cannot blazon one's way out of a conflict. As a general rule this is true, but it should not be taken to overrule period interpretation. For example, "Argent, a fess sable" could also be blazoned as "Sable, a chief and a base argent". We would not infer therefore that "Argent, on a fess sable three eagles argent" conflicts with "Sable, in fess three eagles argent" with only one CD for the removal of the peripheral charges. Not all possible blazons are equally plausible, and implausible blazons don't necessarily result in a conflict. (Brynhildr uppsaling Grimkelsdottir, 4/98 p. 7)

Blazoned on the LoI as an osprey, as drawn it is not clearly any species of bird, so we have reblazoned it as a generic bird. Unfortunately, generic birds conflict with all birds, so this conflicts with ... (Gwenfron Bran, 4/98 p. 24)

Bordure see Ordinary

Bow

[a bow vs a crossbow] given the enormous difference in shape between the two objects, we are willing to allow substantial difference of charge... (Giovanni dell'Arco, 11/96 p. 1)

Bread see Foodstuffs

Caltrap

[Per saltire, four caltraps vs. four caltrops in cross, points elongated to center] There is...[no difference] for orientation of the caltraps, which are virtually symmetrical. (Gunter Aldrich vom Schwartzwald, 7/96 p. 19)

[a caltrap vs. a mullet of four points] Since a mullet of four points is not a period charge, and since the normal depiction of a caltrap is not significantly different from a mullet of four points, these two charges conflict. (Garmon Woodworth, 6/97 p. 11)

Candle & Candlestick

[a candle vs. a a candle and candlestick] The candlestick was significant enough to provide the necessary difference. [Compare this with the ruling of 5/98 infra. The difference between the two rulings is the depictions under consideration.] (Akitsuki Yoshimitsu, 4/97 p. 5)

[a candle...in a candlestick vs a candle...sconced] The candlestick is less than half the charge in both cases, in which case its tincture gives no CD. [Compare this with the ruling of 4/97 supra. The difference between the two rulings is the depictions under consideration.] (Principality of Northshield, 5/98 p. 25)

[a candle issuant from a handleless flat candlestick vs a candle] There is nothing for the addition of the handleless flat candlestick. (Starkhafn, Barony of, 5/99 p. 14)

Castle & Tower

[A tower vs a chess-rook] There is...nothing for the difference between a tower and a chess-rook. (Erich von Drachenholz, 10/96 p. 9)

Chapé

This is Argent, chapé ployé azure... However, that means that the chapé is charged, which is not allowed. [The submission was returned for this reason.] (Elizabella Marchant, 5/98 p. 24)

Charge Groups

This is clear ... with one CD for the removal of the bordure, and a second for the addition of the overall charge. While it is true that there is only one CD for changing the type of any secondary charge, including peripherals, that is because all secondaries are dealt with from the same section of the rules X.4.b. and overall charges are dealt with in X.4.c. [i.e. a group of overall charges are not a secondary group] (Borek Vitalievich Volkov, 1/98 p. 3)

[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. (Cadell Blaidd Du, 3/98 p. 15)

[registering Argent, two drakkars sable between two scarpes azure] This is clear of ... Argent, three eagles in bend sinister between two scarpes azure. The arrangement of charges in bend between bendlets is period, as in the arms of Hacket, Argent, three fleurs-de-lis in bend between two cotises gules. (Papworth p. 854). There are three possible interpretations: that the interior charges are primaries and the bendlets secondaries, that the bendlets are primaries and the interior charges are secondaries, or that this is a charged bend and the "interior" charges are actually tertiaries. The last is the only interpretation which results in conflict, and it is the least likely of the three. Mundane heraldry texts consistently blazon this arrangement as {interior charges} between two bendlets or cotises. It is clear that all the charges are considered as being on the field. Whichever charges are primary or secondary, this results in this submission being clear. (Brynhildr uppsaling Grimkelsdottir, 4/98 p. 7)

While blazoned on the LoI as (Fieldless) On a heart gules, a hare salient contourny argent., since a heart is considered standard shape for armorial display, the submission is considered as Gules, a hare salient contourny argent. As such it conflicts with .... (Barony of Skraeling Althing, 5/98 p. 26)

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. Precedent holds that a peripheral charge gets only one CD for type vs. a non-peripheral secondary charge [June 1997 LOAR, pp.10-11]; therefore there is only a single CD for the type of the secondary charges. Since the secondary charges on the submitted armory are of two different types, it does not qualify for RFS X.4.j.ii; under X.4.j.i there is no CD for changing the type only of the tertiary charges. Note if the secondaries were identical, two bears or two griffins, this conflict would be cleared. (Rowan Killian, 6/98 p. 17)

We have not allowed charges to surmount flaunches for the past sixteen years. [The submission was returned.] (Garreth Emeric, 9/98 p. 10)

[Sable, semy of compass stars elongated palewise, a chevron Or] is clear of ...Per chevron sable semy of compass stars Or, and purpure, a chevron and in base an Irish harp Or. [The] semy is a separate group of secondaries from the harp, giving one CD for the difference in the fields, and one for the addition of the harp. (Johann von Sternberg, 5/99 p. 2)

Checky

The question was raised in commentary about the bend sharing one of the tinctures of the checky field. Some period similar arms are those of Bekering, Checky argent and azure a bend argent (Dictionary of British Armorials), Robert Chamberlain: Paly of six argent and gules on a chief of the last three escutcheons of the first (Anglo-Norman Armory II), von Studnitz: Argent a bend lozengy argent and gules (Siebmacher f.57), von Traupitz: Checky sable and argent on a chief sable two mullets of six points argent (Siebmacher f.151), and von Caldis: Bendy sable and Or a chief Or charged with a demi-lion naissant sable (Gelre f.33v.) This shows a general use of multiply divided fields with stripe ordinaries throughout Europe and over the whole SCA heraldic period (Anglo-Norman being early, Siebmacher being late, Gelre being in the middle.) (Luciana Maria Novella Di Carlo, 6/98 p. 7)

Cheese see Foodstuffs

Chess Piece

[A zule vs. a chess rook] ...in period they were not considered the same charge, and there is no real visual similarity, [so] there is a CD between the two. (Anas ibn Haroun Abd al-Zaki, 7/96 p. 1)

[A tower vs a chess-rook] There is...nothing for the difference between a tower and a chess-rook. (Erich von Drachenholz, 10/96 p. 9)

[a single-headed chess knight vs a horse's head erased] The single-headed chess knight is not a period charge. Therefore difference is based on a visual comparison. The details of the chess knight's base are the only difference, and are too trivial to be significant. (AEthelmearc, Kingdom of, 5/99 p. 11)

Chevron see Ordinary

Chief see Ordinary

Collared

[a unicorn's head argent collared gules vs. a unicorn's head argent] [A] CD comes from the addition of the collar, which is treated effectively as a tertiary. (Isabella d'Hiver, 7/97 p. 8)

Contrast

[returning Per chevron sable and argent, a hart salient proper] If the hart were in an heraldic tincture this might technically have acceptable contrast. Brown, however, is not a true heraldic tincture, and we are not inclined to give it any leeway. (Andelcrag, Barony of, 2/97 p. 23)

[returning per bend barry sable and Or and checky sable and Or ... a bend Or fimbriated ... gules] This is being returned for breaking the rule of tincture, by having a metal on a metal. The gules fimbriation lies entirely on sable on the checky side, and on an equally divided sable and Or field on the other, making the field the fimbriation lies on primarily sable. (Wolfker der Jäger, 10/97 p. 10)

While we allow maintained charges to break tincture, as drawn the sable rapier is too thin to be seen on the purpure field. (Michallet du Dauphiné, 12/97 p. 11)

The question was raised in commentary about the bend sharing one of the tinctures of the checky field. Some period similar arms are those of Bekering, Checky argent and azure a bend argent (Dictionary of British Armorials), Robert Chamberlain: Paly of six argent and gules on a chief of the last three escutcheons of the first (Anglo-Norman Armory II), von Studnitz: Argent a bend lozengy argent and gules (Siebmacher f.57), von Traupitz: Checky sable and argent on a chief sable two mullets of six points argent (Siebmacher f.151), and von Caldis: Bendy sable and Or a chief Or charged with a demi-lion naissant sable (Gelre f.33v.) This shows a general use of multiply divided fields with stripe ordinaries throughout Europe and over the whole SCA heraldic period (Anglo-Norman being early, Siebmacher being late, Gelre being in the middle.) (Luciana Maria Novella Di Carlo, 6/98 p. 7)

The submitter has provided examples from Siedmacher's 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. (Kathern Thomas Gyelle Spence, 10/98 p. 12)

Coronet

[returning A rose issuant from a comital coronet] The only mundane use of this arrangment would be as a crest. Numerous mundane examples of a crest issuing from a coronet sans torse are found in von Volborth's The Art of Heraldry... On the LoAR of 3/93 p. 26 Laurel ruled "The College does not register crests...This submission is a crest by virtue of its being set atop a torse." This case is similar and therefore is returned. (Julianna of Dunbar, 7/96 p. 21)

This hereby overturns the ban on people of baronial rank using coronets in their arms. Henceforth, in addition to royal peers, court barons/esses may use coronets in their arms. Note: this does not include territorial barons/esses, since that is not a permanent rank. Just as a sitting king/queen/prince/princess cannot put a coronet on their arms until after they have attained the rank of count/ess or viscount/ess, since, while it is rare, there have been cases of royalty who have not completed their reign, neither can a territorial baron/ess, unless they are already a court baron/ess, use a coronet, since they have not attained a permament barional rank.

This was probably one of the most difficult decisions I have had to make as Laurel, as there were strong arguments on both sides, with people whose opinions I valued making cogent arguments to both keep and overturn the ban.

However, the Society has changed a great deal since the ban was first put into place, in the early 80's. One of these changes is that we hold historical recreation to be our ideal goal, however unrealized this goal may be. The equation of a crown/coronet (or any other charge) in a coat of arms with the rank of the bearer is almost entirely post-period. While we have no intention of overturning our rules on reserved regalia, we see little point in having regalia reserved in one situation but not another. (We exempt the laurel wreath from this decision, since it is reserved to official SCA groups, not individuals.) Therefore, as we said above, effective with this decision, and having discussed this with Laurel designate, court baron/ess may use a coronet in their arms, so long as it does not use the embattlements of county rank, or the strawberry leaves of ducal rank. (Tsivia bas Tamara of Amberview, 5/99 p. 7)

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. (Kurdun ţe Pilegrim, 5/99 p. 15)

Cotisses

[registering a fess vert fimbriated and cotised] Having fimbriation and cotising in the same tinctures is a definite weirdness, but since that is the only weirdness in the design, it is registerable. (Siobhan nic Eoin, 10/97 p. 6)

[returning ...on a fess...a dolphin between two barrulets] It would be extremely difficult to visually distinguish this armory from the noted similar theoretical armory Azure on a fess wavy cotised between three scallops inverted argent a dolphin naiant vert." The space between the cotises" and the fess" is very small and blue and green are similar enough that we doubt the difference will be perceived. As a general rule, heraldic practices which blur the distinctions between standard heraldic practices are not registered (in this case, the standard practices are cotising vs. tertiary charges). Therefore, we will not allow this type of depiction. (Ginevra de' Rossi, 12/97 p. 9)

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. Precedent holds that a peripheral charge gets only one CD for type vs. a non-peripheral secondary charge [June 1997 LOAR, pp.10-11]; therefore there is only a single CD for the type of the secondary charges. Since the secondary charges on the submitted armory are of two different types, it does not qualify for RFS X.4.j.ii; under X.4.j.i there is no CD for changing the type only of the tertiary charges. Note if the secondaries were identical, two bears or two griffins, this conflict would be cleared. (Rowan Killian, 6/98 p. 17)

[returning two bendlets cotised] Since no documentation has been produced for cotising multiple ordinaries, we see no reason to overturn ... precedent. (Enoch Sutherland, 12/98 p. 12)

Counterchanging

[registering a pall inverted surmounted by an orle counterchanged.] We allow an ordinary surmounted by another to be counterchanged. While this is not good style, it is at worst one wierdness. (Pietro Niccolo da San Tebaldo, 8/96 p. 5)

[returning Per saltire, a saltire cotised counterchanged] This is being returned per RFS VIII.3 for excessive counterchanging. (Rowan O Moroghoe, 10/96 p. 8)

[returning Barry... two flaunches counterchanged] This is being returned for obtrusive modernity and excessive counterchanging, barring period evidence of flaunches being counterchanged of the field. (Lora Anne the Silent, 4/97 p. 16)

[returning Per saltire vert and argent, a gurges counterchanged] This is being returned for excessive counterchanging and unidentifiability. The counterchanging removes the identifiability (such as it is in the first place) of the gurges. Furthermore this submission runs afoul of RfS VIII.4.d, Modern Style, since it resembles an op-art designs. (Tomas de Valle de Bravo, 7/97 p. 20)

This is being returned for excessive counterchanging. The fret counterchanged over the gyronny field is virtually unidentifiable. (Armand de la Croix, 11/97 p. 13)

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)

[registering Quarterly argent and sable, a cross moline quarter-pierced, counterchanged] This cross is at the very limits of acceptability for counterchanging. (Etienne de Bracieux, 1/99 p. 6)

Crest

[returning A rose issuant from a comital coronet] The only mundane use of this arrangment would be as a crest. Numerous mundane examples of a crest issuing from a coronet sans torse are found in von Volborth's The Art of Heraldry... On the LoAR of 3/93 p. 26 Laurel ruled "The College does not register crests...This submission is a crest by virtue of its being set atop a torse." This case is similar and therefore is returned. (Julianna of Dunbar, 7/96 p. 21)

Cross

While it is indeed quite tempting to call the four crescents conjoined in saltire a "Cross of Caid", we feel that named SCA motifs make reconstruction of blazons more difficult for heralds and scribes. (Caitríona ní Bhriain 7/96 p. 9)

[A cross potent Or between four crosses couped argent vs a cross of Jerusalem Or.] The Cross of Jerusalem is a defined single charge, though it consists of discrete elements in the same way than an ermine spot does. There is one CD for the field, but there is nothing for changing the tincture of less than half the group. (Gregory Tobias Barre, 7/96 p. 18)

[A cross crosslet fleury vs a cross couped and vs a crux stellata] In both cases there is a CD between the crosses, but not a complete difference of charge. (William of Weir, 7/96 p. 19)

[a Latin cross flory vs a cross of Santiago] There is nothing for the difference between a cross of Santiago and a Latin cross flory. (Bruinneach nic Thighearnain; 9/96 p. 18)

[crosses bottony fitchy vs Maltese crosses] There is a CD for changing the type of each of the three charges, but the change...is not substantial enough to invoke X.2. (Andro Bruce, 10/96 p. 9)

[returning a San Dominio crucifix argent] This is being returned for violating VII.7.a., armorial identifiability. While evidence was produced that crucifixes were used in period, they had the figure of Jesus in a different tincture than that of the underlying cross. With the entire crucifix in one tincture, it blurs into one amorphous mass. Making the underlying cross one tincture and Jesus another should take care of this problem. (Francesco Greco, 1/97 p. 17)

[registering a cross couped of three crossbars, missing the dexter base arm] This cross is a period charge, found in a collection of Polish armory [cited from 1584]. On a case by case basis, if the charge can be documented as period, and be blazoned in a manner such that we can reproduce the emblazon accurately, we will register charge from cipher heraldry. (Antek Ignatovich, 2/97 p. 7)

[a cross doubly pommeled elongated palewise vs a cross moline] [There is] nothing for the difference between the two crosses. (Petros Monomachos, 2/97 p. 22)

[a cross formy fitchy vs a Maltese cross] There [is a CD] for the type of cross. (Seth Williamson of Exeter, 5/97 p. 3)

[a cross formy fitchy vs a cross formy fitchy throughout] In general there is a difference between an ordinary throughout vs. an ordinary couped, but not between a non-ordinary throughout vs. its non-throughout version. Most types of crosses work more like non-ordinaries, but crosses formy are exceptional: in their throughout form they in many ways act as ordinaries. In particular both crosses and crosses formy are occasionally found overlying quartered arms, and crosses formy having flat ends merge into the edge of the shield. This may not apply to crosses in general, but in this instance there is the necessary second CD. (Seth Williamson of Exeter, 5/97 p. 3)

[a cross flory vs a cross of Santiago] This conflicts with ... the only CD for fieldlessness. (Balian of Boxgrove Hall, 12/ 97 p. 9)

While some commenters were concerned that the cross arrondi was "modern" in appearance, in fact this type cross was found on the Bayeux Tapestry. (Ćlric Kyrri, 2/ 98 p. 9)

[an equal-armed Celtic cross formy vs a Celtic cross] There is ... nothing for ... the details of the crosses. (Kolfinna Fraser, 2/98 p. 19)

[registering a Latin cross inverted] The question was raised as to whether an inverted cross would be considered offensive or would be considered to be mocking religion. Laurel, who is Jewish, does not know enough about Christianity to decide this issue without further information. Laurel received a letter from a Methodist Minister who is also an SCA herald, which provided us with the necessary information with which to decide this issue. We quote her letter... [what follows is an excerpt] "It is my opinion that such a charge is, in and of itself, not offensive. The use of such a symbol to represent overtly anti-Christian sentiment is postperiod and not widespread. Within period this was used frequently as an emblem of St. Peter, who by tradition was crucified upside down as he did not feel worthy to die in the same manner as Christ. I could send you bibliographic references if you wish. Were a Latin Cross inverted displayed with other charges which could be taken in the twentieth century as "satanic" (such as a mullet of five points, a skull, gouts, and a candle) then I would have difficulty interpreting it as a period charge, but in the blazon you described I find it entirely acceptable. (Aaron Graves, 10/98 p. 4)

[a Celtic cross vs a cross crosslet] There is a CD, but not substantial difference between the two types of crosses. (Ofelia le Fleming, 12/98 p. 12)

The submitter has appealed the previous return of his submission for using a non-period cross by providing a copy of a picture from Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry which shows a similar cross. However, he was only able to find the cross he wants in one place in Foster's, and Foster's is a 19th century redraw of medieval armory. And, Foster was not copying from medieval originals, but rather from 18th and 19th century editions of Renaissance copies of the medieval originals. Brault's redraw in Aspologia III shows a standard cross. [The submitter] also provided a copy of a period woodcut, showing a cross similar, but not identical to what he is submitting. Since the cross he is submitting is not the same as what is in the period woodcut, it does not help his case. Since we have used this woodcut for documentation in a different case to register the cross in the woodcut as an unblazoned variant of formy, if he resubmits drawing the cross to look like the one in the woodcut, barring any other problems, it should be acceptable. (Séamus Ó Cuileáin, 12/98 p. 15)

A cross of Coldharbour is an SCA invention considered to be identical to a Celtic cross throughout. (Jubal Bieber, 12/98 p. 20)

Crossbow

[a bow vs a crossbow] given the enormous difference in shape between the two objects, we are willing to allow substantial difference of charge... (Giovanni dell'Arco, 11/96 p. 1)

Crown see Coronet

Crutch

[a crutch vs a crutch fracted] This is clear ...with one CD for change of the color of the crutch and one for the fracting. (Aran Darkhelm, 1/98 p. 8)

Cypher Heraldry

[registering a cross couped of three crossbars, missing the dexter base arm] This cross is a period charge, found in a collection of Polish armory [cited from 1584]. On a case by case basis, if the charge can be documented as period, and be blazoned in a manner such that we can reproduce the emblazon accurately, we will register charge from cipher heraldry. (Antek Ignatovich, 2/97 p. 7)

Difference-Armory-Insignificant

[Per saltire, four caltraps vs. four caltrops in cross, points elongated to center] There is...[no difference] for orientation of the caltraps, which are virtually symmetrical. (Gunter Aldrich vom Schwartzwald, 7/96 p. 19)

[a duck statant, wings elevated vs a dove and a falcon rising, wings addorsed and inverted] There is only one CD for change of bird [i.e. the change of type is significant but not substantial, and any change of posture is insignificant]. (Helvig Ulfsdotter, 1/97 p. 16)

[urdy vs embattled] There is ... nothing for line of division. (Arinbjorn Ragnarsson, 1/97 p. 18)

[an annulet of oak leaves conjoined vs a laurel wreath] This is being returned for conflict with [armory]. Period Laurel wreaths can be drawn as a closed wreath, and they can be drawn with leaves looking remarkably like the submitted form... (West, Kindom of the, 1/97 p. 21)

[a cross doubly pommeled elongated palewise vs a cross moline] [There is] nothing for the difference between the two crosses. (Petros Monomachos, 2/97 p. 22)

[a lamb's head cabossed vs. a ram's head cabossed] A lamb's head and a ram's head, both cabossed, are not [significantly] different. Unlike a stag's rack, the prominence of the ram's horns depends very much on the type of ram the artist depicts. If one of the varieties with less prominent horns which lie closer to the head is selected, the lambs ears and the ram's horns will not be as distinct. (Maritsa Milovich, 4/97 p. 15)

[Saint Michael...wings displayed vs. a fury rampant affrontee] There is... nothing for type between one winged humanoid to another. (Joseph Bearshoulders of Ashwell, 4/97 p. 17)

[a caltrap vs. a mullet of four points] Since a mullet of four points is not a period charge, and since the normal depiction of a caltrap is not significantly different from a mullet of four points, these two charges conflict. (Garmon Woodworth, 6/97 p. 11)

[an owl vs. an owl affronty] This conflicts with... [i.e. there is no CD for posture]. (Euphemia Acropolites, 7/97 p. 14)

[a dolmen vs a dolmen of three uprights capped by two lintelsI] This conflicts with ..., a dolmen of three uprights capped by two lintels argent. [i.e. the difference is insignificant]. (David O Kellahan, 11/97 p. 15)

[a cross flory vs a cross of Santiago] This conflicts with ... the only CD for fieldlessness. (Balian of Boxgrove Hall, 12/ 97 p. 9)

[a bear antlered vs a bear] This conflicts... While there is a prior precedent granting a CD (for rabbits), in the case of Donata Ivanovna Basistova, May, 1995); the LoAR stated that visually the antlers were similar to adding wings. This is not the case here. Furthermore, adding wings is a period practice so could be considered a valid form of cadency. It is extremely rare to see beasts with added horns like this in period armory. Therefore both historically (barring evidence to the contrary) and visually adding the attires is not worth a CD. (Sean Donald of Caithness, 2/98 p. 15)

[an apple tree vs a willow tree] This conflicts with ... nothing for changing the type of tree. (Alexandra de la Pomerai, 2/ 98 p. 17)

[a winged sea-horse vs a winged sea-unicorn] This conflicts ... While a horse is a CD from a unicorn, the addition of wings and fish tail to each creates an overwhelming similarity with which the remaining details of the horn and beard cannot compete. (Anastasia Elizabeth Courteney, 2/98 p. 18)

[an equal-armed Celtic cross formy vs a Celtic cross] There is ... nothing for ... the details of the crosses. (Kolfinna Fraser, 2/98 p. 19)

[a ram's head cabossed sable vs a ram's head caboshed sable armed Or] There is ... nothing for the change in the color of the horns. (Magnus Jager, 3/98 p. 16)

[a thistle Or vs a thistle sable, slipped and leaved Or] The slipping and leaving is the major part of a thistle, by which standard changing the blossom tincture alone is not be worth a CD. (Gavin MacGregor of Perth, 3/98 p. 21)

[a three-headed hydra vs a dragon] Details of the dragons, including number of heads... count for nothing. (Thomas Grayson of Falconridge, 3/98 p. 22)

[a three-headed hydra vs a seven-headed hydra] Details of the dragons, including number of heads... count for nothing. (Thomas Grayson of Falconridge, 3/98 p. 22)

We give no difference between an eagle's jamb and a dragon's jamb. [However] the default for a dragon's jamb is claws up and the default for an eagle's jamb is claw's down.... (Barony of One Thousand Eyes, 4/98 p. 19)

Blazoned on the LoI as an osprey, as drawn it is not clearly any species of bird, so we have reblazoned it as a generic bird. Unfortunately, generic birds conflict with all birds, so this conflicts with ... (Gwenfron Bran, 4/98 p. 24)

[a dexter gauntlet clenched apaumy vs a dexter gauntlet appaumy] The clenching is an artistic detail which does not contribute difference. (William MacGregor, 5/98 p. 22)

[a candle...in a candlestick vs a candle...sconced] The candlestick is less than half the charge in both cases, in which case its tincture gives no CD. (Principality of Northshield, 5/98 p. 25)

[There is] nothing for the difference between a beaver and an otter. (Otto Castor, 5/98 p. 25)

[a mullet of five greater and five lesser points vs a sun] There is ... nothing for the difference between a sun and a multi-pointed mullet. (Roderick Conall MacLeod, 5/98 p. 28)

