The Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory:
The Rules for Submissions

As approved April 29, 2012 and updated November 20, 2023

Hide All Examples

Introduction

This document contains the standards Laurel uses to evaluate all submissions of names and armory for registration. These are the authoritative standards - other documents may summarize or provide simplified versions, but submissions must meet the criteria as laid out here. However, these Rules are not a step-by-step procedure for devising names or armory. Policies for heralds and for the submissions process are in other documents, such as the Administrative Handbook, available on the Laurel website.

This document is primarily for Laurel to use when making decisions on whether a name or piece of armory can be registered. Laurel evaluates each submission to ensure that it is period within the framework that these Rules requires, does not conflict with other registered items, and is not presumptuous or offensive.

We make these Rules available so that anyone interested can read and learn about the standards. They are also used by the members of the College of Arms in advising Laurel on whether a submission meets these standards.
We encourage submitters and newer heralds to use the training materials available on the Laurel website. These materials give instructions for creating medieval-style names and armory. They explain the processes for submitting those names and armory for registration. They give overviews of these rules that are sufficient to answer most questions. However, in the case of any differences between the Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory and the other documents, the Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory take precedence over other documents.

These Rules are divided into four main sections, plus appendices. The General Principles section describes some of the fundamental principles that underlie these rules. It also defines some common terms used throughout these rules. The other three main sections each address the standards that each type of submission - personal names, non-personal names, and armory - must meet. Each main section first lays out the standards for content and style (how submissions must be put together). It then lays out the standards for avoiding conflict (being "too close" to registered items). Finally, it lays out the standards for avoiding presumption (claims that are not allowed) and offense.

The appendices contain supplemental information that expands on the Rules. One appendix contains the table of languages that can be mixed in a name submission. Other appendices contain information which consolidates decades of Laurel rulings. These appendices will be updated regularly to keep the material up to date.

Table of Contents

GP. General Principles
GP1. Principles of the Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory.
GP2. Registration and Documentation.
GP3. Definition of Period.
GP4. Definitions of Terms Used in these Rules.

PN. Personal Names
PN1. Personal Names Content.
PN2. Personal Names Style.
PN3. Personal Names Conflict.
PN4. Personal Names Presumption.
PN5. Personal Names Offense.

NPN. Non-Personal Names
NPN1. Non-Personal Names Content.
NPN2. Non-Personal Names Style.
NPN3. Non-Personal Names Conflict.
NPN4. Non-Personal Names Presumption.
NPN5. Non-Personal Names Offense.

A. Armory
A1. Armory Style Principles.
A2. Armory Content.
A3. Armory Style.
A4. Armory Individually Attested Patterns.
A5. Armory Conflict.
A6. Armory Presumption.
A7. Armory Offense.

Appendices
Appendix A: Patterns That Do Not Need Further Documentation by Language Group
Appendix B: Types of Bynames
Appendix C: Regional Naming Groups and Their Mixes
Appendix D: Acceptable Transliteration Systems for Non-Latin Scripts
Appendix E: Currently Registerable Elements for Non-Personal Name Submissions
Appendix F: Some Armorial Elements that Do Not Need Further Documentation
Appendix G: Some Specific Elements that are a Step from Core Practice
Appendix H: Low-Contrast Complex Lines of Division
Appendix I: Charge Group Theory
Appendix J: Documented and Forbidden Arrangements of Charge Groups on Armory
Appendix K: Standard Arrangements for Charge Groups of Different Number
Appendix L: A Partial List of Postures and Orientations
Appendix M: Some Resources for Conflict Checking
Appendix N: Banned and Potentially Problematic Place Names
Appendix O: Existing Registration Allowance and Bynames

🔗GP. General Principles

This section of the Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory discusses general principles for considering submissions, including definitions of some terms used in multiple sections of the Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory.

🔗GP1. Principles of the Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory

🔗A. Governing Documents: The Governing Documents of the SCA say that "Laurel shall define standards suitable to the type of item to be registered, and apply them uniformly to all such submissions. These standards shall be designed to support the historical re-creations of the Society and to provide sufficient difference from names and armory registered within the Society to avoid undue confusion, to avoid the appearance of unearned honors or false claims, and to provide sufficient difference from historical or fictional personages to prevent offense due to obvious usurpation of identity or armory. Members are encouraged to develop unique, historically valid names and armory."

These rules define those standards and how submissions can meet them.

🔗B. These Rules: The Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory are based on the principles expressed in the governing documents, including the following.

🔗1. Reasonably Period: A submission must be reasonably period in nature, to support our historical re-creations. The rules regarding the standards for what is reasonably period in nature are labeled as "content" and "style" rules.

a. Content rules focus on the elements (words, charges, tinctures) which may be included in a submission.

b. Style rules focus on how those items may be combined to make a complete submission. Style rules describe common period patterns and how to document less common patterns. Submissions demonstrated to be period in style may be registered as individually attested patterns even if they are not explicitly described as registerable in the general style rules.

🔗2. Conflict and Presumption: A submission should not cause confusion, create a false claim, nor usurp identity or armory. The rules regarding the standards for what causes confusion, false claims, and usurpation are labeled as "conflict" and "presumption" rules.

a. Conflict rules focus on how to determine if a submission is too close to or claims too close a relationship to the owner of an item someone else in the SCA has already registered. The owner of a registered item may give permission for someone else to register a conflicting but non-identical item.

b. Presumption rules focus on how to determine if a submission creates a false claim of position or powers, or usurps the identity or armory of an important non-SCA person. It is not possible to register an item which is presumptuous.

🔗3. Offense: A submission should not be offensive to the populace or the general public. The rules regarding the standards for offensiveness are labeled as "offense" rules.

🔗GP2. Registration and Documentation

🔗A. The Nature of Registration: Registration does two things. First, it attests that a submission meets the standards laid out by Corpora and the Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory at the time of registration. Second, it prevents others from registering anything that conflicts with or presumes upon the registered item without the explicit permission of the owner.

Some items are considered too generic to be registered. This means that they may be used by anyone and may not be reserved to one person or group by registration. One such category is generic identifiers such as Brewer's Guild and Queen's Guard. These names may be used by any branch to identify the owner or association of a badge, but no group may register them. Another category that may not be registered is an armorial design consisting only of abstract charges such as letters, runes, Arabic script, astrological symbols, and the like. Such a registration might prevent someone from using a form of their name or monogram. These generic items are not restricted by the College of Arms, but may not be registered to anyone. Other such categories are a personal name consisting of only a single given name or armory consisting of only a plain tincture. Such registrations might prevent people from using those given names or colors.

🔗B. The Burden of Proof: The College of Arms and the kingdom colleges of heralds should work to provide suitable documentation to register a submission. However, it is ultimately the submitter's responsibility to demonstrate that a submission meets the standards set forth in these rules; a complete lack of documentation can be cause for return. It is not the responsibility of the Laurel office to demonstrate that a submission does not meet these standards. When the evidence is equivocal, such as when there is limited reliable dated information about a specific culture, in general the submitter should be given the benefit of the doubt.

🔗GP3. Definition of Period

As in the Governing Documents, period is defined as "pre-17th Century". Elements and patterns of names and heraldry found in the Middle Ages and Renaissance are allowed. While the focus is on the Middle Ages and Renaissance, we register documentable elements and patterns from before the Middle Ages so long as they can adequately be described by standard SCA terms (for armory) and Latin characters (for names). Thus while we will register, for example, classical Greek, Arabic, and Japanese names, they must be transliterated into Latin characters.

Elements and patterns documented in use during the "grey period," between 1600 and 1650, are generally allowed. This is on the grounds that they might have been in earlier use. The use of a name element by a human being during the grey period is generally sufficient to allow this use, even if it is the name of an infant. However, if there is evidence that the element or pattern could not have been in use before 1600, such as documentation for a name in 1615 which specifically says that it was coined in that year, then it will not be allowed.

In any case, elements and patterns are only allowed when they do not otherwise violate the rules, such as offense or presumption rules.

🔗GP4. Definitions of Terms Used in these Rules

There are some terms which are used in heraldry and in these rules with specific meanings beyond or somewhat different from their common meanings. This section explains a few such words which are used throughout these rules. Other sections of these rules define additional terms specific to those sections.

🔗A. Element: An element is, in a broad sense, the smallest part that a submission can be broken into. In names, it may be a word, such as of or the, or a part of a word, such as -gar in Æfgar or -shire in Lincolnshire. In armory, it may be a charge, such as a lion or a trivet; a division, such as per fess or compony; an arrangement of charges such as in bend or a charge between in cross four other charges; a tincture, such as vert or ermine; or other parts of an armorial design.

🔗B. Attested: Attested is the term we use for the idea that a name phrase, the structure of a complete name, a charge, a combination of charges or tinctures, a line of division, or other element is found in period sources. One way of documenting an element or pattern is to demonstrate that it is attested in period.

🔗C. Documentation: Documentation is the term we use for demonstrating that a name phrase, the structure of a complete name, a charge, a combination of charges or tinctures, a particular heraldic arrangement, a line of division, or other element is registerable.

This may involve demonstrating that it is attested to period. Alternately, it may involve demonstrating that it is legal for the submitter to use for some other reason. In some cases, required documentation may include petitions of support from the populace, letters of permission, etc. The rules for the types of submissions which require petitions, letters, etc. are found in the Administrative Handbook.

🔗D. Substantial, Distinct, and Significant: These terms are used in defining conflict. For armorial conflict, the terms substantial and distinct are both used to describe differences between items. Substantial changes (sometimes abbreviated as SC) are larger than distinct changes (sometimes abbreviated as DC). Generally a single substantial change is sufficient to bring two pieces of armory clear of conflict, while two distinct changes are required to do so. In prior precedent regarding armory, significant was used to mean much the same thing as distinct. In names, substantial and significant have previously been used somewhat interchangeably. In these rules, a single substantial change or two smaller changes create names that are clear of conflict.

🔗E. Precedent: Precedent is the collective term used for rulings by Laurel which address issues that the rules do not explicitly answer. While these are often are rulings on specific submissions, they sometimes appear in Cover Letters without reference to a specific submission. In action they are similar to legal precedent, although rulings without comment do not set precedent. This includes topics such as whether two specific charges have substantial, distinct, significant, or no difference, whether two languages are registerable together, whether an element is registerable at all, and so on.

🔗F. Step from Core Practice: This term refers to the idea that while certain armorial elements were not used in period core style armory, as defined in A2 and A3, they are close enough to period elements as to be allowed for use or have been declared registerable in the past on the basis of their great popularity in the SCA.

🔗PN. Personal Name Registration

Personal names are names that identify a single human being (as opposed to a group of people, a branch, an order, and the like, which are non-personal names). To be registered, a personal name submission must meet the following standards:

• Each name phrase (a complete given name or byname) must be demonstrated to be suitable for a specific time and place or otherwise meet the standards set out in PN1.
• The name as a whole must be demonstrated to be grammatically (structurally) correct and meet the standards for lingual and temporal compatibility set out in PN2.
• The name must be free of conflict and presumption as set out in PN3 and PN4.
• The name must not be offensive as set out in PN5.

🔗PN1. Personal Names Content

🔗A. Definitions: Several terms are used in this section of the rules.

A name phrase consists of a complete given name or byname with associated prepositions, articles and the like. The elements which make up a name phrase are referred to in these rules as name elements. Name elements may be words or pieces of words. A name phrase may consist of a single word or multiple words.

For example, of, the and Dell are all whole word name elements. Some examples of pieces of words which are name elements: Arnulfs- and -dottir or Æf- and -gar. Some examples of name phrases: Smith, comprised simply of a single word, and de la Torre, comprised of de, la, and Torre.

There are many types of name phrases; in personal names, all name phrases can be categorized as one of two types:

🔗1. Given Name: A given name is the main personal name, often given at birth or in some kind of naming ceremony. In most European languages, the given name is usually the first name element; however, this is not true for all cultures or time periods. All personal name submissions are required to have a given name.

In some languages, a person may have two given names. For example, there are examples of people with two given names in late period English and Spanish. Other languages, such as Gaelic and Arabic, do not seem to have ever used multiple given names before 1600. A discussion of name formation patterns, including multiple given names, is found in Appendix A.

🔗2. Byname: A byname is a part of the name other than a given name. It may identify someone as the child of an individual, as being from a particular place, describe some distinctive physical or personality feature, describe their occupation, or place someone as a member of a family (as an inherited surname).

A discussion of types of bynames found in period Europe is found in Appendix B. Note that no single language has all the types of bynames discussed there. That is, any given language has only some types of bynames. A discussion of name formation patterns, including multiple bynames, is found in Appendix A.

🔗B. Standards for Name Phrases: A registerable name phrase must meet the following standards:

🔗1. Single Time and Place: A registerable name phrase must follow the rules of grammar and structure for a single time and place. It may not mix languages unless that mixing of languages within a name phrase is attested as a period practice.

For example, the name phrase de London is typical of medieval English documentary practice. Therefore, it is a registerable name phrase. However, von Saxony, which mixes the German von with the English version of the German place name, is not. It must be made completely German, as von Sachsen, or completely English, as of Saxony.

For example, ingen Aodha mixes the Middle Irish Gaelic ingen and the Early Modern Irish Gaelic Aodha. Because ingen was still found in some 16th century records, the combination is registerable if the spellings ingen and Aodha are dated within five hundred years of each other.

🔗2. Sources of Name Phrases: We allow registerable name phrases to be created in a variety of ways. The following types of name phrases may be registered:

🔗a. Attested Name Phrases: Name phrases may be attested to period as a complete name phrase (i.e., found in a period document). A single example of an attested name phrase clearly dated to period is sufficient to demonstrate its use. Minor spelling variants are allowed when those spelling variants are demonstrated to be compatible with the spelling conventions of the time and place of the attested name.

For example, in Renaissance English, the letters i and y are frequently interchanged. Therefore, a name attested as Annis could also be spelled Annys. The letters k and q, on the other hand, are not interchangeable in Renaissance Scots. So, a name attested as Kintyre does not justify the spelling Qintyre.

🔗b. Constructed Name Phrases: Name phrases may be constructed from attested period name elements. To do this, documentation must be provided to demonstrate that the name phrase follows a period pattern. We generally require at least three examples to consider something a pattern, as sometimes a single name phrase can create the appearance of a pattern that does not actually exist. The examples should closely match the constructed name phrase.

For example, taken alone, the English given name Rose appears to originate from the name of the flower; however, research suggests that it originates from an Old English word hros, 'horse'. Therefore, it cannot be used to justify names like Hyacinth.

All of the elements and patterns for a constructed name phrase must come from a single time and place. We do not allow constructed name phrases that are created by using patterns from one time and place with elements from another time and place. Some examples of constructed names are:

🔗1. Diminutives Constructed from Given Names: In many languages, diminutive forms can be made from existing given names, often by adding endings or removing part of the name (and even both).

For example, in Italian, diminutives are regularly constructed by adding -ino after dropping the final -o from an already existing given name. The diminutive Urbanino can be constructed from the attested given name Urbano.

🔗2. Constructed Dithemic Given Names: In several Germanic languages, including Old English, given names are frequently composed of two pieces, a prototheme (first part) and a deuterotheme (second part). New names can be constructed from attested protothemes and deuterothemes. A new name cannot be constructed by combining other parts of the names or by combining elements other than a single prototheme and a single deuterotheme.

For example, the attested Old English name Ælfgar has the prototheme Ælf- and the deuterotheme -gar and the attested Old English name Eadmund has the prototheme Ead- and the deuterotheme -mund. Therefore one could combine the prototheme Ælf- and the deuterotheme -mund to make the given name Ælfmund. However, Garmund or Ælfead are not documentable through this pattern, nor is Ælfgarmund, as these do not combine a single prototheme with a single deuterotheme.

🔗3. Bynames Constructed from Given Name Elements: In many languages, bynames of relationship can be formed from attested given names. The specific pattern used to form the byname must be found in the language of the elements used to form it.

For example, in Old Norse, the standard patronymic byname for men consists of the possessive form of the father's name joined to the word 'son', so Sveinsson is the son of Sveinn. For example, the attested Old Norse given name Bjartmarr could be used in this construction to create Bjartmarsson, even if this particular patronymic was not attested in period sources. For example, Gaelic also has patronymic bynames formed from the possessive form of the father's name, but they are prefaced with 'mac' instead of joined to 'son'. Thus, the attested Gaelic name Donnchadh could be used in this construction to create mac Donnchaidh; it could not be used to create Donnchadhson.

🔗4. New Placenames Constructed from Attested Elements and Patterns: New placenames can be created by combining attested elements.

For example, the attested English place names Oxford, Swinford and Hartford indicate a pattern of kinds of large hooved animals with -ford. Therefore, this pattern would support a similar name like Sheepford. This pattern would not, however, support constructing Bookford or Duckford, since neither books nor ducks are large hooved animals.

For example, there is a pattern of adding family names to existing placenames in English. Following this pattern, the attested family name Peverel can be added to the attested placename Bercroft to construct the compound placename Bercroft Peverel.

🔗c. Lingua Societatis Allowance: We allow the registration of translations of attested and constructed descriptive and locative bynames into standard modern language forms. We call this the lingua Societatis rule. We allow this translation because the meanings of these bynames would have been clear to the speakers of these languages, but may be unclear to modern speakers.

The lingua Societatis rule allows a submitter to use either the modern language of the submitter's country of residence or modern English. The language of the submitter's country of residence is not limited to language(s) designated by that country as an "official" language. Multiple factors may be considered to determine whether a particular language is the "language of the submitter's country of residence," including but not limited to the language(s) used by the local SCA groups to hold business meetings, the language(s) spoken by the local SCA groups in court or at events, the language(s) in which reports, newspapers and media are published within the local area, and the percentage of the population that speaks the particular language.

The submitter's country of residence will be determined by the address listed on the submission form.

The translation of descriptive bynames must be a plausible and literal translation. Under lingua Societatis, locative bynames use standard modern forms rather than period spellings of the placenames. Under no circumstances will translations of the meanings of given names or placenames be registerable under this rule.

For example, the Norse byname inn rauð may be translated into English as the Red. It may not be translated as the bloody, the scarlet, or the like, as these are not literal translations.

For example, the Middle English descriptive byname le nymell may be translated into modern English as the nimble, as the original term may be unclear to modern speakers, even though it is in an earlier form of English. The lingua Societatis rule also permits the byname le nymell to be translated into any other modern language spoken in the submitter's country of residence. Therefore, a person living in Germany could register the modern German descriptive byname die flinke ("the nimble") based on the attested le nymell.

For example, the Spanish byname de Castilla may be translated into modern English as of Castile. The Arabic byname al-Dimashqi may be translated as of Damascus or the Damascene. However, while Cairo is derived from a word which means "the victorious", its lingua Societatis form (in English) is of Cairo, not of the Victorious, as "the Victorious" is a translation of the meaning.

Each name phrase registered under the lingua Societatis rule must use a consistent modern language.

For example, a submitter residing in Canada, where both French and English are national languages, could register either the modern French phrase le beau or the modern English phrase the handsome as the lingua Societatis form of the Old Norse byname inn fagri. However, the beau is not registerable under the lingua Societatis rule, as this name phrase combines modern English and modern French.

🔗d. Borrowed Names: Name phrases may be borrowed from secular literature, from the Bible or other religious literature, or from the names of saints, either as whole name phrases or as name elements to construct a name phrase. In either case, the name phrase must be demonstrated to meet the following requirements.

🔗1. Linguistically Appropriate Form: The name phrase must be shown to be a form by which the character or person was known in that time and place. Generally this means finding it in the literature of that time (such as a Renaissance Italian Bible, or an English publication of an Arthurian romance). In the case of a saint, evidence for that saint's veneration through the naming of churches is generally allowed. Only the form of the name used in that culture is allowed under this allowance.

For example, the Arthurian character Lancelot is found in Italian as Lancilotto. Therefore, Lancilotto, not Lancelot, is the form allowed in Italian context. Similarly, the saint known in her lifetime as Æhelthryth was venerated by late period English people as Audrey. So Audrey is the form allowed in late period English context.

🔗2. Pattern of Borrowing Names: The culture must be shown to have a pattern of using name phrases from that type of source. Demonstrating such a pattern requires at least two independent examples of normal people using such name phrases in the target time and place.

The type of name phrase must match. Evidence of given names from a literary source does not demonstrate the use of bynames from that source. The demonstrated pattern must also address the type of character. The use of the given names of major characters does not demonstrate the use of the given names of minor characters. So, the pattern of using the given names of major Arthurian characters in medieval England would justify the name Bedivere even if it were not attested. It would not justify a name from the Bible or the name of a minor Arthurian character like Gwinas, who is only mentioned once. As there is no similar pattern of borrowing in Gaelic, the Gaelic forms of Arthurian characters cannot be registered under this allowance.

Certain kinds of borrowed names were rarely used. These will only be allowed if a pattern explicitly includes the use of name phrases of that type. These include:

• allegorical names (like Everyman)
• the names of characters mentioned only briefly in stories
• names from stories that take place in legendary time
• the names of superhuman characters (including gods and monsters, but also characters that interact with gods or engage in superhuman acts of prowess)
• the names of characters from the life stories of saints (like the parents and siblings of saints)
• the names of literary places

🔗e. Legal Name Allowance: Name phrases from the submitter's legal names may be used. To do this, the submitter must demonstrate the name phrase on a legal document, such as a birth certificate, driver's license, or the like. Only the full name and the nature of the document must be visible; identification numbers and the like may be obscured. Official religious documents are considered evidence for religious names (Hebrew names, confirmation names), which are also allowed under this allowance. Birth names and maiden names, when documented, are also allowed under this allowance. In some cases, providing a photocopy of the document may not be possible; in such cases, a herald or heralds may attest that they have seen the document and this can be sufficient documentation.

The name phrase must be used in precisely the way that it is spelled on the legal document. As some legal documents obscure capitalization (by using all capitals) or omit punctuation (and markings like accents), such changes may be allowed on a case by case basis. Name phrases must be used in their entirety, including any prepositions and articles. Thus, nicknames that do not appear on legal documents cannot be registered.

For example, the legal name Ruby justifies Ruby, but not Rubie or Rube. The legal name Smith justifies Smith, but not the Smith. This is true even though one can find occupational bynames in English both with and without articles. The legal name von Volvorth justifies von Volvorth, not Volvorth or de Volvorth, though one can find examples of bynames formed from German placenames using those forms.

Name phrases documented in this way are categorized as given names and bynames based on type (surnames are a type of byname). They may be used in any way that a given name or byname of that type may be used. Modern "middle names" are a special case. Some people in the modern world have middle names derived from given names. Others have middle names derived from surnames, through shifts in naming practice, through marriage, or for other reasons. Therefore, middle names are registerable based on the type of name they are: given names or surnames. Middle names which originated as surnames but are modernly used as given names may be used as given names.

For example, someone whose legal middle name is Elizabeth may use it as a given name, because Elizabeth is a given name by type. However, someone whose legal middle name is MacGregor may not use it as a given name, because it is a surname by type. The name Madison, while it originated as a surname, is modernly used as a given name. Therefore, someone whose legal middle name is Madison may also use it as a given name through the legal name allowance.

This rule can allow a name phrase which is not attested in period, but the name as a whole must still meet the other requirements for names. This includes issues with overall construction, conflict, presumption, and offense.

For example, Earl is a modern given name, but it is also a title of rank within the SCA. Therefore, we would not register it, even if documented as the submitter's legal given name.

🔗f. Branch Name Allowance: Name phrases may be created from the registered forms of SCA branches. The name phrase must use a lingua Societatis form meaning 'of Branchname' or 'person from Branchname'. The language used for lingua Societatis may be the language of the submitter's country of residence or English. In English, the usual lingua Societatis form incorporating an SCA branch name is 'of Branchname'.

The language of the submitter's country of residence is not limited to language(s) designated by that country as an "official" language. Multiple factors may be considered to determine whether a particular language is the "language of the submitter's country of residence," including but not limited to the language (s) used by the local SCA groups to hold business meetings, the language(s) spoken by the local SCA groups in court or at events, the language(s) in which reports, newspapers and media are published within the local area, and the percentage of the population that speaks the particular language.

The submitter's country of residence will be determined by the address listed on the submission form.

Name phrases should stay as close to the exact registered name of the branch as possible, while obeying the grammatical requirements of the language used for lingua Societatis. Translated forms based on the meaning of branch names will not be registered under this allowance, even if the translated form matches the intended origin of the submission or of the branch.

For example, this rule would allow the bynames of Carolingia or of Fontaine dans Sable, as these are the expected lingua Societatis forms using standard modern English. A submitter residing in Canada, where both French and English are national languages, could also register de Carolingia or de Fontaine dans Sable as French lingua Societatis forms. This rule does not allow the byname of the East Ridge based on the registered Shire of East Ridge because the registered substantive element of the branch name is East Ridge not the East Ridge. If Fontaine dans Sable can also be documented as an attested or constructed French name, de Fontaine dans Sable could be used in forming a fully French name, no matter the submitter's country of residence; however, that would not be through the use of the Branch Name Allowance.

For example, some modern languages (such as Finnish and German) create bynames meaning 'of Placename' by adding a suffix to the place name. Thus, a person named Helka living in Finland who wanted a byname saying she was from the branch Aarnimetsä could register the name Aarnimetsän Helka, following the rules of modern Finnish grammar. A person named Conrad living in Germany who wanted a byname saying he was from the branch Bronzehelm could register the names Conrad Bronzehelmer or Conrad von Bronzehelm. Note that this construction follows the rules of modern German grammar, rather than medieval German or Latin grammar. Modern Irish forms phrases meaning 'from Placename' using a preposition together with certain spelling changes required by Irish grammar. Thus, a person named Brigit living in Ireland who wanted a byname saying she was from the branch of Dun in Mara could register the name Brigit ó Dhun in Mhara. However, a person named Johan living in Germany who wanted a byname saying that he was from the branch of the East could not register Johan von Osten ("East" in German) using the Branch Name Allowance. The byname von Osten would have to be documented another way.

🔗g. The Existing Registration Allowance (ERA): In a new personal name submission, an individual may use name phrases already registered to them or a close legal relative (such as parent, spouse, child, sibling, aunt/uncle, etc.), even if that name phrase would no longer be allowed under the current rules. To do this, the submitter must demonstrate the relationship through legal documents or through attestation of relationship from the individual whose name is already registered. Wording for an attestation can be found in Appendix D of the Administrative Handbook. Note that a letter of permission to presume/claim relationship (found in the same appendix) may also be needed. See the December 2019 Cover Letter for a discussion on which letter is needed when.

For example, given a registered Arwen Gandalfsdottir, the existing registration allowance applies to the name phrases Arwen, Gandalfsdottir, and Arwen Gandalfsdottir. For example, in Ciar ingen Donnchaid meic Con Duib the name phrases are Ciar, ingen Donnchaid, Ciar ingen Donnchaid, meic Con Duib, and Ciar ingen Donnchaid meic Con Duib. For a registered Skalla-Brandr, Skalla is a pre-pended byname and is a name phrase. The other name phrases that can be registered under the existing registration allowance are Brandr and Skalla-Brandr.

Only the exact, actual name phrase from the registered form may be used, not variants, patterns, etc. except:

1. In cases where the existing registered element is being used in a relational byname (e.g., patronymic/matronymic, multi-generational, spousal, brother/sister, etc.): The registered element may only be modified as necessary to construct the byname. The relationship being claimed under this exception must match the legal relationship of the parties involved and must be documented as described above.

For example, a daughter of a registered Hrafn wishes to register the Demotic Egyptian given name with a patronymic byname, Djehutyiirdis Hrafnsson. This is allowed as a legal parent/child relationship exists; the genders of the names registered/being registered do not matter. However, if the person submitting the new name was instead Hrafn's brother, Sedjemniykhnum Hrafnsson could not be registered, as a legal parent/child relationship does not exist between them.

2. In cases where the submitter wishes to change the gender of an existing registered element: The registered element may be any element (e.g., descriptive byname, locative byname, or patronymic/matronymic) that changes to match the gender of the given name. The submitter's legal gender does not matter.

For example, in the name Tofi Durinsson Durinsson is a gendered name element (patronymic). If the submitter wished to register Tofa (a feminine given name) the existing registration allowance would allow the registration of Tofa Durinsdottir.

In some cases, particularly with relationship bynames, there may be multiple ways to form the byname based on the above exceptions. See Appendix O, Existing Registration Allowance and Bynames, for guidance in this process.

The use of the existing registration allowance does not allow the submitter to evade new style problems (as discussed in PN2 below). It only allows the submitter to keep style problems that already exist with the registered name. Also, documentation under this allowance does not exempt a name or name phrase from conflict or presumption rules, unless that rules violation is itself part of the existing registration in question. A name element that is considered offensive under PN5B may only be registered to the original owner under the existing registration allowance, not to close legal relatives, though names that increase offense may still be returned on a case-by-case basis.

🔗PN2. Personal Names Style

🔗A. Definitions: A name phrase is a complete given name or byname with associated prepositions, articles and the like. It is defined more thoroughly in PN1 above, which deals with the construction of name phrases. A naming pool refers to the group of name phrases that are in use in a particular time and place. These naming pools are organized into regional naming groups, each of which includes a group of naming pools that are geographically and culturally linked. These regional naming groups are used to determine whether name phrases can be combined in a registerable name. The list of established regional groups is listed in Appendix C.

🔗B. Name Phrase Requirements: A registerable personal name must be made up of at least two name phrases: a given name and at least one byname (which may appear to be a second given name). While it is easy to document individuals who are identified only with a single given name, we do not allow the registration of single element personal names. Individuals may use those names, but may not register them.

Each name phrase must be grammatically correct for its position in a name. In some languages, spelling changes are used to indicate aspects of relationships in bynames.

For example, because of the way Gaelic grammar works, the byname mac Fearchair 'son of Fearchar' must be changed to mhic Fhearchair when it occurs after another byname of the form mac X (i.e., when your father was the son of Fearchar). So, the son of Donnchadh mac Fearchair would be Fionn mac Donnchaidh mhic Fhearchair.

Capitalization should be consistent with the language of the name phrase. Some patterns for capitalization that do not require further documentation can be found in Appendix A.

For example, we have evidence (reflected in Appendix A) showing Dutch locative markers entirely in lowercase. Thus, Frederick van der Vaerden may be registered without specific evidence for this capitalization pattern, whereas Frederick van Der Vaerden would require specific evidence for van Der.

🔗C. Name Requirements: A name submission must be consistent with the standards laid out in this section for temporal and geographical compatibility. The position of each name phrase in the overall name must be shown to be appropriate for that type of name phrase in its language and cultural tradition. Patterns for name grammar in some languages can be found in Appendix A. Any pattern found there does not need further documentation; a reference to Appendix A will be sufficient. Other patterns require documentation.

For example, there is evidence for names in Spanish with two bynames in certain patterns. One pattern is a patronymic byname followed by a placename, as in Ruy Diaz de Bivar. That would justify Juan Perez de Madrid, but would not support the registration of Juan de Madrid Perez.

In addition, the name as a whole must follow a period pattern for personal names. Any name must follow the pattern described in one of the two sections below.

Note that name phrases submitted under the legal name allowance are considered gender neutral.

For example, a submitter whose legal given name is Avery could register either Avery mac Briain or Avery inghean Bhriain (regardless of their gender) as a culturally mixed name under PN2C2d. Likewise, a person with the legal name of Dancia could register either Dancia filia William or Dancia filius William and a person with the legal given name of Jayden could register Jayden Hakonsdottir or Jayden Hakonsson regardless of their gender.

For example, a person with the legal name Inga Finnbogadóttir could register William Finnbogadóttir regardless of their gender. This applies even if the byname is a literal matronymic rather than an inherited surname.

🔗1. Culturally Uniform Names: A culturally uniform name matches a pattern of the grammar of names for a single time and place, such as fourteenth century England. This requires that the overall pattern be documented to a particular time and place, in addition to each name phrase meeting the standards set out in PN1 and PN2B above. This documentation may be a reference to Appendix A.

🔗2. Culturally Mixed Names: Names that mix name phrases from different times and/or places are allowed if the name meets one of the following conditions.

🔗a. The name mixes name phrases found in a single regional naming group as listed in Appendix C that are dated to within 500 years of one another.

🔗b. The name mixes name phrases from two regional naming groups that are listed in Appendix C as combinable and those name phrases are dated to within 300 years of one another.

Names that combine more than two regional naming groups or that combine two regional naming groups that are not listed as combinable will not be allowed under this rule (though they may be registered under the allowances in sections c and d below).

🔗c. The name mixes name phrases from naming pools that can be documented as having been used together in the personal names of real people; for such combinations, the name phrases must be within 300 years of one another (and within 300 years of the documented examples). For such documentation, at least three period examples must be included in which the names can only be understood as combining from separate naming pools. The borrowing of names from one naming pool into another is not sufficient to demonstrate this, nor is the translation of names into another language.

🔗d. A name which includes name phrases documented under the legal name allowance, the existing registration allowance, or the branch name allowance follows special rules. These name phrases are treated as neutral in language and time. Such name phrases may be combined with name phrases from a single regional naming group dated to within 500 years of one another. They may not be combined with name phrases from two or more regional naming groups. If a name phrase can also be documented as either an attested or constructed name, it may be treated in whichever way is more favorable for registration.

In addition, if a name phrase in an existing registration was found in a registered name that combined languages from two or more regional naming groups, the new submission may combine those same regional naming groups. If this allowance is used, then no new regional naming group may be added.

🔗D. Names Not Recorded in a Latin Script: Names will only be registered in the Latin script, so that both heralds and the populace can easily read them. Thus, we will not register Norse names in runes, Russian names in Cyrillic, Japanese names in kanji, and so on. Submitters are encouraged to use those names in the original scripts for other purposes. Names and name phrases that would not have been written in a Latin script are treated for purposes of registration as if they are created in the relevant script (Norse, Arabic, Russian, etc.). They are then transcribed for registration into the Latin script following a single orthographic system, which may include common diacritics such as ó (with an acute accent), ligatures such as æ (ash, representing {ae}), and other characters such as þ (thorn, representing the unvoiced {th} sound). Names that mix two orthographic systems for transcription are not allowed because some systems use the same letters to represent different sounds, which creates confusion. This includes the use (or lack) of accents in a name - their usage should be consistent. A list of acceptable transliteration systems for some languages can be found in Appendix D. The use of a transliteration system not listed there must be justified with the submission.

For example, the Arabic given name often transliterated as Amina can be equally well transliterated as Aminah (ending in -ah instead of just -a). In combination with the Arabic locative meaning 'of Hamdan', which is either al-Hamadaniyya or al-Hamadaniyyah, either Amina al-Hamadaniyya or Aminah al-Hamadaniyyah is registerable. However, neither Aminah al-Hamadaniyya or Amina al-Hamadaniyyah is registerable, as these two mix the transliteration systems.

For example, the Irish Gaelic given name Tomás, when combined with the Irish Gaelic descriptive byname Mór, can be rendered either as Tomas Mor or as Tomás Mór. However, it cannot be rendered as Tomás Mor or Tomas Mór, as these use the accents inconsistently.

🔗E. Obtrusive Modernity: No name will be registered that either in whole or in part is obtrusively modern. Something is said to be obtrusively modern when it makes a modern joke or reference that destroys medieval ambience and drags the average person mentally back to the present day. Obtrusiveness can be either in the written form or when spoken. A period name that has a modern referent will not generally be considered obtrusively modern. Only extreme examples will be returned.

For example, names that have been ruled obtrusively modern and hence returned include Porsche Audi, Artemisian Tank Corps, and Geky Herald (pronounced like "Geeky Herald"). Names like Edmond Fitzgerald, Red Boke Herald, Drew Steele, and Mould de Cheder have been allowed.

🔗PN3. Personal Names Conflict

🔗A. Definitions: Conflict, as it is used in these rules, is a modern concept which derives from the requirement in the Governing Documents that names have sufficient difference to avoid undue confusion. To be registered, a new submission must be clear of conflict with all registered personal names; this means that it must avoid undue confusion with them. There are two types of confusion which must be avoided: being too close to a registered personal name itself, and claiming to be a close relative of a registered personal name. These are described in these rules as "identity conflict" and "relationship conflict".

For identity conflict, a name submission is in conflict with a registered name when they are too similar either in sound or in appearance. A name submission that is substantially different in sound and substantially different in appearance from a registered personal name is clear of conflict with it. For relationship conflict, a name that makes an unmistakable claim of close relationship to a registered personal name is in conflict with it. This section of the rules sets the standards for how names can be substantially different.

🔗B. Individuals Protected from Conflict: A new personal name submission must be clear from conflict with all registered personal names. Non-personal names and personal names do not conflict. A name is registered and protected from the moment it is listed as accepted on a published Letter of Acceptances and Returns. Registered names will be listed in the Ordinary and Armorial as soon as possible, but they are protected as soon as the Letter of Acceptances and Return is published. We also protect the names of important people outside the SCA; they are addressed in PN4 Presumption below.

🔗C. Standards for Identity Conflict: To be clear of identity conflict, two names must be substantially different in both sound and appearance. Because conflict is a modern concept, we consider matters such as meaning, language, etymological origin, etc. to be irrelevant for conflict. Only sound and appearance are considered for difference. Thus, the Latinized form of a name may be clear of conflict with the vernacular form. While we do not go out of our way to consider variant pronunciations, we do consider important period and modern pronunciations of name elements.

To be substantially different, a pair of names must meet at least one standard for substantial difference in sound and at least one standard for substantial difference in appearance, as described below. Names may be different in sound under one standard and appearance under another standard. Names are compared as complete items, so that Lisa Betta Gonzaga conflicts with Lisabetta Gonzaga, although the elements are different.

Analyzing substantial changes in sound often requires counting sound changes. Under these standards, a single sound is defined as a consonant sound, vowel sound, or diphthong (two vowels combined in a single syllable).

For example, the English given name Ann has two sounds: the vowel sound represented by 'A', and the consonant 'n'. For example, in the classical Roman name Gaius, the 'a' and the 'i' combine to form a diphthong that has the same sound as the vowel in the English word my. Thus, the name Gaius has four sounds: the consonant represented by 'G', the diphthong 'ai', the vowel 'u', and the consonant 's'.

A change to appearance involves the insertion, deletion, or substitution of a letter or space. Changes to accents and punctuation do not contribute to substantial changes in appearance. Changes between upper- and lowercase also do not contribute to substantial changes in appearance.

🔗1. Changes to the Sound of Two Syllables: Names are substantially different in sound if changes in sound affect at least two syllables (including adding, removing, or reordering them). If the changes only affect adjacent sounds, they must affect more than two sounds to be considered under this allowance. Changes to any part of the name count, including articles and prepositions.

For example, here are some names that are substantially different in sound due to changes in more than one syllable. Richard Wainham is substantially different in sound from Richard Warman, because two syllables have changes to them. Similarly, the name Alana Red is substantially different in sound from Elena Reed, because at least two syllables change in sound. Note that the changes to the first and second vowels are not adjacent, because they are separated by the consonant sound 'l'.

For example, here are some names that are substantially different in sound due to changes that include adding or removing syllables. Maria le Smyth is substantially different in sound from Marian Smith, because the second name removes one syllable and changes the sound of another. Similarly, John de Aston is substantially different in sound from John Asson, because the second name removes one syllable and changes the sound of another. Anne Jones London is substantially different in sound from Anne Joan of London, because the second name changes the sound of one syllable and adds another. William Underthecliff is substantially different in sound from William Cliff, because the second name removes three syllables. Margaret atte Mor is substantially different in sound from Margaret de la Mor, because the change in prepositions affects the sound of two syllables. The name Margot de Blois is substantially different in sound from Margot du Bois, because both syllables in the byname have changed. Note that the change in the vowel from de to du is not adjacent to the removal of the 'l' from Blois, because these sounds are separated by the 'B' consonant sound.

For example, here are some pairs of names that are not substantially different in sound under this rule. The name Andrew Anser is not substantially different from the name Andrew Aster. The change from the 'n' to the 's' sound and the change from the 's' to the 't' sound are directly adjacent, so although these changes are in two different syllables, they are not enough to clear conflict. Similarly, the name Kathrin Tricker is not substantially different from the name Catlin Tricker. Again, the change from the 'th' sound to the 't' sound and the change from the 'r' sound to the 'l' sound are directly adjacent; moreover, the letters 'K' and 'C' represent the same sound.

🔗2. Substantial Change to the Sound of One Syllable: Names are substantially different in sound if a single syllable between them (excluding articles and prepositions, such as de and the) is changed in sound as described here. The addition or removal of a syllable makes two names substantially different in sound. Two names are also substantially different in sound if the sound of a syllable is substantially changed in one of the following ways. If a vowel and the consonant or part of the group of consonants on one side of this vowel are different between the two names, we consider a syllable to be substantially changed. When the sounds of each consonant or part of each group of consonants on both sides of a vowel are different, we also consider the syllable to be substantially changed.

For example, here are some names that are substantially different in sound due to addition or removal of one or more syllables. Both Maria Smith and Marian Smith are substantially different in sound from either Mary Smyth or Marie Smyth: Maria and Marian both have three syllables, while Mary and Marie have only two syllables, so in each case the number of syllables in the name is changed. Likewise, Phillip Hollins is substantially different in sound from Phillip Hollinshead, because the bynames have different numbers of syllables. Similarly, Dorrin Brady is substantially different in sound from Dorrin O Brady: the bynames have different numbers of syllables, and the relationship marker O is neither an article nor a preposition.

For example, here are some names that are substantially different in sound due to appropriate changes to the sound of a single syllable. Connor MacRobert is substantially different in sound from Conan MacRobert or Conall MacRobert, because the vowel and the final consonants of the second syllable of the given names are different in each case. For example, William Dulford is substantially different in sound from William Muttford, as the consonants on both sides of the vowel in the first syllable of the byname have been changed. Likewise, Mary Catford is substantially different in sound from Mary Radford, and Godric of London is substantially different in sound from Godwin of London. For example, Margerie Clutter is substantially different in sound from Margery Catter, because in the first syllable of the byname, the first group of consonants has changed from cl to c and the vowels are different. Elyas Misson is substantially different in sound from Elyas Smithson, because in the first syllable of the byname, the first group of consonants has changed from sm to m and the second consonant has changed from s to th.

For example, here are some names that are not substantially different in sound. Brian mac Duinn is not substantially different in sound from Brian mac Cuinn, because only one group of consonants in the final syllable of the byname has been changed. (In this case, the group consists of a single consonant.) Lucas Smith is not significantly different in sound from Lucas le Smyth. The only difference in sound is contributed by the word le, which is an article translating as "the" and thus cannot contribute difference under this rule. Mary Jones is not substantially different in sound from Marie Jones. While the most common modern pronunciation of the given names uses different vowel sounds for the first syllables of the given names and breaks the syllables in different places, one important late period and modern pronunciation makes both names the same (as MA-ree). Thus they conflict. While we do not go out of our way to consider variant pronunciations, we do consider important period and modern pronunciations of name elements.

🔗3. Substantial Change to the Sound of a Single-Syllable Name: Two names with a comparable single-syllable name phrase are eligible for this rule. A pair of name phrases are said to be comparable if they both have the same position in the name, such as given name or first byname. Comparable single-syllable name phrases are generally substantially different in sound if a group of adjacent vowels or of adjacent consonants within a word are completely changed, so that it shares no sound in common. In rare cases, the sound may still be too similar for this rule to clear the conflict. On a case by case basis, two-syllable name phrases may be eligible for this rule, such as Harry and Mary.

For example, John Smith is substantially different in sound from Jane Smith. Anne Best is substantially different in sound from Anne West. Ellen Lang is substantially different in sound from Ellen Long. James Ed is substantially different in sound from James Lead. In each case, an adjacent group of vowels or consonants is completely changed in sound.

For example, Ema Deth is substantially different in sound from Gemma Deth. Although the given names both have two syllables, the change to the sound of the beginning of the names is enough to clear them under this rule.

For example, Matthew Joan is not substantially different in sound from Matthew Jones because the n and nz consonant groups share a sound. Richard Blott is not substantially different in sound from Richard Lot because the bl and l consonant groups share a sound. Katerine de la Mar is not substantially different in sound from Katerine de la Mor because they don't have comparable single-syllable name phrases and cannot use this rule.

🔗4. Changes to the Appearance of Multiple Letters: If a change in spelling (including addition or removal of letters and insertion or deletion of spaces) affects at least two letters or spaces, a name is substantially different in appearance.

For example, Miriam Jones is substantially different in appearance from both Mary Jones and Marie Jones. Harry Jones is also different from Mary Jones, because the first letter has been changed and another letter has been removed. However, Maria Jones is not substantially different in appearance from Marie Jones, because only one letter is changed.

For example, Colin L'Estrange is not substantially different in appearance from Colin Lestrange: the insertion of the apostrophe does not contribute to substantial difference, and no letters have been changed. The Norse names Sleitu-Einarr and Sléttu-Steinarr are substantially different from each other in appearance, but Sleitu-Einarr is not substantially different in appearance from Sléttu-Einarr, because the accent change does not contribute to difference, and thus only one letter has been changed.

🔗5. Substantial Change to the Appearance of a Short Name Phrase: Two names with a comparable one-word name phrase are eligible for this rule. A pair of name phrases are said to be comparable if they both have the same position in the name, such as given name or first byname. Changing one letter in words that both have four or fewer letters suffices for substantial difference in appearance. On a case by case basis, changes to the beginning of longer words, such as Harry and Larry, may also be eligible for this rule.

For example, Noe Wariner and Joe Wariner are substantially different in appearance, because we have changed one letter in a three-letter given name. However, Amice de Bailly is not substantially different in appearance from Avice de Bailly, because only one letter in a five-letter given name has changed. Mary Jones is not substantially different in appearance from Marry Jones, because one of the given names has more than four letters.

🔗6. Examples of Personal Name Conflict Checks: Here are some examples of pairs of names that are clear of identity conflict.

For example, Margot de Blois is substantially different in sound from Margot du Bois under PN3C1, because both syllables in the byname have changed. The name Margot de Blois is substantially different in appearance from Margot du Bois under PN3C4, because two or more letters have been inserted, deleted, or changed. In this case, changing from de Blois to du Bois changes one letter and deletes a second letter. Thus, Margot du Bois and Margot de Blois are clear of identity conflict.