[a cow argent pied sable vs a bull argent pied gules] Pied is not a heraldic charge division nor is it a recognized field treatment. ... While we may allow it as an artistic detail, we do not give any difference for it. (Damyana Luisa Jacinta Abril, 6/98 p. 12)

[a quatrefoil vs a cinquefoil] According to the LoAR of 9/90, page 16 "There is not really any visual difference between quatrefoils and cinquefoils." Regretfully, this is in conflict ... (Medwe Janos, 8/98 p. 21)

[roses vs dogwood blossoms] This conflicts with ... nothing for the difference between roses and dogwood blossoms. (David Cade, 10/98 p. 12)

[a deer vs a bagwyn] The LoI argued that there should be a CD between a deer and a bagwyn because they were considered different charges in period. However, the bagwyn is visually a deer with an odd tail. The question then is how distinct was the bagwyn considered in period? Its having a distinct name is prima facie evidence for its being distinct, but otherwise the evidence is not encouraging. It apparently had no existence outside of heraldry, as compared with the antelope which is found in bestiaries. The word is not found in the OED (first edition). As a charge it is a very late invention, with its first attested appearance being from c. 1539. (By way of comparison, the antelope is found in English heraldry from the reign of Henry IV.) Finally, it seems to only occur in the heraldry of one family, albeit a prominent one. Denys points out that the putative bagwyn as the supporter of the 17th century Lords Hunsdon is actually a yale. Based on this, we feel that the bagwyn is an insignificant variant of a stag which happens to have its own name, and there is no countable difference between it and a deer. (Felix Selwyn, 11/98 p. 13)

[piles issuant from dexter vs wolf's teeth issuant from dexter] This conflicts [with] nothing for the curved line in the wolf's teeth. Just as we would give nothing for the enarching of three bars, we give nothing for the enarching of the piles. (Seumas as a' Ghlinne Easgaiche, 12/98 p. 12)

[an ox's head caboshed vs a bull's head caboshed] There is... [no difference] between an ox's head and a bull's head. (Vidar Oxenstierna, 2/99 p. 14)

[a boot vs a leg] We grant no difference between a [human] leg and a boot (Leonore of Black Diamond, 2/99 p. 17)

[a Catherine's wheel vs a wheel] This conflicts with ... nothing for the difference between a wheel and a Catherine's wheel. (Katherine Aylwyn de Chaliers, 3/99 p. 13)

[a single-headed chess knight vs a horse's head erased] The single-headed chess knight is not a period charge. Therefore difference is based on a visual comparison. The details of the chess knight's base are the only difference, and are too trivial to be significant. (AEthelmearc, Kingdom of, 5/99 p. 11)

We give no difference between a hand and a gauntlet... (Brian Brock, 5/99 p. 14)

[a candle issuant from a handleless flat candlestick vs a candle] There is nothing for the addition of the handleless flat candlestick. (Starkhafn, Barony of, 5/99 p. 14)

[a willow tree vs a redwood tree] There is nothing for the difference between the trees. (Avelyn Mac Uilliam, 6/99 p. 9)

[a heart vs a seeblatt] We give no difference between a heart and a seeblatt. (Aíne inghean Cillín, 6/99 p. 13)

Difference-Armory-Significant

[A mullet of eight points vs. an estoile of four greater and four lesser points] [There is one CD] for the difference between an estoile and a mullet. (Sorcha MacLeod, 6/96 symposium p. 1)

[A zule vs. a chess rook] ...in period they were not considered the same charge, and there is no real visual similarity, [so] there is a CD between the two. (Anas ibn Haroun Abd al-Zaki, 7/96 p. 1)

[registering two unicorn's heads couped and a pegasus' head couped at the shoulder] Since the unicorn heads are correctly drawn, with horns and beards, and since adding wings to a charge is general[ly] worth a CD, this does not violate our ban on similar yet unlike charges (the sword and dagger rule). (Linette Marie Armellini d'Addabbo, 7/96 p. 6)

[Beasts courant vs. couchant] ...there is a CD between couchant and courant. (Cuan MacDaige, 7/96 p. 8)

[Sable semy-de-lys, an eagle Or vs. Sable, an eagle displayed...within an orle of fleurs-de-lys Or.] ...the difference between a semy-de-lys versus an orle of fleur[s]-de-lys does not, at least in this case, seem sufficient to provide a CD. (Deborah von Falkenhorst, 7/96 p. 17)

[A cross potent Or between four crosses couped argent vs. a cross of Jerusalem Or.] The Cross of Jerusalem is a defined single charge, though it consists of discrete elements in the same way than an ermine spot does. There is one CD for the field, but there is nothing for changing the tincture of less than half the group. (Gregory Tobias Barre, 7/96 p. 18)

The reason for granting no difference for a tree vs. a tree eradicated is obvious if one considers the poor excuses for root systems found in many trees blazoned as eradicated. Without any period evidence that changing a tree couped to a tree eradicated was considered a cadency step, we see no reason to grant any difference between them. (Thurstan Ravensholme, 7/96 p. 18)

[A cross crosslet fleury vs. a cross couped and a crux stellata] In both cases there is a CD between the crosses, but not a complete difference of charge. (William of Weir, 7/96 p. 19)

[A wyvern erect vs. a dragon segreant] There is...nothing for the difference between a wyvern erect and a dragon segreant. (Aelric of Battle, 7/96 p. 21)

[urdy vs. embattled] We are reaffirming the precedent established by Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, in the LoAR of 7/92, "Urdy (or champaine) is a period line of division... After some thought, we decided we had to grant a CD between it and embattled." (Cristina of Carreg Wen, 9/96 p. 4)

[{color} a salamander Or enflamed proper vs a lizard Or] The submitter has drawn the salamander properly with small goutes of flame coming off it. Unfortunately, of the eight goutes of flame, five were solid gules, and three were solid Or. Therefore, if the goutes are significant enough to count for difference, this would have to be returned for breaking tincture. (Adina von der Heide, 9/96 p. 13)

[a gillyflower vs a sixteen-petalled chrysanthemum] After comparing the picture submitted and the picture in Laurel's books on Japanese mon, we felt that we could not grant a difference. (Deirdre de la Fleur, 9/96 p. 15)

[a natural dolphin haurient embowed vs a dolphin haurient] ...we are granting no difference between a [dolphin] haurient and haruient embowed. (Kiara O slevin of the White Hands, 9/96 p. 15)

[a rose purpure slipped and leaved vert vs a periwinkle (Vince minor) proper] There is...nothing for the addition of the slipped and leaving. The tincture of the periwinkle is somewhere between blue [and] purple, and therefore both azure and purpure flowers could potentially conflict with it. (Rosalyn MacGregor, 9/96 p. 17)

[a Latin cross flory vs a cross of Santiago] There is nothing for the difference between a cross of Santiago and a Latin cross flory. (Bruinneach nic Thighearnain; 9/96 p. 18)

[crosses bottony fitchy vs Maltese crosses] There is a CD for changing the type of each of the three charges, but the change...is not substantial enough to invoke X.2. (Andro Bruce, 10/96 p. 9)

[A tower vs a chess-rook] There is...nothing for the difference between a tower and a chess-rook. (Erich von Drachenholz, 10/96 p. 9)

[cranes in their vigilance vs owls close] There is a CD for the difference in type between owls and cranes, but not substantial difference between the types of birds as required by RfS X.2. (Calontir, Kingdom of, 10/96 p. 10)

[an eagle's foot vs an dragon's jamb inverted] Both emblazons showed approximately the same amount of claw and leg, and they looked quite similar in type. [No difference was given.] (Duncan Greifenklau, 10/96 p. 11)

[a duck close vs an eagle close] There is nothing for type of ... charges. (Jean le Confus, 11/96 p. 14)

[a borage flower vs a rose] There is no heraldic difference between a borage flower and a rose... (Kiera nic an Bhaird, 11/96 p. 14)

[a trefoil vs a quatrefoil] After considering both of the badges, we could see no reason not to grant a CD between a trefoil and quatrefoil. (Allan of Moffat, 1/97 p. 6)

[a duck statant, wings elevated vs a dove and a falcon rising, wings addorsed and inverted] There is only one CD for change of bird [i.e. the change of type is significant but not substantial, and any change of posture is insignificant]. (Helvig Ulfsdotter, 1/97 p. 16)

[a cross formy fitchy vs a Maltese cross] There [is a CD] for the type of cross. (Seth Williamson of Exeter, 5/97 p. 3)

[a cross formy fitchy vs a cross formy fitchy throughout] In general there is a difference between an ordinary throughout vs. an ordinary couped, but not between a non-ordinary throughout vs. its non-throughout version. Most types of crosses work more like non-ordinaries, but crosses formy are exceptional: in their throughout form they in many ways act as ordinaries. In particular both crosses and crosses formy are occasionally found overlying quartered arms, and crosses formy having flat ends merge into the edge of the shield. This may not apply to crosses in general, but in this instance there is the necessary second CD. (Seth Williamson of Exeter, 5/97 p. 3)

[a church bell vs. a hawk's bell] [There is a] CD for difference in type of the bells. (Helena O'Shea, 6/97 p. 6)

This submission raised the question whether, in period, a change between a secondary charge and a "peripheral" was or was not used to indicate cadency. ... In conclusion, it is obvious that substituting a peripheral for a non-peripheral secondary charge was certainly a period way to change the same base coat to show that two individuals are brothers. We consider that changing from one to the other is equivalent to adding either in terms of visual impact. Therefore, on the grounds period practice, SCA usage and visual impact we are returning this for conflict with [name] because only one CD exists for changing the type of secondary charge. [Editor's note: The full text of the return is approximately one page. Interested readers are referred to the Letter of Acceptances and Returns.] (Lete Bithespring, 6/97 p. 9)

[a unicorn's head argent collared gules vs. a unicorn's head argent] [A] CD comes from the addition of the collar, which is treated effectively as a tertiary. (Isabella d'Hiver, 7/97 p. 8)

[a phoenix argent rising from flames proper vs a phoenix argent] This is clear [with a CD] for changing the tincture of the flames from argent to proper. Just as we will give a CD for changing the tincture of the wings on a winged monster, so do we give one for changing the tincture of the flames of a phoenix. (Aoife nic Gillechomhghain, 9/97 p. 4)

[fleurs-de-lys vs calla lillies] While it is clear fleurs-de-lys evolved from lilies, the majority of the evidence points to them as being considered difference charge in period. Therefore, we are giving the submitter the benefit of the doubt, and giving a CD between the calla lilies and the fleurs-de-lys. (Alina Silverthorne, 11/97 p. 3)

[a tree vs a cedar tree][There is a CD] for the type of tree, since a Cedar tree is a fir tree, which is pointed, and in heraldry a generic tree is an oak tree, which is rounded. (Melisande de Frayne, 11/97 p. 6)

[a dragon vs a cockatrice] We do not normally give a difference for changing the head only of a beast or monster. However, since they were considered different monsters in period, and since the head is not obscured in any way, we are willing to grant it the necessary CD to make it clear of these possible conflicts. (Wolfger von Lausfenburg, 11/97 p. 10)

[a griffin vs a male griffin] [There is] one CD for the difference between a standard and a male griffin. (Aodhnait inghean mhic Chárthaigh, 11/97 p. 13)

[oak trees vs trees blasted] Precedent has been mixed, but there was in period a distinction between a tree and tree blasted. Therefore, we are ... granting a CD between a tree and a tree blasted, giving this submission the necessary second CD. (Wolfgang Schwarzwald, 2/98 p. 4)

[falcons rising wings addorsed respectant vs vultures combattant, wings elevanted and addorsed] This is clear... with one CD for type of primary charge and one for [a separate difference]. (Thorfinnr inn vegsvinni Ingason, 2/ 98 p. 11)

[birds rising, wings elevated and addorsed vs birds volant, wings addorsed] A possible conflict was called against Gavin Hawkins Per chevron embattled argent and vert, three hawks volant, wings addorsed, counterchanged. Since volant and rising are both period postures (albeit rare ones), and are visually distinct, we are willing to grant [a] CD for changes to the charges. (Alan of Gravesend 3/98 p. 6)

[a wolf vs a seadog] There is a CD between the two critters, but not substantial difference. (Llyr ap morgwn, 3/98 p. 22)

[a fireball Or flamed sable vs a fireball sable] There is a CD ... for the change of the coloration of the flames, since the flames are at least one half of the charge. (Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 5/98 p. 2)

The question was raised in commentary as to whether gyronny arrondy is a CD from plain gyronny. While a chief enarched does not count for difference against a plain chief, on a field division such as arrondy we are willing to give the necessary CD. (Ottar Hrafnsson, 5/98 p. 12)

[a portcullis vs a rastrillo] When [the rastrillo] was registered ... it was defined as a Spanish portcullis. Based on al-Jamal's research we are not sure if it is a portcullis; it seems likely that it is in fact a rake head. However, given that it is blazoned as a rastrillo in Libro de Armeria del Reino de Navarra we see no reason to change the blazon. However, we also see no reason not to give it a CD from a portcullis, since we are not sure what the charge is and the two charges do not look at all alike. (Iefan Colledig ap Dynfwal Abertawe, 8/98 p. 12)

[peacocks vs geese and vs martlets] In each case there is a CD between the birds but not complete difference of charge. (Eleanora Salutati, 9/98 p. 8)

Just as we give a CD for difference in the tincture of the wings of a flying monster, we give one for the difference in the tincture of the flames of a phoenix. (Eleanor of Leycestershyre, 10/98 p. 1)

[a Celtic cross vs a cross crosslet] There is a CD, but not substantial difference between the two types of crosses. (Ofelia le Fleming, 12/98 p. 12)

Difference-Armory-Substantial

[A cross crosslet fleury vs. a cross couped and a crux stellata] In both cases there is a CD between the crosses, but not a complete difference of charge. (William of Weir, 7/96 p. 19)

[cranes in their vigilance vs owls close] There is a CD for the difference in type between owls and cranes, but not substantial difference between the types of birds as required by RfS X.2. (Calontir, Kingdom of, 10/96 p. 10)

[a bow vs a crossbow] given the enormous difference in shape between the two objects, we are willing to allow substantial difference of charge... (Giovanni dell'Arco, 11/96 p. 1)

This submission raised the question whether, in period, a change between a secondary charge and a "peripheral" was or was not used to indicate cadency. ... In conclusion, it is obvious that substituting a peripheral for a non-peripheral secondary charge was certainly a period way to change the same base coat to show that two individuals are brothers. We consider that changing from one to the other is equivalent to adding either in terms of visual impact. Therefore, on the grounds period practice, SCA usage and visual impact we are returning this for conflict with Julienne Dubarry because only one CD exists for changing the type of secondary charge. [Editor's note: The full text of the return is approximately one page. Interested readers are referred to the Letter of Acceptances and Returns.] (Lete Bithespring, 6/97 p. 9)

[a wolf vs a seadog] There is a CD between the two critters, but not substantial difference. (Llyr ap morgwn, 3/98 p. 22)

[a stump vs a tree blasted] There is, at best, a CD between a tree blasted and a stump, but not complete difference of charge. (Wilhelm Baumhecker, 8/98 p. 19)

[peacocks vs geese and vs martlets] In each case there is a CD between the birds but not complete difference of charge. (Eleanora Salutati, 9/98 p. 8)

[a Celtic cross vs a cross crosslet] There is a CD, but not substantial difference between the two types of crosses. (Ofelia le Fleming, 12/98 p. 12)

Documentation

The question of the vajhra requires a look at several sections of the Rules for Submission. RfS VII.3 states: "Artifacts that were known in the period and domain of the Society may be registered in armory, provided they are depicted in their period forms." The "period and domain of the Society" is clearly defined in RfS I.1: "The period the Society has been defined to extend until 1600 A.D. Its domain includes Europe and areas that had contact with Europe during this period." Since the client's documentation shows vajhra in India before 1600 A.D., and since the Portuguese had significant contact with India prior to 1600, we reluctantly find the vajhra acceptable for SCA usage. (Kuji Ka Onimusashi, 7/96 p. 13)

[registering colt's foot blossoms in profile] The submitted picture is extremely close to the drawing of colt's foot blossom's found in Gerard's Herbal (1633 edition), pg. 811. Given that the book was published in our "gray" area, colt's foot blossoms should be acceptable charges in the SCA. (Delphine du Dauphiné, 8/96 p. 4)

[returning a muffin cap] We can find no indication that a "muffin cap" has ever been registered before in the SCA. As a consequence, this would be the defining instance of the charge. Previous Laurel Sovereigns of Arms have held new charges to the same standard of documentation and have returned them for lacking it. (Christopher Thomas, 8/97 p. 16)

The Pictish dolphin beast falls in the same category as the unregisterable Norse twistie-beasties, Book of Kells beasts, etc. [The submission was returned.] (Scoithin mac Mhuireadhaigh, 8/97 p. 24)

[registering a wedge of Emmental cheese] There is a pattern of using foodstuff in medieval armory. ... This is the defining instance of the use of cheese in SCA armory, and in particular Emmental cheese. Emmental is the correct name for what is sold as Swiss cheese in the United States. It is a period cheese, which was sold in wheels and blocks. While we do not normally show objects in trian aspect, we see no problem with making the default wedge of cheese to be in trian aspect since it aids in identifiability, as in the case of dice or tabors. The default position of a wedge of cheese is hereby with the cut point to dexter (as if it were a spear or sword) and the rounded edge to sinister and the whole being more or less fesswise as if lying upon a table. The standard shape would be a wedge of about 30 to 60 degree angle, about twice as long as thick. (Michael Houlihan, 9/97 p. 1)

From now on since there is no evidence that new world flora and fauna were used in period armory, while they will still be permitted, using them will now be considered a weirdness. (Abigail of Lough Derravara, 9/97 p. 8)

[registering a tassel] A question was raised about the use of the tassel as a charge. While no documentation was presented for a tassel as an independent charge in period, there are undated references to it as a heraldic charge, and dated references to it as a period item. Therefore, with this registration, we are hereby allowing it for SCA registration as compatible with period style. (Sunara al Badawiyya, 2/ 98 p. 13)

Documentation has been presented for slugs in period. Furthermore, snails ... are found in period armory .... Therefore, a slug is at worst one step away from period practice. As with the snail, the slug has no limbs, so one can hardly blazon it as "statant", "passant", or whatever. [Apparently the documentation for slugs was not from heraldry.] (Justinian the Sluggard, 8/98 p. 9)

The submitter has appealed the previous return of his submission for using a non-period cross by providing a copy of a picture from Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry which shows a similar cross. However, he was only able to find the cross he wants in one place in Foster's, and Foster's is a 19th century redraw of medieval armory. And, Foster was not copying from medieval originals, but rather from 18th and 19th century editions of Renaissance copies of the medieval originals. Brault's redraw in Aspologia III shows a standard cross. [The submitter] also provided a copy of a period woodcut, showing a cross similar, but not identical to what he is submitting. Since the cross he is submitting is not the same as what is in the period woodcut, it does not help his case. Since we have used this woodcut for documentation in a different case to register the cross in the woodcut as an unblazoned variant of formy, if he resubmits drawing the cross to look like the one in the woodcut, barring any other problems, it should be acceptable. (Séamus Ó Cuileáin, 12/98 p. 15)

Domain of the Society

The question of the vajhra requires a look at several sections of the Rules for Submission. RfS VII.3 states: "Artifacts that were known in the period and domain of the Society may be registered in armory, provided they are depicted in their period forms." The "period and domain of the Society" is clearly defined in RfS I.1: "The period the Society has been defined to extend until 1600 A.D. Its domain includes Europe and areas that had contact with Europe during this period." Since the client's documentation shows vajhra in India before 1600 A.D., and since the Portuguese had significant contact with India prior to 1600, we reluctantly find the vajhra acceptable for SCA usage. (Kuji Ka Onimusashi, 7/96 p. 13)

Ermine

[registering A stag springing Or charged with an ermine spot sable.] The submission raised the issue of a visual conflict [with]...[field] a stag rampant erminois. There is no visual conflict because of the difference in the fields. Visual conflict takes the whole submission into account as a visual whole. There are three technical CD's between these two submissions, one for field, one for tincture of the primary, and one for addition of the tertiary. (Montevale, Shire of, 8/96 p. 4)

[returning Argent, on a fess between four ermine spots sable, three and one... vs Ermine, on a fess...] Technically, there are two CD's between ermine and argent charged with four ermine spots. However, ermine can be drawn with only a few spots. Furthermore, if the spots were drawn large and in the form three, two and one, and a fess was put over the field, you could get a drawing that looked like this. (Francine de Ruen, 9/96 p. 14)

Estoile see Mullet & Estoile & Sun

Field Division see Line of Division

Fimbriation & Voiding, & Piercing

While there are some period exemplars of gouttes shaped like a modern tear drop, the majority of period evidence shows them to look much more like a thin drop with a wavy tail. Those gouttes are not voidable or eligible for X.4.a.ii. Therefore, effective the January 1997 Laurel meeting... gouttes will not be considered voidable charges, nor will they be eligible for X.4.a.ii. (Marie Elaine de Womwell, 8/96 p. 2)

[registering a fess vert fimbriated and cotised] Having fimbriation and cotising in the same tinctures is a definite weirdness, but since that is the only weirdness in the design, it is registerable. (Siobhan nic Eoin, 10/97 p. 6)

[returning per bend barry sable and Or and checky sable and Or ... a bend Or fimbriated ... gules] This is being returned for breaking the rule of tincture, by having a metal on a metal. The gules fimbriation lies entirely on sable on the checky side, and on an equally divided sable and Or field on the other, making the field the fimbriation lies on primarily sable. (Wolfker der Jäger, 10/97 p. 10)

[considering a lozenge voided of a keyhole] We will no longer, barring period evidence to the contrary ... permit voiding in any shape other than a simple geometric charge, or the charge itself, if the charge is simple enough to void. (Asa of the Wood, 11/97 p. 7)

Fimbriation of multiple ordinaries were found in period, as in the arms of Say, c. 1586 (Papworth 550), Per pale azure and gules, three chevrons counterchanged, fimbriated argent. (Rolanda Rossner, 12/98 p. 2)

While a heart is simple enough to fimbriate as a sole primary charge, as a tertiary it is so small as to lose identifiability when fimbriated. (Alexander de Seton of Altavia, 4/99 p. 16)

[returning a chevron ... between three Latin crosses...fimbriated] This is being returned for the fimbriated crosses. According to RfS VIII.3 Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design. The crosses are not in the center of the design. (Michael die Zauberzunge von Essen, 4/99 p. 18)

Fireball

[a fireball Or flamed sable vs a fireball sable] There is a CD ... for the change of the coloration of the flames, since the flames are at least one half of the charge. (Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 5/98 p. 2)

Fish-Dolphin

[a natural dolphin haurient embowed vs a dolphin haurient] ...we are granting no difference between a [dolphin] haurient and haruient embowed. (Kiara O slevin of the White Hands, 9/96 p. 15)

The Pictish dolphin beast falls in the same category as the unregisterable Norse twistie-beasties, Book of Kells beasts, etc. [The submission was returned.] (Scoithin mac Mhuireadhaigh, 8/97 p. 24)

Fish-Seahorse

A question was raised about heraldic seahorses versus natural ones. Going through the files, and pulling most of what we have blazoned as a seahorse, natural seahorse, or hippocampus, we found out that a number of them were either misindexed, and/or misblazoned. Since we give a CD between the seahorse (the heraldic monster, half horse and half fish), and the natural seahorse (the fish), this could lead to problems. Additionally, some of the scribes were confused as to which one a hippocampus was, since it glosses both ways, depending on what source you use.

Therefore, we have reblazoned all the misblazons, and have substituted the term natural seahorse for hippocampus. As with all heraldic versus natural charges, the default is the heraldic item, so a seahorse is the monster, and the natural seahorse the fish. (Cover Letter 3/97)

Flag

[a dragon maintaining a charged pennoncelle] Charged banners are checked for conflict against already registered armory. The banner conflicts with... (Colin Tyndall de ffrayser, 5/99 p. 13)]

Flaunches see Ordinary

Fleur-de-Lys

[fleurs-de-lys vs calla lillies] While it is clear fleurs-de-lys evolved from lilies, the majority of the evidence points to them as being considered difference charge in period. Therefore, we are giving the submitter the benefit of the doubt, and giving a CD between the calla lilies and the fleurs-de-lys. (Alina Silverthorne, 11/97 p. 3)

Flower-Miscellaneous

[registering colt's foot blossoms in profile] The submitted picture is extremely close to the drawing of colt's foot blossom's found in Gerard's Herbal (1633 edition), pg. 811. Given that the book was published in our "gray" area, colt's foot blossoms should be acceptable charges in the SCA. (Delphine du Dauphiné, 8/96 p. 4)

[a gillyflower vs a sixteen-petalled chrysanthemum] After comparing the picture submitted and the picture in Laurel's books on Japanese mon, we felt that we could not grant a difference. (Deirdre de la Fleur, 9/96 p. 15)

[a rose purpure slipped and leaved vert vs a periwinkle (Vince minor) proper] There is...nothing for the addition of the slipped and leaving. The tincture of the periwinkle is somewhere between blue [and] purple, and therefore both azure and purpure flowers could potentially conflict with it. (Rosalyn MacGregor, 9/96 p. 17)

[a borage flower vs a rose] There is no heraldic difference between a borage flower and a rose... (Kiera nic an Bhaird, 11/96 p. 14)

[fleurs-de-lys vs calla lillies] While it is clear fleurs-de-lys evolved from lilies, the majority of the evidence points to them as being considered difference charge in period. Therefore, we are giving the submitter the benefit of the doubt, and giving a CD between the calla lilies and the fleurs-de-lys. (Alina Silverthorne, 11/97 p. 3)

A periwinkle proper is very close in color both to purple and to blue; there is not a CD between it and either purpure or azure. (Kiera nic an Bhaird, 11/97 p. 14)

[a thistle Or vs a thistle sable, slipped and leaved Or] The slipping and leaving is the major part of a thistle, by which standard changing the blossom tincture alone is not be worth a CD. (Gavin MacGregor of Perth, 3/98 p. 21)

[roses vs dogwood blossoms] This conflicts with ... nothing for the difference between roses and dogwood blossoms. (David Cade, 10/98 p. 12)

Flower-Rose

Rosebuds have been banned since November 1994. (Lasairfhíona ní Chon Chonnacht, 7/96 p. 20)

[returning A rose issuant from a comital coronet] The only mundane use of this arrangment would be as a crest. Numerous mundane examples of a crest issuing from a coronet sans torse are found in von Volborth's The Art of Heraldry... On the LoAR of 3/93 p. 26 Laurel ruled "The College does not register crests...This submission is a crest by virtue of its being set atop a torse." This case is similar and therefore is returned. (Julianna of Dunbar, 7/96 p. 21)

[a rose purpure slipped and leaved vert vs a periwinkle (Vince minor) proper] There is...nothing for the addition of the slipped and leaving. The tincture of the periwinkle is somewhere between blue [and] purple, and therefore both azure and purpure flowers could potentially conflict with it. (Rosalyn MacGregor, 9/96 p. 17)

[a borage flower vs a rose] There is no heraldic difference between a borage flower and a rose... (Kiera nic an Bhaird, 11/96 p. 14)

We will no longer register Mamluk rosettes. They are an artistic motif which is not all that common even in period Mamluk art, never mind Mamluk heraldry. (Outlands, Kingdom of, 7/97 p. 21

We do not register rosebuds. [The submission was returned for this and another reason, with the statement that either was sufficient cause for return.] (Uilleam Nial McAndrew, 4/98 p. 19)

By combining rosebuds and roses the submission violates our "sword and dagger" rule, by using two variants of the same charge on the same piece of armory. Armory is used for identification. Using two variants of the same charge in the same piece of armory is visually confusing. [The submission was returned for this and another reason, with the statement that either was sufficient cause for return.] (Uilleam Nial McAndrew, 4/98 p. 19)

[roses vs dogwood blossoms] This conflicts with ... nothing for the difference between roses and dogwood blossoms. (David Cade, 10/98 p. 12)

Foil

[a trefoil vs a quatrefoil] After considering both of the badges, we could see no reason not to grant a CD between a trefoil and quatrefoil. (Allan of Moffat, 1/97 p. 6)

[a quatrefoil vs a cinquefoil] According to the LoAR of 9/90, page 16 "There is not really any visual difference between quatrefoils and cinquefoils." Regretfully, this is in conflict ... (Medwe Janos, 8/98 p. 21)

Foodstuffs

Proper for a pretzel is brown. {In these health conscious days we naturally leave it unsalted!} [editorial note: a pretzel properly has both salt and mustard.] (Marian of Edwinstowe, 7/96 p. 12)

[registering loaves of brown bread proper] Several issues were raised in this submission. Does bread come naturally in brown, does our policy on brown animals/objects proper cover bread, and is brown bread a metal or a color.

The submitting herald has provided documentation that brown bread is period, although bread in period did come in other colors. He has also shown a long standing SCA pattern of registering brown objects proper that could be found as brown in the middle ages (and frequently to this day). These include: many different animals; objects made from leather including shoes, boots, saddles, and book bindings, objects made from wood including harps, oars, and wooden drakkar prows, assorted plants including trees, flowers with stems, and cloves, and a baked food item, a pretzel proper.

While it is true that brown bread can come out of the oven in a tincture ranging from a light "golden" brown to almost black, the brown used on the forms were a deep brown, and we have no reason to believe that this submitter would not continue to use a real brown for the bread. (Gwenhwyvar Ywein, 7/97 p. 8)

[registering a wedge of Emmental cheese] There is a pattern of using foodstuff in medieval armory. ... This is the defining instance of the use of cheese in SCA armory, and in particular Emmental cheese. Emmental is the correct name for what is sold as Swiss cheese in the United States. It is a period cheese, which was sold in wheels and blocks. While we do not normally show objects in trian aspect, we see no problem with making the default wedge of cheese to be in trian aspect since it aids in identifiability, as in the case of dice or tabors. The default position of a wedge of cheese is hereby with the cut point to dexter (as if it were a spear or sword) and the rounded edge to sinister and the whole being more or less fesswise as if lying upon a table. The standard shape would be a wedge of about 30 to 60 degree angle, about twice as long as thick. (Michael Houlihan, 9/97 p. 1)

Foot see Leg

Fracted

[a crutch vs a crutch fracted] This is clear ...with one CD for change of the color of the crutch and one for the fracting. (Aran Darkhelm, 1/98 p. 8)

Fret & Fretty

[Azure fretty Or, a sword proper vs Azure fretty Or, a hare salient argent] The fret is the primary charge here, so the only change is the type of the secondary. (Calontir, Kingdom of, 10/96 p. 10)

Two issues were raised with this submission. First, whether in period fretty was combined with semy. Papworth, pg. 886 has a 1620 grant to Perbo of Vert semy-de-lis and fretty or and a chief ermine. On p.97 of the Oxford Guide to Heraldry there is an illustration of a 1508 grant to Sir Hugh Vaughn which uses as supporters griffins which are fretty and semy of roundels, and there is a roundel in every lozenge' formed by the fretty. And in Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry under The Heraldic Atchievement [sic] of Francis Richard Grenville, 5th Earl of Warwick and Brooke", there is a quartering of fretty with fleurs-de-lys in every lozenge'.

The second issue involved the placement of the crosses on the field, since there was not one placed in every "lozenge" formed by the fretty. While placing them that way would be preferable, if there was no fretty on the field we would blazon the crosses as semy, so we see no reason not to do so in this instance. (Timotheos Vlastaris, 7/97 p. 12)

Gateway see Architecture

Gout

While there are some period exemplars of gouttes shaped like a modern tear drop, the majority of period evidence shows them to look much more like a thin drop with a wavy tail. Those gouttes are not voidable or eligible for X.4.a.ii. Therefore, effective the January 1997 Laurel meeting... gouttes will not be considered voidable charges, nor will they be eligible for X.4.a.ii. (Marie Elaine de Womwell, 8/96 p. 2)

Grandfather Clause

The question was raised as to whom the grandfather clause covers. The grandfather clause extends to the submitters themselves and their immediate legal family (spouse, siblings, children (including their spouses), parents, grandparents and grandchildren). (Alexandra del Monte di Pieta, 1/98 p. 5)

[registering Order of the Greenwood Company] Note: Order of the Red Company is registered ... and therefore this usage is grandfathered to them. Normally we would not register a name with two designators. (Kingdom of the Middle, 2/98 p. 8)

The submitter's legal sibling, Simon de la Palma de Mallorca had the household name Drunken Archers registered to him 8/89. Therefore, the usage is grandfathered to her. (Drusilla of the Drunken Archers, 6/98 p. 10)

While this conflicts with [device]., since [her] previously registered device ... also conflicts to the same degree, she gets this badge courtesy of the grandfather clause. The Grandfather Clause applies to conflict, as well as stylistic problems; the badge conflicts no more (and no less) than the device, and if [she] may display the latter, it would be unreasonable to tell her she may not display the former. (Jennet of Tewkesbury, 7/98 p. 7)

While both the field (because she has it on her currently registered device) and the increscent double enarched (because there is one on her mother's badge) are grandfathered to the submitter, the combination is not necessarily grandfathered (Sarasi Candrah, 10/98 p. 12)

While it is true that the use of an annulet of flames is grandfathered to the group, what they have registered is a single tinctured annulet, not with two colors as with this. (Barony of Wiesenfeuer, 12/98 p. 12)

While the byname should be put into the feminine form, the submitter is invoking the grandfather clause since her husband has the registered name Timothy der Kenntnisreich. Since the grandfather clause covers immediate family members, of which a wife is considered one, this name is registerable under our rules. (Katla der Kenntnisriech, 2/99 p. 1)

Groups see Charge Groups

Gyronny

[registering Gyronny of sixteen gules and Or, a Celtic cross azure] The question was raised regarding whether gyronny of sixteen is period, and whether it can be used in the SCA. Papworth's Ordinary of British Armorials, cites an instance from the 12th century, and Martin Schrot's Wappenbuch, a German heraldic treatise shows a 16th century example... Given this, we will register Gyronny of sixteen in simple cases, but nothing more, barring period evidence. (Padric O Mullan, 6/99 p. 2)

Hand

[a dexter gauntlet clenched apaumy vs a dexter gauntlet appaumy] The clenching is an artistic detail which does not contribute difference. (William MacGregor, 5/98 p. 22)

We give no difference between a hand and a gauntlet... (Brian Brock, 5/99 p. 14)

Hardship cases

[registering Inigena Rudraige Airenn] ...It was obvious from the dates on the paperwork that the submitter had submitted this more than two years ago, after consulting with Harpy. Furthermore, the submitter took one of the forms that Harpy suggested. Now, two years later, after the paperwork was held up in kingdom, the college has learned more, and the form submitted is probably not acceptable. However, since the hold up of the submission was not the fault of the submitter, we are registering this as a hardship case. (Inigena Rudraige Airenn, 9/96 p. 2)

Hat

returning a muffin cap] We can find no indication that a "muffin cap" has ever been registered before in the SCA. As a consequence, this would be the defining instance of the charge. Previous Laurel Sovereigns of Arms have held new charges to the same standard of documentation and have returned them for lacking it. (Christopher Thomas, 8/97 p. 16)

Head-Beast

[a lamb's head cabossed vs. a ram's head cabossed] A lamb's head and a ram's head, both cabossed, are not [significantly] different. Unlike a stag's rack, the prominence of the ram's horns depends very much on the type of ram the artist depicts. If one of the varieties with less prominent horns which lie closer to the head is selected, the lambs ears and the ram's horns will not be as distinct. (Maritsa Milovich, 4/97 p. 15)

[a ram's head cabossed sable vs a ram's head caboshed sable armed Or] There is ... nothing for the change in the color of the horns. (Magnus Jager, 3/98 p. 16)

[returning a horse's skull] This is a resubmission of the same device which was returned November 1997 for a redraw because the horse's skull was unidentifiable. Unfortunately, it was the overwhelming conclusion of both the college and the people attending the roadshow where this was discussed that this is still unidentifiable, carefully drawn as it is. This compels us to the conclusion that the horse's skull does not have such clearly distinguishing features as to make it acceptably identifiable for heraldic use. The human skull used in Society and mundane heraldry is a clearly defined charge as immediately identifiable as a bend or a sword. (Consider how instantly children who have never taken an anatomy course identify it at Halloween!) The Society has extended definitions of skulls to certain beasts where there are secondary characteristics that clearly identify the type of head whence the skull derived. For instance, the ram's skull is identified by its distinctive horns, as are the elk's skull, the bull's skull, the deer's skull, etc. The few exceptions to that rule occurred almost twenty years ago, before standards for identifiability were so clearly defined. Even so, the major exception, the wolf's skull registered to Vargskol Halfblood passed in the confusion of the great Heraldicon of 1979, the source of many of the most solecistic items we see in the Armorial today. In judging this, we have to ask what features uniquely identify a horse's head from any other head and ask how clearly those transfer when the soft tissue is removed. Unfortunately, almost all of the features, except the length of the upper jaw, disappear entirely when head becomes skull. Therefore, the skull is not identifiable. (Dálkr Hálftroll Snjolfsson, 5/98 p. 21)

[an ox's head caboshed vs a bull's head caboshed] There is... [no difference] between an ox's head and a bull's head. (Vidar Oxenstierna, 2/99 p. 14)

[a single-headed chess knight vs a horse's head erased] The single-headed chess knight is not a period charge. Therefore difference is based on a visual comparison. The details of the chess knight's base are the only difference, and are too trivial to be significant. (AEthelmearc, Kingdom of, 5/99 p. 11)

Head-Monster

[registering two unicorn's heads couped and a pegasus' head couped at the shoulder] Since the unicorn heads are correctly drawn, with horns and beards, and since adding wings to a charge is general[ly] worth a CD, this does not violate our ban on similar yet unlike charges (the sword and dagger rule). (Linette Marie Armellini d'Addabbo, 7/96 p. 6)

[a unicorn's head argent collared gules vs. a unicorn's head argent] [A] CD comes from the addition of the collar, which is treated effectively as a tertiary. (Isabella d'Hiver, 7/97 p. 8)

Heart

While blazoned on the LoI as (Fieldless) On a heart gules, a hare salient contourny argent., since a heart is considered standard shape for armorial display, the submission is considered as Gules, a hare salient contourny argent. As such it conflicts with .... (Barony of Skraeling Althing, 5/98 p. 26)

While a heart is simple enough to fimbriate as a sole primary charge, as a tertiary it is so small as to lose identifiability when fimbriated. (Alexander de Seton of Altavia, 4/99 p. 16)

[a heart vs a seeblatt] We give no difference between a heart and a seeblatt. (Aíne inghean Cillín, 6/99 p. 13)

Horns

[a bear antlered vs a bear] This conflicts... While there is a prior precedent granting a CD (for rabbits), in the case of Donata Ivanovna Basistova, May, 1995); the LoAR stated that visually the antlers were similar to adding wings. This is not the case here. Furthermore, adding wings is a period practice so could be considered a valid form of cadency. It is extremely rare to see beasts with added horns like this in period armory. Therefore both historically (barring evidence to the contrary) and visually adding the attires is not worth a CD. (Sean Donald of Caithness, 2/98 p. 15)

[a ram's head cabossed sable vs a ram's head caboshed sable armed Or] There is ... nothing for the change in the color of the horns. (Magnus Jager, 3/98 p. 16)

Humans

We don't register rampant humans or humanoids. (Rosalind O'Maughan, 9/97 p. 22)

Identifiability & Reproducibility

As drawn the "wyverns," which lack legs, blur the line between wyverns and pithons. There was no consensus at the Laurel meeting as whether these were wyverns or pithons. Therefore this is being returned for a redraw, to be draw clearly as one or the other. (Eibhlín ní Chaoimh, 8/96 p. 9)

The sphynx as drawn seems halfway between that of an Egyptian and a Grecian sphynx, and blurs the line between them. This is therefore being returned for a redraw as one or the other. (Gregor Vörös, 8/96 p. 11)

[returning a charge blazoned as a man's head cabossed crined and bearded of leaves] This is being returned for non-reproducability. 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, 9/96 p. 13)

This is being returned for a redraw. The chief is too small and resembles a very thin label. (Eckhardt zu Westfilde, 9/96 p. 14)

[registering a cross couped of three crossbars, missing the dexter base arm] This cross is a period charge, found in a collection of Polish armory [cited from 1584]. On a case by case basis, if the charge can be documented as period, and be blazoned in a manner such that we can reproduce the emblazon accurately, we will register charge from cipher heraldry. (Antek Ignatovich, 2/97 p. 7)

Calico cats come in a variety of different patterns and color combinations so there is no way to accurately reproduce this emblazon. (Catherine of Gordonhall, 2/97 p. 19)

The posture volant affronty has been ruled unsuitable for use in heraldry on at least two occasions ... on the grounds that it is "inherently unidentifiable". While in those case the returns involved birds, we feel that the case is just as strong for monsters. [This return was of a demi-pegasus.] (Adeladie Ehrhardt, 2/98 p. 18)

Insect

[registering a tricorporate ladybug] While not good style, there are period exemplars of different tricorporate animals including a tricorporate fish; therefore, this is only one step from period practice. (Kerttu Katariinantytär Roisko, 7/97 p. 8)

Some questions were raised as to whether a cockroach was patently offensive, since a semy of cockroaches were previously returned in the proposed arms for The Canton of the Whyte Wey as being patently offensive, and if cockroaches or insects similar to them were used in period armory. The majority of the commenters and Laurel find no problem with a single cockroach. As for its use in period, in Martin Schrot's Wappenbuch, printed in 1581 (a period German heraldic text) shows the arms of Echlkivice (if we are reading the black letter font correctly) as Field, a beetle bendwise. Therefore we feel that a cockroach is a registerable charge. (Skallagormr Berserkr, 12/98 p. 9)

Keyhole

[considering a lozenge voided of a keyhole] We will no longer, barring period evidence to the contrary, register keyholes. (Asa of the Wood, 11/97 p. 7)

Knot

[banning the Donnelly knot] While we have registered the charge here...effectively with the February 1997 Laurel meeting, Donnelly knots will no longer acceptable for registration in SCA heraldry. (Edana O'Donnelly, 9/96 p. 9)

[a weaver's knot vs a bourchier knot] There is not enough visual distinction between having the lower ends crossed (weaver's) and having them knotted (Bourchier) to be worth a CD. Since the weaver's knot was not used in mundane heraldry, there is also no period heraldic distinction on which to base a CD. (Annabel Kincaid, 1/98 p. 18)

Laurel Wreath see Wreath

Leaf

[returning a brown oak leave proper]This is an unwarranted extension of the concept of "brown {charges} proper". This usage applies to charges which, in their natural state, would reasonably be assumed to be brown. These include objects made of leather or wood. Most animals are included as well, unless there is some obvious other natural coloration.

The question is not whether the charge could reasonably be found in nature as brown, nor if it is the only possible color. The criterion is whether, absent any further information, brown is the obvious choice. This is consistent with period heraldry's use of brown animals and inanimate objects. The word "brown" is often included in the blazon, but this is merely for clarity's sake and does not seem to be a feature of period blazons. A good test is if it is actually necessary for an accurate reproduction.

A leaf does not fall within this criterion. A reader would most likely interpret "a leaf proper" as being green. The inclusion of "brown" in the blazon is necessary for the emblazon. In the absence of any specific documentation of brown leaves in period heraldry, this must be returned. (Thorvald Ingvarsson, 3/98 p. 23)

The submitter has provided examples from Siedmacher's 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. (Kathern Thomas Gyelle Spence, 10/98 p. 12)

Leg

[an eagle's foot vs an dragon's jamb inverted] Both emblazons showed approximately the same amount of claw and leg, and they looked quite similar in type. [No difference was given.] (Duncan Greifenklau, 10/96 p. 11)

We give no difference between an eagle's jamb and a dragon's jamb. [However] the default for a dragon's jamb is claws up and the default for an eagle's jamb is claw's down.... (Barony of One Thousand Eyes, 4/98 p. 19)

[a boot vs a leg] We grant no difference between a [human] leg and a boot (Leonore of Black Diamond, 2/99 p. 17)

Lightning Bolt

While the lightning bolts were used in period armory, they were only used as part of a thunderbolt, and not as independent elements on their own. [The submission was returned for this being one of two weirdnesses.] (Daria of Stormhaven, 4/99 p. 16)

Line of Division

[returning Per chevron enhanced argent and sable, two pawprints and a wolf's head cabossed counterchanged.] The paw prints are one weirdness, and the per chevron enhanced is another. (Morgan Blaidd Du, 7/96 p. 19)...in the case of a fimbriated ordinary, the fimbriation is ignored for purposes of conflict, and the tincture is the tincture of the ordinary, not the fimbriation. (Lescelyn of Kailzie, 12/96, p. 1)

[urdy vs embattled] There is ... [no difference] for line of division. (Arinbjorn Ragnarsson, 1/97 p. 18)

[registering a chief...chaussé] ...field divisions in general may be used on a chief with no problem: we wouldn't object to a chief paly; or a chief gyronny, for instance. This is a straightforward application of that policy... (Phelan Kell, 2/97 p. 8)

[returning chapé ploye engrailed ] This uses a doubly-complex line of division which is not acceptable. ...while it may be reasonably argued that this is only one step from period practice... [it is] an extremely big step from period practice. While it is true that lines 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. (Nathan Rubenszoon Adelaer, 6/97 p. 12)

This is not an "orle of ... leaves" but rather a new, undocumented complex line of division, akin to a bordure fleury or a bordure trefly. And while it is possible, though not likely, that a "bordure ivy-leafy" might be considered but an extension of period practice, making the leafy parts of the line of division a different tincture from the bordure is too removed from period practice to be registered without documentation (Elspeth Necaedan 12/97 p. 10)

The bordure uses two different complex lines of division: engrailed and fleury. Such has been disallowed in the past...We see no reason, barring period evidence to overturn this precedent (Anne Aliz de Bâle 12/97 p. 11)

The bordure is not rayonny, but the out of period wavy crested. [The submission was returned.] (Roderick Connall MacLeod, 12/97 p. 12)

This sort of wavy ordinary, with the waves opposed instead of parallel (``wavy bretessed'' instead of ``wavy-counter-wavy''), was returned on the LoAR of Dec 91 as a non-period depiction., and a number of times since then. [The submission was returned.] (Cecily of Whitehaven, 3/98 p. 15)

The bordure is not in fact urdy, but rather is a cross between urdy and dovetailed. This is neither period nor blazonable, and of this must be returned for style. (Gaston LeMieux, 3/98 p. 21)

The question was raised in commentary as to whether gyronny arrondy is a CD from plain gyronny. While a chief enarched does not count for difference against a plain chief, on a field division such as arrondy we are willing to give the necessary CD. (Ottar Hrafnsson, 5/98 p. 12)

[returning a bend sinister crusily flory counter-crusily flory]This is an invented field division, based on the model of flory-counterflory. Unfortunately we have been able to find but a single example of flory-counterflory being used in period armory. A line of division based on an exemplar that was used but a single time in period armory, is too far from period practice to be registered in the SCA. (Cecily de Kenton, 5/98 p. 24)

The submitter has provided examples from Siedmacher's 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. (Kathern Thomas Gyelle Spence, 10/98 p. 12)

Modest Proposal

There was, at the time of the initial implementation of the Modest Proposal, discussion in regards to the protection of the flags of sub-national regions such as provinces or states. National flags are automatically considered to be important non-SCA armory, but not the flags of smaller subdivisions. The question at hand is how to judge the arms rather than the flags of such smaller political units. This is anarrower issue: while most if not all provinces have flags, only a fraction of them have arms. Atthe same time such arms are by definition more relevant to SCA heraldry than flags. Therefore we are registering as important non-SCA heraldry provincial arms. At this time the arms being registered are those of the provinces of Canada. If similar coats from other nations are brought to our attention on a letter of intent we will likely register those as well. This ruling applies only to coats of arms of analogous regions: not to designs which happen to have an armorial appearance, and not to the arms of smaller regions than provinces. (Cover Letter, 1/98)

Mollusks

Documentation has been presented for slugs in period. Furthermore, snails ... are found in period armory .... Therefore, a slug is at worst one step away from period practice. As with the snail, the slug has no limbs, so one can hardly blazon it as "statant", "passant", or whatever. [Apparently the documentation for slugs was not from heraldry.] (Justinian the Sluggard, 8/98 p. 9)

Monster-Cockatrice

[a dragon vs a cockatrice] We do not normally give a difference for changing the head only of a beast or monster. However, since they were considered different monsters in period, and since the head is not obscured in any way, we are willing to grant it the necessary CD to make it clear of these possible conflicts. (Wolfger von Lausfenburg, 11/97 p. 10)

Monster-Dragon & Wyvern

[a wyvern erect vs a dragon segreant] There is...nothing for the difference between a wyvern erect and a dragon segreant. (Aelric of Battle, 7/96 p. 21)

As drawn the "wyverns," which lack legs, blur the line between wyverns and pithons. There was no consensus at the Laurel meeting as whether these were wyverns or pithons. Therefore this is being returned for a redraw, to be draw clearly as one or the other. (Eibhlín ní Chaoimh, 8/96 p. 9)