For example, Maria Smith is substantially different in sound from Mary Smyth under PN3C2, because the given names have different numbers of syllables. The name Maria Smith is substantially different in appearance from Mary Smyth under PN3C4, because two or more letters (in this case, two letters in the given name and one in the byname) have been inserted, deleted, or changed. Thus, Maria Smith and Mary Smyth are clear of identity conflict.

For example, Anne Best is substantially different in sound from Anne West under PN3C3, because the bynames are single syllables and an entire consonant group has been changed. The name Anne Best is substantially different in appearance from Anne West under PN3C5, because one letter in a four-letter byname has changed. Thus, Anne Best and Anne West are clear of identity conflict.

Here are some examples of pairs of names that have an identity conflict.

For example, Richard Blott has an identity conflict with Richard Lot. Richard Blott is not substantially different in sound from Richard Lot under PN3C1 because only one syllable has been changed, and thus the rule does not apply. Richard Blott is not substantially different in sound from Richard Lot under PN3C2 because only one consonant group is changed. Moreover, the names are not substantially different in sound under PN3C3 because the bl and l consonant groups share a sound, and thus the consonant group has not been completely changed. Because the names are not substantially different in sound under any rule, they have an identity conflict. As it happens, the names have a substantial difference in appearance under PN3C4, because in changing from Blott to Lot two letters are deleted. However, because the names are not substantially different in sound and appearance, they are in conflict.

For example, Hilaris de la Barre has an identity conflict with Hilaria de la Barre. The names happen to be substantially different in sound under PN3C2, because the given names have different numbers of syllables. However, Hilaris de la Barre is not substantially different in appearance from Hilaria de la Barre under PN3C4, because only one letter is changed. Hilaris de la Barre is not substantially different from Hilaria de la Barre under PN3C5, because the rule does not apply: the given names both have more than four letters, the change to the given names does not appear at the beginning of the names, and the bynames are identical. Because the names are not substantially different in sound and appearance, they are in conflict.

For example, Gene Berrie has an identity conflict with Jean Berrie. In a common modern pronunciation, the two names sound identical. While we do not go out of our way to consider variant pronunciations, we do consider important period and modern pronunciations of name elements. As it happens, the names have a substantial difference in appearance under both PN3C4 and PN3C5. However, because the names are not substantially different in sound and appearance, they are in conflict.

For example, John the Smith has an identity conflict with John Smith. The addition of the is a significant visual difference under PN3C4 as more than two letters have been added; however, the addition of an article (the) does not contribute to the difference in sound under PN3C2. Similarly, Mariota Hamiltoun has an identity conflict with Mariota af Hamiltoun as the removal of a proposition (af, which is Scots for "of") does not contribute to the difference in sound under PN3C2.

🔗D. Standards for Relationship Conflict: To be clear of relationship conflict, the submitted name must not unmistakably imply close relationship with a protected person. This includes, but is not limited to, a claim to be the parent, child, or spouse of a protected person. An unmistakable implication generally requires the use of the entirety of a protected name; however, if the protected name consists only of a single element a relationship cannot be unmistakably implied. The relational marker does not need to be in the new submission for conflict to apply. That is, if a registered item includes a relational marker followed by a complete name and the new submission is the same as that complete name, it is in conflict. Names are still protected from relationship conflict even if grammar requires that the name be modified in order to demonstrate the relationship. Adding an element not in the protected name is generally enough to remove relationship conflict.

For example, Miryam bint Da'ud is not an unmistakable claim to be the child of Da'ud ibn Auda, but Miryam bint Da'ud ibn Auda is. Similarly, Llewelyn ap Owen is an unmistakable claim to be the father of a registered Morgan ap Llewelyn ap Owen.

For example, Felicia uxor Willemi le Tailor is an unmistakable claim to be the wife of a registered Willemus le Tailor, even though there is a change in appearance of the given name, because the change is necessitated by the grammar. However, Felicia uxor William Taylor is not an unmistakable claim to be the wife of Willemus le Tailor, as William Taylor and Willemus le Tailor are different enough to be clear of identity conflict under our rules. Similarly, Ketill Skallagrimsson Gormssonar is an unmistakable claim to be the son of a registered Skalla-Grímr Gormsson as the changes to the name elements are necessitated by the grammar. In Old Norse the hyphen in names with pre-pended bynames doesn't necessarily appear in descendants' names.

For example, Mary Elizabeth Smith is an unmistakable claim to be the daughter of Elizabeth Smith even though a relational marker is not included. This type of relationship conflict occurs only in languages, such as English, where unmarked patronymics or matronymics are used. However, Giulia Maddelena di Giacomo is not an unmistakable claim to be the daughter of Maddelena di Giacomo, as Italian did not mix marked (di Giacomo) and unmarked (Maddelena) relationships in the same name. Thus, in this case, Maddelena must be considered a second given name.

For example, Anne Boncueur is not an unmistakable claim to be the child of Boncueur as Boncueur is registered as a single-element name. However, Eirikr Skalla-Brandsson is an unmistakable claim to be the son of a registered Skalla-Brandr as Skalla-Brandr is a two-element name - it consists of the given name Brandr and the pre-pended byname Skalla-.

🔗E. Registration with Permission to Conflict: The owner of a registered item may grant permission to conflict to a new submission for either identity conflict or relationship conflict. Such permission may be granted either individually through a letter of permission to conflict or universally through a blanket letter of permission to conflict.

For identity conflict, any change to appearance and sound is sufficient to allow the registration of a personal name with a letter of permission to conflict. A submission identical to the registered item will not be registered even with permission to conflict. However, an individual may register a variant on their name even if the difference is not sufficient to allow registration to someone else even with permission to conflict. An individual who registers a variant on their name under this section may not later transfer that variant to another person unless all variants of the name are transferred to the same person or released.

For example, Nicholas Smith could register Nicolas Smith or Nicholas Smyth even though the change of a single letter does not change the name in a way that someone else could register it, even with permission to conflict, as the names are identical in sound. Similarly, the change from verch to ferch does not, by itself, make a name non-identical but Jenet verch Griffith could register Jenet ferch Griffith.

For example, the change from Gwenhwyfar Win to Guenivere Win while visually significant does not change the sound, thus would generally not be registerable even with permission to conflict, but the same person may register both forms.

For example, Gwenhwyfar Win could not transfer Guenivere Win to another person even with permission to conflict. However, she could transfer both Gwenhwyfar Win and Guenivere Win to the same person. Or she could transfer Guenivere Win and release Gwenhwyfar Win.

For relationship conflict, a letter of permission to claim relationship from the owner of the registered item is sufficient to allow the registration of a personal name. This does not require demonstrating that the individual has that legal relationship. You can give a stranger permission to have a name that appears to be the name of your child, parent, or spouse.

🔗PN4. Personal Names Presumption

🔗A. Definitions: Presumption is a false claim. This includes claims of restricted rank or powers that the submitter does not possess within the Society or that we do not allow anyone to claim. It also includes claims of identity or close relationship with a person outside the SCA who is considered quite important by many people within and outside the Society. Presumption is not dependent on intent; even if such a claim was not intended, the appearance of such a claim is not allowed. Items which presume will not be registered, even if a letter of permission could be obtained.

🔗B. Claim to Rank: Names may not contain a claim to a protected and/or restricted rank that the submitter does not have within the Society. This includes the following:

🔗1. Use of Elements that Appear to Be Titles: Names may not contain an element or group of elements that create the appearance of a claim to have a specific protected rank or title that the submitter does not possess within the Society, even if that name element or elements are attested. Those titles which are so protected can be found in the List of Alternate Titles.

Bynames which are identical to titles used in the Society are generally not allowed for individuals who do not have that rank. Relatively minor changes to the form of the byname can remove the appearance of a claim to rank.

For example, only a knight can register the byname Knight or Chevalier, as both are titles used in the Society for a knight. However, while the family name Visconti is derived from the word for viscount (visconte) it is not actually the restricted title. Thus the byname Visconti is not a claim to be a viscount, and can be registered.

Bynames using titles not used within the SCA cannot be considered a claim to a rank. Nonetheless, such names will only be registered if they were used as bynames by normal people who did not have that rank.

For example, Pope is a surname also used by normal people. Therefore, it can be registered in a personal name.

Given names that are identical to titles and forms of address may be registered in contexts that make it clear that they are given names and not titles.

For example, a given name like Regina may be registered in a name like Regina the Laundress or Regina Smith. Names like Regina of England or Regina Juliana of York will not be registered. They create the appearance of a claim to the restricted title Queen. Similarly, Miles is the approved Latin alternate for knight; however, Miles is also used as an English given name in period. Thus, Miles Martin would not create the appearance of a claim to the restricted title Miles.

For example, a given name like Brother may be registered in a name like John Brother, Brother the Fisherman, or Brother of England as in these cases Brother does not appear to be a form of address. However, Brother John or Brother Fisher would not be registerable as Brother appears to be a form of address. Similarly, Robert Friar and Anne the Widow are registerable but Friar Robert and Widow Anne are not as Friar and Widow appear to be forms of address.

Bynames incorporating the names of Society peerage orders and real-world knightly orders are not considered a claim to rank or membership in those orders.

For example, the use of an attested byname de la Rose or atte Pelican, both derived from inn-sign names, is not a claim to be a member of the order.

Submitters may register names that create a claim to rank that they do possess within the Society. Only permanent ranks may be used in names. Documentation must be provided that the submitter is entitled to this rank.

For example, no submitter may register a byname meaning king or princess, as those are not permanent ranks. Landed barons who are not court barons may not register a byname meaning baron.

🔗2. Dynastic Names: Names may not contain a byname uniquely used by a single dynasty. Dynastic names used by both a royal family and normal people are acceptable. While some kingdom names were originally used primarily or exclusively by royalty, those names came to be used so widely that they are not considered a claim to rank.

For example, the byname Hohenstaufen was used only by a single ruling dynasty, and thus cannot be used for SCA names, as it makes a claim to be a member of that specific dynasty. We do not limit the use of bynames like Tudor, Stuart, or Bourbon, as these bynames were used by many people who were not part of those ruling dynasties.

🔗3. Combination of Family Name and Location: Names may not contain both a family name used by an important noble family and the area from which that family derives their title or the seat of the family. Such a combination is considered a claim to rank. Generally this name pattern is limited to Scottish clan chiefs and to barons, counts, and other members of the high nobility.

For example, a name submission cannot use the byname combinations Campbell of Argylle or Tudor of England. The bynames Campbell, of Argylle, Tudor, and of England are each registerable individually.

🔗4. Honorific Names: Name phrases that were only granted as an honor or award by rulers cannot be registered. Such names are a claim to rank.

For example, the Japanese title shinn{o-} ('Imperial prince') was granted by the emperor to select male relatives beginning in the eighth century. Thus, shinn{o-} may not be registered as part of a Japanese name.

🔗5. Combination of Occupational and Locative Bynames: Names may not combine an occupational byname and a locative byname in a way that seems to be a claim to rank or official position. Some given names appear identical to occupational or locative bynames; names may not combine a given name of this form with an occupational or locative byname in a way that seems to be a claim to rank or official position. Most such combinations do not have this appearance. This should not be understood to suggest that the Crown cannot make such appointments; however, as they are not necessarily permanent, such appointments may not be used as justification for registered names.

For example, a name submission cannot use the combinations the Bard of Armagh or Abbot of Saint Giles or Champion of Ealdormere. Similarly, while Kingdom, London, and Herald can all be documented as both given names and bynames, Kingdom Marshall, London Herald and Herald of Wyvernwoode all give the impression of claiming rank or official position and would not be registerable. However, the Seamstress of York is unlikely to be understood to be the only seamstress, or an official seamstress and so would be registerable.

🔗C. Claim of Powers: Names may not contain an unmistakable claim of superhuman abilities, magical powers, or divine origin. In general, a name phrase used by normal human beings during our period is not considered to be a claim to superhuman abilities or divine origin.

For example, we will register Odinson, because Odin was used as a human given name in Middle English and in Norwegian. Similarly, we will register an English byname Devil, because it is attested as a human descriptive byname in medieval England. On the other hand, we will not register a name like Lokassson as a patronymic constructed from the name Loki, because the only known use of Loki is as the name of an Old Norse god. Such a name would be a claim to a divine origin.

There are examples of attested given names and bynames that are claims to magical abilities or other superhuman abilities. Such names will not be registered unless they can be demonstrated to have been used in contexts that are not claims to magical abilities. Use of them by multiple individuals is often sufficient to do so, unless they all were understood to have the same magical power.

For example the Norse byname sundafyllir, which is a reference to a story in which the owner filled a strait with fish through magic. Such a name would not be registerableas no evidence has been found that it was used by normal humans in period. The English name Beelzebub is found in the Bible; however, as no evidence has been found of ordinary humans being named after specific devils in period, the name is not registerable.

For example, the English byname Warlock has been shown to have been used by ordinary humans in period. It is therefore registerable. The German Trolle which means Troll and the Old Norse hálftr{o,}ll which means half-troll are both registerable as they were used by normal humans in period.

🔗D. Claim of Identity or Close Relationship with an Important Non-SCA Person: A personal name may not be too close to the name of a protected individual or make claims to be a direct relative of a protected individual.

A name is said to presume on a protected name if it is not substantially different in sound and appearance from it or creates an unmistakable claim to close relationship with that protected individual in any of the forms we protect. The standards for substantial difference and unmistakable relationship claims are set out in PN3 above as "identity conflict" and "relationship conflict" respectively, except that such items are not registerable, even with permission.

People from all periods of history including the present may be important enough to protect. Given the nature of the Society, people who lived within the scope of our period are somewhat more likely to be considered important enough to protect than people from other places and times. For individuals important enough to protect, we protect all forms in which their name was known, including in other languages, but not hypothetical forms. We only protect names that are used either today or in the time when they were alive to refer to these protected persons.

For example, we protect Christopher Columbus, Cristobal Colon, Christophorus Columbus, etc. as these were known forms of the name of the famous explorer. However, while Carlos V of Spain was also the count of Barcelona, we do not protect him as Carlos of Barcelona, as his name was not recorded or referenced in this form.

🔗1. Non-SCA People Protected from Presumption: A personal name submission is only considered to presume on protected personal names. Names of important non-SCA individuals are protected from presumption. People who are not important enough to have an entry in a standard print encyclopedia, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica or an equivalent non-English encyclopedia, are generally not important enough to protect. Newly famous individuals may rarely be considered important enough to protect even if they have not yet appeared in a print encyclopedia. Individuals who do have an entry must be further considered. People are considered important enough to protect if they meet the following standards.

Sovereign rulers of significant states are generally important enough to protect. Some historical city-states are not considered significant states. Provinces or regions integrated into larger units like the Holy Roman Empire are not generally considered significant states. Sovereigns of small states that did not give rise directly to modern countries will not be protected under this clause, nor will legendary kings of any state (though these kings may be individually important enough to protect).

Individuals whose names are recognized by a significant number of people in the Society without having to look them up in a reference are generally important enough to protect. Individuals recognized only by specialists in a subject are unlikely to be important enough to protect. Individuals who are only recognized with the assistance of reference books are unlikely to be important enough to protect.

Individuals whose work and/or life are still influential today are generally important enough to protect. Those whose work significantly shaped the course of world history, science, or the arts are generally important enough to protect. This is generally measured by examining measures like the length of encyclopedia articles about the person and his/her work, numbers of search engine hits for the individual, and the like.

Fictional characters may also be considered important enough that their names need to be protected. Fictional characters are generally important enough to protect when two conditions are met. They are: a) a significant number of people in the Society recognize the character's name without prompting and b) the use of the name would generally be considered by those people a clear reference to that character.

Even if a piece of armory is not considered important enough to protect from presumption, the use of a piece of historical armory combined with the family name of the holder may be presumptuous. For details, see A6, Presumption below.

🔗E. Claim of Non-Human Status: A personal name may not give the false appearance of being a territorial name, a rank or title, or an order or award; a name may make the appearance of a household name on a case by case basis. A personal name may not be identical to the name of any non-personal entity we protect.

For example, while Town and Kingdom can both be documented as given names, both Town of Princeton and Kingdom of Ealdormere create the false appearance of being a territorial entity. Similarly, while House can be documented as a given name, House of York creates the false appearance of being a famous English royal household. However, Kingdom Jones or House Smith do not give this false appearance.

🔗PN5. Personal Names Offense

🔗A. Definitions: No name that is offensive to a large segment of members of the SCA or the general public will be registered. Offense is a modern concept; just because a name was used in period does not mean that it is not offensive to the modern observer. Offense returns are rare because the bar for determining offensiveness is quite high; it has not been unusual for years to pass between returns for offense.

Offense is not dependent on intent. The fact that a submitter did not intend to be offensive is not relevant. The standard is whether a large segment of the SCA or the general public would be offended.

Similarly, offense is not dependent on clarity. A foreign language name that has an offensive meaning may be considered offensive, even if many English-speaking listeners would not understand the term without explanation.

🔗B. Types of Potentially Offensive Names: Several types of names are defined as potentially offensive:

🔗1. Vulgar Names: Names which include pornographic or scatological terms will not be registered. While some documented bynames refer to body parts, those which refer in explicit ways to genitals will not be registered, such as certain Old Norse bynames. Bynames which refer to other body parts are not generally vulgar and may be registered. Likewise, names that have been used as euphemisms for genitals are not considered vulgar and may be registered.

Names that will be understood by the modern English listener to be offensively vulgar will be considered vulgar even if the meaning in the original language is not vulgar. Relatively small changes to name elements can remove the appearance of vulgarity.

🔗2. Offensive Religious Terminology: Names which include religious terms used in a way that mock the beliefs of others will not be registered. This includes both incongruous combinations and combinations that are excessively religious and may be offensive to believers and non-believers alike. Most religious terminology is not offensive. Names with non-offensive religious terminology may be registered.

For example, the incongruous combinations Muhammad the Pope or Mary the Harlot of Babylon would not be registerable.

🔗3. Derogatory Stereotypes: Names which include ethnic, racial, or sexuality-based slurs and references to derogatory stereotypes will not be registered. This is not dependent on the period associations of the usage. It is an issue based on modern understandings of the offensiveness of terms. General references to ethnic, racial, or sexual identities are not offensive and may be registered.

🔗4. Offensive Political Terminology: Names which include terms specifically associated with social or political movements that are offensive to a particular race, ethnicity, religion or similar group will not be registered. Likewise, names with references to events or ideas that are offensive to a similar group will not be registered. Even if used without prejudice in period, such terms are offensive by their modern context.

For example, name phrases that suggest participation in pogroms or repressive movements, such as Judenfeind, a period German name meaning "enemy of the Jews," will not be registered.

🔗5. Offensiveness by Association: Names that reference places, persons, events or concepts that are morally repugnant to a large segment of the SCA or the general public will not be registered. The reference must be clear and unmistakable. When considering whether a name is offensive by association, any related armory that contributes to the appearance of offensiveness may be taken into account. The standard for offensiveness by association is high and, with the exception of the examples below and in Appendix N, each potentially offensive name element should be considered on a case-by-case basis. In undertaking the case-by-case analysis, the following factors should be considered: (1) the level of fame/infamy of the offensive association; (2) whether the name element is better known for things other than the offensive association; and (3) any other factors that suggest or refute offensiveness.

For example, the byname Hitler is offensive because no modern person hearing this name will associate it with anyone but the leader of the Nazi regime. The byname von Dachau is offensive because of the overwhelming association of the place with the Nazi concentration camp. However, the name Adolf van Meetkercke is not offensive because there have been multiple individuals named Adolf or Adolph and the byname has no association with the Nazi regime, fascism or white supremacy. By contrast, although the given name Reinhard is not offensive standing alone, and the byname of Bohemia is not offensive standing alone, the combination Reinhard of Bohemia is an offensive allusion to Reinhard Heydrich, Reichsprotektor of Moravia and Bohemia and a chief architect of the Holocaust.

🔗C. Names as a Whole: Even when no name phrase is itself offensive, an entire name may be offensive. A name that mocks a public person or another member of the Society by adding an element like "le Idiot" is not allowed. In general, such a reference must be unmistakable; this generally requires multiple elements from a protected name. Likewise, a name that creates an offensive idea through a combination of words is not allowed.

🔗NPN. Non-Personal Names

Non-personal names are names other than personal names. They include branch (local group) names, award and order names, household and association names (including guilds), and heraldic titles. To be registered, a non-personal name submission must meet the following standards:

1. The designator and substantive element must be demonstrated to be suitable for the type of item. Each type of element must be suitable for a specific time and place or must otherwise meet the standards set out in NPN1.
2. The name as a whole must be demonstrated to be grammatically (structurally) correct. This means meeting the standards for lingual and temporal compatibility set out in NPN2.
3. The name must be free of conflict and presumption as set out in NPN3 and NPN4.
4. The name must not be offensive as set out in NPN5.

🔗NPN1. Non-Personal Names Content

🔗A. Definitions: Non-personal names consist of two parts: the designator and the substantive phrase. A designator is the word or group of words that describe what kind of non-personal name it is, such as House, Barony or Order. The substantive element is the part of the name that is specific to the item being submitted. That is, it specifies which household, branch, etc. is being referred to. The preposition and article which often link the designator and substantive element are for the most part treated as part of neither, but in general should match the designator in language.

For example, in the name Barony of Carolingia, Barony is the designator and Carolingia the substantive element. In the name Black Lion Principal Herald, Principal Herald is the designator and Black Lion the substantive element. In the name the honurable Ordre of the Gartier, the honurable Ordre is the designator and Gartier the substantive element. In the name Hous of Julyane Huxster, Hous is the designator and Julyane Huxster is the substantive element. In each case, the preposition and article that may link them are part of neither one.

🔗1. Languages of Lingua Societatis: Lingua Societatis, as used in the following rules, allows the translation of certain elements of a name into a modern language. The modern languages that may be used under lingua Societatis vary depending on the location of the submitter. Standard modern English is always an option for lingua Societatis translations.

Individual submitters may also use lingua Societatis translations in the modern language of their country of residence, as determined by the address listed on the submission form. The language of the submitter's country of residence is not limited to language(s) designated by that country as an "official" language. Multiple factors may be considered to determine whether a particular language is the "language of the submitter's country of residence," including but not limited to the language(s) used by the local SCA groups to hold business meetings, the language(s) spoken by the local SCA groups in court or at events, the language(s) in which reports, newspapers and media are published within the local area, and the percentage of the population that speaks the particular language.

If the submitter is a branch, in addition to standard modern English, it may use lingua Societatis translations in the modern language of a country or countries within that branch's territory. The branch's modern language is not limited to language(s) designated as "official" national languages. As in the case of individuals, multiple factors may be considered to determine whether a particular language qualifies for use under lingua Societatis, including but not limited to the language(s) used by the branch to hold business meetings, the language(s) spoken by members of the branch in court or at events, the language(s) in which reports, newspapers and media are published within the local area, the percentage of the branch's members that speaks the particular language, and the percentage of the general population within the branch's territory speaking that language.

🔗B. Designators: The designators which may be used are determined by the type of non-personal name submission. In general, if the lingua Societatis form of a designator is used, any prepositions and articles which join the designator to the substantive element must be in the language of the designator. Lingua Societatis is discussed in greater detail in NPN1A1 above and in NPN1C2c below.