[a dragon vs a cockatrice] We do not normally give a difference for changing the head only of a beast or monster. However, since they were considered different monsters in period, and since the head is not obscured in any way, we are willing to grant it the necessary CD to make it clear of these possible conflicts. (Wolfger von Lausfenburg, 11/97 p. 10)

[a three-headed hydra vs a dragon] Details of the dragons, including number of heads... count for nothing. (Thomas Grayson of Falconridge, 3/98 p. 22)

[a three-headed hydra vs a seven-headed hydra] Details of the dragons, including number of heads... count for nothing. (Thomas Grayson of Falconridge, 3/98 p. 22)

[returning a dragon's tail] This is being returned for unidentifiability. ... there are a wide variety of period depictions of dragons' tails. Those found in most period heraldic sources simply have a rounded end, but there are other possibilities (though none quite like this submission). While period examples of lions' and foxes' tails used as charges lend plausibility to the dragon's tail, the dual problems of identifiability and reproducibility make this problematic, prior registration to the Midrealm notwithstanding. (Canton of Mons Draconis, 4/98 p. 20)

Monster-Griffin

[a griffin vs a male griffin] [There is] one CD for the difference between a standard and a male griffin. (Aodhnait inghean mhic Chárthaigh, 11/97 p. 13)

Monster-Humanoid

[Saint Michael...wings displayed vs. a fury rampant affrontee] There is... nothing for type between one winged humanoid to another. (Joseph Bearshoulders of Ashwell, 4/97 p. 17)

The monk-fish... could also be blazoned as a mer-monk vested... However, since the submitters have provided a picture from the 1491 edition of Hortus Sanitatis which states "a passing monk-fish steers a course through busy sea traffic while scholars discourse." The 'monk-fish' is in the company of a mermaid, a lobster and miscellaneous fish and a boat in this sea. Furthermore, the submitted monk fish is drawn virtually identical to the one from period. Therefore, we have opted for the period term, even though it could lead to confusion in the future, should someone wish to register the natural fish which is called a monkfish. If this is done, it would be blazoned as a natural monk-fish. (Saint Giles, College of, 5/97 p. 1)

A melusine proper cannot be placed on argent as human flesh was sometimes depicted as argent in period. (Brigid ingen Loingsigh, 6/98 p. 17)

Monster-Miscellaneous

[registering a tricorporate ladybug] While not good style, there are period exemplars of different tricorporate animals including a tricorporate fish; therefore, this is only one step from period practice. (Kerttu Katariinantytär Roisko, 7/97 p. 8)

A chatloup is a monster with a wolf's body, a cat's face, and goat's horns. (Kateryne Dod, 11/97 p. 9)

[returning a six-legged squirrel rampant] There are multiple problems with a six-legged squirrel rampant. Rampant is not a defined term for hexapods, some early SCA blazons notwithstanding. Given the blazon the logical guess would be that this mutant beastie would have three sets of two legs, i.e. two fore, two middle, and two hind legs. However, this has two sets of three: three forelegs and three hindlegs. This means that this emblazon is not reproducible from this blazon, and must be returned for that reason. Absent any documentation of period heraldry adding limbs to otherwise ordinary beasts this must also be returned for style. [Apparently these are two independant reasons for return: the irreproducible posture and the absence of documentation for hexapodal beasts.] (Peregrine Fairchylde, 1/98 p. 24)

[a bear antlered vs a bear] This conflicts... While there is a prior precedent granting a CD (for rabbits), in the case of Donata Ivanovna Basistova, May, 1995); the LoAR stated that visually the antlers were similar to adding wings. This is not the case here. Furthermore, adding wings is a period practice so could be considered a valid form of cadency. It is extremely rare to see beasts with added horns like this in period armory. Therefore both historically (barring evidence to the contrary) and visually adding the attires is not worth a CD. (Sean Donald of Caithness, 2/98 p. 15)

[registering a monster composed of the head and torso of a bull, the tail of a snake, the wings of an eagle, and the forearms of a man]While this is an extreme example of a constructed monster, given the carefree abandon with which chimerical monster were employed in Renaissance heraldry this is just within the limits of acceptability. It is no more improbable than the gender-confused lamia, found in the 16th century canting crest of Lambert and described by Randall Holme as "a beast...which hath a Woman's Face, and very large and comely shaped spots on her breasts, which cannot be counterfeited by Art; having an excellent colour in their fore parts; they hisse like Dragons. They are, as some write, scally all over; and the legs the same, to the feet; which foremost are like a Lyon, and the hinder a Goat, with a busy tail like a Spahiel Dog, or an undockt Horse, his stones great and hanging down." (Merwydd ofEffington, 4/98 p. 10)

[returning a brown bull of Saint Luke] While we register brown beasts proper if the animal is found naturally brown, such as a brown rabbit, or a brown hound, this is not a beast, but rather a monster, because of the wings and halo. Since monsters do not have proper coloration, they cannot be brown. (Kamle Kropotove, 5/98 p. 28)

[a deer vs a bagwyn] The LoI argued that there should be a CD between a deer and a bagwyn because they were considered different charges in period. However, the bagwyn is visually a deer with an odd tail. The question then is how distinct was the bagwyn considered in period? Its having a distinct name is prima facie evidence for its being distinct, but otherwise the evidence is not encouraging. It apparently had no existence outside of heraldry, as compared with the antelope which is found in bestiaries. The word is not found in the OED (first edition). As a charge it is a very late invention, with its first attested appearance being from c. 1539. (By way of comparison, the antelope is found in English heraldry from the reign of Henry IV.) Finally, it seems to only occur in the heraldry of one family, albeit a prominent one. Denys points out that the putative bagwyn as the supporter of the 17th century Lords Hunsdon is actually a yale. Based on this, we feel that the bagwyn is an insignificant variant of a stag which happens to have its own name, and there is no countable difference between it and a deer. (Felix Selwyn, 11/98 p. 13)

Monster-Panther

The question was raised as to whether the spots on the panther were an additional layer, and if this device violated our rules on layering. Since a proper heraldic panther has spots, we will allow it in this case. (Eleanor Datlyn, 11/98 p. 6)

Monster-Phoenix

[a phoenix argent rising from flames proper vs a phoenix argent] This is clear [with a CD] for changing the tincture of the flames from argent to proper. Just as we will give a CD for changing the tincture of the wings on a winged monster, so do we give one for changing the tincture of the flames of a phoenix. (Aoife nic Gillechomhghain, 9/97 p. 4)

Just as we give a CD for difference in the tincture of the wings of a flying monster, we give one for the difference in the tincture of the flames of a phoenix. (Eleanor of Leycestershyre, 10/98 p. 1)

Monster-Salamander

[{color} a salamander Or enflamed proper vs a lizard Or] The submitter has drawn the salamander properly with small goutes of flame coming off it. Unfortunately, of the eight goutes of flame, five were solid gules, and three were solid Or. Therefore, if the goutes are significant enough to count for difference, this would have to be returned for breaking tincture. (Adina von der Heide, 9/96 p. 13)

Monster-Sea

A question was raised about heraldic seahorses versus natural ones. Going through the files, and pulling most of what we have blazoned as a seahorse, natural seahorse, or hippocampus, we found out that a number of them were either misindexed, and/or misblazoned. Since we give a CD between the seahorse (the heraldic monster, half horse and half fish), and the natural seahorse (the fish), this could lead to problems. Additionally, some of the scribes were confused as to which one a hippocampus was, since it glosses both ways, depending on what source you use.

Therefore, we have reblazoned all the misblazons, and have substituted the term natural seahorse for hippocampus. As with all heraldic versus natural charges, the default is the heraldic item, so a seahorse is the monster, and the natural seahorse the fish. (Cover Letter 3/97)

[a winged sea-horse vs a winged sea-unicorn] This conflicts ... While a horse is a CD from a unicorn, the addition of wings and fish tail to each creates an overwhelming similarity with which the remaining details of the horn and beard cannot compete. (Anastasia Elizabeth Courteney, 2/98 p. 18)

[a wolf vs a seadog] There is a CD between the two critters, but not substantial difference. (Llyr ap morgwn, 3/98 p. 22)

Monster-Sphynx

The sphynx as drawn seems halfway between that of an Egyptian and a Grecian sphynx, and blurs the line between them. This is therefore being returned for a redraw as one or the other. (Gregor Vörös, 8/96 p. 11)

Monster-Unicorn

[a winged sea-horse vs a winged sea-unicorn] This conflicts ... While a horse is a CD from a unicorn, the addition of wings and fish tail to each creates an overwhelming similarity with which the remaining details of the horn and beard cannot compete. (Anastasia Elizabeth Courteney, 2/98 p. 18)

[returning a unicornate seahorse] While we would register a seaunicorn, we do not register unicornate horses of any type. (Osandrea Elspeth Gabrielle de le Bete, 8/98 p. 15)

Even though the unicorn is guardant, as drawn in this submission the horn, the most prominent feature of a unicorn, is obvious and so this depiction of a unicorn guardant is registerable. (Gwendolen de Lindsay, 5/99 p. 7)

Monster-Winged

[returning a winged and antlered brown hare proper] While you can have a brown rabbit, since rabbits are found to be brown in nature, no evidence has been presented for winged rabbits in any color, let alone brown. (Ciar Teaghlaich Tuaigh Reul, 2/97 p. 23)

The posture volant affronty has been ruled unsuitable for use in heraldry on at least two occasions ... on the grounds that it is "inherently unidentifiable". While in those case the returns involved birds, we feel that the case is just as strong for monsters. [This return was of a demi-pegasus.] (Adeladie Ehrhardt, 2/98 p. 18)

[a winged sea-horse vs a winged sea-unicorn] This conflicts ... While a horse is a CD from a unicorn, the addition of wings and fish tail to each creates an overwhelming similarity with which the remaining details of the horn and beard cannot compete. (Anastasia Elizabeth Courteney, 2/98 p. 18)

Mosque see Architecture

Mullet & Estoile & Sun

[A mullet of eight points vs. an estoile of four greater and four lesser points] [There is one CD] for the difference between an estoile and a mullet. (Sorcha MacLeod, 6/96 symposium p. 1)

[a caltrap vs. a mullet of four points] Since a mullet of four points is not a period charge, and since the normal depiction of a caltrap is not significantly different from a mullet of four points, these two charges conflict. (Garmon Woodworth, 6/97 p. 11)

As originally blazoned, the mullet was blazoned as a starfish. Starfish have been reblazoned as mullets in the past. (Alatheia McCullaugh, 12/97 p. 6)

[a mullet of five greater and five lesser points vs a sun] There is ... nothing for the difference between a sun and a multi-pointed mullet. (Roderick Conall MacLeod, 5/98 p. 28)

The compass star is not just "of sixteen points", but of "four greater, four lesser, and eight even lesser points". Basically, it is a variant of a non-period charge, the compass star. Variants of non-period charges have been disallowed before, as being not one but two steps from period practice. [The submission was returned.] (Robert Brockman, 1/99 p. 16)

Musical Note

This is being returned for lack of documentation of the musical note. According to the PicDic, 2nd ed., # 520, "A musical note is ... commonly represented as a lozenge or an ovoid roundel with a vertical stem at one end." "The 'musical note' here is not a period form, but a modern (post-period) one. This one neither matches the semiminim note in the Pictorial Dictionary (a lozenge shape with a vertical line from the sinister corner; this version has been superseded by newer research) nor the form the newer research has shown (a lozenge shape with a vertical line from the top corner). (Cicely Garland, 3/98 p. 16)

Offensiveness

[registering a Latin cross inverted] The question was raised as to whether an inverted cross would be considered offensive or would be considered to be mocking religion. Laurel, who is Jewish, does not know enough about Christianity to decide this issue without further information. Laurel received a letter from a Methodist Minister who is also an SCA herald, which provided us with the necessary information with which to decide this issue. We quote her letter... [what follows is an excerpt] "It is my opinion that such a charge is, in and of itself, not offensive. The use of such a symbol to represent overtly anti-Christian sentiment is postperiod and not widespread. Within period this was used frequently as an emblem of St. Peter, who by tradition was crucified upside down as he did not feel worthy to die in the same manner as Christ. I could send you bibliographic references if you wish. Were a Latin Cross inverted displayed with other charges which could be taken in the twentieth century as "satanic" (such as a mullet of five points, a skull, gouts, and a candle) then I would have difficulty interpreting it as a period charge, but in the blazon you described I find it entirely acceptable. (Aaron Graves, 10/98 p. 4)

Some questions were raised as to whether a cockroach was patently offensive, since a semy of cockroaches were previously returned in the proposed arms for The Canton of the Whyte Wey as being patently offensive, and if cockroaches or insects similar to them were used in period armory. The majority of the commenters and Laurel find no problem with a single cockroach. As for its use in period, in Martin Schrot's Wappenbuch, printed in 1581 (a period German heraldic text) shows the arms of Echlkivice (if we are reading the black letter font correctly) as Field, a beetle bendwise. Therefore we feel that a cockroach is a registerable charge. (Skallagormr Berserkr, 12/98 p. 9)

Orange

While blazoned as Or, the tincture used was really orange, which is not used in this manner in the SCA. [The submission was returned.] (Leifr of the Crescent Moon, 11/96 p. 14

Ordinary see also Cross

[registering a pall inverted surmounted by an orle counterchanged.] We allow an ordinary surmounted by another to be counterchanged. While this is not good style, it is at worst one wierdness. (Pietro Niccolo da San Tebaldo, 8/96 p. 5)

[registering a chief...chaussé] ...field divisions in general may be used on a chief with no problem: we wouldn't object to a chief paly; or a chief gyronny, for instance. This is a straightforward application of that policy... (Phelan Kell, 2/97 p. 8)

[a cross formy fitchy vs a cross formy fitchy throughout] In general there is a difference between an ordinary throughout vs. an ordinary couped, but not between a non-ordinary throughout vs. its non-throughout version. Most types of crosses work more like non-ordinaries, but crosses formy are exceptional: in their throughout form they in many ways act as ordinaries. In particular both crosses and crosses formy are occasionally found overlying quartered arms, and crosses formy having flat ends merge into the edge of the shield. This may not apply to crosses in general, but in this instance there is the necessary second CD. (Seth Williamson of Exeter, 5/97 p. 3)

[returning three piles inverted conjoined in point, in chief a {charge}]This is being returned for non-period style. To quote from Baldwin of Erebor as Laurel:

"A medieval pile is approximately one-third the width of the chief, and is always throughout -- it resembles a tapered pale more than anything else. ... A pile inverted does the same thing from the bottom up." [Baldwin of Erebor, Cover Letter, 10 October 1984, p. 2] "A pile should extend most if not all the way to the base; properly drawn, there would not be enough room for a charge ... to fit between the pile and the base." [Baldwin of Erebor, LoAR 16 December 1984, p. 18]

The piles here fall afoul of this long-standing precedent. (William the Bashful, 7/97 p. 18)

[considering Argent, four scarpes gules, overall a bear rampant sable] After much thought we have decided that with that many scarpes on the field, that there is no effective difference between that and a bendy sinister field. It was not unusual for barry or paly fields in period to be drawn with an odd number of traits (which we'd blazon as bars or palets); see, for example, the arms of Mouton (Multon, Moleton) found both as Barry argent and gules. and Argent, three bars gules. (Dictionary of British Arms, Volume 1, pp 59, 88; Foster, p.145) and the arms of von Rosenberg, whose Per fess field has in base either three bends or bendy depending upon the artist's whim (Siebmacher, p. 8; Neubecker and Rentzmann, p. 290). Even when the distinction is worth blazoning, it's worth no difference. Therefore, this conflicts with ... Argent, a bear rampant sable.... (Aron Nied wied , 12/ 97 p. 8)

This is not an "orle of ... leaves" but rather a new, undocumented complex line of division, akin to a bordure fleury or a bordure trefly. And while it is possible, though not likely, that a "bordure ivy-leafy" might be considered but an extension of period practice, making the leafy parts of the line of division a different tincture from the bordure is too removed from period practice to be registered without documentation (Elspeth Necaedan 12/97 p. 10)

The bordure uses two different complex lines of division: engrailed and fleury. Such has been disallowed in the past...We see no reason, barring period evidence to overturn this precedent (Anne Aliz de Bâle 12/97 p. 11)

This sort of wavy ordinary, with the waves opposed instead of parallel (``wavy bretessed'' instead of ``wavy-counter-wavy''), was returned on the LoAR of Dec 91 as a non-period depiction., and a number of times since then. [The submission was returned.] (Cecily of Whitehaven, 3/98 p. 15)

While it is acceptable to charge flaunches, the flaunches here are not charged; the rainbow surmounts them. Surmounting flaunches is not allowed by many Laurel precedents. We see no reason to reverse this precedent. (Victoria of Lochlann, 3/98 p. 17)

The question was raised in commentary about the bend sharing one of the tinctures of the checky field. Some period similar arms are those of Bekering, Checky argent and azure a bend argent (Dictionary of British Armorials), Robert Chamberlain: Paly of six argent and gules on a chief of the last three escutcheons of the first (Anglo-Norman Armory II), von Studnitz: Argent a bend lozengy argent and gules (Siebmacher f.57), von Traupitz: Checky sable and argent on a chief sable two mullets of six points argent (Siebmacher f.151), and von Caldis: Bendy sable and Or a chief Or charged with a demi-lion naissant sable (Gelre f.33v.) This shows a general use of multiply divided fields with stripe ordinaries throughout Europe and over the whole SCA heraldic period (Anglo-Norman being early, Siebmacher being late, Gelre being in the middle.) (Luciana Maria Novella Di Carlo, 6/98 p. 7)

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. Precedent holds that a peripheral charge gets only one CD for type vs. a non-peripheral secondary charge [June 1997 LOAR, pp.10-11]; therefore there is only a single CD for the type of the secondary charges. Since the secondary charges on the submitted armory are of two different types, it does not qualify for RFS X.4.j.ii; under X.4.j.i there is no CD for changing the type only of the tertiary charges. Note if the secondaries were identical, two bears or two griffins, this conflict would be cleared. (Rowan Killian, 6/98 p. 17)

We have not allowed charges to surmount flaunches for the past sixteen years. [The submission was returned.] (Garreth Emeric, 9/98 p. 10)

Fimbriation of multiple ordinaries were found in period, as in the arms of Say, c. 1586 (Papworth 550), Per pale azure and gules, three chevrons counterchanged, fimbriated argent. (Rolanda Rossner, 12/98 p. 2)

[returning two bendlets cotised] Since no documentation has been produced for cotising multiple ordinaries, we see no reason to overturn ... precedent. (Enoch Sutherland, 12/98 p. 12)

[piles issuant from dexter vs wolf's teeth issuant from dexter] This conflicts [with] nothing for the curved line in the wolf's teeth. Just as we would give nothing for the enarching of three bars, we give nothing for the enarching of the piles. (Seumas as a' Ghlinne Easgaiche, 12/98 p. 12)

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)

As a general rule we grant a difference between an ordinary throughout and its non-throughout form. Chevrons are a bit of a special case, since "throughout" has a different meaning when applied to them, referring to the point touching the top of the shield rather than the ends. The distinction between chevrons and chevrons throughout is, in period heraldry, one of regional style or artistic preference. The same coat may be found depicted both ways. We would, however, grant difference between a chevron (whether "throughout" or not) and a chevron couped, i.e. with the ends cut off without touching the sides of the shield. This is identical to our practice with other ordinaries, such as fesses throughout vs fesses couped. (Meadhbh inghean Róis, 4/99 p. 12)

Paw print

[returning Per chevron enhanced argent and sable, two pawprints and a wolf's head cabossed counterchanged.] The paw prints are one weirdness, and the per chevron enhanced is another. (Morgan Blaidd Du, 7/96 p. 19)

Permission to Conflict see ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS

Piercing see Fimbriation, Voiding, & Piercing

Pile see Ordinary

Portcullis

A rastrillo is found in a period Navarrese roll as the Spanish version of a portcullis. (Isabella Benalcázar, 3/98 p. 6)

[a portcullis vs a rastrillo] When [the rastrillo] was registered ... it was defined as a Spanish portcullis. Based on al-Jamal's research we are not sure if it is a portcullis; it seems likely that it is in fact a rake head. However, given that it is blazoned as a rastrillo in Libro de Armeria del Reino de Navarra we see no reason to change the blazon. However, we also see no reason not to give it a CD from a portcullis, since we are not sure what the charge is and the two charges do not look at all alike. (Iefan Colledig ap Dynfwal Abertawe, 8/98 p. 12)

Presumption & Pretense

[returning the name Yasha Ivanovich Romanoff and the device Argent, a double-headed eagle displayed gules maintaining in each claw an egg, charged on the breast with an Orthodox cross Or, in chief a beribboned egg gules charged with a mullet of eight points Or.] The issue of presumptuousness was raised in regards to the entire submission. It is our opinion that if the name was registerable the entire submission would violate XI.2. Presumptuous Armory....The problem here is not any one charge, but the combination of everything. The name, the eagle, the cross and the egg push this submission over the edge. [The submission was returned for this reason, as well as separate problems with the name and device.] (Yasha Ivanovich Romanoff, 1/98 p. 18)

[returning a lion passant guardant...dimidiated with the hulk of a ship] This is being returned for violating RfS XI3, marshalled armory. This is not a charge; it is merely a visual effect of the dimidiation, which is a form of marshalling of two independent pieces of armory. In Parker's Glossary the illustration on p.537 shows this clearly: no attempt is made to combine the charges on either side; they just happen to touch where the line of division cuts them off. Unless and until there is some documentation of the use of this combination as an independent charge not resulting directly from dimidiation, this cannot be registered in the SCA. (Marian of Heatherdale, 1/98 p. 25)

This hereby overturns the ban on people of baronial rank using coronets in their arms. Henceforth, in addition to royal peers, court barons/esses may use coronets in their arms. Note: this does not include territorial barons/esses, since that is not a permanent rank. Just as a sitting king/queen/prince/princess cannot put a coronet on their arms until after they have attained the rank of count/ess or viscount/ess, since, while it is rare, there have been cases of royalty who have not completed their reign, neither can a territorial baron/ess, unless they are already a court baron/ess, use a coronet, since they have not attained a permament barional rank.

This was probably one of the most difficult decisions I have had to make as Laurel, as there were strong arguments on both sides, with people whose opinions I valued making cogent arguments to both keep and overturn the ban.

However, the Society has changed a great deal since the ban was first put into place, in the early 80's. One of these changes is that we hold historical recreation to be our ideal goal, however unrealized this goal may be. The equation of a crown/coronet (or any other charge) in a coat of arms with the rank of the bearer is almost entirely post-period. While we have no intention of overturning our rules on reserved regalia, we see little point in having regalia reserved in one situation but not another. (We exempt the laurel wreath from this decision, since it is reserved to official SCA groups, not individuals.) Therefore, as we said above, effective with this decision, and having discussed this with Laurel designate, court baron/ess may use a coronet in their arms, so long as it does not use the embattlements of county rank, or the strawberry leaves of ducal rank. (Tsivia bas Tamara of Amberview, 5/99 p. 7)

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. (Kurdun ţe Pilegrim, 5/99 p. 15)

Pretzel see Foodstuffs

Proper

Elephants proper are gray, which is treated the same as stone (gray) and natural dolphins (also gray) for purposes of contrast, as a metal. (Ekatarina Iadoroyna Kharlampieva, 7/96 p. 2)

Proper for a pretzel is brown. {In these health conscious days we naturally leave it unsalted!} [editorial note: a pretzel properly has both salt and mustard.] (Marian of Edwinstowe, 7/96 p. 12)

[returning a grey horse proper] ...grey tends to blur the line between argent and sable. Of the people attending the Laurel meeting, roughly half of them saw this horse as black and the other half as white. Barring period evidence of grey being used for horses in armory, this submission will have to be returned. (Ivan the Illustrated, 7/96 p. 20)

[returning Per chevron sable and argent, a hart salient proper] If the hart were in an heraldic tincture this might technically have acceptable contrast. Brown, however, is not a true heraldic tincture, and we are not inclined to give it any leeway. (Andelcrag, Barony of, 2/97 p. 23)

[returning a winged and antlered brown hare proper] While you can have a brown rabbit, since rabbits are found to be brown in nature, no evidence has been presented for winged rabbits in any color, let alone brown. (Ciar Teaghlaich Tuaigh Reul, 2/97 p. 23)

We are also no longer going to register Bengal tigers proper. They must be in a standard, heraldic tincture (with or without markings). We have registered as proper both gules and Or Bengal tigers, leaving them with no default tincture. Plain natural tigers proper, are still Or, marked sable. (Cover Letter 3/97)

[returning natural tigers proper] The tigers were blazoned as natural tigers on the LoI. Natural tigers, proper, are Or, marked sable. These tigers were actually orange, marked sable... orange tigers are not acceptable for use in the SCA. (Oriana of Bonwicke, 3/97 p. 11)

[registering loaves of brown bread proper] Several issues were raised in this submission. Does bread come naturally in brown, does our policy on brown animals/objects proper cover bread, and is brown bread a metal or a color.