🔗1. Branch Designators: The standard English designators for branches (local SCA groups) are established by the Governing Documents. The list may be found in Appendix E of this document. These designators are considered to be compatible with any place name construction. This is true whether or not period forms can be found with such a designator. Shires are not limited to the forms of English shires, nor baronies to the kinds of names found for baronies in period. In addition, each type of branch may be registered with other designators suitable for that branch type. In particular, a college may be named following the pattern of medieval colleges.

The standard English designators may be used in the lingua Societatis form Designator of X regardless of the language of the substantive phrase. Similarly, following the guidelines in NPN1A, a lingua Societatis translation of a standard English designator may be used, together with any appropriate prepositions, regardless of the language of the substantive phrase. Translations of the designator for the appropriate branch type into a medieval language may also be used; however, in this case, the documented form of the designator should be consistent in language with the substantive phrase. A list of the standard English designators and some previously registered translations can be found in Appendix E.

In general, changes of status for a branch, such as changing from shire to barony, do not need to be submitted. The Laurel office does not track those changes in status (that being a duty of the Seneschal and Board of Directors). However, it will acknowledge them when a new submission is made. The exception is when a branch wants the approval of a new alternate form of the branch designator, such as a newly documented medieval spelling of the designator. Such approval requires Laurel approval, but is an administrative action (which does not require fees) and does not delay the change in status.

🔗2. Order and Award Designators: The designators for order names must follow a documented pattern for medieval order names. The standard English designators are Order and Award. Any pattern suitable for one such designator is suitable for the other. These designators may be used as a lingua Societatis form, regardless of the language of the substantive phrase. Similarly, following the guidelines in NPN1A, a lingua Societatis translation of Order or Award may be used, together with any appropriate prepositions, regardless of the language of the substantive phrase. Alternatively, designators may take the language of the substantive element. A list of some translations of these designators is listed in Appendix E. Documenting a designator for an order name does not show it is appropriate for household names, and documenting a designator for household names does not show it is appropriate for orders.

For example, either Order of the Levrier or Ordre du Levrier is registerable for the meaning 'order of the hound', but Order du Levrier and Ordre of the Levrier are not; in each one, the preposition and article do not match the language of the designator.

For example, Order of the Levrier is registerable as an order name, but not as a household name. On the other hand, Galeón San Pedro y San Philippe is registerable as a household name (for a group of sailors), but not as an order name.

🔗3. Household and Association Names: The designators for household names must be documented as a form describing a group of people in a particular culture. It must be compatible with the substantive element in terms of content and style. There is no standard designator which is considered compatible with all types of names for groups of people.

Several kinds of groups of people have served as models for household names. They include a noble household, a military unit, a guild, a group of people associated with an inn or tenement house, a university or school (noting that the word college is reserved for branches), clans, and an organized group of musicians or actors. Designators may be registered in the original language or may take the lingua Societatis form. Suitable substantive elements (like simple descriptions) may take the lingua Societatis form as well. Documenting a designator for an order name does not show it is appropriate for household names, and documenting a designator for household names does not show it is appropriate for orders.

For example, either Compagnia di Santa Lucia or Company of Santa Lucia is registerable for the meaning 'company of Saint Lucia', but Company di Santa Lucia and Compagnia of Santa Lucia are not; in each one, the preposition and article do not match the language of the designator.

For example, Galeón San Pedro y San Philippe is registerable as a household name (for a group of sailors), but not as an order name. On the other hand, Order of San Philippe is registerable as an award or order name, but not a household name.

🔗4. Heraldic Titles: The designators for heraldic titles must follow a documented pattern for heraldic titles. In English, the standard lingua Societatis terms for heraldic titles for kingdoms and local branches are Herald and Pursuivant. Any pattern suitable for one such designator is suitable for the other. These designators may take a lingua Societatis form, or they may take the language of the substantive element. The designator Principal Herald and its translations are restricted to the chief herald of a kingdom. The designator King/Queen/Sovereign of Arms and its translations are restricted to the Laurel office. In general, changes of designator, for example from Pursuivant to Herald, do not need to be submitted to the Laurel office; if submitted, they are administrative actions, which do not require fees.

For example, the Kingdom of the West could register a heraldic title based on the German placename Funffprun either in the entirely German form Funffprun Herold or in the lingua Societatis form Funffprun Herald. However, the West could not register Funffprun Herault, as Herault is a French term for heralds. On the other hand, because French is one of the national languages of Canada, the Kingdom of Ealdormere could register Funffprun Herault with a French designator by using lingua Societatis.

🔗C. Standards for Designators and Substantive Elements: To be registerable, those designators whose form is not fixed in NPN1B above (including those with modifiers, such as Noble Order) must meet the standards laid out below. All substantive elements must also meet the standards laid out below.

🔗1. Single Time and Place: A substantive element must follow the rules of grammar and structure for a single time and place. It may not mix languages unless that mixing of languages within a name phrase is attested.

For example, the attested English heraldic title Rougecrosse Pursuivant is partially French and partially English, but this does not necessarily mean that all French and English words may be so combined.

🔗2. Sources of Designators and Substantive Elements: We allow registerable name phrases to be created in a variety of ways. A designator is a name phrase. A substantive element is a name phrase. Those designators that are discussed in NPN1B above do not need to be justified under the terms of this section.

🔗a. Attested Name Phrases: Name phrases may be attested to period as a complete name phrase. A single example of an attested name phrase clearly dated to period is sufficient to demonstrate its use. Minor spelling variants are allowed when those spelling variants can be demonstrated to be compatible with the spelling conventions of the time and place of the attested name.

For example, in Renaissance Scots, the letters i and y are regularly interchangeable. So, a name attested as Armyltoun could also be registered as Armiltoun. The letters k and q, on the other hand, are not interchangeable in Renaissance Scots. So, a name attested as Kintyre does not justify the spelling Qintyre.

🔗b. Constructed Name Phrases: Name phrases may be constructed from attested period name elements. This requires demonstrating that the combination follows a period pattern. We generally require at least three examples to consider something a pattern. This is because a single name phrase can appear to follow a pattern that it does not actually follow.

For example, the German placename element -katz does not derive from the name of the animal but from the name of a river. Thus, this element cannot be combined with an element that is incompatible with a river name.

All of the elements and patterns for a constructed name phrase must come from a single time and place. We do not allow constructed name phrases that are created by using patterns from one time and place with elements from another time and place. Some examples of constructed names are:

🔗1. New Placenames Constructed from Attested Elements: New placenames can be constructed from attested placename elements following an attested pattern.

For example, the attested English place names Oxford, Swinford and Hartford indicate a pattern of kinds of large hooved animals with -ford. Therefore, this pattern would support a similar name like Sheepford. This pattern would not, however, support constructing Bookford or Duckford, since neither books nor ducks are large hooved animals.

For example, there is a pattern of adding family names to existing placenames in English. Following this pattern, the attested family name Peverel can be added to the attested placename Bercroft to construct the compound placename Bercroft Peverel.

🔗2. New Heraldic Titles Constructed from Attested Elements: New heraldic titles can be constructed by using attested elements in attested patterns for a given time and place.

For example, attested English titles include Blaunche Sanglier Pursuivant and Rouge Dragon Pursuivant. These can justify Rouge Sanglier Pursuivant and Blaunche Dragon Pursuivant. They can also justify the use of other animals or heraldic monsters, like Rouge Griffin Pursuivant or Blanche Leopard Pursuivant.

🔗c. Lingua Societatis Allowance: We also allow the registration of translations of attested and constructed household names, heraldic titles, and order names into standard modern languages appropriate to the submitting individual or branch, as described in NPN1A. We allow this because the meanings of these names would have been clear to the speakers of these languages, but may be unclear to modern speakers. The translation must be a literal, plausible and complete translation. Under no circumstances will translations of the meanings of given names or placenames be registerable under this rule.

For example, Blanche Sanglier Herald can be translated into standard modern English as White Boar Herald, but not White Sanglier Herald, Snowy Boar Herald, or White Piggy Herald. A barony located in the Netherlands could register the modern Dutch form Witte Everzwijn Heraut, using the lingua Societatis rules for Dutch.

For example, the Spanish byname de Castilla may be translated as of Castile. The Arabic byname al-Dimashqi may be translated as of Damascus or the Damascene. However, while Cairo is derived from a word which means "the victorious", its lingua Societatis form in English is of Cairo, not of The Victorious, as "The Victorious" is a translation of the meaning.

🔗d. Borrowed Names: Name phrases may be borrowed from secular literature, from the Bible or other religious literature, or from the names of saints. Name phrases may also be constructed from name elements borrowed from those types of source. To borrow a name phrase or element, the following conditions must be met:

🔗1. Linguistically Appropriate Form: The name phrase must be shown to be a form by which the entity was known in that time and place. Generally this means finding it in the literature of that time (so a Renaissance Italian Bible, or an English publication of an Arthurian romance). In the case of a saint's name, evidence for their veneration through the naming of churches is generally sufficient. Only the form of the name used in that culture is permitted under this allowance.

For example, the Greek mythological object known in English as the Golden Fleece was known to the medieval French as the Toison d'Or. It is Toison d'Or that was borrowed for the name of the period Burgundian order. Similarly, the saint known in her lifetime as Æhelthryth was venerated by late period English people as Audrey. Audrey is the form allowed in late period English context to create a name like the College of Saint Audrey.

🔗2. Pattern of Borrowing Names: The culture must be shown to have a pattern of using name phrases from that type of source. Demonstrating such a pattern requires at least three independent examples of normal entities using such name phrases in the target time and place.

The demonstrated pattern must address the type of name phrase. Evidence of the use of the given names of saints does not demonstrate the use of the bynames of saints. The demonstrated pattern must also address the type of character or entity. The use of a non-personal name derived from the given name of a major character in a source does not demonstrate the use of a non-personal name derived from the given name of a minor character.

For example, there is a pattern of using the given names of major Arthurian characters in medieval England. This would justify a non-personal name derived from the name Bedivere even if it were not attested. However, it would not justify a non-personal name derived from the name of a minor Arthurian character like Gwinas, who is only mentioned once. It would also not justify a non-personal name derived from a Biblical name. As there is no similar pattern of borrowing in Gaelic, a non-personal name derived from the Gaelic form of an Arthurian character cannot be registered under this allowance.

🔗e. Legal Name Allowance: Name phrases from an individual submitter's legal names may be used. To do this, the submitter must demonstrate the name phrase on a legal document, such as a birth certificate, driver's license, or the like. Only the full name and the nature of the document must be visible. Identification numbers and the like may be obscured. Religious names (Hebrew names, confirmation names) are also considered legal names. With appropriate evidence, they can be used under this allowance.

A personal name can be used in the construction of a household name. Surnames are used to construct household names, on the pattern of Surname Hall. Personal names can be used in the construction of heraldic titles. Surnames are used to construct heraldic titles on the pattern of Surname Herald.

For example, someone whose legal surname is Smylie could register Smylie Hall under the legal name allowance.

The name phrase must be used in precisely the way that it is spelled on the legal document. As some legal documents obscure capitalization (by using all capitals) or omit punctuation (and markings like accents), such changes may be allowed on a case by case basis. Name phrases must be used in their entirety, including any prepositions and articles. Non-personal names based on nicknames which do not appear on legal documents cannot be registered.

For example, the legal surname Westwick justifies Westwick Herald, but not Westwyck Herald or Westwik Herald. The legal surname von Volvorth justifies von Volvorth Hall, not Volvorth Hall or de Volvorth Hall, even though the expected form in a period construction would drop the preposition von.

🔗f. Branch Name Allowance: Name phrases may be created from the registered forms of SCA branches. The name phrase must use a lingua Societatis form meaning 'of Branchname' or 'from Branchname'. In English, the usual lingua Societatis form incorporating an SCA branch name is 'of Branchname'. In order names with double locatives, the form 'at Branchname' is allowed (see the July 2022 LoAR for details on the use of double locatives in order names).

Name phrases should stay as close to the exact registered name of the branch as possible, while obeying the grammatical requirements of the language used for lingua Societatis. Translated forms based on the meaning of branch names will not be registered under this allowance, even if the translated form matches the intended origin of the submission or of the branch.

For example, we would allow the forms of the East or of Fontaine dans Sable, as these are the expected lingua Societatis forms in English. However, this rule would not allow the Kingdom of the East to use von Osten as a German translation of "of the East", even if the rest of the submission was in German. Similarly, although the branch name Fontaine dans Sable is French, the branch in question is located in the United States. Thus, the branch could not use lingua Societatis to register the phrase de la Fontaine dans Sable as a fully French version of "of Fontaine dans Sable". That is, the branch could use Ordre du Levrier of Fontaine dans Sable or Order of the Levrier of Fontaine dans Sable, but it could not justify Ordre du Levrier de la Fontaine dans Sable under this rule, as this is not the lingua Societatis form of the branch name, even though it matches the intended origin of the submission. If Fontaine dans Sable can also be documented as an attested or constructed French name, de Fontaine dans Sable could be used in forming a fully French order name; however that would not be through the use of the branch name allowance.

For example, the branch of Aarnimetsä in Finland could register Aarnimetsän Ordre du Levrier, transforming the branch name according to the rules of modern Finnish grammar.

For example, Order of the Defender of the Flame at Starkhafn is registerable as the first locative refers to a manor house or tavern (such as Inn of the Flame) and the second is a larger entity, the Barony of Starkhafn.

For example, we would not allow of the Midrealm, as Midrealm is not the registered form of the Kingdom of the Middle.

🔗g. The Existing Registration Allowance: Name phrases from a name registered to an individual or branch may be used in a new non-personal name submission by that individual or branch, even if the name phrase is no longer registerable under the rules. The use of the existing registration allowance does not allow the submitter to evade new style problems (as discussed in NPN2 below). It only allows the submitter a pass on style problems that already exist with the registered name. Documentation under the existing registration allowance does not exempt a name from conflict, presumption, or offense rules, unless that rules violation is itself part of the existing registration in question.

The element used may be the entire substantive element, the designator, or part of the substantive element. Only the exact, actual name phrase from the registered form may be used, not variants, patterns, etc., with the exception of submissions of branch heraldic titles and order names.

A name phrase from a name registered to an individual may also be used in a non-personal name registration made by a close legal relative (such as parent, spouse, child, sibling, etc.). To do this, the submitter must demonstrate the relationship through legal documents or through attestation of relationship from the individual whose name is already registered.

Branches may register new heraldic titles and order names based on patterns used in their existing heraldic titles or order names. To use the existing registration allowance, the new submission must be similar in content to the existing pattern.

For example, if a branch had registered an order name Crimson Sleeve, they could use that to modify a new, similar object such as Crimson Glove. However, they could not register Crimson Bowl, as a bowl is not the same type of object as a sleeve. Likewise, the owner of Diamond Herald and Ruby Herald could use the existing registration allowance to register Order of the Saphire. The owner could not register Order of the Diamond Ring or Order of the Gold, because the pattern of registered items is limited to precious stones, not jewelry or precious items in general.

Branches may also utilize the existing registration allowance to register non-personal names incorporating name phrases from the registered names of individuals closely associated with the branch. This generally means a resident of the branch or an active supporter. The permission of the individual or their heraldic heir is required for this use. Only the whole, exact, actual name phrase from the registered form may be used, not variants or patterns. Under no circumstances will this privilege be extended to use names or to other unregistered names.

🔗h. Generic Patterns: Generic patterns for order/award names can be found in Appendix E2b. Similarly, generic patterns for heraldic titles can be found in Appendix E3. These generic patterns may be used in any language, including languages where orders and/or heraldic titles did not exist in period. Other patterns may be registered but must be documented as described above.

🔗NPN2. Non-Personal Names Style

🔗A. Definitions: A complete non-personal name must consist of a designator, which says what kind of name it is (like Shire, Herald, Award, etc.), and a substantive element, which says which one it is (such as New London or Blanche Lyon). Any name that lacks one of the two cannot be registered, though the designator may sometimes be omitted in casual use.

🔗B. Name Requirements: A complete non-personal name must be relatively consistent with a single time and place in structure and grammar, as defined in these rules. Unlike personal names which are made up of multiple name phrases, the designator and substantive phrase create a single name phrase for the purpose of our rules. Therefore, there are no registerable lingual mixes beyond the use of the lingua Societatis rule for designators following the rules that are laid out in NPN1 above. In general terms, a non-personal name submission including elements separated by more than 300 years or that cannot be demonstrated to be typical of a single language and culture will not be registered.

In a submission, the structure and grammar of the overall name must be demonstrated to be compatible with period practice or with those patterns described in NPN1 above. That includes, but is not limited to, documenting the order of the words in the name, ensuring that any necessary grammatical changes are included (such as making a name possessive), and documenting that the designator and the substantive element are appropriate for use with one another.

🔗C. Names Not Recorded in a Latin Script: Names will only be registered in the Latin script, so that they can be easily read by heralds and the populace. We will not register Norse names in runes, Russian names in Cyrillic, Japanese names in kanji, and so on. Submitters are encouraged to use those names in the original alphabet for other purposes. Names and name phrases that would not have been written in a Latin script are treated for purposes of registration as if they are created in the relevant script (Norse, Arabic, Russian, etc.). They are then transcribed into the Latin script following a single orthographic system, which may include common diacritics such as ó with an acute accent, ligatures such as æ (ash, representing {ae}), and other characters such as þ (thorn, representing the unvoiced {th} sound). Names that mix two orthographic systems for transcription are not allowed because some systems use the same letters to represent different sounds, which creates confusion. This includes the use (or lack) of accents in a name - their usage should be consistent. A list of acceptable transliteration systems for some languages can be found in Appendix D. The use of a transliteration system not listed there must be justified with the submission.

🔗D. Obtrusive Modernity: No name will be registered that either in whole or in part is obtrusively modern; something is said to be obtrusively modern when it is such that it makes a modern joke or reference that destroys medieval ambience and would drag the average person mentally back to the present day. In general, a period name that has some modern referent will not be considered obtrusively modern.

Names that have been ruled obtrusively modern include Porsche Audi, Artemisian Tank Corps, and Geky Herald (pronounced as "geeky herald"), while names like Edmond Fitzgerald, Red Boke Herald, Drew Steele and Mould de Cheder have been registered.

🔗E. Generic Identifiers: As discussed in GP2A, some items are considered too generic to be registered; this means that they may be used by anyone and may not be reserved to one person or group by registration. One category of items that may not be registered is generic identifiers like Brewer's Guild and Queen's Guard; these names may be used to identify the owner of a badge or to designate its intended use, but no group may register it (and hence prevent others from registering it). These generic items may be used by anyone without registration, but may not be registered to anyone.

🔗NPN3. Non-Personal Names Conflict

🔗A. Definitions: To be registered, a new submission must be clear of conflict with all registered names. Conflict, as it is used in these rules, is a modern concept which derives from the requirement in the Governing Documents that names have sufficient difference to avoid undue confusion. There are two kinds of confusion which must be avoided: being too close to a protected non-personal name directly, and indicating ownership by or affiliation with any protected name, including personal names. These are described in these rules as "identity conflict" and "affiliation conflict".

For identity conflict, names that are substantially different in both sound and appearance are said to be clear of conflict. Names that are not substantially different in sound and/or appearance are said to be in conflict. For affiliation conflict, a name that makes an unmistakable claim of ownership by or affiliation to a protected name is in conflict with it. This section of the rules sets the standards for how names can be substantially different and avoid such an unmistakable claim.

🔗B. Items Protected from Conflict: A new non-personal name submission must be clear from identity and affiliation conflict with all registered non-personal names of any type. Non-personal names do not have identity conflict with personal names, but may have affiliation conflict with personal names. A name is registered and protected from the moment it is listed as accepted on a published Letter of Acceptances and Returns. Registered names will be listed in the Ordinary and Armorial as soon as possible, but they are protected as soon as the Letter of Acceptances and Return is published.

🔗C. Standards for Identity Conflict: To be clear of conflict, the substantive elements of two names must be substantially different in sound and appearance. Matters such as meaning, language, etymological origin, etc., are completely irrelevant, as conflict is a modern concept. Designators and the prepositions or articles which link them to the substantive elements do not count for difference (though they can be sufficient to allow registration with permission to conflict). Only sound and appearance of the substantive elements are considered for difference. Thus, the Latinized form of a name may be clear of conflict from the vernacular form. While we do not go out of our way to consider variant pronunciations, we do consider important period and modern pronunciations of name elements.

For a pair of non-personal names to be substantially different, the substantive elements of two non-personal names must be different in sound and appearance under the standards laid out below. This entails meeting at least one standard for substantial difference in sound and at least one standard for substantial difference in appearance. Substantive elements are compared as complete items, even if the elements have different capitalization or spacing.

For example, in House of Lancastre, Lancastre is the substantive element; in Grimwithshire, Grimwith is the substantive element. In the case of House of the Black Bear, Black Bear is the substantive element. Substantive elements are compared as complete items, so the Shire of Southam Ton conflicts with the Shire of Southamton, because the substantive elements are the same, except for changes in spacing and capitalization. Because the designator does not contribute difference, Shire of Southam Ton also conflicts with Barony of Southamton. The Order of the Whistle does not conflict with the Order of the Whistle of Drachenwald, because the substantive elements being compared are Whistle and Whistle of Drachenwald.

Analyzing substantial changes in sound often requires counting sound changes. Under these standards, a single sound is defined as a consonant sound, vowel sound, or diphthong (two vowels combined in a single syllable).

For example, the English tavern name element Hat has three sounds: the consonant sound represented by 'H', the vowel sound represented by 'a', and the consonant sound represented by 't'. For example, in the English place name element Down, the 'o' and the 'w' combine to form a single sound, the diphthong 'ow'. Thus, Down has three sounds, the consonant sound represented by 'D', the diphthong 'ow', and the consonant sound represented by 'n'. For example, in the English place name element Throp, the 't' and 'h' combine to make a single consonant sound. Thus, Throp has four sounds: the consonant sound represented by 'th', the consonant sound represented by 'r', the vowel sound represented by 'o', and the consonant sound represented by 'p'.

A change to appearance involves the insertion, deletion, or substitution of a letter or space. Changes to accents and punctuation do not contribute to substantial changes in appearance. Changes between upper- and lowercase also do not contribute to substantial changes in appearance.

🔗1. Changes to Two Syllables: Names are substantially different in sound if changes to the substantive element affect the sound of at least two syllables (including adding, removing, or reordering them). If the changes only affect adjacent sounds, they must affect more than two sounds to be considered different under this standard.

For example, College of Saint Claris is substantially different in sound from College of Santa Clara because two syllables change in sound, and another is added. Barony of Denituna is substantially different from Barony of Denton, because one syllable has changed and two have been added. While the names are etymologically linked (with the first an earlier Latinized version of the second name), multiple syllables have difference in sound and appearance.

For example, Sign of the White Eagle is not substantially different in sound from Sign of the Whyt Egle, because a common pronunciation of the substantive elements is identical. Hamdon House is not substantially different in sound from Hapton House; the changes affect two syllables, but the sounds in question (the md and pt group in the middle of the first word) are adjacent.

For example, Order of the Wolf and Falcon is substantially different from Order of the Falcon and Wolf and Blanche Rose Pursuivant is substantially different from Rose Blanche Pursuivant. In both cases, the substantive element has been reordered. Reordering of the substantive element and the designator does not clear conflict, so House of Lancaster is not substantially different from Lancaster House.