The submitting herald has provided documentation that brown bread is period, although bread in period did come in other colors. He has also shown a long standing SCA pattern of registering brown objects proper that could be found as brown in the middle ages (and frequently to this day). These include: many different animals; objects made from leather including shoes, boots, saddles, and book bindings, objects made from wood including harps, oars, and wooden drakkar prows, assorted plants including trees, flowers with stems, and cloves, and a baked food item, a pretzel proper.

Finally, while it is true that brown bread can come out of the oven in a tincture ranging from a light "golden" brown to almost black, the brown used on the forms were a deep brown, and we have no reason to believe that this submitter would not continue to use a real brown for the bread. (Gwenhwyvar Ywein, 7/97 p. 8)

A periwinkle proper is very close in color both to purple and to blue; there is not a CD between it and either purpure or azure. (Kiera nic an Bhaird, 11/97 p. 14)

[returning a brown oak leave proper]This is an unwarranted extension of the concept of "brown {charges} proper". This usage applies to charges which, in their natural state, would reasonably be assumed to be brown. These include objects made of leather or wood. Most animals are included as well, unless there is some obvious other natural coloration.

The question is not whether the charge could reasonably be found in nature as brown, nor if it is the only possible color. The criterion is whether, absent any further information, brown is the obvious choice. This is consistent with period heraldry's use of brown animals and inanimate objects. The word "brown" is often included in the blazon, but this is merely for clarity's sake and does not seem to be a feature of period blazons. A good test is if it is actually necessary for an accurate reproduction.

A leaf does not fall within this criterion. A reader would most likely interpret "a leaf proper" as being green. The inclusion of "brown" in the blazon is necessary for the emblazon. In the absence of any specific documentation of brown leaves in period heraldry, this must be returned. (Thorvald Ingvarsson, 3/98 p. 23)

[returning a brown bull of Saint Luke] While we register brown beasts proper if the animal is found naturally brown, such as a brown rabbit, or a brown hound, this is not a beast, but rather a monster, because of the wings and halo. Since monsters do not have proper coloration, they cannot be brown. (Kamle Kropotove, 5/98 p. 28)

A melusine proper cannot be placed on argent as human flesh was sometimes depicted as argent in period. (Brigid ingen Loingsigh, 6/98 p. 17)

Rastrillo see Portcullis

Regalia

The question was raised in commentary as to the suitability of registering this badge, since some commenters felt it would restrict the use of a penannular brooch by anyone else. While it is true that the registration of the SCA peerage badges were registrations of not only their use as a badge, but also as regalia, very few of our registrations are as regalia. And, in fact, individuals cannot register regalia. We allow registration as badges of pieces of clothing, caps, maunches, etc. without restricting who can wear those pieces of clothing. They are not restricted charges. Therefore, we see no problem with registering this as a badge, and in people using a penannular brooch. (Morgan Catriona Bruce, 12/97 p. 2)

Reproducibility see Identifiability & Reproducibility

Roundel

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. (Alaric Drake, 3/97 p. 2)

Seeblatt

[a heart vs a seeblatt] We give no difference between a heart and a seeblatt. (Aíne inghean Cillín, 6/99 p. 13)

Semy

Two issues were raised with this submission. First, whether in period fretty was combined with semy. Papworth, pg. 886 has a 1620 grant to Perbo of Vert semy-de-lis and fretty or and a chief ermine. On p.97 of the Oxford Guide to Heraldry there is an illustration of a 1508 grant to Sir Hugh Vaughn which uses as supporters griffins which are fretty and semy of roundels, and there is a roundel in every lozenge' formed by the fretty. And in Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry under The Heraldic Atchievement [sic] of Francis Richard Grenville, 5th Earl of Warwick and Brooke", there is a quartering of fretty with fleurs-de-lys in every lozenge'.

The second issue involved the placement of the crosses on the field, since there was not one placed in every "lozenge" formed by the fretty. While placing them that way would be preferable, if there was no fretty on the field we would blazon the crosses as semy, so we see no reason not to do so in this instance. (Timotheos Vlastaris, 7/97 p. 12)

Ship

A longship affronty is unidentifiable. (Bodvarr Askasmidr, 2/97 p. 23)

Simple Armory

A question was raised in commentary as to whether RfS X.4.j.ii "in simple cases substantially changing the type of all of a group of identical charges placed entirely on other charges is one clear difference" applies since the [charges] are not all the same color. Even though they are not all the same color, they are identical charges, so X.4.j.ii does apply. (Rowan le Beau, 3/98 p. 3)

The question was asked if there was a CD for changing type only of the tertiaries; whether it was eligible for X.4.j.ii. since the tertiaries while the same [type], do not have the same tincture. Having the tertiaries different tinctures does not make them ineligible for X.4.j.ii, and so this is clear. (Jelyan of Lindisfarne, 4/99 p. 2)

Skull see Head-Beast

Starfish see Mullet & Estoile & Sun

Style-Layers

Note: this is not four layers since we do not count overall charges as adding another layer. (James Malcolm Helme, 8/96 p. 7)

Style-Miscellaneous

[returning a sheep mullety of various tinctures] This is at least a two-fold extension of known period practice. The panther's variegated spots weren't an arbitrary armorial invention; he appears with them in medieval bestiaries. In this submission not only have they been changed to stars, but also they've been applied to a beast with which they were never associated. Therefore we are returning this for non-period style. (Anna Stitcher, 7/96 p. 15)

[returning barry indented and paly] The design only works due to the alignment of the indentations with the traits of the paly. This requires the heraldic artist to know that a tesselated design is intended. While there are examples of such fields in modern English heraldry, this is not such a productive pattern in period heraldry that it should be emulated in the SCA, and indeed designs dependant upon an exact and unblazonable alignment of elements has often been cause for return. (Beaune de la Sorse, 2/97 p. 19)

[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. (Cadell Blaidd Du, 3/98 p. 15)

The motif for this summer and fall seems to have been in fess a roundel between an increscent and a decrescent. It has caused a fair bit of commentary, partially because it is also a pagan symbol. While it is a religious symbol, that is not in and of itself grounds for return. It is also an example of modern symmetry. But that again, is not enough to return it. Therefore, we see no reason to ban this motif and have no intention of doing so. (Cover Letter 10/98)

Style-Obtrusive Modernity

[returning Sable, an equilateral triangle inverted gules fimbriated Or, and in chief a rainbow proper] This submission is virtually identical to a well known gay pride button, and therefore violates VIII.4.a.b. Modern Insignia - Overt allusions to modern insignia, trademarks, or common designs may not be registered. (Shane Stuart of Airth, 3/97 p. 12)

[returning Barry... two flaunches counterchanged] This is being returned for obtrusive modernity and excessive counterchanging, barring period evidence of flaunches being counterchanged of the field. (Lora Anne the Silent, 4/97 p. 16)

[returning Argent, a jester statant arms upraised inverted motley, in chief three roundels gules] This is being returned for violating VIII.1.b. - Armorial Balance... "...Designs that are unbalanced, or that create an impression of motion, are not compatible with period style." This submission definitely creates an impression of motion. (Wulfric de Balliol, 8/97 p. 25)

While some commenters were concerned that the cross arrondi was "modern" in appearance, in fact this type cross was found on the Bayeux Tapestry. (Ćlric Kyrri, 2/98 p. 9)

[returning Per fess bendy sinister gules and Or and chevronny Or and gules per pale counterchanged.] This is being returned for violating RfS.VIII.4.d. - Modern Style. "Charges may not be used to create abstract or op-art designs". (Turgeis av Markland, 2/98 p. 19)

This is being returned for violating RFS VIII.4.d (Modern Style): 'Charges may not ... be patterned after comic book art, fantasy art, ... etc.'. Not only did the college feel that this was modern style, but it is also the exact logo used by San Tio Products which produces "Hello Kitty". (Róisín of Rowanwood, 6/98 p. 16)

Style-Pictorial

[returning Per chevron throughout Or and vert, two falcons close respectant sable and four billets in pale Or] This violates VIII.4.a. Pictorial Design, with a highway stretching to the horizon, and VIII.4.b. Modern Insignia, with the center line being a common modern design. (Felix Gruenstrasse, 4/97 p. 16)

Style-Regional

[returning Azure, issuant from a trimount couped vert a demi ferret] This was submitted based on an 11/93 Laurel precedent permitting vert trimounts on azure fields. However, a trimount couped is sufficiently different from a regular trimount that it is not automatically included under that precedent. Furthermore, this submission contains a demi-animal issuant from the mount, which is relatively infrequent, bringing this submission even farther from the allowed format. Barring evidence of this motive being used throughout Europe, we must return this submission. (Guenhwyvar MacEwen, 10/97 p. 14)

Style-Slot Machine

[returning per bend {tinctures}, a bear sejant erect and a bow and arrow in saltire] This is being returned for slot machine. It uses three different charges in one charge group. (Dulcia Sabine, 9/96 p. 15)

[returning Per bend sinister sable and argent, three swords in bend sinister bendwise sinister proper and three swords in bend sinister bendwise sinister inverted gules hilted sable, between a phoenix Or and a feather bendwise sinister gules.] This is being returned for violating our ban on slot-machine heraldry (three or more different charges in the same charge group). The swords lie as if they were on a bend sinister, and if this were the case the phoenix and the feather would be secondary charges. There is, however, in fact no bend sinister, making it difficult to interpret how the charge groupings lie. They can all be taken as one big primary group of three different types, or the swords can be taken as the primary group with the phoenix and feather as secondaries. However, this submission is so far from period style because of the ambiguity of how the charges are arranged. Therefore this is being returned for slot machine and non-period style. (Catelin atte Redfethere, 1/98 p. 23)

[returning Per fess gules and azure, a catamount passant and a kestrel sustaining a garb Or] As drawn the garb is too large to be considered a maintained charge, which makes it a sustained charge. However, that makes this submission "slot machine", which three different charges (catamount, kestrel, and garb) in the same group, which violates our rules. Therefore, this must be returned. If the garb was drawn smaller it would take care of this problem. (Gunnora hallakarva, 2/98 p. 14)

[registering ...a falcon close contourny and a lion rampant Or maintaining between them a sword argent...] Note: this is not "slot machine" since the sword is maintained and not sustained. (Béibhinn Ní Dhonnamháin, 1/99 p. 8)

[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. (Innogen Mac Leod, 4/99 p. 6)

Style - "Sword & Dagger"

[registering two unicorn's heads couped and a pegasus' head couped at the shoulder] Since the unicorn heads are correctly drawn, with horns and beards, and since adding wings to a charge is general[ly] worth a CD, this does not violate our ban on similar yet unlike charges (the sword and dagger rule). (Linette Marie Armellini d'Addabbo, 7/96 p. 6)

[registering two demiwolves...and a dog] The question was raised in commentary as to whether this violated our sword and dagger rule, which prohibits two (or more) form of the same charge in the same piece of armory, for instance a rose and a rose bud, two different varieties of fish, a mullet of seven points and a mullet of 8 points, etc. This happens when the two items are not a CD apart. We in fact give a CD between an animal and the same animal when it is a demi-animal. This change is a type change, not a posture change. Therefore, since there is a CD between the demi-wolves and the dog, while poor style, this does not violate our ban on having two different charges in the same submission which are less than a CD apart. (Bran of Silver Keep, 7/97 p. 3)

Since we give a CD between a sun and an estoile, this does not fall afoul of the "similar but not identical charges" (often called "the sword and dagger") rule. (Aliena Goodeve, 2/98 p. 6)

By combining rosebuds and roses the submission violates our "sword and dagger" rule, by using two variants of the same charge on the same piece of armory. Armory is used for identification. Using two variants of the same charge in the same piece of armory is visually confusing. [The submission was returned for this and another reason, with the statement that either was sufficient cause for return.] (Uilleam Nial McAndrew, 4/98 p. 19)

Style-Weirdness

[returning Per chevron enhanced argent and sable, two pawprints and a wolf's head cabossed counterchanged.] The paw prints are one weirdness, and the per chevron enhanced is another. (Morgan Blaidd Du, 7/96 p. 19)

There are many non-period elements to this submission, the combination of them push[ing] it over the edge. These include: using the chevron abased as a secondary charge, using a complex line of division other than embattled on just the upper edge, and the SCA style of eclipsing of the sun. (Agravaine Rhiwallon, 7/96 p. 21)

[registering a pall inverted surmounted by an orle counterchanged.] We allow an ordinary surmounted by another to be counterchanged. While this is not good style, it is at worst one wierdness. (Pietro Niccolo da San Tebaldo, 8/96 p. 5)

[returning a demi-flamberge... handled of a lit candle argent, within and issuant from the base of a serpent involved...] This design has several unattested elements: the odd hilting of the sword, and framing the badge within a serpent involved. The latter, while popular in the SCA, is nonetheless a weirdness. (Rowen Killian, 2/97 p. 21)

[returning chapé ploye engrailed ] This uses a doubly-complex line of division which is not acceptable. ...while it may be reasonably argued that this is only one step from period practice... [it is] an extremely big step from period practice. While it is true that lines 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. (Nathan Rubenszoon Adelaer, 6/97 p. 12)

From now on since there is no evidence that new world flora and fauna were used in period armory, while they will still be permitted, using them will now be considered a weirdness. (Abigail of Lough Derravara, 9/97 p. 8)

[registering a fess vert fimbriated and cotised] Having fimbriation and cotising in the same tinctures is a definite weirdness, but since that is the only weirdness in the design, it is registerable. (Siobhan nic Eoin, 10/97 p. 6)

[considering per bend barry sable and Or and checky sable and Or ... a bend Or fimbriated ... gules] The combination of two different complex fields is not only inadvisable, but without documentation for it being done in period, it will be considered a weirdness. (Wolfker der Jäger, 10/97 p. 10)

Barring period evidence of using two distinct charge groups as tertiaries on a single underlying primary charge will be considered a weirdness. (Ginevra de' Rossi, 12/97 p. 9)

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. (Pyotr Ivanovich Drozinski the Fool, 2/ 98 p. 12)

[registering a roundel between an increscent and a decrescent] Questions were raised about the "phases of the moon"... and whether or not it is grounds for return. While not good style, it is, at worst, one weirdness, and is not in and of itself grounds for return. (Aurelia of Caer Mear, 9/98 p. 2)

While the lightning bolts were used in period armory, they were only used as part of a thunderbolt, and not as independent elements on their own. [The submission was returned for this being one of two weirdnesses.] (Daria of Stormhaven, 4/99 p. 16)

Sun see Mullet & Estoile & Sun

Tail

[returning a dragon's tail] This is being returned for unidentifiability. ... there are a wide variety of period depictions of dragons' tails. Those found in most period heraldic sources simply have a rounded end, but there are other possibilities (though none quite like this submission). While period examples of lions' and foxes' tails used as charges lend plausibility to the dragon's tail, the dual problems of identifiability and reproducibility make this problematic, prior registration to the Midrealm notwithstanding. (Canton of Mons Draconis, 4/98 p. 20)

Tassel

[registering a tassel] A question was raised about the use of the tassel as a charge. While no documentation was presented for a tassel as an independent charge in period, there are undated references to it as a heraldic charge, and dated references to it as a period item. Therefore, with this registration, we are hereby allowing it for SCA registration as compatible with period style. (Sunara al Badawiyya, 2/ 98 p. 13)

Tower see Castle & Tower

Tree

The reason for granting no difference for a tree vs. a tree eradicated is obvious if one considers the poor excuses for root systems found in many trees blazoned as eradicated. Without any period evidence that changing a tree couped to a tree eradicated was considered a cadency step, we see no reason to grant any difference between them. (Thurstan Ravensholme, 7/96 p. 18)

[a tree vs a cedar tree][There is a CD] for the type of tree, since a Cedar tree is a fir tree, which is pointed, and in heraldry a generic tree is an oak tree, which is rounded. (Melisande de Frayne, 11/97 p. 6)

[oak trees vs trees blasted] Precedent has been mixed, but there was in period a distinction between a tree and tree blasted. Therefore, we are ... granting a CD between a tree and a tree blasted, giving this submission the necessary second CD. (Wolfgang Schwarzwald, 2/98 p. 4)

[an apple tree vs a willow tree] This conflicts with ... nothing for changing the type of tree. (Alexandra de la Pomerai, 2/ 98 p. 17)

[a stump vs a tree blasted] There is, at best, a CD between a tree blasted and a stump, but not complete difference of charge. (Wilhelm Baumhecker, 8/98 p. 19)

[a willow tree vs a redwood tree] There is nothing for the difference between the trees. (Avelyn Mac Uilliam, 6/99 p. 9)

Trimount

[returning a trimount throughout] A trimount is equivalent to a base enarched to chief, and by being throughout, it is unrecognizable. It was mentioned, without any evidence being provided, that trimounts in this form are seen in Italian armory. If period evidence is provided that this was, indeed done, we would happily revisit this issue. (Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 5/97 p. 8)

Vairy

[registering vairy of three tinctures] Gerard Leigh (a 16th century herald) mentions very rare occurrences of vairy of three or more tinctures. This particular form of vairy was listed in the examples of vair, described by Fox-Davies as "vairy of four tinctures". Papworth has Vairy Or, gules and azure., Sir. Roger Holthouse, from Glover's Ordinary. As a treatment found in both a period treatise and actual period armory we have no qualms about registering this. (Diego Miguel de Vega, 9/97 p. 10)

Vajhra

The question of the vajhra requires a look at several sections of the Rules for Submission. RfS VII.3 states: "Artifacts that were known in the period and domain of the Society may be registered in armory, provided they are depicted in their period forms." The "period and domain of the Society" is clearly defined in RfS I.1: "The period the Society has been defined to extend until 1600 A.D. Its domain includes Europe and areas that had contact with Europe during this period." Since the client's documentation shows vajhra in India before 1600 A.D., and since the Portuguese had significant contact with India prior to 1600, we reluctantly find the vajhra acceptable for SCA usage. (Kuji Ka Onimusashi, 7/96 p. 13)

There are several distinct forms of the vajhra based on how many prongs it has; we have blazoned this as a three pronged vajhra to distinguish it from a five pronged one. (Kuji Ka Onimusashi, 7/96 p. 13)

Visual Conflict

There is no visual conflict because of the difference in the fields. Visual conflict takes the whole submission into account as a visual whole. (Montevale, Shire of, 8/96 p. 4)

[Gyronny azure and argent, eight fleurs-de-lys counterchanged vs. Gyronny azure and argent, eight quatrefoils counterchanged] This is visually in conflict. ... When the two emblazons were compared from across the room, both heralds and non-heralds at the meeting had trouble telling the charges apart. (William A' Becket, 2/97 p. 20)

[returning A winged tower argent] This visually conflicts with ... Pean, a tower argent, issuant from its battlements two plumes pendant to base argent. There is clearly one difference for the field, but the plumes look very much like wings. (Paul Franz von Drachenschloss, 11/97 p. 12)

As drawn, the bull's head is identical to the trademarked emblem of the Chicago Bulls (a NBA Basketball team), including using the exact shade of red that they use, as best we can tell. This creates two problems. First, is the use of a trademarked symbol. In a recent survey of trademarked symbols known throughout the world, the emblem of the Chicago Bull was in the top five. Second, because of the use of this emblem, to many people, this submissions is obtrusively modern. [The submission was returned.] (Darius of Jaxartes, 12/97 p. 11)

[returning Per pale argent and gules, a three headed python displayed affronty counterchanged] This is visually in conflict with ... Per pale argent and gules, a bat-winged tower counterchanged. In both cases what you see is the counterchanged wings, with the tall slender central figure being absorbed into the background. (William le Red of Storvik, 1/98 p. 20)

Voiding & Voidable Charge see Fimbriation, Voiding, & Piercing

Wheel

[a Catherine's wheel vs a cog wheel] This conflicts .... (Caterine Barré de Venoix 1/98 p. 21)

The ship's wheel is apparently not a period charge. Barring documentation to the contrary this must be returned. (Hans Van Hoorn, 3/98 p. 18)

[a Catherine's wheel vs a wheel] This conflicts with ... nothing for the difference between a wheel and a Catherine's wheel. (Katherine Aylwyn de Chaliers, 3/99 p. 13)

Wolf's Teeth

[piles issuant from dexter vs wolf's teeth issuant from dexter] This conflicts [with] nothing for the curved line in the wolf's teeth. Just as we would give nothing for the enarching of three bars, we give nothing for the enarching of the piles. (Seumas as a' Ghlinne Easgaiche, 12/98 p. 12)

Wreath

[returning a group badge] This is being returned because of the use of the Laurel wreath on the tankard. Only official group arms may use a laurel wreath. (Roterde, Kanton, 9/96 p. 14)

[an annulet of oak leaves conjoined vs a laurel wreath] This is being returned for conflict with [armory]. Period Laurel wreaths can be drawn as a closed wreath, and they can be drawn with leaves looking remarkably like the submitted form... (West, Kindom of the, 1/97 p. 21)

[registering an oak chaplet] A number of commenters were concerned about the wreath, wondering if it was too close to a laurel wreath, which is reserved to the arms of official SCA groups. However, this wreath has been registered to individuals at least twice before... While we share some of the concerns brought up by the college, we are following the precedents set by previous Laurel Sovereigns of Arms and registering this. (Elizabeth Bowles, 12/98 p. 6)

While a wreath of barberry is visually similar to a laurel wreath, it is not a laurel wreath, and therefore avoids presumption, as does a chaplet of oak leaves. (Principality of Summits, 3/99 p. 2)

Zule

[A zule vs. a chess rook] ...in period they were not considered the same charge, and there is no real visual similarity, [so] there is a CD between the two. (Anas ibn Haroun Abd al-Zaki, 7/96 p. 1)


NAME RULINGS

Anglo-Saxon

[returning the given name Tyrack] The name is being returned for incorrect construction. Most names constructed from ill-attested `themes' given by Searle don't work. (Tyrack of Trinlyr, 9/96 p. 16)

[changing the byname atte Loncastre] The word atte is a ME contraction of at and the. It is normally used with topographical locatives, e.g., atte Brigge `at the bridge'. The contraction is inappropriate with a toponym (proper noun place-name): one wouldn't say 'at the Lancaster', for example. (Franbald of Loncastre, 1/97 p. 3)

Submitted as Ćileua aet Wilchetone, to be consistent, when the ć is used in one part of the name, it must be used in the other. We have corrected the name accordingly. (Ćileua ćt Wilchetone, 3/98 p. 1)

Arabic

[returning the group name Tanweeristan] Tanweer is not a tribal name, so there is no reason to think that it can be combined with -(I)stan. (Canton of Tanweeristan, 10/96 p. 9)

The only documentation for Zibec came from Arabian Nights. According to al-Jamal, "One must be extremely careful in using any version of Alf Layla wa Layla (The Thousand Nights and One Night) as documentation for names. Many, many names in the Nights are (1) not of mere mortals, and/or (2) allegorical rather than "real" names. Additionally, the stories, while most of them are period, originate from a number of different places. In other words, not all of them are Arabic; there are Persian, Turkish, and Indian stories. As a consequence, not all of the names in them are Arabic, either, but Persian, Turkish, Indian, etc. These other languages have different ways of constructing names than does Arabic. So just because a name is found in this particular work does not mean that it is a real name or that it is constructed properly or that it may be incorporated into an otherwise Arabic name. " Since no documentation could be found for Zibec as a given or byname, we have dropped it. (Mahliqa bint Ali, 5/98 p. 7)

Arthurian

[registering Agravaine] Given the use in period of many names from Arthuriana, we find the use of an undocumented name of a significant character whose name appears in period Arthurian literature in this form acceptable. (Agravaine Rhiwallon, 7/96 p. 11)

Award see Order & Award

Bilingual

[registering Francesca d'Angelo le Noir] The name would be better as all Italian Francesca d'Angelo Nero, or all French Françoise Angel(ot) le Noir, however a French/Italian name [is] registerable. (Francesca d'Angelo le Noir, 7/96 p. 6)

[registering Gregor Vörös] Submitted in kingdom as Gregor Vörös, it was reversed and submitted as Vörös Gregor. Since this is not a wholly Hungarian name, which would have the surname first, but rather a Hungarian/German one, we see no reason not to put this into the form the submitter prefers. (Gregor Vörös, 8/96, p. 8)

[returning Kiara O Slevin of the White Hands] The name is being returned for incorrect construction. The byname is completely out of place: you would not find a late-period Englishing of an Irish name combined with a bad translation of a medieval French literary epithet?! The French versions of the romance precede the English ones, and The Arthurian Encyclopedia, s.n. Isolde of the White Hands, seems to indicate that the name is a translation of Iseut (or Yseut) aux Blanches Mains, a French form consonant with such attested period examples as Aales aux Grosses treices 1292 "Alice with the large braids"... When such bynames were actually still in use, the natural English translation would have been withe Whithand (Wytehand, etc., or possibly in the plural, with handes, hands, honden, etc.). Before long the preposition and article would have fallen by the wayside... At no time would of the White Hands have been even a modern spelling of a plausible ME version of the French byname. The submitter forbade dropping any elements in order to register the name, so we are forced to return this. (Kiara O slevin of the White Hands, 9/96 p. 15)

This name combines a French given name, a French adaptation of a Basque locative surname and an English version of a quasi-Gaelic hereditary patronymic. Furthermore, this name uses two surnames. We found the entire combination too improbable to be registered. (Francois Xavier MacUlric, 1/97 p. 17)

[returning Haki Longswimmer] The byname obviously requires the lingua anglica allowance. This may be used provided that one of two conditions is met. The byname may be an English translation of a documented period byname in the source language, here ON, so long as the translation is chosen so as not to be obtrusively modern; or it may be a fairly generic period English byname in a period form. Longswimmer meets neither of those criteria: it's not a normal ME form of byname, and it's not a translation of a known ON byname. (Haki Longswimmer, 2/97 p. 25)

Although Einar is a Scandinavian name, we are allowing the use of ap, which is Welsh in front of it, since the spelling would be reasonable in Welsh. Welsh has a habit of adopting non-Welsh names as is into Welsh, and there is a long history of Welsh/Scandinavian cultural proximity and contact. (Owain ap Einar, 3/97 p. 1)

While this combines Gaelic and English in the same name, since Cashel is a place name, this is registerable under the lingua Anglica allowance. (Muirgheal of Cashel, 10/97 p. 5)

This name is being returned for non-period style. It appears to be invoking the lingua Anglica rule on the byname, but that still requires that the element be demonstrated to be a valid byname in one or the other of the languages involved. (Pelacho the Kindhearted, 11/97 p. 14)

This name has several serious problems, either of which would be grounds for return... This would mix a Gaelic given name with Spanish, which, barring documentation, does not seem likely. (Tiernan Diego de las Aguas, 2/98 p. 16)

Since Kázmér [Régi Magyar Családnevek Szótára: XIV-XVII Század", Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság] includes a number of names apparently derived from Italian, an Italian/Hungarian name is acceptable under our rules. However, it must follow the standard practice of having the given name first. (Ileana Welgy, 8/98 p. 11)

No documentation was presented, and none could be found for regular contact between Hungary and Scotland. [The name was returned.] (Kinga MacKinnon, 8/98 p. 15)

[The name was] changed in kingdom because it was felt that the use of ap or ferch needed a Welsh name. However, late period Welsh used ap and ferch with English names, so we have restored the patronymic to the originally submitted form. (Myfanwy ferch Gerald, 11/98 p. 4)

Mixed Gaelic/English Orthography

After a great deal of thought we have decided to overturn the precedent on mixed Gaelic/English orthography. There are many reasons for doing this, the most important of which are mentioned below.

First, and most importantly, while they were not common, there are period examples of mixed Gaelic/English orthography. These include: William Liath de Burgo, Cormac Óg Mac Carthy, Ulick na gceann de Burgo, Shane Donnghaileach, Con Bacagh O'Neill, and William Odhar O'Carroll. Therefore, this is a period practice, and there is no reason why we should not permit it.

Secondly, the original ban was stated to be because the some sound values in Gaelic and English are not represented by the same letter. This is, of course, correct. However, the same can be said of many other mixed language names. For instance, we readily register mixed English and Welsh names, yet the sound values for some letters in Welsh is not the same as those in English. We see no reason that the standards for Gaelic/English names should be any stricter than for other mixed language names.

Finally, the policy as it exists is just not fair to submitters. For ten years our rules have been set up to be explainable and to derive from the first principles established in the rules. This does not. Even now, nearly four years after the ban, most submitters and a substantial portion of the College of Arms cannot derive the regulation from our heraldic first principles and view it as merely heraldic arbitrariness. This does not help the submitter, the college, or the Society as a whole.

This does not affect the ruling on mixing Gaelic female given names with masculine patronymics. This precedent only affects the mixing of Gaelic and English orthography in the same name. (Cover Letter 2/99)

Erin is the submitter's legal name, and while registerable under the legal name allowance, is not a period name. The documentation for Amazonia comes from Uppity Women of Ancient Times by Vicki Leon, which while amusing to read, is not noted for its scholarship, and therefore is not a reliable source. The name as submitted combines a modern name (registerable under the legal name allowance) a possible Roman given name and an English descriptive. [The name was returned.] (Erin Amazonia the Tall, 6/99 p. 9)

Chinese & Japanese

While registerable, please inform the submitter that to the best of our knowledge, the name is suitable only for a child. (Akechi Nobumaru, 3/97 p. 4)

Compatible

[registering the given name Arielle] The name Ariel is found in the Bible, in Ezra, as the name of a male leader. While no one could produce documentation showing that Arielle is a period name, Hebrew names of this sort are frequently feminized by adding an "a" or an "e" at the end. For instance, Rafael bcomes Rafaelle, Gabriel becomes Gabrielle, Uriel becomes Urielle, Michael becomes Michaela, etc. Since our sources for period Hebrew names give us many more for men than for women, we are registering this as a compatible name. (Arielle the Golden, 4/97 p. 2)

[registering the given name Iain] It is not clear as to whether this spelling of Iain is a period form. While we would like to see some conclusive research on this subject, we also feel that this is a name that is popular in the SCA. Since it has been registered over 40 times, we are declaring it SCA compatible, and hope that further research will prove that this was unnecessary. (Iain Kyle the Red, 4/97 p. 7)

[registering the given name Ian] It is not clear as to whether this spelling of Ian is a period form. While we would like to see some conclusive research on this subject, we also feel that this is a name that is popular in the SCA. Since it has been registered over 100 times, we are declaring it SCA compatible, and hope that further research will prove that this was unnecessary. (Ian Mac Tawisch, 4/97 p. 11)

No evidence has been presented that Moira is a period name. However, given its usage in the SCA we are ruling it SCA compatible. (Moira MacVey, 6/97 p. 7)

Submitted as Rowenna de Montacute, no documentation was presented and none could be found for Rowenna as a period name. We have, therefore, changed it to the registerable Rowena. However, please inform her that Rowena does not seem to have been used by human beings in our period; it is an `SCA-compatible' Latinization of a name used by Geoffrey of Monmouth for a fictional character. (Rowena de Montacute, 2/98 p. 9)

According to the LoI Morgana is SCA compatible. That is not the case. Barring documentation that Morgana was used by a human as a given name prior to the year 1600, this name must be returned. (Morgana MacKay, 9/98 p. 9)

Conflict

[returning Sean Andrews] This was previously submitted as Sean Anderson and was returned by Laurel12/95 for conflict with John Anderson. Changing the name to Sean Andrews does not clear the ... conflict. (Sean Andrews, 8/96 p. 11).

[returning the household name Manor of the Silent Rose] [This] conflicts with the Order of the Rose. While in most cases, addition of an adjective clears conflict (eg. Order of the Golden Aardvark is clear of House Aardvark) the names of the SCA peerage orders and important mundane orders are given additional protection per RfS VI.4. (Sterling Schawn Leopard, 12/96 p. 15)

[returning the Companionate of the Pilgrims of Compostela] This would also raise a possible concern about conflict with the famous Spanish pilgrimage site. We are unwilling to register this name because of these issues. The source of the difficulty the kingdom is having with this name, and its predecessor submission, is that it is attempting to register some form of the famous period pilgrimage site as a kingdom order. Even should they succeed in circumventing the conflict and style pitfalls inherent in this attempt, such a registration would violate the spirit of the SCA's approach to recreation in the Current Middle Ages. The SCA creates its own places, persons, and orders rather than reenacting those from period. It would also be inappropriate for any party, even a kingdom, to appropriate such an important period phenomenon as the shrine of Santiago de Compostella for its own exclusive use. (Meridies, Kingdom of, 10/97 p. 12)

[returning the Order of the Silver Fleece] The name is [technically] clear of the Order of the Golden Fleece... However, under RfS VI.4., "Some names not otherwise forbidden by these rules are nevertheless too evocative of widely known and revered protected items to be registered..." While the Silver Fleece and the Golden Fleece are not in conflict, we believe it is too evocative of the Golden Fleece to be registered, especially since the Golden Fleece was the premier Order of Chivalry from its founding to at least 1918, and is still a recognized order of Chivalry with two branches, the Spanish branch over which His Catholic Majesty Juan Carlos presides, and the Austrian branch, of which His Imperial Highness Archduke Otto von Hapsburg is titular head. (Meridies, Kingdom of, 10/97 p. 12)

[Eleanor de Warren] is an aural conflict with Eleanor de Wardon. [The name was returned.] (Eleanor de Warren, 5/98 p. 24)

This is clear of the registered group name Dragon's Vale, because there is a significant difference between the elements Draco and Dragon. (Stronghold of Vale de Draco, 6/98 p. 11)

[registering Daniel Theoson of Mightrinwood] Daniel is the legal son of Theo of Mightrinwood whose name was registered in 1979. Theo of Mightrinwood died in October 1997. Normally we would not register a name of this form, since it is a violation of VI.3 begins, "Names that unmistakably imply ... close relationship to a protected person ... will generally not be registered." However, based on prior instances of allowing the legal heir to grant permission to conflict or releasing submissions, we will register this, since Daniel is Theo's legal son and heir. (Daniel Theoson of Mightrinwood, 7/98 p. 9)

This is being returned for an aural conflict with Ambré d'Avignon.... The change from André to Ambré is too slight to grant difference. (André Davignon, 8/98 p. 19)

Documentation & Documentable

[registering Madeleine Moinet dit Boismenu] While this name violates the long-standing prohibition against names of the form X called Y, in the early records it is quite common to find people recorded as X cognomento Y or, later, X dictus Y, X genannt Y, etc. These are official documentary forms no different in principle from X filius Y; like filius Y, dictus Y serves to specify which X is in question. In Latin, German, and French it is a legitimate documentary form. Therefore, since names of this sort are documented we are hereby overturning this ban for those languages. (Madeleine Moinet dit Boismenu, 7/96 p. 7)

[registering Agravaine] Given the use in period of many names from Arthuriana, we find the use of an undocumented name of a significant character whose name appears in period Arthurian literature in this form acceptable. (Agravaine Rhiwallon, 7/96 p. 11)

[registering the given name Roxanne] While we do not find this a very likely name, since the stories of Alexander the Great were so popular during the middle ages (Alexander was one of the Nine Worthies), and since there is documented evidence of taking names from Arthuriana, we are giving the submitter the benefit of the doubt. (Roxanne O'Malley, 10/96 p. 7)

Pwyll is strictly a mythological name, and therefore not suitable for use in SCA names. (Denison ap Morgan, 2/97 p. 17)

The original documentation ... came from copies of records from the International Genealogical Index for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints. Unfortunately, in large part, the LDS genealogical records are taken from the researches of interested amateurs whose work varies widely in quality and accuracy, and quality control is nearly non-existent. The people who do the work are well-meaning and usually are doing their best to be accurate. But most of them have next to no training and errors are not only relatively easy to make but just as easily compounded. ... [The] LDS records are not, in and of themselves, to be considered adequate name documentation. (Tristana de Winter, 3/97 p. 5)

[registering the given name Arielle] The name Ariel is found in the Bible, in Ezra, as the name of a male leader. While no one could produce documentation showing that Arielle is a period name, Hebrew names of this sort are frequently feminized by adding an "a" or an "e" at the end. For instance, Rafael bcomes Rafaelle, Gabriel becomes Gabrielle, Uriel becomes Urielle, Michael becomes Michaela, etc. Since our sources for period Hebrew names give us many more for men than for women, we are registering this as a compatible name. (Arielle the Golden, 4/97 p. 2)

[registering the given name Jessica] The Rules for Submission state "New name elements, whether invented by the submitter or borrowed from a literary source, may be used if they follow the rules for name formation from a linguistic tradition compatible with the domain of the Society and the name elements used." (Rule II.3, Invented Names) Elizabethan English qualifies as a linguistic tradition compatible with the domain of the SCA. Shakespeare qualifies as a period author and the Merchant of Venice just fits into our time period (ignoring the "gray" period from 1601 to 1650). The character in the play is human. Jessica may be "modern" according to Withycombe, but it is an acceptable SCA given name according to our rules. (Jessica Marten, 7/97 p. 5)

This submission ... translates the name of his group into Spanish. Names of registered extant SCA groups are only automatically registerable in the language in which they are actually registered. (Armando de la Rama de Mil Ojos, 7/97 p. 14)

The only documentation presented for [the name] was from a website that was not the official Laurel web site. Knowing nothing about this site and its reliability, it is not an acceptable source of documentation. [The name was registered in a different, documented form]. (Henry Enhallow, 1/98 p. 12)

[registering the given name Galen] Some questions were raised as to how well known a classical Greek physician would be in medieval England. Writings by Galen or attributed to him formed much of the basis of the medieval medical literature (Siraisi, Medieval and Early Renaissance Medicine: An Introduction to Knowledge and Practice, pp. 6, 10, 71-72, etc). Even very late in period, Galen was so familiar to the popular audience that Shakespeare used his name as a shorthand tag to denote a doctor (Merry Wives of Windsor, Act II, Scene 3). (Galen Brouwer, 2/98 p. 2)

[registering the Canton of Poukka] A possible problem was mentioned with the name for this group since it appears to be similar to the word Pooka, which is an English malevolent spirit. There are often words in one language which appear to be similar to a word in another language. Since the group name is formed correctly in Finnish, the and two words do not sound the same in Finnish, we see no problem with registering this. (Canton of Poukka, 2/98 p. 5)

Submitted as Arianwen Teague called Seeker, as noted in the LoI, Madeleine Moinet dit Boismenu's name was registered because 'called' is a legitimate documentary form in Latin, German and French. The name submitted here is none of those languages. The commentary ... also shows 'called' names as, for want of a better term, proper aliases (John Smith called John Doe called Richard Roe) rather than common nouns (John Smith called Bandit called Fellow). "Seeker" doesn't fit into these parameters. ["called Seeker" was deleted] (Arianwen Teague, 2/ 98 p. 6)

The submitter provided a letter from William F. Hoffman, author of Polish Surnames,: Origins and Meanings, giving the evidence for the name. Hoffman says that, Kazimierz is a modern (but probably pre-1600) Polish spelling of the name Kazimir, which can be found dating as far back as the 12th century. Since Hoffman is a recognized expert in the field of Polish names, though his speciality is the 19th century, and since the name in other spellings is documentably period, we are willing to accept Hoffman's opinion, and register the name as submitted. (Kazimierz Dimidowicz Dziecielowski, 3/98 p. 14)

We have been receiving letters of intent which cite web pages as part of their documentation. Let me remind the college that the only web pages that will be accepted across the Board as documentation are the ones on the Laurel web page as part of the www.sca.org site. NO other sites are acceptable as they stand. For documentation to accepted from any other site, the entire page(s) of documentation must be sent with the Laurel package, along with information about the site itself. (Cover Letter 4/98)

There has been a number of commenters counting the use of an SCA branch name in an SCA name submission as a "weirdness" if the official group name is in poor style -- i.e. not in the form of a documentable place-name. The use of any registered official groups will not count as a weirdness. To decide on a case-by-case basis if the group name is a weirdness in a personal name submission requires an additional, unnecessary level of decision. (Cover Letter 4/98)

The only documentation for Zibec came from Arabian Nights. According to al-Jamal, "One must be extremely careful in using any version of Alf Layla wa Layla (The Thousand Nights and One Night) as documentation for names. Many, many names in the Nights are (1) not of mere mortals, and/or (2) allegorical rather than "real" names. Additionally, the stories, while most of them are period, originate from a number of different places. In other words, not all of them are Arabic; there are Persian, Turkish, and Indian stories. As a consequence, not all of the names in them are Arabic, either, but Persian, Turkish, Indian, etc. These other languages have different ways of constructing names than does Arabic. So just because a name is found in this particular work does not mean that it is a real name or that it is constructed properly or that it may be incorporated into an otherwise Arabic name. " Since no documentation could be found for Zibec as a given or byname, we have dropped it. (Mahliqa bint Ali, 5/98 p. 7)

It is a registered household name. However, that does not mean that the submitter can use it. Household names, unlike official SCA group names, are not automatically acceptable for SCA name usage. (Ahbel of Regnesfolc, 8/98 p. 17)

Using Names from Literary Sources

Period literature such as histories, romances, sagas, legends and myths occupy a slightly unusual position as sources for period names. While the documents themselves are undeniable period themselves, the names in them range from names that can be clearly documented as being used by humans from other, more prosaic sources, to names assigned to humans in literature that appear to be unique to a particular character and cannot be documented to have been used by real medieval humans to names which are clearly assigned to supernatural creatures in the literature. Given this range of possibilities, period literature must be used cautiously as a source for medieval names.

A researcher must look carefully at the source, its purpose and the character that bears the name. As a rule of thumb, a literary work whose purpose is historical is going to be more accurate about naming practices in that culture and time than a mythological source, with the caveat that the further back a "historical" source goes from the writer's own time, the more fantastical elements may creep in. The fidelity of the translation must also be considered. The modern editions of many medieval sources are translated or the spelling regularized or modernized. This means that a documentable name may appear in a translated or modernized source in a form inappropriate to the period and culture from which the source originates. It is also generally necessary to look at the actual naming practices of the time period in which the work of literature was produced and thereafter, as some works have affected subsequent naming practices. If you can document the name from a more standard source, it is usually better to use the standard source rather than the literary work as documentation. However, names from period literature may be used, with some caveats.

1. Try other sources first - often better documentation can be found.

2. It has to be a name of a human being in the story. God/dess, elf, dwarf, etc. names aren't usable.

3. Beware of allegorical names in sources such as the English mystery plays. It is extremely unlikely that we would register Everyman as a name, even though it is found as a name of a human being in period mystery plays, unless actual documentation is found for it as a name for a real person.

4. And this is subjective - minor characters from minor works may or may not be acceptable. Especially if they do not fit the naming patterns of the time period. (Cover Letter 2/99)

Submitted as Rosalynd... the only documentation for Rosalynd in the LoI said that it was proposed as a variant of Rosalind first used in Shakespeare's As You Like It. Since that is from the end of our period, we do not think it is likely that a variant form of the name was used during our period. Therefore we have changed it to the form found in Shakespeare. (Rosalind atte Rylle, 3/99 p. 7)

The name is being returned for lack of a period given name. While it is true that it appears in Woulfe's Irish Names and Surnames, that is no guarantee that it is a period. Ó Corrain and Maguire (Gaelic Personal Names, p. 133) under Máire lists Maille (with no marking) among pet-forms of Máire with no date. However, given their previous note that the name Máire itself was extremely rare before the seventeenth century, it is quite unlikely that Máire formed a pet-form during our period. Barring documentation that it was used in period, it is not acceptable for use in the SCA. (Máille ingen Bhrain Cadal, 3/99 p. 12)

Names from the grey area are permissible for use when there is a strong likelihood that they could have first been used prior to 1600, but were not recorded until afterwards (though prior to 1650). In the case of the Society of Friends it is well know when they came into existence, so it is not a period model. (Christall Gordon, 3/99 p. 12)

Domain of the Society

Some questions were raised about the suitability of registering this name, since it is a proto-Irish name. However, this name is contemporaneous with Romano-British names which we register. Furthermore, proto-Irish bears the same relationship to medieval Irish as late Latin does to the Romance languages. Both are only one step removed from their medieval counterparts, as opposed to, Pharaonic Egyptian, which we do not register. (Esugenas maqqas Moridaci avvi Cremutanni, 1/98 p. 2)

[registering the given name Galen] Some questions were raised as to how well known a classical Greek physician would be in medieval England. Writings by Galen or attributed to him formed much of the basis of the medieval medical literature (Siraisi, Medieval and Early Renaissance Medicine: An Introduction to Knowledge and Practice, pp. 6, 10, 71-72, etc). Even very late in period, Galen was so familiar to the popular audience that Shakespeare used his name as a shorthand tag to denote a doctor (Merry Wives of Windsor, Act II, Scene 3). (Galen Brouwer, 2/98 p. 2)

English

[registering Rachel the Untame] Submitted as Rachel the Untamed, we have only been able to find one example of a period epithet in a participle form. Therefore, we have corrected the byname to a more likely form. (Rachel the Untame, 8/96 p. 8)

[returning the epithet Nobeard] The...documentation does not support the form No-X where X is a physical attribute. (Duncan Nobeard, 9/96 p. 17)

[registering James le Hauke of Stirling] Submitted as James le Hauke of Stirling Keep, we have dropped the term keep which was not used in this way in period. (James le Hauke of Stirling, 10/96 p. 6)

[returning the nickname Arronious] Period nicknames tend to be straightforward and to use common words: Thynnewyt `thin [of] wit, stupid', le Wis `the wise', Badinteheved `bad in the head', le Wilfulle, le Proude `the proud', le Hardy `the courageous', le Sour, le Cursede, le Deuyle `the devil', Blaksoule `black-soul'. The learned erroneous simply doesn't belong in this company. Although the adjective in question is not a past participle, we do not consider this case to be significantly different from those of Adam the Unexpected (East, returned 2/96) and Deirdre the Distracted (Ansteorra, returned 4/94), whose bynames were returned partly for being too abstract. Similarly, erroneous is too far from the common tongue to be at all believable as a period byname. (Aurelius the Arronious of Bikeleswade, 10/96 p. 8)

The byname "Distress Bringer" does not follow any period exemplars in either Old Norse or English. [The submission was returned.] (Odinkar the Distress Bringer, 11/96 p. 14)

[returning the byname the Dragonslayer] This is being returned for non-period construction; no one could demonstration the formation --slayer. (Alexis the Dragonslayer, 11/96 p. 15)

[registering the byname the Insane] There are plenty of genuinely period ways to express the idea: Reaney & Wilson s.nn. Witless and Giddy have John Wytles 1327 and Walter le Gidye 1219 `possessed of an evil spirit; mad, insane', and in his Origin of English Surnames (289) Reaney notes Ralph Badinteheved 1275 `bad in the head'. (Morgaine Lynn, 1/97 p. 6)

[returning the epithet the Amazed] No evidence has been presented to show that fairly abstract past participles like this were used as nicknames in period. (Alaric the Amazed, 5/97 p. 8)

[registering the given name Jessica] The Rules for Submission state "New name elements, whether invented by the submitter or borrowed from a literary source, may be used if they follow the rules for name formation from a linguistic tradition compatible with the domain of the Society and the name elements used." (Rule II.3, Invented Names) Elizabethan English qualifies as a linguistic tradition compatible with the domain of the SCA. Shakespeare qualifies as a period author and the Merchant of Venice just fits into our time period (ignoring the "gray" period from 1601 to 1650). The character in the play is human. Jessica may be "modern" according to Withycombe, but it is an acceptable SCA given name according to our rules. (Jessica Marten, 7/97 p. 5)

[returning the byname Wolfbane] Bynames of the form X-bane don't seem to have been used in our period, though it's just possible that the ON cognate bani was so used. In ON one could construct úlfsbani, meaning either `wolf's killer' or `Ulf's killer', but this doesn't justify Wolfbane. (Rowan Wolfbane, 8/97 p. 23)

[returning the College of Dragons Crossing] No evidence was presented in the LoI for the word dragon being used in English place name, and no one could find any evidence. Barring such evidence, we must return the name. (Dragons Crossing, College of, 10/97 p. 13)

Intercapitalization is not a period spelling custom. We have made the locative two words to keep the capitalization which is important to the submitter. (Robert John of Cedar Wood, 1/98 p. 9)

Submitted as Arianwen Teague called Seeker, as noted in the LoI, Madeleine Moinet dit Boismenu's name was registered because 'called' is a legitimate documentary form in Latin, German and French. The name submitted here is none of those languages. The commentary ... also shows 'called' names as, for want of a better term, proper aliases (John Smith called John Doe called Richard Roe) rather than common nouns (John Smith called Bandit called Fellow). "Seeker" doesn't fit into these parameters. ["called Seeker" was deleted] (Arianwen Teague, 2/ 98 p. 6)

Submitted as Owl's Haven, Shire of, a period English place of this type would be one word and normally not use the genitive within a compound name. We have corrected this in order to register the group name. (Shire of Owlhaven, 2/ 98 p. 8)

Found on the LoI as House Belshire, it was originally submitted as House of Belshire and changed in kingdom. Since House of Place follows documented period forms, such as House of York or House of Capulet, we have returned this to the originally submitted form. (Warmin of Belshire, 2/98 p. 11)

The byname uses a past participle verb, an extremely rare practice in period and has been banned several times in the past. [The name was returned.] (Edward the Unshaven, 3/98 p. 20)

[The name was] changed in kingdom because it was felt that the use of ap or ferch needed a Welsh name. However, late period Welsh used ap and ferch with English names, so we have restored the patronymic to the originally submitted form. (Myfanwy ferch Gerald, 11/98 p. 4)

[returning Shire of Wyvern's Lake] No documentation was presented for the use of Wyvern in a place name, and none was found by the College. Barring such documentation, the name must be returned. (Shire of Wyvern's Lake, 12/98 p. 15)

Mixed Gaelic/English Orthography

After a great deal of thought we have decided to overturn the precedent on mixed Gaelic/English orthography. There are many reasons for doing this, the most important of which are mentioned below.