🔗2. Substantial Change to One Syllable: Names are substantially different in sound if a single syllable in their substantive element (excluding articles, prepositions, and conjunctions, such as de, the, or and) is changed in sound as described here. The addition or removal of a syllable makes two names substantially different in sound. Two names are also substantially different in sound if the sound of a syllable is substantially changed in one of the following ways. If a vowel and the consonant or part of the group of consonants on one side of this vowel are different between the two names, we consider a syllable to be substantially changed. When the sounds of each consonant or part of each group of consonants on both sides of a vowel are different, we also consider the syllable to be substantially changed.

For example, the Shire of Charford is substantially different from Shire of Northcharford, as a syllable is removed. Similarly, House of Charring is substantially different from House of Charring Cross, as a syllable is removed.

For example, here are some names that are substantially different in sound due to appropriate changes to the sound of a single syllable. Canton of Caldbek is substantially different in sound from Canton of Caldwell, because the consonants on each side of the vowel in the second syllable of the substantive elements are different. The branch name Canton of Caldbek is also significantly different in sound from Barony of Birkbek; in this case, the consonants on each side of the vowel and the vowel in the first syllable of the substantive element are different. Northwood House is substantially different in sound from Southwood House: comparing the syllables North- and South-, we see that the first consonant group is completely changed, as is the sound of the vowel. Margerie Clutters Tavern is substantially different in sound from Margery Catters Tavern because in the first syllable of the second word in the substantive element, the first group of consonants has changed from cl to c and the vowels are different.

For example, here are some names that are not substantially different in sound. Caldwell Herald is not substantially different in sound from Coldwell Herald; the change only affects the vowel sound of the first syllable. The Green Band is not substantially different in sound from Green House, because no change has been made to the substantive element Green (excluding the). Similarly, Award of the White Cat is not substantially different in sound from Order of the Wyte Cat, because the substantive elements White Cat and Wyte Cat sound identical.

🔗3. Substantial Change of Single-Syllable Name Element: Two names whose substantive elements are two words or less and have a comparable single-syllable name element (excluding articles and prepositions, such as de and the) are eligible for this rule. Comparable single-syllable name elements are substantially different in sound if a group of adjacent vowels or of adjacent consonants within a word is completely changed, so that they have no sound in common. In rare cases, the sound may still be too similar for this rule to clear the conflict. On a case by case basis, two-syllable name elements may be eligible for this rule, such as Harry and Mary.

For example, House of the White Cat is substantially different in sound from House of the White Hat; each has a single syllable word in the substantive element with an initial consonant cluster that is different in sound. Bull House is substantially different in sound from Birch House; each has a single syllable word with a final consonant cluster that is different in sound and appearance. Round House is not substantially different in sound from Broun House because the r and Br groups share a sound, as do the nd and n consonant groups.

For example, College of Saint John is substantially different in sound from College of Saint Jayn, because the vowel sounds are completely changed. However, College of Saint John of Essex is not substantially different in sound from College of Saint Jayn of Essex because they both have substantive elements longer than two words and cannot use this rule.

🔗4. Changes to the Appearance of Multiple Letters: Two non-personal names are substantially different in appearance if a change in spelling (including addition or removal of letters and insertion or deletion of spaces) affects at least two letters or spaces in their substantive elements.

For example, College of Saint Claris is substantially different in appearance from College of Santa Clara: when changing from Saint Claris to Santa Clara, one letter is deleted and one added to the first word, and in the second word one letter is changed and a second letter is deleted. Bill House is substantially different in appearance from Birch House, because three letters in the substantive element have changed.

For example, House of the White Cat is not substantially different in appearance from Order of the White Cat or White Cat Herald. In all three cases, the substantive elements are identical.

🔗5. Substantial Change to the Appearance of a Short Name: Two names whose substantive elements are two words or less (excluding articles and prepositions, such as de and the) are eligible for this rule. Changing one letter in words that both have four or fewer letters suffices for substantial difference in appearance. On a case by case basis, changes to the beginning of longer words, such as Harry and Larry, may also be eligible for this rule.

For example, House of the White Cat is substantially different in appearance from House of the White Hat. The substantive elements are both two words long, and both Cat and Hat have three letters. On the other hand, Pers Hall is not significantly different in appearance from Peris Hall, because the substantive element Peris has more than four letters and thus this rule does not apply.

🔗6. Examples of Non-Personal Name Conflict Checks: Here are some examples of pairs of non-personal names that are clear of identity conflict.

For example, College of Saint Claris is substantially different in sound from College of Santa Clara under NPN3C1 because two syllables change in sound, and another is added. The two names are substantially different in appearance under NPN3C4 because more than two letters are changed. Thus, College of Saint Claris and College of Santa Clara are clear of identity conflict.

For example, Canton of Caldbek is substantially different in sound from Canton of Caldwell under NPN3C2 because the second syllable of the substantive element is substantially changed. The two names are substantially different in appearance under NPN3C4 because two letters are changed and a third has been added. Thus, Canton of Caldbek and Canton of Caldwell are clear of identity conflict.

For example, House of the White Cat is substantially different in sound from House of the White Hat under NPN3C3 because a group of consonants in one word of a two-word substantive element is completely changed. The two names are substantially different in appearance under NPN3C5 because one letter in a three-letter word of the substantive element has changed. Thus, House of the White Cat and House of the White Hat are clear of identity conflict.

Here are some examples of pairs of non-personal names that have an identity conflict.

For example, College of Saint Claris has an identity conflict with Saint Claris Hall. In both names, the substantive element is Saint Claris. Because designators do not contribute difference, these names conflict. Similarly, House of the White Cat and White Cat Herald have identical substantive elements and are in conflict.

For example, College of Saint John of Essex has an identity conflict with College of Saint Jayn of Essex. The two names are not different in sound under NPN3C1 because only one syllable is changed. The two names are not different in sound under NPN3C2 because no consonants have changed. Because both names have substantive elements longer than two words, NPN3C3 does not apply. The two names happen to be substantially different in appearance under NPN3C4, since two letters have been changed, but because they are not substantially different in both sound and appearance, they have an identity conflict.

For example, Pers Hall has an identity conflict with Peris Hall. The two names happen to be substantially different in sound under NPN3C2, because a syllable has been added. However, they are not substantially different in appearance under NPN3C4 because only one letter has been added, and they are not substantially different in appearance under NPN3C5 because Peris has more than four letters and thus the rule does not apply. Because the two names are not substantially different in both sound and appearance, they have an identity conflict.

🔗D. Standards for Affiliation Conflict: Non-personal names may not unmistakably imply ownership by or affiliation with any name we protect. An unmistakable implication generally requires the use of multiple elements/phrases from a protected name. A non-personal name that uses two or more elements from a protected name may be presumptuous, if it can be understood to be a claim to be owned by or affiliated with that person or group.. In cases where the protected name has only a single element, the use of that element may be considered presumptuous on a case-by-case basis.

For example, House of Cariadoc of the Bow unmistakably implies that the owner is Cariadoc of the Bow, and thus cannot be registered, but Cariadocs House does not unmistakably imply that claim. Order of Bela of Eastmarch unmistakably implies affiliation with Bela of Eastmarch, but Order of Bela does not unmistakably imply that claim. For example, Company of the Blue Shield of Caid as a household name submission from an individual unmistakably implies ownership by the Kingdom of Caid, while Company of the Blue Shield does not.

There are period examples of using personal names in a way that does not make such a claim. For example, saint's names were used to create the names of places, orders, colleges, and religious confraternities. While they were dedicated to these saints, they did not make a confusing claim of the sort prohibited here. Thus, such names are registerable. Many private ships across Europe in our period were named for the ports they sailed from or the place where they were built. Therefore, household names based on ship names and using a designator meaning ship may use a branch name without making a claim of the sort prohibited here. Other names that use the name of a protected individual or entity can be registered only if they can be shown to follow a period pattern of naming that does not make a claim to be owned by a protected person or claim a confusing relationship with a protected person.

For example, Ordre de Monsieur Saint Michel Archange, is an order name which makes reference to Saint Michel but does not make a confusing claim. Similarly, both Saint Marie Magdalene College, and the Cofradia de San Juan Bautista are dedicated to these saints, but cannot be mistaken to be owned by them. The Order of Saint William the Cooper is registerable, even though this is a constructed saint's name, as long as there is no registered William the Cooper.

For example, Ship Swan of Darkwater and Laiva Aarnimetsan Ugglan (Ship Owl of Aarnimetsa) include the branch names Darkwater and Aarnimetsa but as household names based on ship names, they do not create a claim to be owned by those branches and may be registered to an individual. However, the ship name Company of the Falcon Lancaster of Adiantum, based on the Tudor ship name pattern heraldic charge + 16th century English surname, would create a claim to be owned by the branch Barony of Adiantum since the designator Company is not restricted to households based on ship names.

🔗E. Registration with Permission to Conflict: The owner of an item may grant permission to conflict to a new submission for either identity conflict or affiliation conflict. Such permission may be granted either individually through a letter of permission to conflict or universally through a blanket letter of permission to conflict. A submission identical to the registered item will not be registered even with permission to conflict.

Any change to the sound and appearance of the substantive element is sufficient to allow the registration of a non-personal name with a letter of permission to conflict. Any change to the sound and appearance of the designator is sufficient to allow the registration of a non-personal name with a letter of permission to conflict, except when both items are branches, orders or awards, or heraldic titles or when one item is an order or award and the other is a heraldic title. This is because designators for branches and heraldic titles may change over time, we consider the designators for orders, awards, and honors to be equivalent, and we allow branches to register heraldic titles formed from their registered order and award names. However, household and affiliation designators do not change over time and are considered an integral part of the name.

🔗NPN4. Non-Personal Names Presumption

🔗A. Definitions: Presumption is a false claim. This includes claims of rank or powers that the submitter does not possess within the Society or that we do not allow anyone to claim. It also includes claims of identity with, ownership by, or affiliation with a person or entity outside the SCA that is considered quite important by many people within and outside the Society. Presumption is not dependent on intent; even if such a claim was not intended, the appearance of such a claim is not allowed. Items which presume will not be registered, even if a letter of permission could be obtained.

🔗B. Claim to Rank: Names may not contain a claim to a protected and/or restricted rank that the submitter does not have within the Society. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to:

🔗1. Use of Elements that Appear to Be Titles: Names may not contain an element or combination of elements that create the appearance of a claim to have a specific rank or title that the submitter does not possess. Submitters may register names that create a claim to rank that they do possess. Only permanent ranks may be used in names. No submitter may register a name using an element that claims to be king or princess. Landed barons who are not court barons may not register an element which creates a claim to be a baron. Titles may be used as elements where they are not a claim to rank.

For example, no submitter may register a name like Kynges House, as that appears to be the household belonging to the king. However, in the Barony of Kingestenton, even though the first element refers to the fact that the town once belonged to the king, it was used for normal towns and so is not a claim to rank.

🔗2. Names of the Peerage Orders: Order and award names may not include the names of the peerage orders or overt references to famous knightly orders such as the Garter. Other types of non-personal names may only use such elements in contexts where no reference to the order is likely to be perceived by members of the order and the general populace. The addition of a branch name to a protected historical order name does not remove the appearance of a reference to that name.

For example, while the name Order of the Garter and Laurel is clear of conflict with the Order of the Laurel, it is presumptuous and we would not register it. Likewise, we would not register Order of the Rose of the West, even though the addition of the element of the West clears the conflict with the Order of the Rose. We would not register Order of the Ermine of the West because this name appears to reference a regional offshoot of a protected historical knightly order, the Order of the Ermine, which was founded by a fourteenth-century Duke of Brittany.

For example, House of the Blue Garter could be seen as a reference to the blue garter badge of the Order of the Garter and would not be registered. We would register House of the White Garter, because the addition of the color word White clearly distinguishes the household name from the famous historical order, which used a blue garter badge.

🔗3. Elements that are Presumptuous in Personal Names: Names may not contain a name element or group of elements we would consider presumptuous in a personal name (see PN4). Examples include a byname uniquely used by a single dynasty, the combination of a surname and the title or seat of the family, or names granted as an honor.

🔗C. Names that Claim Powers: Non-personal names may not contain an unmistakable claim of superhuman abilities, magical powers, or divine origin.

In general, a name phrase used by historical people is not considered to be a claim to superhuman abilities or divine origin. In general, a non-personal name using an element that would be considered such a claim in a personal name will not be registered.

For example, Odins House would be registerable, because Odin was used as a human given name in Middle English. Similarly, a name like Gods House would be registerable, as it is the attested name of an English college. On the other hand, Lokasson House or Lokison House, formed from the name Loki, would not be allowed. Because the only known use of Loki is as the name of an Old Norse god, such a name would be a claim to a divine origin or relationship.

🔗D. Claim of Identity, Ownership, or Affiliation with an Important Non-SCA Entity or Person: Non-personal names may not be too close to the name of a protected entity. Non-personal names also may not make an unmistakable claim of ownership by or affiliation with any name we protect.

A non-personal name submission is said to presume on a protected name if the substantive element of the submission is not substantially different in sound and appearance from the substantive element of the protected name, or if it makes an unmistakable claim of ownership by or affiliation with the protected name. The standards for substantial difference and unmistakable claims are set in NPN3 above as "identity conflict" and "affiliation conflict" respectively, except that such items are not registerable, even with permission.

For non-SCA entities and people considered important enough to protect, we protect all forms in which their name was known, including in other languages. We do not go out of our way to find obscure or hypothetical forms of names that might be too similar to a submission. We protect only the names by which entities were actually known and can easily be found by a modern person.

For example, we protect London, Londres, and Londinium, as all are forms by which London has been known.

🔗1. Non-SCA Entities Protected from Presumption: A non-personal name submission is only considered to presume on protected non-personal names. Names of important non-SCA entities are protected from presumption. Entities that we protect include places (countries, regions, and cities), names of indigenous tribes and other groups of people, chivalric orders and heraldic titles, and the names of organizations (colleges, businesses, and other such entities).

Entities that are not important enough to have an entry in a standard print encyclopedia, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica or an equivalent non-English encyclopedia, are not important enough to protect. Entities that do have an entry must be further considered to determine if they merit protection. In general, entities recognized (without having to look in a reference) by a significant number of people in the Society as the name of a single unique place or entity are likely to be important enough to protect. Historical places and other entities that are still influential today or significantly shaped the course of world history, science, or the arts are generally important enough to protect.

In rare cases, places and other entities from fiction may be considered important enough to protect, when both a significant number of people in the Society recognize the name of the entity without prompting and the use of the name of the entity would generally be considered by those people a clear reference to that entity.

🔗NPN5. Non-Personal Names Offense

🔗A. Definitions: No name that is offensive to a large segment of members of the SCA or the general public will be registered. Offense is a modern concept; just because a name was used in period does not mean that it is not offensive to the modern observer. Offense returns are rare because the bar for determining offensiveness is quite high; it has not been unusual for years to pass between returns for offense.

Offense is not dependent on intent; the fact that a submitter did not intend to be offensive is not relevant. The standard is whether a large segment of the SCA or the general public would be offended.

Similarly, offense is not dependent on clarity. A foreign language name that has an offensive meaning may be considered offensive, even if many English-speaking listeners would not understand the term without explanation.

🔗B. Types of Potentially Offensive Names: Several types of names are defined as potentially offensive:

🔗1. Vulgar Names: Names which include pornographic or scatological terms will not be registered. Names that will be understood by the modern English listener to be vulgar will be considered vulgar even if the meaning in the original language is not vulgar. Non-personal names derived from bynames that are themselves offensively vulgar will generally be considered vulgar as well. Occasionally, the alterations required in the creation of a new name, like a household name, will remove the appearance of vulgarity. Relatively small changes to name elements can remove the appearance of vulgarity.

🔗2. Offensive Religious Terminology: Names which include religious terms used in a way that mock the beliefs of others will not be registered. This includes both incongruous combinations and combinations that are excessively religious and may be offensive to believers and non-believers alike. Most religious terminology is not offensive. Names with non-offensive religious terminology may be registered.

For example, Canton of Devilles Chirche is an incongruous combination which would not be registerable. However, constructed saint's names may be registerable in order names, such as the Order of Saint William the Cooper.

🔗3. Derogatory Stereotypes: Names which include ethnic, racial, or sexuality-based slurs and references to derogatory stereotypes will not be registered. This is not dependent on the period associations of the usage, but is an issue based on modern understandings of the offensiveness of terms. General references to ethnic, racial, or sexuality-based identities are not offensive and may be registered.

🔗4. Offensive Political Terminology: Names which include terms specifically associated with social or political movements that are offensive to a particular race, ethnicity, religion or similar group will not be registered. Likewise, names with references to events or ideas that are offensive to a particular group will not be registered. Even if used without prejudice in period, such terms are offensive by their modern context.

For example, a name including name elements that suggest participation in pogroms or repressive movements, such as Judenfeind, a period German name meaning "enemy of the Jews," will not be registered.

🔗5. Offensiveness by Association: Non-personal names that reference places, persons, events or concepts that are morally repugnant to a large segment of the SCA or the general public will not be registered. The reference must be clear and unmistakable. When considering whether a name is offensive by association, any related armory that contributes to the appearance of offensiveness may be taken into account. The standard for offensiveness by association is high and, with the exception of the examples below and in Appendix N, each potentially offensive name element should be considered on a case-by-case basis. In undertaking the case-by-case analysis, the following factors should be considered: (1) the level of fame/infamy of the offensive association; (2) whether the name element is better known for things other than the offensive association; and (3) any other factors that suggest or refute offensiveness.

For example, the household name Massacre Tavern is offensive because, even though a massacre is an attested term for a period heraldic charge for which a tavern can be named, the modern meaning of "massacre" is a brutal and violent slaughter of a large number of people, something offensive to the general population. Likewise, the order names Order of Malice or Award of Hate are not registerable because these sentiments are generally considered offensive. On the other hand, the household name la maison Adulph Le Clerc is not offensive, even though it contains a form of Adolf: there have been multiple individuals named Adolf, Adolph, or Adulph and the other name elements have no association with the Nazi regime, fascism or white supremacy.

🔗C. Names as a Whole: Even when no name element is itself offensive, an entire name may be offensive. For example, a name that mocks a group by adding an insulting element to the existing placename, such as the attested family name Dam, will not be registered.

🔗A. Armory

To be registered, an armorial submission must meet the following standards:

1. The armorial elements, charge groups, and overall design must be demonstrated to be compatible with period style. That means demonstrating that it follows the rules in A2 and A3 or the rules in A4. A1 explains how to do this in more detail.
2. The armory must be free of conflict and presumption as described in A5 and A6.
3. The armory must not be offensive as described in A7.

🔗A1. Armory Style Principles

🔗A. Definitions of Rule Sets: We require an armorial submission to be compatible with period armorial content and style. We consider a design that follows attested patterns for armorial content and style within our period to meet this requirement. There are two ways to follow attested patterns:

🔗1. Core Style Rules: Designs that follow the core style rules in A2 and A3 below meet this requirement. These sections comprise our core style. Our core style is not identical to the style of any single specific place and time, although it is based on the dominant style in medieval Western Europe, the Anglo-Norman style.

Some of those rules require documentation of an element, demonstrating that it is attested or constructed. In some cases, these rules or the Appendices are sufficient documentation. For example, a submitter might demonstrate that a plant was known to period Europeans.

Submissions that are documented under the core style rules are allowed to have a single step from core practice, sometimes denoted as SFCP. In older rulings this same concept was described as a weirdness or a step from period practice. A step from core practice is an element not found in period, core style armory that we nonetheless allow. Some types of elements which are designated as a step from core practice are mentioned in the style rules. In addition, a partial list of elements that are a step from core practice is found in Appendix G. Any armorial submissions with more than one step from core practice will not be registered under the core style rules.

🔗2. Individually Attested Patterns: Designs which follow period examples but do not fall within the core style rules in A2 and A3 may instead meet the style standards of the Individually Attested Pattern rules as explained in A4.

Under the Individually Attested Pattern rules, all elements (including charges, arrangement, complexity, etc.) of the armorial design must be documented as appropriate for the armorial style of a single time and place within the temporal scope of the Society. Elements which would be considered a step from core practice under the core style rules may only be used under the Individually Attested Pattern rules when documented as being used in the time and place as the rest of the submission.

Non-European armorial designs often do not fit into the core style rules, and thus may need to use the Individually Attested Pattern rules in order to be registered.

🔗B. Blazon and Emblazon: The image of the armory is known as the emblazon, and the written heraldic description of the image is known as the blazon. We register the emblazon, rather than the blazon. Any discrepancies between the image and the description will be resolved by changing the description to match the image. The Laurel office reserves the right to change the description of an image at any time, even after registration. The image will never be changed by the Laurel office. For this reason, we do not consider alternate emblazons included with a submission.

🔗C. Reproducibility: We require that the emblazon be describable in heraldic terms. This means that the submitted emblazon must be reproducible by a competent heraldic artist, with only normal heraldic variation, from the written blazon. Designs which depend on careful alignment of items in a way that cannot be reliably blazoned using standard period heraldic terms will not be registered. This is discussed in more detail in A3F below. Designs which use elements (charges, postures, orientations, tinctures, arrangements, etc.) that cannot be blazoned using standard period heraldic terms will not be registered.

🔗D. Recognizability: Because we register the image and not the words, we require that the elements in the image be recognizable from their appearance. We are willing to give some allowance for poor drawing, but depictions which are ambiguous as to tincture, the identity of a charge, the posture or orientation of an element, the arrangement of a group, etc. cannot be reliably blazoned and will be returned for a redraw. This is discussed in more detail in A2C below.

🔗A2. Armory Content

🔗A. Definitions: Armorial elements include tinctures, charges, lines of division, complex line treatments, postures/orientations, arrangements, and the like. Essentially, each piece of an armorial submission is an element.

On first registration of any particular element, documentation must be presented that the element and its depiction may be registered. This means presenting evidence that the element is eligible to be registered and that the specific depiction is attested or is otherwise compatible with period style. Elements which have been registered without comment in the last decade or are listed in one of the Appendices as acceptable elements do not usually need to be documented in a new submission. Items which have not been registered in over a decade, have only been registered a few times, or have recent registrations only via the existing registration allowance may need to be documented. Occasionally new research will require new documentation of a more recently registered element.

🔗B. Standards for Elements: To be used in armorial submissions without penalty, armorial elements must meet one of the following standards.

🔗1. Attested Elements: Armorial elements are registerable if they are attested in period armory. Designs found in a period roll of arms or a treatise on armory meet this standard, even if it is unclear from the treatise if the element was used in actual heraldry. Elements used in arms, in badges, and in crests all meet this standard. Elements must be used and combined in the same ways they were used in period armory and must be describable in standard SCA terms.

For example, while both bees and the rampant posture are found in period armory, we do not allow a rampant bee, because only quadrupeds were found in the rampant posture in period armory.

Tinctures and their classifications are discussed in A3B1 below. Discussions of charges and other elements that do not need to be further documented can be found in Appendix F.

🔗2. Constructed Elements: Elements that follow a pattern for the formation of period charges are registerable. Some patterns that have been documented include:

🔗a. Tools: There is a pattern of creating new charges from tools and other everyday artifacts. Thus, an item that can be documented as this sort of period artifact is registerable.

🔗b. Plants and Animals: There is a pattern of creating new charges from plants and animals. Thus an item that can be documented as a plant or animal known in period is registerable.

Plants and animals that did not appear until after 1600, such as many breeds of dogs, are not registerable. Those attested during the grey period receive the benefit of the doubt, unless there is a reason to believe they first appeared after 1600.

Attested depictions of fantastical plants or animals are also registerable under this rule, if they can be shown to be known before 1600 and have a standard enough depiction to be identifiable. However, their postures and orientations must be describable in standard blazon in order to be registered.

🔗c. Constructed Monsters: There is a pattern of creating monsters by combining elements from different animals and monsters known in period. Thus, a new monster that follows these patterns of combining identifiable elements from different animals and monsters is registerable. Items which can be constructed using this rule are registerable, even if it recreates a monster which is a wholly post-period invention.

For example, there is a pattern of combining the top half of quadrupeds with a fish tail to make a creature, as in a heraldic sea-horse. This pattern can be used to create an unattested sea-camel.

🔗3. Existing Registration Allowance: Armorial elements which are registered to an individual or branch may be used in a new submission by that individual or branch, even if they are no longer allowed under the rules. Only the exact, actual elements which are registered may be used, not variants or patterns. The use of the existing registration allowance does not allow the submitter to evade new style problems (as discussed in A1 through A3). It only allows the submitter to evade style problems that already exist with their registered armory.

An armorial element from a registered piece of armory of an individual may also be registered by a close legal relative (such as parent, spouse, child, sibling, etc.). To do this, the submitter must demonstrate the relationship through legal documents or through attestation of relationship from the individual whose armory is already registered.

Documentation under the existing registration allowance does not exempt a design from conflict, presumption, or offense rules, unless that rules violation is itself part of the existing registration in question.

🔗4. Elements which are a Step from Core Practice: Some elements are allowed but are considered a step from core practice. An armorial design may have no more than one such step. A design submitted under the Core Style Rules with more than one step from core practice will be returned. For charges, a single example of that charge used in armory during our period is usually sufficient to allow its use without being a step from core practice.

🔗a. Plants and Animals: Plants and animals which cannot be documented to before 1600 but that can be shown to have likely been known to period people of any culture are registerable with a step from core practice. While grey period citations will be considered, the great expansion of knowledge gained about the rest of the world between 1600 and 1650 means that the burden of proof of pre-1600 knowledge here is slightly higher.

🔗b. Other Artifacts: There is no pattern of using artifacts other than tools and general, everyday artifacts in armory. The use of such an artifact, such as an aeolipile, as a charge is considered a step from core practice.

🔗c. Post-Period Elements: A handful of elements not found in period heraldry have been explicitly allowed, though their use is a step from core practice. A list of them is included in Appendix G.

🔗5. Unregisterable Elements: Some items are generally unregisterable. Examples include heraldic elements that first appear after the end of the grey period (as described in GP3) and period artistic elements that are not found in armory, such as the Greek 'key' pattern or Celtic knotwork.

🔗C. Standards for Heraldic Art: Elements must be drawn to meet the following requirements.

🔗1. Appropriate Drawing: Elements must be drawn in their period forms and in a period armorial style. In general, this means that charges should be drawn as a flat depiction with no perspective. A few special charges are drawn with perspective, such as dice and wedges of cheese, because they are depicted this way in period heraldry and are largely unidentifiable without perspective. Complex lines of division should be drawn with relatively few and deep repeats. Generally three to seven repeats are expected across an axis of the shield.

Depictions that are excessively modern may be returned. This includes, but is not limited to: depictions from comic books and video games, the use of post-1600 art techniques like Impressionism or pointillism, and fantasy art from book covers.

For example, a pen must be drawn as a quill pen or other period form, not as a ballpoint pen. Similarly, a wheel must be drawn as a wagon wheel, not a rubber tire from an automobile.

Animals and plants must be drawn in a stylized heraldic form, not in a naturalistic or photorealistic style. This does not mean that only heraldic forms of charges may be used, only that they must adhere to heraldic drawing style. Postures other than defined heraldic postures are not allowed. While depictions that are somewhat more naturalistic than the flat stylized depictions of heraldic charges will be registered, animals and plants may not be drawn in trian aspect (with perspective) or in ways that require detailed zoological knowledge to identify or reproduce. Immature plants, animals, and flowers are allowed only when those forms can be documented as period charges.

For example, we allow both a sea-horse as the attested heraldic charge made of the front half of a horse and the back half of a fish and a natural seahorse as the type of fish found in oceans, but both must be drawn in the stylized artistic style and in a standard heraldic posture. For example, lambs are attested in period armory and are allowed, but rosebuds are not.

🔗2. Identifiability: Elements must be drawn to be identifiable. While some allowance will be made for lack of artistic skill, the identity of elements must not be ambiguous. Ambiguity can be created when a depiction falls between two states that contribute to difference, such as tincture, posture, or type of charge. We sometimes say that such a depiction blurs the distinction between the two states, and it may not be registered. Additionally, internal detailing can cause issues with identification. This may be due to a complete lack of internal detail, or through excessive internal detail such as can easily occur with clip art. Excessive internal detail can also cause issues with identification of the tincture of the charge or cause it to be seen as primarily sable, instead of the intended tincture.

For example, a point pointed creates a triangular shape taking up only the bottom third of the field. A per chevron field division is typically drawn to take up as much space as possible, dividing the area of the field in two roughly equal parts centered around the mid-line of the space available. Therefore, a per chevron field that does not cross or barely crosses the mid-line blurs the difference between a per chevron line and a point pointed. A per fess field division that is too high can be confused with a chief. A fess that is too large can be confused with a chief and a base. A charge that is not clearly either fesswise or bendwise is confusing as we give difference between those orientations. None of these can be registered.

For example, a lion which is drawn so badly it cannot be identified, even when considering the wide variation in depictions of lions in heraldry in period, cannot be registered; we give difference between a lion and other non-feline animals, so it must be identifiable as some type of cat. For example, a line of division which is partly indented and partly engrailed cannot be registered, as we give difference between the jagged indented and curved engrailed lines of division. Many animals dormant look the same, so care should be taken to make the depiction identifiable.

For example, a charge colored as teal or blue-green may be returned because it is ambiguous between azure and vert. Similarly, some shades of purpure are so dark that they cannot easily be distinguished from sable.

Some charges have identifying characteristics, such as the comb of a rooster; without those identifying characteristics, they may be unregisterable or may only be registered as a generic version of the charge.

For example, doves are identified by a tuft of feathers on their head; ones drawn without this tuft are likely to be blazoned simply as birds. For example, a lion must have a mane and tufted tail.

In general, a drawing which matches a period heraldic depiction is identifiable. An unusual depiction should probably be documented, as the College of Arms may or may not recognize it.

🔗3. Appropriate Size: Elements must be drawn at an appropriate size for their role in an armorial submission and must be generally large enough to be identified as charges. Charges that are too big or too small may blur the difference between charge groups. Small charges may be unrecognizable. Complex lines of division that are too shallow or have too many repeats may be unrecognizable from any distance. Charges strewn on the field in too large a number or too close together may be unrecognizable.

🔗A3. Armory Style

🔗A. Types of Designs: There are three types of designs (one with sub-types) that have slightly different style rules.

🔗1. Fielded Designs: We categorize these as devices and badges. The introduction in A. Armory above discusses the differences between these two categories. The field creates a background for charges and creates a unified design. There are no limitations to the types of charges which may appear in these designs, beyond those in A2B above. They may have any combination of charge groups that may be legally combined or may have no charges at all.

🔗2. Fieldless Designs: We categorize these as badges; devices must have a field. All the charges in these designs must touch one another to create a single self-contained design. An exception is made for charges that are disjoint by definition, such as an ermine spot or a demi-lion; these may be used as charges in fieldless designs despite the separation of portions of the charge. Fieldless designs must follow all other style rules. They must include a primary charge, and may also include secondary, overall, or tertiary charge groups. Additionally, no charges may be used that are defined in terms of the field or its outline, such as a bordure, chief, or an ordinary that isn't couped.

For example, (Fieldless) An ermine spot sable is registerable since it is a single, defined charge despite the typical dots not being connected to the rest of the spot. (Fieldless) An annulet sable is registerable as the annulet has a defined shape; however, (Fieldless) A bordure sable is not registerable since a bordure by definition is defined by the outline of the field.

Forms of heraldic (armorial) display may not be used alone in fieldless designs unless they are uncharged and of an undivided tincture that we do not protect. Furs, even if blazoned using multiple tinctures (e.g. vairy azure and Or), are considered undivided. Charges that are considered forms of heraldic display include banners and flags, billets, cartouches, delfs, eggs, escutcheons, hearts, lozenges, roundels, sails, tabards, and triangles inverted. Forms of heraldic (armorial) display may not be used with other charges in fieldless designs when those other charges appear to be part of a heraldic achievement of an armorial display. Period examples include, but are not limited to, a single supporter or two supporters holding armorial display in a variety of forms, including escutcheons, flags, and others; helms or crowns atop the armorial display; ribbons below the display; or a charge in annulo surrounding the display.

For example, (Fieldless) A lozenge ermine is not registerable because we protect the arms of Brittany, Ermine. Vair, despite being composed of argent and azure, is considered undivided and thus (Fieldless) A heart vair is registerable. However, (Fieldless) A heart checky argent and azure is not registerable as checky is a divided tincture.

For example, (Fieldless) In fess an escutcheon vair sustained by a bear rampant gules is not registerable as the bear appears to be a supporter even though (Fieldless) An escutcheon vair would be registerable. However, (Fieldless) An escutcheon vair within and conjoined to an masculyn vert is registerable as the secondary masculyn does not appear to be part of a heraldic acheivement.

For example, (Fieldless) A lozenge purpure conjoined to in chief a helm Or is not registerable as the helm appears to be part of a heraldic achievement. However, (Fieldless) A lozenge purpure conjoined to in base a wheel Or is registerable as wheels in base were not used in armorial display as part of an achievement.

A special subset of fieldless designs is tinctureless designs. These designs are those which do not specify a tincture for the charge or background, such as the English badge, (Tinctureless) A pheon. These designs may only be registered as seals for the use of principal heralds of kingdoms, although some earlier registrations to individuals exist.

🔗3. Augmentations of Honor: An augmentation is a mark of honor bestowed by the Crown that is added to an existing device. An augmentation may not be added to a badge. An augmentation may take many forms, including but not limited to a charged canton, a charged chief, charges in canton or chief, a charge associated with the Crown, or a charge associated with the individual receiving the honor.

🔗a. While the right to an augmentation is bestowed by the Crown, its specific form must be determined through the normal registration process. Both the augmentation itself and the augmented device must follow the style rules and restrictions on charges. Because an augmentation adds complexity, augmented devices are often allowed to violate certain style rules, such as allowing charges on tertiary charges or a complexity count of greater than eight, as long as the identifiability of the design is maintained. Charged cantons, charged inescutcheons, and charged chiefs (when they are an augmentation) may have poor contrast with whatever they happen to overlay, whether the field or another charge, provided identifiability is maintained. Other augmentations may not violate the rules on contrast.

For example, the arms of a branch may not be granted as an augmentation, because they contain a laurel wreath, which cannot be registered to an individual.

For example, Gules, a sea-dog rampant and a chief Or, for augmentation on a canton vert a mullet argent may be registered despite the poor contrast of the vert canton which lies partially on the gules field.

🔗 b. An augmentation that appears to be a display of independent armory, such as that described in SENA A6C, must also be evaluated as if the augmentation itself were a submission of independent armory for purposes of style, conflict, offense, and presumption.

For example, the chief in Gules, a lion rampant and on a chief argent a rose between two mullets gules does not need to be conflict checked as it is not an augmentation and thus not considered a display of independent armory. The same chief in an augmentation, Gules, a lion rampant argent, for augmentation on a chief argent a rose between two mullets gules, does not need to be conflict checked as it has neither a peripheral ordinary nor an ordinary terminating at the edge and therefore is not considered to be a display of independent armory. However, the chief in Gules, a lion rampant argent, for augmentation on a chief argent a cross between four roses gules does need to be conflict checked as independent armory as it is an augmentation that has an ordinary (the cross) that terminates at the edge.

🔗c. An augmentation may be created through quartering the augmentation with the base device. The augmenting quarters are considered to be a display of independent armory and must be evaluated as such. The quarters in quartered armory that is not part of an augmentation but is registerable under A6F are not considered independent displays of armory.

For example, in Quarterly sable and argent, two squirrels sable the argent quarter does not need to be conflict checked as it is not an augmentation. However, in Argent, a squirrel sable, and for augmentation quartered second and third with first and fourth sable, an acorn Or the quarter Sable, an acorn Or must be conflict checked as independent armory.

🔗d. Kingdoms may designate a badge (or badges) as a standard augmentation for its subjects who receive augmentations. Such a badge is considered to be subject to the existing registration allowance and does not need to be further checked for style, conflict, offense, or presumption.

🔗B. Armorial Contrast: Contrast refers to the patterns of the use of tinctures in armory. All armorial submissions must meet the standards for contrast as set out here and in period practice.

🔗1. Tinctures and their Classifications: Tinctures are primarily divided into colors and metals. Colors and metals are said to have good contrast with one another. Each tincture may be depicted in a variety of shades; contrast is determined not by their shade, but by their categorization into color and metal. Shades that are overly pastel may be considered too light to be registered; for example, a shade that lacks contrast with argent or Or will be too light.

The colors are azure (blue), gules (red), sable (black), vert (green), and purpure (purple).

The metals are argent (white or silver) and Or (yellow or gold). We capitalize Or for clarity, but do not capitalize other tinctures.

Furs are a group of named patterns used as tinctures. For the purposes of tincture, ermined furs are grouped in the same way as their background color. Ermine (a white background with black tails) and erminois (a yellow background with black tails) are metals. Counter-ermine (a black background with white tails) and pean (a black background with yellow tails) are colors. Furs such as vair and potent are two different patterns of multiple pieces in blue and white by default. As they are made up of multiple pieces, divided evenly between a color and a metal, they are treated as neutral and are considered to have good contrast with both colors and metals, as long as they do not share a tincture with the color or metal.

Proper is a term used for a charge in its "natural" or "standard" tincture. Items that were used in proper tinctures in period armory may be used. A list of proper tinctures is found in the Glossary of Terms. Any animal (not including monsters) that can be brown in nature can be blazoned as a brown X proper. Such an animal would be expected to be completely brown (with the exception of minor artistic details), as opposed to drawn naturalistically. Similarly, tools that can reasonably be wooden can be described as a wooden X proper, and are brown. Brown is considered to be a color, not a metal, and it is not identical to black or sable. While a few monsters have a defined proper, most of them do not because they do not exist in nature. Thus, monsters constructed from animals which can otherwise be proper may not be proper. Animate and inanimate charges proper may have wings of a heraldic tincture (or tinctures) added to them.

For example, a rose proper is defined to be gules barbed vert seeded Or. Some proper animals include: a bear proper, a falcon proper, and a rabbit proper. Tools and other wooden objects include: a wooden staff proper, a barrel proper, and a harp proper. A heraldic dolphin proper is vert with gules fins while a natural dolphin proper is grey.

For example, a barrel proper winged argent, a sword proper winged gules, and a fox proper winged argent are all registerable as they are charges proper with wings added. However, a bear-headed fox proper, a monster with the forequarters of a fox and the hindquarters of a bear proper, and a monster with the forequarters of a bear proper and the hindquarters and wings of dragon vert may not be registered as monsters cannot be created by combining animals proper. Similarly, a fox with brown wings proper may not be registered as brown is not a heraldic tincture.

In general, charges that do not have a heraldically defined proper may be described as proper when a normal person would be able to color them appropriately from knowing only the sort of item with no further color description. So, a tree, a thistle, and an elephant can be proper. On the other hand, a female American kestrel or a bay horse cannot be proper because the range of colors for each span multiple tinctures.

Proper charges are classified as a color, a metal, or neutral depending on their dominant tincture. Light skin tones are treated as a metal (equivalent to argent); brown and other darker skin tones are treated as a color. Grey proper and grey iron proper are special cases. Based on period evidence, they are not classified by their shade (how light/dark they are) but rather they are interpreted (at the time of registration) as either sable or argent based on which is most favorable to registrations. That is, however it best avoids both contrast issues and conflict. The shade of grey chosen must still allow the charge to be identified. Contrast against a neutral, divided background may require a shade of grey that unambiguously contrasts on its own, or additional documentation addressing ambiguous contrast in such cases. Fieldless badges may require a shade of grey that is clearly light (metal) or dark (color). The O&A will note whether the grey is considered sable or argent. The classification as a color or metal is set on registration and will not change when compared against future submissions.

For example, in Vert, a grey cat sejant proper the cat is considered argent as that avoids a contrast issue, even if it is depicted as dark grey. Similarly, in Argent, a grey mouse sejant erect proper the mouse is considered sable as that avoids a contrast issue, even if it is depicted as light grey. On registration (Fieldless) A grey iron horseshoe proper the horseshoe would be considered sable if Sable, a horseshoe argent were registered as that avoids conflict, otherwise it would need to be a shade of grey that is clearly light (metal) or dark (color).

Divided fields and charges are considered metals or colors based on the tincture class that dominates across the entire field or charge. If fields or charges are evenly divided into color and metal, they are treated as neutral and have good contrast with both colors and metals. If they are over half color, they are treated as colors and have good contrast with metals. If they are over half metal, they are treated as metals and have good contrast with color. This is not dependent on how much of the charge is made up of any particular tincture or fur. A charge may only share a tincture with the field when both the charge and the field maintain identifiability. A charge which has minor details of the same color of the field is registerable, as long as identifiability is maintained.

For example, Lozengy vert and Or, a chief Or may be registered, but the vert portions of the field must touch the chief to maintain identifiability. Vair, a griffin argent cannot be registered, because the complex outline of the griffin will be obscured by the portions of white vair bells that touch the griffin. Argent, a fox proper may be registerable, even though the identifying characteristic of the white-tipped tail is against a white field, but the depiction must retain identifiability.

🔗2. Definition of Good Contrast: Good contrast between two tinctures means that they are not from the same classification. Pairings such as a color and a color or a metal and a metal are said to have poor contrast or to be low-contrast. Pairings of the same tincture are said to have no contrast, and are allowed only as artistic details. The following pairings are said to have good contrast:

• a color and a metal
• a color and a neutral tincture
• a metal and a neutral tincture

In some cases, two neutral tinctures may have good contrast with each other, but identifiability must be maintained. This occurs most often when a charge is counterchanged over a line of division. In such a case, both the field and the charge are, as a whole, classified as neutral, but all edges that touch have good contrast with each other.

🔗3. Contrast Requirements for Divided Fields and Charges: Divisions are categorized in terms of how many parts they create (two, three, four, and many) and whether those parts are equal or not. Equality is not based on literal size, but on the ways in which they were conceptualized in period heraldry.

🔗a. Elements Divided in Two Parts: Elements evenly divided into two parts (per pale, per fess, per bend, per bend sinister, per chevron, per chevron inverted) may use any two tinctures or furs, as long as the two sections do not have the same base tincture. Elements that further divide one of those two parts must have good contrast between its sections. Effectively, that means that either they must be made up of a color and metal or one half must be evenly split between color and metal, and identifiability must be maintained.

For example, a field divided per pale may consist of azure and gules, argent and Or, Or and ermine, or vert and vairy gules and argent. No field may consist of argent and ermine or gules and gules masoned Or, unless the sections are separated by an ordinary. Per pale argent and vair, where the argent bells of the vair were against the per pale line, would not be registerable because the line of division would be obscured. However, if the azure portions of the vair section were against the per pale line, it would be identifiable and thus registerable.

For example, both per pale vair and per fess sable and Or and per fess azure and lozengy argent and azure are registerable. Per pale sable and per fess gules and azure would not be registerable, because it does not have good contrast between the sections. Per fess ermine and lozengy argent and sable, where the argent lozenges were against the per fess line, would not be registerable because ermine and argent share a background tincture and the line of division would be obscured.

While we find fields or charges divided into two parts with poor contrast, we do not generally find complex lines of division separating regions with poor contrast. Thus, any pairing of low-contrast tinctures with a complex line of division must meet the standards in Appendix H.

🔗b. Elements Divided in Three Parts: Elements divided per pall or per pall inverted must have one part that has good contrast with the other two parts. No two parts may share a background tincture, but a part may share a tincture with another part which is multiply divided as long as identifiability is maintained.

For example, per pall azure, vert, and argent and per pall azure, vert, and checky sable and argent are both registerable. However, per pall azure, vert, and sable would not be registerable. Per pall argent, sable, and counter-ermine is also not registerable, as counter-ermine has a sable background tincture.

🔗c. Elements Divided Quarterly or Per Saltire: Elements divided quarterly or per saltire may use any two tinctures or furs, as long as they do not share a base tincture. A section of such a field may generally not be further divided except in a pattern of multiple divisions. Effectively, that means that either they must be made up of a color and metal or one half must be evenly split between color and metal, and identifiability must be maintained.

For example, the following are all registerable: per saltire azure and gules, per saltire argent and Or, per saltire Or and ermine, and per saltire vert and vairy gules and argent. However, a field divided per saltire may not consist of argent and ermine or gules and gules masoned Or. In both cases, they share a background or base tincture and the division will not be identifiable. For example, per saltire checky azure and argent and gules is registerable.

While we find fields and charges divided into four parts with poor contrast, we do not generally find complex lines of division separating regions with poor contrast. Thus, any pairing of low-contrast tinctures with a complex line of division must meet the standards in Appendix H.

🔗d. Elements Otherwise Divided: Elements not already mentioned must have good contrast between their parts. These include fields or charges evenly divided into four parts other than quarterly or per saltire, fields or charges evenly divided into more than four parts of two different tinctures, and fields or charges unevenly divided into multiple parts of two different tinctures; all of these must have good contrast between adjacent parts of the field.

For example, Paly of four azure and Or would be acceptable, but Paly of four azure and purpure would not. For example, Checky argent and gules would be acceptable, but Checky azure and gules would not. Barry azure and checky gules and argent would be acceptable. Per fess argent and per pale azure and Or would be acceptable, but Per fess argent and per pale azure and ermine would not.

🔗4. Contrast Requirements for the Placement of Charges: The contrast requirements for the placement of charges follow the requirements for good contrast in A3B2 above.

🔗a. Placement of Charges: Charges must have good contrast with the background on which they are placed. Primary, secondary, and overall charge groups are considered to be placed on the field and must have good contrast with it. Tertiary charge groups are considered to be placed on the underlying charge group and must have good contrast with that charge group.

Charges that are touching, either sustained or maintained, do not have to have good contrast with each other, though they must retain identifiability, as described below. This is also true of overall charges and the charge or charges they overlie.

🔗b. Identifiability: Charges and fields must retain identifiability. A field that is neutral may have good contrast with a charge that shares a tincture with it, but it may only be registered if both the charge and the field remain identifiable. Thus, the field and charges on it may share a tincture only if (1) the charges appear only on a section of the field with a different tincture or (2) only one of the two is multiply divided and the charge(s) is an ordinary or simple geometric shape arranged in a way that both the type of field division and charge are clearly identifiable.

For example, Per pale gules and argent semy of billets gules is acceptable, because the red billets are only and entirely on the white part of the field. For example, both Vair, a chief argent or Checky Or and vert, a lozenge vert can be acceptable, if drawn so that the shared tinctures are not against each other.