First, and most importantly, while they were not common, there are period examples of mixed Gaelic/English orthography. These include: William Liath de Burgo, Cormac Óg Mac Carthy, Ulick na gceann de Burgo, Shane Donnghaileach, Con Bacagh O'Neill, and William Odhar O'Carroll. Therefore, this is a period practice, and there is no reason why we should not permit it.

Secondly, the original ban was stated to be because the some sound values in Gaelic and English are not represented by the same letter. This is, of course, correct. However, the same can be said of many other mixed language names. For instance, we readily register mixed English and Welsh names, yet the sound values for some letters in Welsh is not the same as those in English. We see no reason that the standards for Gaelic/English names should be any stricter than for other mixed language names.

Finally, the policy as it exists is just not fair to submitters. For ten years our rules have been set up to be explainable and to derive from the first principles established in the rules. This does not. Even now, nearly four years after the ban, most submitters and a substantial portion of the College of Arms cannot derive the regulation from our heraldic first principles and view it as merely heraldic arbitrariness. This does not help the submitter, the college, or the Society as a whole.

This does not affect the ruling on mixing Gaelic female given names with masculine patronymics. This precedent only affects the mixing of Gaelic and English orthography in the same name. (Cover Letter 2/99)

Submitted as Rosalynd... the only documentation for Rosalynd in the LoI said that it was proposed as a variant of Rosalind first used in Shakespeare's As You Like It. Since that is from the end of our period, we do not think it is likely that a variant form of the name was used during our period. Therefore we have changed it to the form found in Shakespeare. (Rosalind atte Rylle, 3/99 p. 7)

No documentation was presented for Oakencask. Since the Oxford English Dictionary first dates the term cask to the middle of the 16th century, and there are period descriptive names for barrelmakers, such as Tunn/Tunnewrytte, we find Oakencask highly unlikely. [The name was returned.] (James Oakencast the Just, 6/99 p. 10)

Epithets

[registering Rachel the Untame] Submitted as Rachel the Untamed, we have only been able to find one example of a period epithet in a participle form. Therefore, we have corrected the byname to a more likely form. (Rachel the Untame, 8/96 p. 8)

[returning the epithet Nobeard] The...documentation does not support the form No-X where X is a physical attribute. (Duncan Nobeard, 9/96 p. 17)

[returning the nickname Arronious] Period nicknames tend to be straightforward and to use common words: Thynnewyt `thin [of] wit, stupid', le Wis `the wise', Badinteheved `bad in the head', le Wilfulle, le Proude `the proud', le Hardy `the courageous', le Sour, le Cursede, le Deuyle `the devil', Blaksoule `black-soul'. The learned erroneous simply doesn't belong in this company. Although the adjective in question is not a past participle, we do not consider this case to be significantly different from those of Adam the Unexpected (East, returned 2/96) and Deirdre the Distracted (Ansteorra, returned 4/94), whose bynames were returned partly for being too abstract. Similarly, erroneous is too far from the common tongue to be at all believable as a period byname. (Aurelius the Arronious of Bikeleswade, 10/96 p. 8)

The byname "Distress Bringer" does not follow any period exemplars in either Old Norse or English. [The submission was returned.] (Odinkar the Distress Bringer, 11/96 p. 14)

[returning the byname the Dragonslayer] This is being returned for non-period construction; no one could demonstration the formation --slayer. (Alexis the Dragonslayer, 11/96 p. 15)

[registering the byname the Insane] There are plenty of genuinely period ways to express the idea: Reaney & Wilson s.nn. Witless and Giddy have John Wytles 1327 and Walter le Gidye 1219 `possessed of an evil spirit; mad, insane', and in his Origin of English Surnames (289) Reaney notes Ralph Badinteheved 1275 `bad in the head'. (Morgaine Lynn, 1/97 p. 6)

[returning the epithet the Amazed] No evidence has been presented to show that fairly abstract past participles like this were used as nicknames in period. (Alaric the Amazed, 5/97 p. 8)

[returning the byname Wolfbane] Bynames of the form X-bane don't seem to have been used in our period, though it's just possible that the ON cognate bani was so used. In ON one could construct úlfsbani, meaning either `wolf's killer' or `Ulf's killer', but this doesn't justify Wolfbane. (Rowan Wolfbane, 8/97 p. 23)

Submitted as Zachariah Sword-of-the-Lord de Kane, this name combined extremely rare practices, making it unregisterable as submitted. The spectacular religious-phrase name is rare, as are double given names. To the best of our knowledge those practices were never combined. And, Sword-of-the-Lord is not an attested form, but rather a constructed form. [The name was registered in a modified form.] (Zachariah de Kane, 12/ 97 p. 7)

Submitted as Arianwen Teague called Seeker, as noted in the LoI, Madeleine Moinet dit Boismenu's name was registered because 'called' is a legitimate documentary form in Latin, German and French. The name submitted here is none of those languages. The commentary ... also shows 'called' names as, for want of a better term, proper aliases (John Smith called John Doe called Richard Roe) rather than common nouns (John Smith called Bandit called Fellow). "Seeker" doesn't fit into these parameters. ["called Seeker" was deleted] (Arianwen Teague, 2/ 98 p. 6)

The byname uses a past participle verb, an extremely rare practice in period and has been banned several times in the past. [The name was returned.] (Edward the Unshaven, 3/98 p. 20)

No documentation was presented for Oakencask. Since the Oxford English Dictionary first dates the term cask to the middle of the 16th century, and there are period descriptive names for barrelmakers, such as Tunn/Tunnewrytte, we find Oakencask highly unlikely. [The name was returned.] (James Oakencast the Just, 6/99 p. 10)

Finnish

[registering the order name Katkenneen kynän ritarikunta] A question was raised about the order name, as to whether it might be presumptuous since the root is ritari which means knight. However, Ritarikunta is no more nor less than the Finnish word for an order of this type; that it is translated to English as order of knighthood is because there is no single word 'order' in Finnish. It is true that the word is a compound noun consisting of ritari 'knight' and kunta 'a collective; municipality'. Similarly, tiedekunta 'faculty' consists of tiede 'science' and kunta, and lautakunta 'council' of lauta 'plank' and kunta. It is one of the characteristics of the Finnish language that the meaning of a compound noun is not necessarily, or even generally, simply the sum of the meanings of its parts. Based on this, we find the order name acceptable for SCA usage. (Aarnimetsä, Barony of, 8/96 p. 2)

French

[registering Francesca d'Angelo le Noir] The name would be better as all Italian Francesca d'Angelo Nero, or all French Françoise Angel(ot) le Noir, however a French/Italian name [is] registerable. (Francesca d'Angelo le Noir, 7/96 p. 6)

[registering Madeleine Moinet dit Boismenu] While this name violates the long-standing prohibition against names of the form X called Y, in the early records it is quite common to find people recorded as X cognomento Y or, later, X dictus Y, X genannt Y, etc. These are official documentary forms no different in principle from X filius Y; like filius Y, dictus Y serves to specify which X is in question. In Latin, German, and French it is a legitimate documentary form. Therefore, since names of this sort are documented we are hereby overturning this ban for those languages. (Madeleine Moinet dit Boismenu, 7/96 p. 7)

According to the LoI -a-tout-Fiare, means Jack of all trades. However ... no evidence was provided for this sort of idiomatic phase being used as a byname in period French. Without such evidence we cannot register the name. (Jacques-a-toute-Fiare, 1/98 p. 19)

The submitter has provided documentation for the use of hyphens in some late period French names. While we are not sure that all French names may be combined with hyphens, we are giving him the benefit of the doubt. (Yvon-Maurice Charon, 8/98 p. 2)

Found on the LoI as Stefan de Basle, it was originally submitted as Stefan de Bâle, and changed in kingdom because they did not think the use of a circumflex was period. However, according to Metron Aristron: "The use of a line over a vowel to indicate the loss of a following consonant or consonants is fairly ancient, appearing regularly in period manuscripts in the vernacular as early as the eleventh century and much earlier in Latin sources. " Therefore, we have returned it to the originally submitted form. (Stefan de Bâle, 9/98 p. 2)

Gaelic see also Names-Scottish

[registering the given name Iain] It is not clear as to whether this spelling of Iain is a period form. While we would like to see some conclusive research on this subject, we also feel that this is a name that is popular in the SCA. Since it has been registered over 40 times, we are declaring it SCA compatible, and hope that further research will prove that this was unnecessary. (Iain Kyle the Red, 4/97 p. 7)

[registering the given name Ian] It is not clear as to whether this spelling of Ian is a period form. While we would like to see some conclusive research on this subject, we also feel that this is a name that is popular in the SCA. Since it has been registered over 100 times, we are declaring it SCA compatible, and hope that further research will prove that this was unnecessary. (Ian Mac Tawisch, 4/97 p. 11)

Submitted as Morgaine nic Gavin, the only non-literary citation for Morgaine is Morgaine Hubble, who in 1583 had a license to marry Tomison (i.e., Thomasine) Halestone (Bardsley s.n. Hailstone). In other words, Morgaine as a real name is attested only as a variant of the masculine Morgan. A Morgaine therefore cannot be nic Gavin `daughter of a Mac Gavin'. We have therefore dropped the "nic" in order to register the name. (Morgaine Gavin, 8/97 p. 9)

Some questions were raised about the suitability of registering this name, since it is a proto-Irish name. However, this name is contemporaneous with Romano-British names which we register. Furthermore, proto-Irish bears the same relationship to medieval Irish as late Latin does to the Romance languages. Both are only one step removed from their medieval counterparts, as opposed to, Pharaonic Egyptian, which we do not register. (Esugenas maqqas Moridaci avvi Cremutanni, 1/98 p. 2)

Moyra is an undocumented variant spelling of the Anglicized spelling of the Gaelic equivalent of Mary. Since the Gaelic form of Mary was a rare usage during our period, we do not feel that the Anglicized form was used enough to form variant spellings. [The name was registered in a different form.] (Moira of the Meadows, 1/98 p. 4)

This name has several serious problems, either of which would be grounds for return... Tiernan is a 20th century post-spelling-reform spelling of the earlier Tighearnán. (Tiernan Diego de las Aguas, 2/98 p. 16)

This name has several serious problems, either of which would be grounds for return... This would mix a Gaelic given name with Spanish, which, barring documentation, does not seem likely. (Tiernan Diego de las Aguas, 2/98 p. 16)

The name is being returned for incorrect construction. Gaelic doesn't use an in names. The correct construction should be Caínnear Ruadh or Caínnear Ruad. Since the submitter does not accept changes, the name must be returned (Caínnear an Ruad, 6/98 p. 17)

This is being returned for using double given names in Gaelic. To date no documentation has been presented for its use in Gaelic, and barring such documentation we cannot register such names. (Iain Dubhghall MacGriogair, 7/98 p. 13)

[returning the byname ingen an Fear-fearainn] According to the LoI the byname was intended to be Irish meaning "daughter of the landholder/landed farmer. However, while there are some Gaelic bynames formed from occupations, there are very few, and none are of this type. Barring documentation that occupational bynames were formed from occupations of this type, this must be returned. (Ceara ingen an Fear-fearainn, 10/98 p. 13)

Mixed Gaelic/English Orthography

After a great deal of thought we have decided to overturn the precedent on mixed Gaelic/English orthography. There are many reasons for doing this, the most important of which are mentioned below.

First, and most importantly, while they were not common, there are period examples of mixed Gaelic/English orthography. These include: William Liath de Burgo, Cormac Óg Mac Carthy, Ulick na gceann de Burgo, Shane Donnghaileach, Con Bacagh O'Neill, and William Odhar O'Carroll. Therefore, this is a period practice, and there is no reason why we should not permit it.

Secondly, the original ban was stated to be because the some sound values in Gaelic and English are not represented by the same letter. This is, of course, correct. However, the same can be said of many other mixed language names. For instance, we readily register mixed English and Welsh names, yet the sound values for some letters in Welsh is not the same as those in English. We see no reason that the standards for Gaelic/English names should be any stricter than for other mixed language names.

Finally, the policy as it exists is just not fair to submitters. For ten years our rules have been set up to be explainable and to derive from the first principles established in the rules. This does not. Even now, nearly four years after the ban, most submitters and a substantial portion of the College of Arms cannot derive the regulation from our heraldic first principles and view it as merely heraldic arbitrariness. This does not help the submitter, the college, or the Society as a whole.

This does not affect the ruling on mixing Gaelic female given names with masculine patronymics. This precedent only affects the mixing of Gaelic and English orthography in the same name. (Cover Letter 2/99)

The name is being returned for lack of a period given name. While it is true that it appears in Woulfe's Irish Names and Surnames, that is no guarantee that it is a period. Ó Corrain and Maguire (Gaelic Personal Names, p. 133) under Máire lists Maille (with no marking) among pet-forms of Máire with no date. However, given their previous note that the name Máire itself was extremely rare before the seventeenth century, it is quite unlikely that Máire formed a pet-form during our period. Barring documentation that it was used in period, it is not acceptable for use in the SCA. (Máille ingen Bhrain Cadal, 3/99 p. 12)

German

[registering Madeleine Moinet dit Boismenu] While this name violates the long-standing prohibition against names of the form X called Y, in the early records it is quite common to find people recorded as X cognomento Y or, later, X dictus Y, X genannt Y, etc. These are official documentary forms no different in principle from X filius Y; like filius Y, dictus Y serves to specify which X is in question. In Latin, German, and French it is a legitimate documentary form. Therefore, since names of this sort are documented we are hereby overturning this ban for those languages. (Madeleine Moinet dit Boismenu, 7/96 p. 7)

[registering Uto von den Sümpfen] While the name "of the swamps" seems unlikely, there are areas where more than one swamp abounds, so it is possible. (Uto von den Sümpfen, 8/96 p. 3)

[returning the surname von Welf] Welf is the Middle High German form of the name more familiar to English-speakers as Guelph. This is... the name associated with the princely family who were the primary opponents of the Hohenstaufens for control of the Holy Roman Empire and the ancestors of inter alia the current British royal family. Therefore this name violates RFS VI.1 on presumptuous names just as much as Hohenstaufen which is specifically mentioned as an exemplar in the current edition of the RFS. The use of Welf as a surname is presumptuous with any name. (Sigmund von Welf, 6/97 p. 13)

Flossennburg is a castle .... At the foot of the castle is a town by the name of Flossenburg. The submitter wanted the der in the name to show that she was from the castle, and not the town. However, to the best of our knowledge, medieval German did not distinguish in that manner, so barring documentation to that effect, the der must go. (Elisabeth Johanna von der Flossenburg, 11/98 p. 15)

The only documentation for Gurk was as the name of a river, and no documentation was presented for using von with a river name. [The submission was returned.] (Günther Klör von Gurk, 4/99 p. 17)

Given Names

Information has been provided showing Cellini to have been used as a man's given name in period. Therefore, di Cellini becomes an acceptable patronymic form. (Giovanni di Cellini, 7/96 p.2)

[returning the given name Freyja] There is no documentation for the name Freya/Freyja being used for anyone but the Goddess in our period. SCA given names must be given names used by Human beings in our period. (Freyja the Cunning, 5/97 p. 9)

[registering the given name Jessica] The Rules for Submission state "New name elements, whether invented by the submitter or borrowed from a literary source, may be used if they follow the rules for name formation from a linguistic tradition compatible with the domain of the Society and the name elements used." (Rule II.3, Invented Names) Elizabethan English qualifies as a linguistic tradition compatible with the domain of the SCA. Shakespeare qualifies as a period author and the Merchant of Venice just fits into our time period (ignoring the "gray" period from 1601 to 1650). The character in the play is human. Jessica may be "modern" according to Withycombe, but it is an acceptable SCA given name according to our rules. (Jessica Marten, 7/97 p. 5)

Submitted as Morgaine nic Gavin, the only non-literary citation for Morgaine is Morgaine Hubble, who in 1583 had a license to marry Tomison (i.e., Thomasine) Halestone (Bardsley s.n. Hailstone). In other words, Morgaine as a real name is attested only as a variant of the masculine Morgan. A Morgaine therefore cannot be nic Gavin `daughter of a Mac Gavin'. We have therefore dropped the "nic" in order to register the name. (Morgaine Gavin, 8/97 p. 9)

Greek

Evyenios was stated in the letter of intent to be "a phonetic transcription of the name from the Greek, not a transliteration." Given that there was a very strong tradition of how one rendered Greek words into the Roman alphabet in period, it is not reasonable to register something that does not fall within that tradition. Even today, Greek gamma is rendered in ordinary use as "g", in spite of the pronunciation. In a medieval context the likeliest possibilities would seem to be writing the name in Greek, which we would normally represent by a transliteration, or Latinizing it to Eugenius filius Athanasii or the like. [The name was returned.] (Evyenios Athanasiou, 6/97 p. 12)

Group Names

[registering Stagridge, Shire of] Submitted as Stag Ridge we have combined the two words to make it into a more period form. (Stagridge, Shire of, 8/96 p. 7)

[returning Shire of Azure Mere] This is being returned for non-period construction. Places were named using common, everyday words, which azure certainly was not. (The OED doesn't even have a citation for this meaning until the late 15th c.) Moreover, we can find no evidence for French azur in period English place-names, and OE mere `pool' would in any case normally be combined with an OE descriptive element. (Azure Mere, Shire of, 11/96 p. 15)

This submission ... translates the name of his group into Spanish. Names of registered extant SCA groups are only automatically registerable in the language in which they are actually registered. [The name was returned.] (Armando de la Rama de Mil Ojos, 7/97 p. 14)

[returning the College of Dragons Crossing] No evidence was presented in the LoI for the word dragon being used in English place name, and no one could find any evidence. Barring such evidence, we must return the name. (Dragons Crossing, College of, 10/97 p. 13)

Submitted as Owl's Haven, Shire of, a period English place of this type would be one word and normally not use the genitive within a compound name. We have corrected this in order to register the group name. (Shire of Owlhaven, 2/ 98 p. 8)

There has been a number of commenters counting the use of an SCA branch name in an SCA name submission as a "weirdness" if the official group name is in poor style -- i.e. not in the form of a documentable place-name. The use of any registered official groups will not count as a weirdness. To decide on a case-by-case basis if the group name is a weirdness in a personal name submission requires an additional, unnecessary level of decision. (Cover Letter 4/98)

[returning Shire of Wyvern's Lake] No documentation was presented for the use of Wyvern in a place name, and none was found by the College. Barring such documentation, the name must be returned. (Shire of Wyvern's Lake, 12/98 p. 15)

We are unwilling to declare Scola the equivalent of College and thereby reserve its use to official SCA groups, especially in light of the fact that there is already a Latin equivalent, Collegium. (Scola Metallorum, College of, 2/99 p. 9)

Gypsy

[registering Karika Cigani] This name combines a given name used, to the best of our knowledge, only within the Gypsy community, with a word used outside the Gypsy community for Gypsies. The combination seems unlikely, but we have decided to give the submitter the benefit of the doubt. (Karika Cigani, 11/96 p. 6)

Hebrew

[registering the given name Arielle] The name Ariel is found in the Bible, in Ezra, as the name of a male leader. While no one could produce documentation showing that Arielle is a period name, Hebrew names of this sort are frequently feminized by adding an "a" or an "e" at the end. For instance, Rafael bcomes Rafaelle, Gabriel becomes Gabrielle, Uriel becomes Urielle, Michael becomes Michaela, etc. Since our sources for period Hebrew names give us many more for men than for women, we are registering this as a compatible name. (Arielle the Golden, 4/97 p. 2)

Submitted as Avram Ibn-Gabirol, while standard modern usage would be to use a lower case I in Ibn, since Hebrew doesn't use upper and lower case letters, it is registerable. However, no documentation was presented for the use of the hyphen in Hebrew names, so we have removed it. (Avram Ibn Gabirol, 3/98 p. 13)

No documentation was presented and none could be found by the College of Arms, or in any of Laurel's extensive collection of Judaica, for period Hebrew names which used a hyphen. Therefore, we have removed it. (Yaakov Avraham ben Obadiah, 11/98 p. 7)

A question was raised in commentary regarding the use of double given names in period Jewish names. While not the norm, the use was not rare, and therefore we see no reason not to allow it. (Yaakov Avraham ben Obadiah, 11/98 p. 7)

Heraldic titles

[returning Syntaxis Pursuivant] While a book is a fine heraldic charge, we know of no example of a specific book being so used. This plus the fact that Latin heraldic titles are an undocumented practice places this two steps from period practice. (Ansteorra, Kingdom of, 7/96 p. 15)

[returning Twilight Herald] This name is not in keeping with period practice of naming heralds after heraldic objects, places, or surnames. (Ansteorra, Kingdom of, 7/96 p. 15)

After much thought we have decided to allow heraldic titles to be transferred to individual heralds under the following conditions:

1. The title must have been granted to the individual herald by the crown of the kingdom and the principal herald of the kingdom (except in cases where the Principal Herald is receiving a personal title for himself), or by the Laurel Sovereign, as a personal title for the herald.