Even if it meets these requirements, a particular depiction may still be unclear as to the identity of the field and the charge that lies on it, including whether the charge has a complex line of division. Such a depiction will not be registered. In general, any depiction that creates a situation in which predominantly low contrast sections of a multiply divided field and charge(s) are adjacent is likely to have identifiability issues.

For example, if the design Vair, a chief argent were drawn so that the vair bells against the chief were nearly completely argent, it would be difficult to identify the charge as a chief, and whether or not it hade a complex line. Therefore, it would not be registerable.

Similarly, when a primary charge and an overall charge that overlies it share a tincture or have poor contrast (which will generally be true), the identity of the primary charge and the overall charge must remain clear.

🔗C. Voiding and Fimbriation: Voiding and fimbriation are terms that describe the situation in which the interior of the charge is a different color than a strip around the outside of the charge. The term voiding is used for the case in which the interior part of the charge is the same color as the field. The term fimbriation is used for the case in which the interior part of the charge is of a different color than the field.

Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with ordinaries or simple geometric charges when they are part of a primary charge group. Peripheral ordinaries may not be voided or fimbriated, nor may other secondary, tertiary, or overall charges. All central ordinaries may be fimbriated, even those with complex lines, as long as there are no breaks in the outline of the ordinary. All central ordinaries with more than two ends, such as palls, crosses, and saltires, may be voided, even those with complex lines, as long as there are no breaks in the outline of the ordinary. As central ordinaries with two ends which are voided would give the unmistakable appearance of being multiple ordinaries, they may not be voided.

For example, both a cross and a cross engrailed may be either voided or fimbriated. However, a fess may only be fimbriated; a design that appears to be a fess voided must be blazoned as two bars. For example, a pale rayonny and a fess dancetty may be fimbriated, while a chevron rompu or a bend bevilled may not be fimbriated, as the latter are broken in their outlines.

A simple geometric charge is a charge that, when drawn at a smaller scale, will continue to match the outline of the larger charge closely. Simple geometric charges include lozenges, roundels, delfs, and mullets. However, as counter examples, estoiles and suns are not simple.

Voiding and fimbriation is generally used with a single central charge. For this reason, using voiding or fimbriation with charge groups that contain more than three charges will only be registered with documentation of such a pattern. Additionally, voided charges may not be registered in fieldless designs, as they do not have a field that can show through the voided portion of the charge.

For example, a design such as Azure, three delfs voided Or would be registered, but Azure semy of delfs voided Or would not be. Also, while Azure, a mullet voided argent is registerable, (Fieldless) A mullet voided argent is not, as the voided area would not have a defined tincture.

Charges which are voided as part of their type, such as mascles or mullets voided and interlaced, are not affected by these restrictions. They may even be tertiary charges or maintained charges, and may be used in fieldless designs.

Armorial designs with voided or fimbriated charges must be considered for purposes of conflict as equivalent to multiple designs. See A5C for further details.

🔗D. Clarity and Simplicity of Charge Groups: The style and conflict rules are built around the idea of a charge group. A charge group is a group of charges of approximately the same size and visual weight that act as a single visual unit. This idea is not a period heraldic idea, but a modern SCA invention. It is our attempt to codify what we see happening artistically, stylistically, and for cadencing in medieval armory. The types of charge groups are discussed in Appendix I.

🔗1. Clarity of Charge Groups: Charges in an armorial design must be clearly organized into charge groups. Depictions of charges that blur the distinction between charge groups will not be allowed. Depictions of charges that that are ambiguous as to what sort of charge group they belong to will not be allowed. Documented armorial depictions will only be allowed if a method for describing them in blazon can be devised.

For example, the design a water bouget between in cross four estoiles must be clearly drawn to be either as a large primary water bouget and four smaller secondary estoiles or blazoned as in cross a water bouget and four estoiles and drawn as five charges of approximately equal visual weight. If the estoiles are drawn just a little smaller than the water bouget, it is not clear if the estoiles are intended to be part of the primary charge group or a secondary charge group. Such a design will not be registered.

🔗a. Having identical types of charges in multiple charge groups on the field blurs the distinction between charge groups. Thus, it is not allowed, except for cotises and endorses around an ordinary. Charge types with identical blazons are allowed to be both on the field and in a tertiary charge group or in two separate tertiary charge groups.

For example, Azure, a cup Or and in base a cup argent would not be registerable. Azure, a fess between three cups Or and overall a cup argent would not be registerable. However, Azure, on a fess between three cups Or, three cups sable is registerable, as is Azure, on a bend Or three cups sable and on a chief Or a cup sable.

🔗b. Having two close variants of a charge in a design is confusing and makes the charge groups difficult to identify. Thus, two charges or depictions of charges that are artistic variants of one another or that otherwise are considered to have less than a distinct change (DC) between them are not allowed in a single armorial design. A5 defines distinct changes in more detail. This is true even if one charge is on the field and the other charge is on another charge. In precedent, this is sometimes referred to as 'sword and dagger'.

For example, both Azure, a lion and a catamount combatant Or and Azure, a lion between three catamounts Or are not registerable, because we do not consider there to be a distinct change between a lion and a catamount. Azure, a hound and on a chief Or a wolf sable is not registerable, because we do not consider there to be a distinct change between a hound and a wolf. Sable, a sword and a dagger in saltire proper is not registerable, nor is Sable, a rapier between six daggers Or, because we do not consider there to be a distinct change among any forms of swords, including daggers.

🔗2. Simplicity of Charge Groups: A charge group is most frequently a group of a single type of charges of a unified tincture in a single posture/orientation. However, more complex examples are found in period armory. The rules below discuss which complex designs are allowed and which are not allowed.

🔗a. Slot Machine: There are some period examples in which a single charge group contains charges of more than one type. Therefore, we allow two types of charges in a single charge group. Common patterns change the centermost of charges in a row or the bottommost of charges arranged two and one. However, a charge group with more than two types of charges is not allowed.

🔗b. Mixing Ordinaries and Other Charges: While charge groups may have different types of charges, charge groups consist of either identical ordinaries or complex charges. Thus, a single charge group may not mix ordinaries with non-ordinaries or mix two types of ordinaries.

For example, a design like Or, in pale an acorn proper and a bar gules or Sable, in pale a fess and a chevron would not be registered. However, such mixtures of charges can be found in entire designs and can be registerable. For example, Azure, a chevron argent between three sea-horses and a chief Or is registerable, consisting of a primary chevron and two secondary charge groups. Similarly, Gules, a fess between two chevrons argent is registerable; the fess is primary and the chevrons secondary.

🔗c. Unity of Posture and Orientation: Many charges have comparable posture and/or orientation; this rule applies to a group of charges with comparable postures. This section does not apply to charges in a group which do not have comparable posture or orientation though the charges must still be in a blazonable arrangement. In general, charges that fall into different categories under A5E5 do not fall under the unity of posture and orientation requirements as they do not have comparable postures or orientations. A more complete discussion of the charges with comparable postures and orientation is found in Appendix M.

For example, unity of posture and orientation does not apply to a group containing lions and swords as animate and inanimate charges do not have comparable postures or orientations. Likewise, eagles and dolphins do not have comparable postures nor do roses and swords have comparable orientations and thus the unity requirements do not apply.

For charges in a group that do have comparable posture or orientation, the charges within a charge group should be in either identical postures/orientations or an arrangement that includes posture/orientation (in cross, combatant, or in pall points outward, for example). A charge group in which postures for different charges must be blazoned individually will not be allowed without period examples of that combination of postures. For purposes of this rule, default postures and orientations are treated as if they had been specified in the blazon; charges with different defaults but comparable posture/orientation must be in the same posture/orientation. For inanimate charges, the orientation of the axis is what is comparable, not the top and bottom of the charges. Arrangements of charges which cannot be blazoned will not be allowed. Some standard arrangements for period charge groups are discussed in Appendix K.

For example, three swords in pall and an arrow fesswise violates the unity requirements as all of the charges are long but the arrangement of the swords must be blazoned separately from the arrow.

For example, Per fess gules and argent, a lamb and a lion counterchanged would not be allowed as the default posture of a lamb is passant while a lion is rampant. Per fess gules and argent, a lamb and a lion passant counterchanged would be allowed even though the posture of the lion has to be blazoned while that of the lamb does not - both charges are passant. Vert, in fess a sword and arrow Or would be allowed even though the sword is point to chief and the arrow is point to base as both charges are palewise. Likewise, Vert, in saltire a sword and an arrow Or and Vert, in saltire inverted a sword and an arrow Or would both be allowed as they are in an arrangement (in saltire) that describes their orientation (bendwise and bendwise sinister) regardless of whether the top of the charge is to chief or to base.

For example, a design such as Argent, two lions passant respectant and a lion sejenat erect affronty vert would not be allowed. Likewise, a design such as Azure, two pheons bendwise, and a pheon inverted Or would not be allowed. However, crescents, increscents, decrescents, and crescents pendant were used occasionally in the same armory, so armory which includes more than one of these is allowed.

🔗d. Allowable Differences within Charge Groups: Some differences are found in period amongst charges within a charge group. Thus, we allow some differences within a charge group, as long as they remain blazonable. This includes the changes to the tincture of charges (including partitions) within a charge group, and a tertiary charge group that is only found on part of a group of charges. Other changes not discussed here are generally assumed to be allowable.

🔗E. Armorial Simplicity: Period armory was mostly simple in nature, having only a few charge groups on the field and a few tinctures.

🔗1. Arrangement of Charge Groups: Charge groups must be arranged upon the field in a period fashion.

Appendix J gives lists of those arrangements of charge groups which do not need further documentation. All arrangements of two or fewer charge groups on the field are considered compatible with period style, except for those listed as not documented in Appendix J. Only a limited number of arrangements of three or more charge groups on the field are documented; those are listed in Appendix J. Other arrangements of charge groups must be documented.

🔗2. Complexity Count: We require that any submission not exceed a certain "complexity count," measured by adding the number of types of charges to the number of tinctures. Items with a complexity count of eight or less receive no penalty for complexity from this rule. Furs, such as ermine and vair, count as a single tincture rather than their component tinctures. Charges that have different names in different tinctures or orientations (roundels, crescents, gouttes) are considered one type regardless of the term used for them. All charges, including maintained charges, are counted, though objects worn by an animal or person do not add to the charge count. All tinctures are counted except those used only for normally unblazoned artistic details such as teeth, claws, or eyes. Proper is not a tincture, but a description of a group of tinctures. Each tincture of a proper charge is counted separately, except for artistic details.

For example, Vert, in fess two straight trumpets palewise Or and a chief argent has a complexity count of five, while Vert, in fess two straight trumpets palewise and a chief Or has a complexity count of four. Vair, a squirrel gules has a complexity count of three. Argent, a brown monkey proper vested gules has a complexity count of four: there is one charge (the vest, as a worn object, doesn't count as a charge) but three tinctures (including the tincture of the vest). For example, a rose proper is a gules charge; the tinctures of the barbs and seeds are artistic details. Thus, Per fess sable and azure, on a fess argent, three roses proper has a complexity count of six.

An item with a complexity count of nine or higher that follows a period pattern of charges and tinctures may be registered, but may need to be documented as an Individually Attested Pattern.

🔗3. Excessively Simple Designs: Designs that consist only of a single tincture will not be registered. Designs must consist at least of a divided field or a plain field with at least one charge. Likewise, designs that consist only of letters or other abstract symbols, such as astrological signs, will not be registered. This is because their registration might limit someone from using their initials or a written version of their name or motto. Designs like these may be used by anyone. They simply cannot be registered.

For example, neither Gules nor Pean would be registerable as plain fields without charges or lines of division would be registerable but Per chevron gules and ermine would be registerable.

🔗F. Designs that Are Not Allowed: Some designs that meet the other style rules are too far from period armorial design to be registered.

🔗1. Excessively Pictorial: Designs may not be excessively pictorial, defined as a relatively naturalistic depiction of a scene. Tincture alone does not create an excessively pictorial impression. Any design which can be found in period armory is not excessively pictorial for the purposes of this rule.

For example, we do not consider the use of per fess azure and vert to be an unmistakable representation of the sky and ground, so that field division does not by itself cause a design to be excessively pictorial. For example, Azure, a wolf passant argent atop a trimount vert is a design found in Hungarian armory, and thus is not considered excessively pictorial. However, Per fess wavy argent and azure semy of natural dolphins argent, issuant from the line of division a wooden ship proper, sails set gules and in canton a roundel Or enflamed proper, depicting a ship sailing on the ocean under a clear sunny sky and a sea full of dolphins, is likely to be excessively pictorial.

🔗2. Excessively Naturalistic: Heraldic beasts and plants are generally depicted in stylized heraldic depictions, postures, and tinctures. While we allow real-world forms of some charges whose period heraldic forms were quite unlike their real-world forms, such as the dolphin, they must still be drawn in the same art style as heraldic depictions. While we allow charges to be tinctured and blazoned as proper, as described in A3B1, designs that use multiple types of proper charges may be allowed only if the overall design and the sorts of proper charges used are compatible with period style. Any design which is attested in period armory is not overly naturalistic.

For example, we allow both a sea-horse as the attested heraldic charge made of the front half of a horse and the back half of a fish and a natural seahorse as the type found in oceans, but both must be drawn in the stylized artistic style and in a standard heraldic posture. For example, Argent, a brown bear and in canton a rose proper would be allowed, as both of these charges are attested in these tinctures. However, Or, an orca and in chief a loon between two penguins proper would not, even though we would allow armory in which any one of these charges was tinctured and blazoned as proper.

🔗3. Obtrusively Modern: A design that makes an overt reference to modern insignia or designs may be considered obtrusively modern. References that require explanation to be seen as modern or are close to core style period armory will generally not be returned under this rule.

For example, a bend within a bordure gules to parody the international "No Entry" sign, especially when the bend lies over a primary charge, would not be registerable. Also, variations on the geometric Peace sign, despite being close to core style armory, would not be registerable.

🔗4. Excessive Counterchanging: While counterchanging was common in period armory, it was used mainly with two or four part divisions of the field. Counterchanging of charges over more complex field divisions (barry, gyronny, etc.) is allowed with a semy or similar group of charges; in that design each charge should be drawn so that it is entirely on a single portion of the field. The counterchanging of a single charge over a field division with more than four sections must be attested to be allowed. Central ordinaries may be counterchanged over other simple ordinaries, as there are a few examples of patterns like Argent, a pile sable, overall a chevron counterchanged in late period England. Any other counterchanging of charges over other charges must similarly be attested to be registered.

🔗5. Depictions Which Cannot Be Reproduced Reliably: Depictions that require the careful description of the relative positions of charges, tinctures, etc. in order to produce a visual effect cannot be registered. Designs must be able to be described in standard heraldic terms to be registerable.

For example, we do not use terms like the Victorian honor point to describe locations on the field. We do not have terms to describe the tinctures of a jester's hat in which each point is a different color.

🔗A4. Armory Individually Attested Patterns

🔗A. Definitions: Any armorial design that does not fit within our core style rules may still be registered if it can be documented as following a pattern of period practice within the armorial style of a single time and place within the temporal scope of the Society. This time and place may be in Europe or may be from a non-European period armorial tradition, such as Islamic or Japanese heraldry. We call such a design an Individually Attested Pattern. All elements in an Individually Attested Pattern must be found in that single time and place, including charges, arrangement of charge groups, and lines of division. Documentation under the Individually Attested Pattern rules does not exempt a design from conflict, presumption, or offense rules.

For example, Sable, a torii gate Or between three panthers argent, spotted of many tinctures would not be registerable as an Individually Attested Pattern, as it mixes charges from both Japanese and England.

Any submissions documented under this section of the rules must be able to have the overall design blazoned in Western European blazon, including tinctures. If necessary, when there is no Western European term for a charge, a non-Western European term may be registerable on a case by case basis, presuming that a term can be found which will allow reproduction from the blazon. If the submission is not otherwise blazonable without creating or borrowing terms that cannot be easily understood by the average herald, the submission will not be registered.

For example, we will not use the blazon terms dark or light; we require a Japanese design to use standard European tinctures. A so-called cross Osmorog will be blazoned as a cross fourchy between the tines of each fork a roundel argent, as this is the blazon we have already used for this charge. We will register an arrangement that would not be registerable under the core style rules, such as a roundel within roundels in annulo, but we will not create new terms to describe arrangements of charges.

🔗B. What Must Be Documented: Each element of the armory which falls outside the core style rules must be documented. If armory has multiple elements which fall outside the core style rules, the combination of these non-core style elements should be documented, although larger numbers of examples of each non-core style element may suffice, as described below. The overall design of the submission must be similar to the types of designs that document the use of the non-core style elements. In general, examples must match the submission in style and complexity.

For example, the attested Gules, a fess sable is not evidence for the submission Gules, on a fess sable between three mullets argent three bezants nor is it evidence for the submission Gules, a lion sable.

🔗C. Number and Origin of Examples: The number of cases that must be used to demonstrate a pattern of usage depends on how closely they match the submission in style.

🔗1. Source and Style: All examples should come from a single heraldic style or culture; the submissions should match the style of that culture as well. This is true even when documenting multiple elements which fall outside the core style rules.

🔗2. Independence: Only independent devices count as examples. Multiple depictions of the same design, or of arms cadenced from an original device, are not independent examples. In general, two depictions of an identical armorial design or very closely related armorial designs from the same part of Europe will be considered not to be independent examples unless their owners can be identified and confirmed to be unrelated.

Some elements or combinations of elements are so closely associated with one family that finding multiple independent examples seems improbable. If independent examples cannot be found, such an element will not be registerable under the individually attested pattern rules.

One example is the design often labeled "Mortimer": Barry Or and azure, on a chief azure two pallets between two gyrons Or and overall an escutcheon argent. While it appears in different tinctures, it is always associated with that family; therefore, there is only one example of this combination of elements.

🔗3. Number: In general, three closely matching examples of the exact practice are sufficient to demonstrate a pattern. When closely matching examples are not found, six examples that bracket the submission in complexity should be sufficient. In no case will multiple examples of a pattern with ordinaries or simple geometric charges be sufficient evidence of that pattern for animate charges (though that pattern with ordinaries and complex charges that are not animate may be). Likewise, in no case will multiple examples of an element or combination of elements in simple designs be sufficient evidence for that same pattern in complex designs. However, the use of an element or combination of elements in complex designs may allow its use in simpler designs.

For example, "A single black primary charge with a complex outline on a red background" is the type of pattern we would call "closely matching". Some examples that would bracket such a submission are "a red complex-outline primary charge on a black background"(the tinctures match, but are swapped) or "multiple black complex primary charges on a red background".

For submissions with multiple elements which fall outside the style rules, three closely matching examples which all include all of the non-core style elements will be sufficient to allow registration. If no example of the combination can be found, six independent examples of each non-core style practice should be sufficient to give the submitter the benefit of the doubt that the practices might have been used together. As with single non-core style elements, the examples should be of comparable complexity to the submitted design.

🔗A5. Armory Conflict

🔗A. Definitions and General Principles: To be registered, a new submission must be clear of conflict with all registered armory. Conflict is both a period concept and a modern part of the requirement in the Governing Documents that armory has sufficient difference to avoid undue confusion. There are two types of confusion a submission must avoid. The first is confusion of identity and is based on the ideas of visual similarity and heraldic equivalency. In this case, confusion is caused by the appearance of owning armory that is the same as or has effectively no difference from registered armory which belongs to someone else. The second is confusion of relationship and is based on the idea that children would use armory that was similar to but differenced or cadenced from that of their parents.

The methods by which children would difference their arms from their parent's arms were sometimes known as cadency steps, and the standards which developed for these differences are collectively called "cadency". Cadency in our period was a complex, changing set of guidelines that varied widely. These rules are designed to treat as cadency steps most of the important period forms of cadency while ignoring changes that were used rarely, only in exceptional cases, or only during the early proliferation of heraldry.

In general, we require two armorial designs to have a level of difference greater than a single cadency step, so that they do not make the claim to be close relatives of each other or confuse their identities. This can be either a single greater change, of types not generally used for cadencing, or two changes that are equivalent to cadency steps. Two designs which differ in one of these ways are said to be clear of conflict, or "independent designs". In some cases, two armorial designs, despite having sufficient technical differences, may have overwhelming visual similarity, causing undue confusion and thus these two designs will be considered to be in conflict.

In general, we call changes which are equivalent to cadency steps "distinct changes", abbreviated as DC. Older rulings may refer to these types of changes as "significant differences", "clear differences", "CD"s, or even "clear visual differences" and "CVD"s. There are other types of changes which are greater than that, normally seen between "strangers in blood" rather than related individuals. We call these larger changes substantial changes, abbreviated as SC. Older rulings regarding substantial changes may also refer to "substantial difference" or "X.2". There are also changes which are smaller than a cadency step. These changes do not contribute to difference between two armorial designs, and are discussed in A5C3 below.

🔗B. Armory Protected from Conflict: To be clear of conflict, a new submission must be clear of conflict with all registered armory. A piece of armory is registered and protected from the moment it is listed as accepted on a published Letter of Acceptances and Returns. Registered armory will be listed in the Ordinary and Armorial as soon as possible, but it is protected as soon as the Letter of Acceptances and Return is published. We also protect armory of important people and entities outside the SCA; they are addressed in A6 Presumption below.

🔗C. Comparisons of Armory: When considering armory for purposes of possible conflict, there are a number of factors which should be considered.

🔗1. Blazons Which Must Be Considered: While we register the emblazon, rather than the blazon, most conflict checking is done from the blazon. Thus, when considering armory for purposes of possible conflict, all reasonable blazons for a specific design must be considered. You may not blazon your way out of conflict. Blazons that are unregisterable under our core style rules (such as blazons that would produce quaternary charges or contrast issues) or that require unlikely understandings of an armorial design do not need to be considered for conflict purposes, unless that blazon is due to the use of an Individually Attested Pattern, is due to voiding or fimbriation, or is the existing blazon of a piece of registered armory.

For example, a lozenge throughout must also be considered as vêtu. Thus Vert, on a lozenge throughout argent, a rose proper must be considered both under that blazon and as Argent vêtu vert, a rose proper. For example, three fesses must also be considered as barry. Thus, Gules, three fesses ermine must be considered both under that blazon and as Barry gules and ermine. This is true whenever armory uses three or more identical ordinaries.

For example, Gules, a fess Or does not need to be considered as Or, a chief and a base gules, as this is an unlikely understanding of the armorial design. Gules, a tree within an annulet argent does not need to be considered as Gules, on a roundel argent, a roundel gules charged with a tree argent because this requires the tree to be a quaternary charge. However, the registered Gules, a bear passant sable must be considered as it is blazoned, even though it violates the core style rules on contrast.

Armorial designs with voided or fimbriated charges must be considered for purposes of conflict in multiple ways. In most cases, voided charges are considered as a base charge with a tertiary charge and as a base charge with fimbriation (the fimbriation being an artistic detail worth no difference). However, this does not always work in reverse - two ordinaries are not considered as a single ordinary voided. Fimbriated charges are considered as a base charge (with the fimbriation being an artistic detail worth no difference), or as a base charge with a tertiary charge.

For example, Azure, a mullet voided argent must be considered as Azure, on a mullet argent a mullet azure and as Azure, a mullet azure fimbriated argent, with the fimbriation worth no difference (even though this blazon would be unregisterable). Similarly, Or, a mullet argent fimbriated gules is must be considered as Or, a mullet argent even though this violates our core style rules on contrast, and as Or, on a mullet gules another argent.