2. The transfer must appear on a letter of intent, and follow all the requirements of any transfer.

3. The title will be counted as a name, when seeing how many registered items the person has. (Cover Letter 4/97)

Household

[registering Company of Artificers of Marinus] Submitted as Company of Artificers, we have with the consent of the submissions herald, added the phrase "of Marinus" to make it less generic. (Marinus, Barony of, 9/96 p. 3)

[returning the household name Manor of the Silent Rose] [This] conflicts with the Order of the Rose. While in most cases, addition of an adjective clears conflict (eg. Order of the Golden Aardvark is clear of House Aardvark) the names of the SCA peerage orders and important mundane orders are given additional protection per RfS VI.4. (Sterling Schawn Leopard, 12/96 p. 15)

The household name was supposed to be Gaelic for "Clan of the Mountain Hall"... this follows none of the period models for household names. (Aislinne of Alainmor, 1/97 p. 18)

[registering Company of Hussars of Axemoor] Submitted as an order name for Hussars of Axemoor, it lacked a designator. We have added the designator acceptable to the Baron in order to avoid returning the order name. (Barony of Axemoor, 2/98 p. 5)

Found on the LoI as House Belshire, it was originally submitted as House of Belshire and changed in kingdom. Since House of Place follows documented period forms, such as House of York or House of Capulet, we have returned this to the originally submitted form. (Warmin of Belshire, 2/ 98 p. 11)

[registering The House of the Three Furies] Dragon has provided documentation for Inns named after mythological characters. (Yvon-Maurice Charon, 8/98 p. 2)

It is a registered household name. However, that does not mean that the submitter can use it. Household names, unlike official SCA group names, are not automatically acceptable for SCA name usage. (Ahbel of Regnesfolc, 8/98 p. 17)

Hungarian

[registering Gregor Vörös] Submitted in kingdom as Gregor Vörös, it was reversed and submitted as Vörös Gregor. ince this is not a wholly Hungarian name, which would have the surname first, but rather a Hungarian/German one, we see no reason not to put this into the form the submitter prefers. (Gregor Vörös, 8/96, p. 8)

Hungarian practice is to put the given name after the surname, which practice was not followed here. Without evidence of Hungarian's using the standard practice of given name surname, and since the client will not take changes, the submission will have to be returned. [See, however, the ruling of 8/98 infra.] (Aléna Széllvár, 8/96 p. 9)

The question was raised as to which is the appropriate form for Hungarian names, with the given name first or the byname first. Hungarian names may be registered with either the given name or byname as the first element, except when the byname is an unmarked patronym or metronym. In that case, the byname should follow the given name; this is consistent with Hungarian practice through the mid 16th century, and should help to avoid future confusion. [For a longer discussion of this ruling see the Cover Letter to the August 1998 Laurel letter.] (István Nyiregyhazi, 8/98 p. 8)

Since Kázmér [Régi Magyar Családnevek Szótára: XIV-XVII Század", Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság] includes a number of names apparently derived from Italian, an Italian/Hungarian name is acceptable under our rules. However, it must follow the standard practice of having the given name first. (Ileana Welgy, 8/98 p. 11)

No documentation was presented, and none could be found for regular contact between Hungary and Scotland. [The name was returned.] (Kinga MacKinnon, 8/98 p. 15)

Since there is no evidence for double bynames in period Hungary, and since the submitter allows no changes, the name must be returned. (Attila Györi Sandor, 11/98 p. 12)

Italian

Information has been provided showing Cellini to have been used as a man's given name in period. Therefore, di Cellini becomes an acceptable patronymic form. (Giovanni di Cellini, 7/96 p.2)

[registering Francesca d'Angelo le Noir] The name would be better as all Italian Francesca d'Angelo Nero, or all French Françoise Angel(ot) le Noir, however a French/Italian name [is] registerable. (Francesca d'Angelo le Noir, 7/96 p. 6)

The surname Sforza is one of those names such as Hohenstaufen which are so closely associated with a single sovereign royal family as to be presumptuous in their use. Indeed, in times past it was one of those that were used as an exemplar for that category of restricted names. (The name of the dynasty was derived from the nickname of its founder and in period was associated closely with the immediate family of the sovereign Dukes of Milan.) The use of the Sforza surname is tantamount to a claim to being from the immediate family of the sovereign Dukes of Milan and is not allowed under RFS VI.1 (Beatrice Sforza, 2/ 98 p. 14)

Since Kázmér [Régi Magyar Családnevek Szótára: XIV-XVII Század", Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság] includes a number of names apparently derived from Italian, an Italian/Hungarian name is acceptable under our rules. However, it must follow the standard practice of having the given name first. (Ileana Welgy, 8/98 p. 11)

Japanese see Chinese & Japanese

Latin

[registering Madeleine Moinet dit Boismenu] While this name violates the long-standing prohibition against names of the form X called Y, in the early records it is quite common to find people recorded as X cognomento Y or, later, X dictus Y, X genannt Y, etc. These are official documentary forms no different in principle from X filius Y; like filius Y, dictus Y serves to specify which X is in question. In Latin, German, and French it is a legitimate documentary form. Therefore, since names of this sort are documented we are hereby overturning this ban for those languages. (Madeleine Moinet dit Boismenu, 7/96 p. 7)

Transliteration into Latin in classical and medieval times almost universally uses the initial "C'. Therefore we have changed the initial letter to "C" as the submitter allows. (Carina de Elephantide, 8/98 p. 6)

Found on the LoI as Stefan de Basle, it was originally submitted as Stefan de Bâle, and changed in kingdom because they did not think the use of a circumflex was period. However, according to Metron Aristron: "The use of a line over a vowel to indicate the loss of a following consonant or consonants is fairly ancient, appearing regularly in period manuscripts in the vernacular as early as the eleventh century and much earlier in Latin sources. " Therefore, we have returned it to the originally submitted form. (Stefan de Bâle, 9/98 p. 2)

We are unwilling to declare Scola the equivalent of College and thereby reserve its use to official SCA groups, especially in light of the fact that there is already a Latin equivalent, Collegium. (Scola Metallorum, College of, 2/99 p. 9)

Names-Lingua Anglica see Bilingual

Names-Magyar see Hungarian

Mongolian

Mongols did not as a rule use three-part names. Fortunately, Pennon has pointed out that there is an uncommon but attested pattern of hyphenated names, to which this submission can easily be made to conform. We have taken his suggestion. (Chinua Al-Naran, 5/99 p. 8)

Mundane Name Allowance

[returning the given name Legend] The given name Legend is the submitter's legal given name, and was submitted under the mundane name allowance....this name [is] obtrusively modern. (Legend of Hunter's Home, 3/97 p. 13)< /p>

[returning the given name LarsEllen] The given name, with the capital "E" in the middle of the word and the mixture of elements make this name unacceptable, even under the mundane name allowance bringing this up to the "Moon Unit" range. (LarsEllen Laurearsi MacAvoy, 7/97 p. 16)

Erin is the submitter's legal name, and while registerable under the legal name allowance, is not a period name. The documentation for Amazonia comes from Uppity Women of Ancient Times by Vicki Leon, which while amusing to read, is not noted for its scholarship, and therefore is not a reliable source. The name as submitted combines a modern name (registerable under the legal name allowance) a possible Roman given name and an English descriptive. [The name was returned.] (Erin Amazonia the Tall, 6/99 p. 9)

Norse

The byname "Distress Bringer" does not follow any period exemplars in either Old Norse or English. [The submission was returned.] (Odinkar the Distress Bringer, 11/96 p. 14)

Old Norse does not use unmarked patronymics, so the proper ON name formed from these elements would be Ívarr Snćbjarnarson. The Old Norse nickname for ice bear (polar bear) is hvítabjörn, not snaebjorn. Since the submitter refuses to take changes, we have no choice but to return the name. [This suggests that either problem is sufficient reason for return.] (Ivar Snaebjorn, 12/96 p. 14)

[returning Haki Longswimmer] The byname obviously requires the lingua anglica allowance. This may be used provided that one of two conditions is met. The byname may be an English translation of a documented period byname in the source language, here ON, so long as the translation is chosen so as not to be obtrusively modern; or it may be a fairly generic period English byname in a period form. Longswimmer meets neither of those criteria: it's not a normal ME form of byname, and it's not a translation of a known ON byname. (Hake Longswimmer, 2/97 p. 25)

Although Einar is a Scandinavian name, we are allowing the use of ap, which is Welsh in front of it, since the spelling would be reasonable in Welsh. Welsh has a habit of adopting non-Welsh names as is into Welsh, and there is a long history of Welsh/Scandinavian cultural proximity and contact. (Owain ap Einar, 3/97 p. 1)

[returning the given name Freyja] There is no documentation for the name Freya/Freyja being used for anyone but the Goddess in our period. SCA given names must be given names used by Human beings in our period. (Freyja the Cunning, 5/97 p. 9)

[returning the byname Wolfbane] Bynames of the form X-bane don't seem to have been used in our period, though it's just possible that the ON cognate bani was so used. In ON one could construct úlfsbani, meaning either `wolf's killer' or `Ulf's killer', but this doesn't justify Wolfbane. (Rowan Wolfbane, 8/97 p. 23)

Submitted as Andreas Björnlik, no documentation was presented and none could be found for this formation (Bear-corpse) as a period byname. However, since Old Norse used Fox as a byname, Björn by itself no more than one weirdness. We are dropping the lik in order to register the name and the armory. (Andreas Björn, 2/98 p. 4)

Submitted as Bragi Skald Bragason, Geirr Bassi (p. 27) documents skald as one of that relatively small group of bynames (like skalla) that prefix the given name. Therefore, the epithet should appear before Bragi. We have made that required change. (Skald-Bragi Bragason, 3/98 p. 14)

Submitted as Astridr inn kyrri, the given name is feminine and the byname is in the masculine form. Since the byname must agree with the given name in gender we have corrected it. (Astridr in kyrra, 8/98 p. 3)

Order & Award

[returning Orden de la Estrella de Vida] The order name means "Order of the Star of Life", which does not fit any known period exemplars of order names. (Altavia, Barony of, 7/96 p. 20)

[registering the order name Katkenneen kynän ritarikunta] A question was raised about the order name, as to whether it might be presumptuous since the root is ritari which means knight. However, Ritarikunta is no more nor less than the Finnish word for an order of this type; that it is translated to English as order of knighthood is because there is no single word 'order' in Finnish. It is true that the word is a compound noun consisting of ritari 'knight' and kunta 'a collective; municipality'. Similarly, tiedekunta 'faculty' consists of tiede 'science' and kunta, and lautakunta 'council' of lauta 'plank' and kunta. It is one of the characteristics of the Finnish language that the meaning of a compound noun is not necessarily, or even generally, simply the sum of the meanings of its parts. Based on this, we find the order name acceptable for SCA usage. (Aarnimetsä, Barony of, 8/96 p. 2)

[returning the order name Keeper of the Flame of Calontir] No one in the College could find a period exemplar for a name of this type. (Calontir, Kingdom of, 10/96 p. 10)

No one has been able to provide any evidence that period order names ever used a location in the name. Therefore, from now on, adding the name of a place to an order name will be considered one weirdness. (Cover Letter 11/96)

[returning The Order of the Stellar Constabulary of Northshield and The Order of the Griffin Sheriffs of Northshield] This name does not follow any period exemplars of order names, and is being returned for violating RfS III.2.b.ii. Names of Orders and Awards. Names of orders and awards must follow the patterns of the names of period orders and awards. These are often the names of saints; others are similar to sign names (see RfS III.2.a.iii). Some examples are: the Order of Saint Michael, the Order of Saint Maurice and Saint Lazarus, the Brethren of the Sword, the Order of the Garter, La Toison d'Or (the Order of the Golden Fleece), the Order of the Golden Rose, the Order of the Star, the Order of the Swan, La Orden de la Jara (the Knights of the Tankard), the Order of Lilies. (Northshield, Principality of, 11/96 p. 16)

[returning the Order of the Valiant Swans of Aneala] This is being returned for non-period style. The name has two problems. First, the use of swans versus swan; no one could come up with a period order-name in the plural. Second, the addition of a place name to the order name, which again no could some up with a period example. If one or both of these problems were corrected, the name should be registerable.

[returning Equitatus Ansteorrae] Unfortunately, in Latin, Equitatus is not merely an equestrian order, but the equestrian order. This is frequently translated into English simply as "the knights". Since this guild is not restricted to members of the chivalry only, it must be returned for presumption. (Ansteorra, Kingdom of, 6/97 p. 9)

[returning the Order of the Anvil and the Rose] The name is being returned for conflict with the Order of the Rose (SCA peerage order). RfS VI.4 Other Presumptuous Names states:

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

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

The rules specifically say the Order of the Rose and the Laurel is too evocative of both names to be registered. (Blackstone Mountain, Barony of, 7/97 p. 19)

[returning The Order of the Desert Flower of the Outlands] While the LoI claimed that the order name follows the period example of the Order of the Golden Fleece, it does not. The mundane order name is a straightforward Classical allusion; the present submission, even without the locative, is not. (Outlands, Kingdom of, 7/97 p. 21)

[returning the Companionate of the Pilgrims of Compostela] Taking this at face value, "Companionate" is the designator and "Pilgrims of Compostela" is the substantive portion of the name. This pattern follows no know period exemplars. If we regard both "Companionate" and "Pilgrims" to be designators then there is the problem of using two designators (a possibility which the RfS don't seem to take into account, and which at the least requires some justification). (Meridies, Kingdom of, 10/97 p. 12)

[returning the Companionate of the Pilgrims of Compostela] This would also raise a possible concern about conflict with the famous Spanish pilgrimage site. We are unwilling to register this name because of these issues. The source of the difficulty the kingdom is having with this name, and its predecessor submission, is that it is attempting to register some form of the famous period pilgrimage site as a kingdom order. Even should they succeed in circumventing the conflict and style pitfalls inherent in this attempt, such a registration would violate the spirit of the SCA's approach to recreation in the Current Middle Ages. The SCA creates its own places, persons, and orders rather than reenacting those from period. It would also be inappropriate for any party, even a kingdom, to appropriate such an important period phenomenon as the shrine of Santiago de Compostella for its own exclusive use. (Meridies, Kingdom of, 10/97 p. 12)

[returning the Order of the Silver Fleece] The name is [technically] clear of the Order of the Golden Fleece... However, under RfS VI.4., "Some names not otherwise forbidden by these rules are nevertheless too evocative of widely known and revered protected items to be registered..." While the Silver Fleece and the Golden Fleece are not in conflict, we believe it is too evocative of the Golden Fleece to be registered, especially since the Golden Fleece was the premier Order of Chivalry from its founding to at least 1918, and is still a recognized order of Chivalry with two branches, the Spanish branch over which His Catholic Majesty Juan Carlos presides, and the Austrian branch, of which His Imperial Highness Archduke Otto von Hapsburg is titular head. (Meridies, Kingdom of, 10/97 p. 12)

[registering Order of the Greenwood Company] Note: Order of the Red Company is registered ... and therefore this usage is grandfathered to them. Normally we would not register a name with two designators. (Kingdom of the Middle, 2/98 p. 8)

[returning Order of the Citizens of Axemoor] This name does not follow any known pattern of period order names. While there is period precedent for citizens and non-citizens being of different social orders, this is not the sense of "order" which applies to the SCA. We use the word in the sense of chivalric orders. Absent any examples of such orders with names analogous to this, it must be returned. (Barony of Axemoor, 3/98 p. 21)

[returning Order of the Citizens of Axemoor] We also have some concern about this use of "citizen" as a bestowed honor. There is an implication that the members of this order are enfranchised in baronial matters, and those members of the populace not members of this order therefore being disenfranchised. While we don't believe that this is the barony's intent, it would do well to further consider this. (Barony of Axemoor, 3/98 p. 21)

Names-Polish see Slavic

Presumption & Pretense

[registering the order name Katkenneen kynän ritarikunta] A question was raised about the order name, as to whether it might be presumptuous since the root is ritari which means knight. However, Ritarikunta is no more nor less than the Finnish word for an order of this type; that it is translated to English as order of knighthood is because there is no single word 'order' in Finnish. It is true that the word is a compound noun consisting of ritari 'knight' and kunta 'a collective; municipality'. Similarly, tiedekunta 'faculty' consists of tiede 'science' and kunta, and lautakunta 'council' of lauta 'plank' and kunta. It is one of the characteristics of the Finnish language that the meaning of a compound noun is not necessarily, or even generally, simply the sum of the meanings of its parts. Based on this, we find the order name acceptable for SCA usage. (Aarnimetsä, Barony of, 8/96 p. 2)

[registering {given name} the Semstress of Dunkeld] RfS.VI.1 states that "In some cases, use of an otherwise inoffensive occupational surname in a territorial context may make it appear to be a title or rank." However, the operative word here is may. We do not feel that Seamstress/Semstress is a title/rank. (Elspeth the Semstress of Dunkeld, 8/96 p. 6)

[registering Elizabeth of Malta] The problem of presumptuousness was raised, since Queen Elizabeth II of England was Queen of Malta until 1964. It was the opinion of most, though not all, of the members of the College, who commented on this issue, that the name was not presumptuous. (Elizabeth of Malta, 9/96 p. 11)

[returning the given name Freyja] There is no documentation for the name Freya/Freyja being used for anyone but the Goddess in our period. SCA given names must be given names used by Human beings in our period. (Freyja the Cunning, 5/97 p. 9)

[returning Equitatus Ansteorrae] Unfortunately, in Latin, Equitatus is not merely an equestrian order, but the equestrian order. This is frequently translated into English simply as "the knights". Since this guild is not restricted to members of the chivalry only, it must be returned for presumption. (Ansteorra, Kingdom of, 6/97 p. 9)

[returning the surname von Welf] Welf is the Middle High German form of the name more familiar to English-speakers as Guelph. This is... the name associated with the princely family who were the primary opponents of the Hohenstaufens for control of the Holy Roman Empire and the ancestors of inter alia the current British royal family. Therefore this name violates RFS VI.1 on presumptuous names just as much as Hohenstaufen which is specifically mentioned as an exemplar in the current edition of the RFS. The use of Welf as a surname is presumptuous with any name. (Sigmund von Welf, 6/97 p. 13)

[returning Zoltán the Magnificent] This is being returned for violating VI.1 - Names Claiming Rank: Names containing titles, territorial claims, or allusions to rank are considered presumptuous. This combines a name meaning sultan with an epithet which was most often applied to individuals of extremely high status.... While documentation showing Zoltán to be a period name was provided, in combination with "the Magnificent" (effectively, Sultan the Magnificent) takes it beyond the bounds of acceptability. (Zoltán the Magnificent, 6/97 p. 14)

The surname Sforza is one of those names such as Hohenstaufen which are so closely associated with a single sovereign royal family as to be presumptuous in their use. Indeed, in times past it was one of those that were used as an exemplar for that category of restricted names. (The name of the dynasty was derived from the nickname of its founder and in period was associated closely with the immediate family of the sovereign Dukes of Milan.) The use of the Sforza surname is tantamount to a claim to being from the immediate family of the sovereign Dukes of Milan and is not allowed under RFS VI.1. (Elizabetta Sforza, 7/97 p. 15)

[returning the Order of the Anvil and the Rose] The name is being returned for conflict with the Order of the Rose (SCA peerage order). RfS VI.4 Other Presumptuous Names states:

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

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

The rules specifically say the Order of the Rose and the Laurel is too evocative of both names to be registered. (Blackstone Mountain, Barony of, 7/97 p. 19)

[returning the name Yasha Ivanovich Romanoff and the device Argent, a double-headed eagle displayed gules maintaining in each claw an egg, charged on the breast with an Orthodox cross Or, in chief a beribboned egg gules charged with a mullet of eight points Or.] The issue of presumptuousness was raised in regards to the entire submission. It is our opinion that if the name was registerable the entire submission would violate XI.2. Presumptuous Armory....The problem here is not any one charge, but the combination of everything. The name, the eagle, the cross and the egg push this submission over the edge. [The submission was returned for this reason, as well as separate problems with the name and device.] (Yasha Ivanovich Romanoff, 1/98 p. 18)

The surname Sforza is one of those names such as Hohenstaufen which are so closely associated with a single sovereign royal family as to be presumptuous in their use. Indeed, in times past it was one of those that were used as an exemplar for that category of restricted names. (The name of the dynasty was derived from the nickname of its founder and in period was associated closely with the immediate family of the sovereign Dukes of Milan.) The use of the Sforza surname is tantamount to a claim to being from the immediate family of the sovereign Dukes of Milan and is not allowed under RFS VI.1 (Beatrice Sforza, 2/ 98 p. 14)

Protected

[registering Household of the Golden Palm] A possible conflict was called with the Award of the Golden Palm, the top award at the Cannes film festival. ...we have determined that it was not important enough to protect. (Sheila Eileen Natalia MacDougal of Perth, 9/96 p. 1)

Names-Russian see Slavic

Scottish see also Gaelic

[returning the byname MacLiam] There is no real evidence for Liam as a period name. (Connor MacLiam, 12/96 p. 16)

No documentation was presented, and none could be found for regular contact between Hungary and Scotland. [The name was returned.] (Kinga MacKinnon, 8/98 p. 15)

Submitted as ... of Clan Cameron, The available evidence indicates that the way membership in such a clan (no matter what "clan" word was used for the group) was indicated in a personal name was by the use of ó (or older ua) plus the clan eponym in the genitive, not by using a construction equivalent to 'of Clan X'. We have removed the word clan, and changed the name to the closest registerable form to the originally submitted form. (Isabel Kelsey de Cameron, 11/98 p. 1)

Black 's Surnames of Scotland (p. 719 under Seumas) says "Seumas. The Gaelic spelling of James. Often incorrectly Englished Hamish, which is the English pronunciation of the vocative form (G. Sheumais)." Withycombe's The Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names (p. 144 under Hamish) says, "an attempt to render phonetically Sheumais, the vocative of Seumas, the Gaelic form of James (q.v.). Scott has a Hamish MacTavish, but the present vogue of the name seems to be due to the novels of William Black (1841-98), very popular in their day." Presumably Withycombe is referring to the author Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832) in this reference. No evidence has been found to show that Hamish is anything but a post-period form. In-period renderings of Hamish are Seumas in Gaelic and James in English. [The name was returned.] (Hamish Robertson, 5/99 p. 15)

Slavic

We would like to thank Predslaza Vydrina for all hard work she did on researching the use of double Christian names in Russia in period. We are very impressed with the amount of work and research she did on this. At this time, however, we are not prepared to ban them, though we will consider them a weirdness. We also want to remind the College that three given names in Russian is banned. (Cover Letter 6/97)

Submitted as Csendes Zsádany, neither element uses a period spelling. Csendes is dated 1693 and "ZS" is only used in modern spellings. We have corrected these to the closest period forms. (Czendes Sadany, 1/98 p. 5)

Submitted as Kamle Kropotova, Kamle is almost certainly a variant spelling as Russian feminine names all end in -a. Thus, the name that is documented seems to be a spelling variation. To use it in this spelling, the entire name should follow the same convention of changing a terminal -a into -e. Since the "e" in this case is pronounced like the French é and thus preserves the sound the submitter wants, we have done so. (Kamle Kropotove, 5/98p. 14)

Submitted as Skameika Draikova, this combined a masculine given name with a feminine patronymic byname. Since Russian does not combine names in this fashion, we have changed the patronymic to the masculine form. (Skameika Draikov, 5/98 p. 15)

The byname is in the masculine form, not the feminine... Polish requires names to agree in gender with the bearer, and the submitter does not take changes, we must return this name. (Katarzyna Wilk, 11/98 p. 15)

This is being returned for using a triple given name in Russian, for which there is no evidence of any usage any time in our period. Even double Christian given names in Russian are considered a weirdness, since the documentation for them is virtually non-existent. (Tatiana Ariadna Kalisfena Kazimierova, 1/99 p. 13)

Spanish

The primary problem with the name is the form: <given name> <given name> <locative> <given name> <locative>. A quick survey of the first 4000 names (A-C) in the sixth volume of the Catalogo (dating around 1580), shows of those names, 5 had possibly four elements, and none had five. Of those five names, two (María Alvarez de Sotomayor de Quiroga and Pedro Gonzalez de Baeza de los Hermanos) are probably actually of the form <given name> <patronymic> <compound locative>. One other (Diego de Peralta Cabeza de Vaca) is probably of the form <given name> <locative> <compound locative> as Cabeza de Vaca is independently listed as a place name (in volume IV). The other two use the modern y formation: Diego García de Montalvo y Colindra and Miguel Jeronimo de Mendoza y Arquillada. [The name was returned.] (Constanzia Maria Morales Enzina d'Zamora, 10/97 p.11)

This name has several serious problems, either of which would be grounds for return... This would mix a Gaelic given name with Spanish, which, barring documentation, does not seem likely. (Tiernan Diego de las Aguas, 2/98 p. 16)

Titles

At the April 1998 the Board of Directors upheld my ruling on courtesy titles. Except for people who already have them, and are therefore grandfathered, they will no longer be used in the SCA. (Cover Letter 7/98)

Welsh

Pwyll is strictly a mythological name, and therefore not suitable for use in SCA names. (Denison ap Morgan, 2/97 p. 17)

Although Einar is a Scandinavian name, we are allowing the use of ap, which is Welsh in front of it, since the spelling would be reasonable in Welsh. Welsh has a habit of adopting non-Welsh names as is into Welsh, and there is a long history of Welsh/Scandinavian cultural proximity and contact. (Owain ap Einar, 3/97 p. 1)

Submitted as Morgaine nic Gavin, the only non-literary citation for Morgaine is Morgaine Hubble, who in 1583 had a license to marry Tomison (i.e., Thomasine) Halestone (Bardsley s.n. Hailstone). In other words, Morgaine as a real name is attested only as a variant of the masculine Morgan. A Morgaine therefore cannot be nic Gavin `daughter of a Mac Gavin'. We have therefore dropped the "nic" in order to register the name. (Morgaine Gavin, 8/97 p. 9)

We have never seen any period records that use known as X, much less Welsh ones. The personal nickname belongs in its normal position right after the given name. The two locatives are a serious anomaly. Locatives are pretty rare in Welsh names in the first place and we have yet to find a single example of a double locative. [The name was returned. It is not clear whether the individual problems were sufficient to cause the return, or if it was the combination of them.] (Llewelyn de Granville of Gwent (Known as Cadno), 10/97 p. 12)

Since Welsh does in fact use unmarked patronymics we are removing the ferch and restoring the name to the form originally submitted. (Cerian Dafydd, 1/98 p. 8)

Submitted as Cain y Saethydd, however when used as a byname, an occupation usually will not be preceded by the definite article. Therefore, we have eliminated the inappropriate "y". (Cain Seathydd, 2/98 p. 1)

[The name was] changed in kingdom because it was felt that the use of ap or ferch needed a Welsh name. However, late period Welsh used ap and ferch with English names, so we have restored the patronymic to the originally submitted form. (Myfanwy ferch Gerald, 11/98 p. 4)

No acceptable documentation was presented for Gweneth. However, since Morgan and Morgan's Welsh Surnames has Gwineth dated to 1577 and Gwentt dated to 1629, Gweneth is a reasonable period form. (Gweneth ferch Morgan, 6/99 p. 3)



Return to the Precedents Index Page




Jump to Precedents main page
Jump to Laurel main page



maintained by Codex Herald

This page was last updated on Sunday, April 17th, 2016 @ 03:54 pm CDT

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