For example, Erminois, a cross argent fimbriated vert must be considered as Erminois, a cross argent, even though this violates our core style rules on contrast, and as Erminois, on a cross vert a cross argent. However, Argent, a bend Or fimbriated gules is not considered as Argent, a bend Or between two bendlets gules because this blazon would have argent stripes separating the Or and gules stripes.Similarly, Argent, two bendlets gules is not considered as either Argent, a bend argent fimbriated gules or Argent, on a bend gules a bendlet argent.

🔗2. Comparing Charge Groups: In general, only charge groups that are comparable in type should be compared for specific difference under the rules below. That is, a primary charge group should be compared to a primary charge group only, a secondary charge group should be compared to a secondary charge group only, a tertiary charge group should be compared to a tertiary charge group only, and an overall charge group should be compared to an overall charge group only.

🔗a. Addition and Removal of Charges from a Single Charge Group: Within a single charge group, changes that can be described as the addition or removal of certain charges are treated as a single change. When the changes cannot be simply described as an addition or removal of charges, the entire charge group must be compared as a whole.

For example, there is only one difference between Gules, a fess and in chief two water bougets Or and Gules, a fess between two water bougets and two mullets two and two Or for the change in number in the secondary charge group. This is because the addition or removal of the two mullets creates a group identical to the comparable group in the other armory. Which piece of armory is registered does not matter for purposes of this rule. However, there are two differences between Sable, a fess between three water bougets Or and Sable, a fess between two water bougets Or and two mullets two and two Or. The first is for the change of number in the secondary charge group. Since removing a single mullet does not result in a group of charges which is identical to the comparable group in the other armory, there is a second difference for changing the type of the charge group.

These examples hold true even if none of them have the fess, where the water bougets and mullets are the primary charge group; in the first case, the difference is a substantial change, and in the second case both differences are distinct changes.

🔗b. Comparing Secondary Charge Groups: Several kinds of secondary charge groups can occur together in a design. If two designs each have a single kind of secondary charge group, those secondary charge groups are treated as comparable for purposes of style and conflict, regardless of the type of each group. When multiple types of secondary charge groups are found in a design, identical types of secondary charge groups are compared first and then the remaining secondary charge groups can be compared independently.

For example, Argent semy-de-lys azure, a fess cotised and a chief sable has three secondary charge groups: the semy-de-lys, the cotises, and the chief. For example, when comparing Argent semy-de-lys azure, a fess and a chief sable with Argent, a fess sable cotised azure, a chief sable, the chiefs would be compared, and then the cotises and fleurs-de-lys would be compared. However, for the designs Argent, a fess and in base a portcullis sable and Argent, a fess and a chief sable, the secondary portcullis must be compared to the secondary chief.

🔗c. Comparing Tertiary Charge Groups: Tertiary charge groups can occur in several places on a design, as they may appear on multiple types of charges. Tertiary charge groups can only be directly compared when they are on comparable charge group types. That is, a tertiary charge group on a primary charge cannot be directly compared to a tertiary charge group on a secondary charge group.

🔗d. Defining Half of a Charge Group: Some of rules in this section apply when "half" of a charge group is changed. In general, "half" is literal: half of four charges is two charges and half of a single charge is 50% of it. However, there are the following special cases:

• When a group of three charges on the field is arranged two and one, the bottom charge is considered half the charge group.
• When a tertiary charge group of three charges is on a central ordinary or chief, the centermost charge is considered half the charge group.
• A central charge or charge group balanced around the center of the device, when divided by a line of division splitting the field into two parts, is considered to be divided in half by that line. This is true whether or not the total area contained in the charges is evenly distributed between the halves, such as when the charge is not symmetric across the line of division. Thus, this is a common occurrence with animate charges.
• When a primary or secondary charge group is split so that part of it lies on each side of a line of division or ordinary splitting the field in two parts, the section containing the smaller number of charges is considered half the charge group, even if it is less than half numerically.

For example, in Argent, two crosses couped vert and a brown bear proper, the crosses couped are considered half the primary charge group and the bear is considered the other half. In Pean, on a chief Or a fleur-de-lys between two roundels azure, the fleur-de-lys is considered half the tertiary charge group and the roundels are the other half. In Per fess sable and argent, a horse salient counterchanged, the half of the horse below the line of division is considered half of the primary charge group, even though the bottom half of a horse is visually smaller than the top half. In Per chevron vair and gules, three roses gules and a lozenge argent, the three roses are considered half the primary charge group and the lozenge is considered the other half.

In each of these special cases, a maximum of one distinct change, as defined in A5G, can be derived from changes to the smaller of the sections defined as half under these rules.

🔗3. Some Changes Which Do Not Count for Difference: Changes that are smaller than a cadency step, as described below, do not contribute to difference between two armorial designs, no matter how many of them there are. These sorts of changes were often understood as artistic variation or details which could be included or omitted in display of the armory. This includes differences in artistic style and details such as arming and languing. It also includes minor variation in the placement of charges and changes in outline due to different artistic representations. Additionally, for certain charge types, all variants of that charge are considered equivalent for conflict purposes.

For example, a lion Or armed gules, where the claws and teeth are red, would not be different from a lion Or, where the lion is wholly gold, nor would either be different from a lion Or langued azure, where the mouth is open with a blue tongue. A moon in her plenitude, with a face on it, would not be different from either a moon or a roundel.

For example, a lion is not different from any other type of natural feline. This includes, but is not limited to: a domestic cat, a catamount, a mountain lion, an ounce, a tiger, and so on. However, a lion is different from a heraldic tyger, which is a heraldic monster. Other types which include many variants are dogs (variants include wolves and foxes) and swords/daggers.

🔗4. Augmentations: As discussed in A3A3, in a submission of augmented arms where the augmentation appears to be a display of independent armory, such as that described in SENA A6C, the augmentation must be checked for conflict as if it were a submission of independent armory.

🔗D. Standards for Visual Conflict: Despite being technically clear of conflict under the rules below, some armorial designs and elements are still too visually similar to be considered clear of conflict.

🔗1. Visually Equivalent Blazons: The use of different terminology to describe two designs that are visually similar does not affect any potential for conflict that may exist. Another way of putting this rule is: you can't blazon your way out of a conflict. Two charges can also be overly visually similar, though period depictions of charges that were considered different in period will generally be considered to be different (at least a distinct change (DC) apart).

For example, Or, a fess vert has a visual conflict with Vert, a chief and a base Or even though the two blazons should theoretically have sufficient difference, and we would not currently register the second blazon. For example, Purpure, three scarpes argent has a visual conflict with Bendy sinister purpure and argent even though one appears to have primary charges and the other appears to have no primary charges.

🔗2. Total Design: Occasionally, two arrangements of charges may create a design that is nearly indistinguishable visually, even though there is sufficient technical difference between them. In general, any significant visual difference between the designs will be enough to give the submitter the benefit of the doubt.

For example, a rose and overall a sword argent is not different from a sword and overall a rose argent, because it is quite difficult to tell which one is overall the other when they are the same tincture. However, the arrangement a rose Or and overall a sword argent is easily distinguishable from a sword argent and overall a rose Or.

🔗E. Standards for Difference through A Single Substantial Change to the Primary Charge Group: A new submission that differs from a piece of protected armory by one of the following changes does not conflict with the piece of protected armory. These are the types of changes that were not commonly used for cadency; they are the kind of changes most likely to be seen between unrelated people - "strangers in blood".

In most cases, these changes must affect the entire primary charge group; changes to other charge groups and changes which affect only half the primary charge group may contribute to difference as described in A5G below.

🔗1. Adding or Removing the Primary Charge Group: A new submission does not conflict with any protected armory if it adds a primary charge group or removes a primary charge group. Thus, any armory which is field-primary does not conflict with any armory which has a primary charge group.

For example, Per bend azure and Or, a clarion and a trefoil counterchanged, a chief indented argent does not conflict with Per bend azure and Or, a chief indented argent, because it adds a primary charge group of the clarion and the trefoil. For example, Counter-ermine, a bordure argent pellety does not conflict with Counter-ermine, three lozenges argent, a bordure argent pellety, because it removes the primary charge group of the lozenges.

🔗2. Substantial Change of Type of the Primary Charge Group: A new submission which substantially changes the type of each primary charge from a piece of protected armory does not conflict with it. When possible, each charge in the new armory is compared to the charge in the corresponding location in the protected armory. Some charges which are not substantially different may qualify for a distinct change, as described in A5G below.

For example, Argent, a fess sable does not conflict with Argent, a lion's head cabossed sable. For example, Vert, two eagles and a maunche argent does not conflict with Vert, three lozenges argent. For example, Azure, a fess between three cups Or does not conflict with Azure, a chevron between three cups Or. For example, Gules, four wolves two and two argent does not conflict with Gules, semy of lions argent. For example, Per fess ermine and Or, two unicorns and a raven sable, an orle azure does not conflict with Per fess ermine and Or, three sea-horses sable, an orle azure.In each case the type of every primary charge has been substantially changed.

Per chevron gules and argent, three crequiers counterchanged is not clear of conflict with Per chevron gules and argent, two mullets and a crequier counterchanged under this rule because not all of the primary charges have been substantially changed. However, Per chevron gules and argent, two crequiers and a mullet counterchanged does not conflict with Per chevron gules and argent, two mullets and a crequier counterchanged. Here, the type of each primary charge has been changed even though the two charge groups contain identical charge types.

🔗3. Change of Number of the Primary Charge Group: A new submission which substantially changes the number of charges in the primary charge group from a protected piece of armory does not conflict with it. A primary charge group with one, two, or three charges does not conflict with armory having a primary charge group with any other number or semy. A primary charge group with four or more charges, including semy of charges, is not clear of conflict under this rule with armory whose primary charge group has four or more charges, including semy of charges. Other changes in number do not qualify for this rule, but may qualify for a distinct change under A5G below.

For example, Sable, a mascle Or does not conflict with any of: Sable, in fess two mascles Or; Sable, three mascles Or; Sable, four mascles two and two Or; Sable, five mascles in saltire Or; Sable, six mascles Or; or Sable, semy of mascles Or. Additionally, Per chevron Or and azure, two trees proper and a nesselblatt Or does not conflict with Per chevron Or and azure, a tree proper. In each case, the number of primary charges has substantially changed. Likewise, while the most common number of charges is partly determined by the ways in which a field is divided, Per chevron sable and Or, three annulets counterchanged is substantially changed from Quarterly sable and Or, four annulets counterchanged because the number of annulets has changed from three to four.

For example, Gules, four boars two and two argent is not clear of conflict under this rule with Gules, semy of boars argent because both have four or more boars. Per fess Or and purpure, a rose proper and a vol Or is not clear of conflict under this rule with Per fess Or and purpure, a rose proper and a maunche Or because the number of charges remains two in both cases.

🔗4. Change of Arrangement of the Primary Charge Group: A new submission which substantially changes the arrangement of the primary charges from a piece of protected armory does not conflict with it. In cases where armory has an arrangement which is forced by the field, no difference can be obtained for arrangement of those charges. It does not matter whether the forced arrangement is in the registered item or the new submission. The following groups of arrangements are substantially different from each other, while arrangements listed in the same group are not substantially different from each other; other arrangements cannot apply this rule, but may still qualify for a distinct change under A5G below:

• in pale
• in fess
• in bend
• in bend sinister
• in saltire, and two and two, and crossed in saltire
• in cross
• two and one, and three, two, and one
• in orle and in annulo

For example, Gules, in fess two lions argent does not conflict with Gules, in pale two lions argent or with Gules, in bend two lions argent or with Gules, in bend sinister two lions argent because the arrangement of the lions is substantially different. Per saltire Or and argent, in cross four suns gules does not conflict with Per saltire Or and argent, in saltire four suns gules because in cross is substantially different from in saltire. Argent, six mullets gules, three, two, and one does not conflict with Argent, eight mullets in orle gules because three, two, and one is substantially different from in orle.

For example, Quarterly gules and argent, two ravens argent is not clear of conflict under this rule from Quarterly gules and sable, in fess two ravens argent, because the in bend position of the ravens in the first item are forced there by the field - the white ravens could not overlap either of the white quarters. Similarly, Per fess sable and gules, in pale two anchors Or is not clear of conflict under this rule from Per fess sable and Or, in fess two anchors Or because the anchors in the second item are forced to the top half by the field - no yellow anchor could be on the yellow part of the field.

🔗5. Change of Posture of the Primary Charge Group: A new submission which substantially changes the postures or orientations of each of the primary charges from a piece of protected armory does not conflict with it, when the posture of the individual charges are comparable. Charges which fall into separate categories of animate charges do not have comparable postures; animate charges and inanimate charges do not have comparable postures or orientations. These categories are listed below in this section. Postures and orientations not listed in this section cannot apply this rule, but may still qualify for a distinct change under A5G below. Primary charge groups which are not comparable under this rule may still qualify for a distinct change under A5G below.

For example, Per fess gules and azure, a hound courant and a lymphad argent cannot apply this rule when being compared to Per fess gules and azure, a hound rampant and a dragon passant argent because, while the hounds are in different postures, a lymphad and a dragon do not have comparable postures or orientations. However, Per bend purpure and argent, a sword fesswise and an lion rampant counterchanged can apply this rule when being compared to Per bend purpure and argent, a sword palewise and a lion passant counterchanged because the corresponding charges have comparable postures and orientations. That is, the swords are comparable to each other and the lions are comparable to each other.

🔗a. Animate Charges: Animate charges are considered to fall into categories of posture based on their type. Within those categories, there are limited groups of postures which are each considered substantially different from other groups in that category. Charges in different categories do not have comparable postures for this rule.

Quadrupeds, including winged ones such as dragons, have comparable postures, in the following groups:

• rampant, segreant, salient, sejant erect, sejant, and the contourny versions of these
• courant, passant, statant, couchant, dormant, and the contourny versions of these
• affronty, sejant affronty, sejant erect affronty

Birds have comparable postures, in the following groups:

• displayed, volant, and volant contourny
• close, naiant and the contourny versions of these
• rising, striking, roussant, volant wings addorsed, and the contourny versions of these

Fish have comparable postures, in the following groups:

• haurient, urinant
• naiant, naiant contourny

Insects and other creatures normally found in tergiant positions follow the same categories as inanimate charges: compact charges and long charges. Animate tergiant charges which are generally square or round in overall shape, such as butterflies, are compact charges and are not generally considered to have comparable postures or orientations for the purposes of this rule. Animate tergiant charges with a single long axis, such as dragonflies, are long charges and have limited groups of orientations which are each considered substantially different from other groups:

• palewise, volant en arriere, palewise inverted
• fesswise, fesswise contourny
• bendwise, bendwise inverted
• bendwise sinister, bendwise sinister inverted

Other animate postures may be given substantial difference between comparable creatures on a case by case basis.

For example, Gules, a rabbit passant Or does not conflict with Gules, a rabbit rampant Or or with Gules, a rabbit sejant affronty Or. Gules, a rabbit passant Or is not clear of conflict under this rule with Gules, a rabbit couchant contourny Or because passant and couchant contourny are in the same category. For example, Vert, three eagles displayed vair does not conflict with Vert, three eagles close vair. For example, Azure, a dragonfly volant en arriere does not conflict with Azure, a dragonfly tergiant fesswise.

For example, Sable, a lion dormant argent is not clear of conflict under this rule with Sable, a lion statant argent or with Sable, a lion dormant contourny argent because these postures are not substantially different. For example, Argent, two bears combatant vert is not clear of conflict under this rule with Argent, in fess two bears rampant vert because each share one rampant bear; combatant is shorthand for 'in fess one beast rampant contourny and another rampant'. For example, Argent, a fish haurient gules is not clear of conflict under this rule with Argent, a fish urinant gules because the reversal does not create a meaningful visual difference. For example, Purpure semy of stags courant Or is not clear of conflict under this rule with Purpure, six stags couchant Or because the postures are not substantially different.

🔗b. Inanimate Charges: Inanimate charges also may be divided into two categories: compact charges and long charges.

Inanimate charges which are generally square or round in overall shape, such as pheons and crescents, are considered compact charges. Compact charges are not generally considered to have comparable postures or orientations for the purposes of this rule.

Inanimate charges with a single long axis, such as swords and arrows, are considered long charges. Long charges have limited groups of orientations which are each considered substantially different from other groups:

• palewise, palewise inverted
• fesswise, fesswise reversed
• bendwise, bendwise inverted/reversed
• bendwise sinister, bendwise sinister inverted/reversed

For example, Or, two straight trumpets palewise purpure does not conflict with Or, two straight trumpets fesswise purpure, but it is not clear of conflict under this rule with Or, two straight trumpets palewise inverted purpure.For example, Azure, a sword fesswise proper does not conflict with Azure, a sword bendwise inverted, but it is not clear of conflict under this rule with Azure, a sword fesswise reversed proper because the two orientations are not substantially different.

For example, Gules, a mullet argent is not clear of conflict under this rule with Gules, a mullet inverted argent or with Gules, a mullet bendwise argent because the rotation of the compact mullet does not create a meaningful visual difference.

🔗F. Standards for Difference through a Single Substantial Change of Field for Fielded Armory: A new submission does not conflict with a piece of protected armory if the two fields have a substantially different partition as defined below.

Field-primary armory, that is, armory which has no primary charge group, including armory with peripheral ordinaries, whether they are charged or uncharged, may also be clear of conflict by the addition or removal of a primary charge group, as described in A5E1 above. Field-primary armory may also derive substantial difference from a substantial change of tincture as defined below.

All fielded armory may also be clear of conflict by having two independent changes, including two independent changes to the field itself, as described in A5G1 below.

🔗1. Substantial Change of Partition: A new submission is clear of any other piece of protected armory when it substantially changes the partitioning of the field.

🔗a. Total Addition or Removal of Division: Any divided field has a substantially changed partition from any plain field. The multiply divided furs are considered plain fields for this purpose.

For example, Per pale azure and vert is substantially different from Vert, and thus clear of conflict with it. It would also be substantially different from Vair or Potent.

🔗b. Substantial Change of Direction of Division: A change in direction of the lines of partition creates a substantial change of partition. Most of the standard lines of division are substantially different. Any field division which differs only by the number of partitions in a single direction is not substantially different. The pairs per bend and bendy, per bend sinister and bendy sinister, per chevron and chevronelly, per fess and barry, and per pale and paly are not substantially different from the other half of their pair. Each of the above mentioned divisions is otherwise substantially different from all other divisions. Therefore, the pairs chevronelly and paly, per bend and per bend sinister, etc., are substantially different.

For example, Per pale argent and gules is substantially different from Per fess argent and gules and from Per chevron argent and gules. However, Per pale argent and gules is not substantially different from Paly argent and gules.

Per pall, and per pall inverted are clear of all other divisions.

Quarterly and per saltire are substantially different from all two-part divisions and three-part divisions. They are also substantially different from all other four-part divisions (such as per pale and per chevron or per bend and per fess). The other four-part divisions are only substantially different from one another if they share no lines of division in common. All four-part divisions are substantially different from divisions that split the field evenly into more than four partitions.

For example, per pale and per chevron is substantially difference from per fess and per bend sinister, as they have no lines of division in common.

Checky is substantially different from all other fields. While checky is substantially different from all other grid-like partitions (i.e., those formed by two sets of parallel lines, such as lozengy and barry-bendy); these other grid-like partitions are not substantially different from one another. This is because they all create a general impression of lozenges of some sort. These grid-like partitions are all substantially different from partitions that split the field into six or fewer partitions.

For example, Barry and per pale argent and vert is substantially different from Checky argent and vert, but is not clear of conflict under this rule from Bendy and per pale argent and vert.

Gyronny (of any number of pieces), party of six, and orly are substantially different form all other partitions. Other multiply parted divisions (bendy, barry, etc., are discussed in the first paragraph of this section.

Lines of division not mentioned here explicitly may be determined to be substantially different on a case by case basis.

As a reference, these categories are all substantially different from each other:

• per pale, paly
• per fess, barry
• per bend, bendy
• per bend sinister, bendy sinister
• per chevron, chevronelly
• per chevron inverted, chevronelly inverted
• gyronny (any number of pieces)
• per pall
• per pall inverted
• per saltire
• quarterly
• orly
• other divisions into four equal parts
  (may have substantial difference between themselves, if they share no lines in common, such as per pale and per chevron compared to per fess and per bend sinister)
• party of six
• checky
• lozengy and all other grid-like partitions (such as barry bendy and paly and chevronelly)

🔗2. Substantial Change of Tincture for Field-Primary Armory: If the field of a new field-primary submission has no tinctures in common with the field of a protected piece of armory, they do not conflict. If a new submission with a field divided into two sections, three sections, quarterly, or per saltire has changed the tincture of each section of that field and each has at least one tincture on the field that the other does not, the two are substantially different and do not conflict.

Furs are considered to be different from one another and from their base tincture. The addition of a field treatment is also a change of tincture.

For example, Per chevron azure and gules and Per chevron sable and argent do not conflict, because the fields do not share a tincture. Per pale azure and gules and Per pale gules and argent do not conflict, because they are a type of field division with two sections, they have changed the tincture of each section, and each one has a tincture that differs. Similarly, Quarterly azure and gules, a bordure argent and Quarterly gules and Or a bordure argent do not conflict because they are four-section field divisions, they have changed the tincture of each section, and they each have a tincture that differs - the tincture of the bordure is not relevant.

For example, Per pale azure and gules is not clear of conflict under this rule with Per pale gules and azure because neither has a tincture the other does not. Barry bendy vert and argent is not clear of conflict under this rule with Barry bendy sinister vert and Or because both share a tincture in the same section. Paly azure and gules is not clear of conflict under this rule with Paly gules and argent because they are divided into multiple sections (such that the order of the tinctures makes little visual difference) and they share a tincture. This is true even for Paly of four parts.

For example, Per bend ermine and azure is substantially different from Per bend erminois and gules and from Per bend argent and sable. Per fess argent and gules is substantially different from Per fess argent masoned gules and sable. In each case, the two pieces of armory have no tinctures in common.

🔗G. Standards for Difference through Two Distinct Changes: A distinct change (DC) is a change that was generally used as a cadency step or is similar in visual weight and meaning to changes that were used as cadency steps. Any new design which has at least two distinct changes from a protected design does not conflict with it. In older precedent, two elements which have a distinct change between them were sometimes said to be significantly different, or that there was a CD between them; in current precedent they are said to be distinctly changed, or that there is a DC between them. The types of changes which are substantially different when applied to primary charges under A5E above generally count as a distinct change when applied to other charge groups.
When comparing two armorial designs, the procedures outlined in A5C above should be followed.

For any given section below, only one distinct change (DC) can be derived from one type of change to a single charge group, no matter how radical the changes. Multiple distinct changes (DCs) may be derived from multiple types of changes to a single charge group or by changes to multiple charge groups. In general, a change to half the charge group (as defined in #A5C2d above) is sufficient for a distinct change. However, for a half which is defined as a special case in A5C2d above a maximum of one distinct change can be derived from all changes to that half, no matter how radical the changes.

🔗1. Changes to the Field: Distinctly changing the tinctures, direction of partition lines, style of partition lines, or number of pieces in a partition of the field is one distinct change (DC).

Armory can be cleared of conflict by a single substantial change to the field as described in A5F above, through two distinct changes under this rule, or through two distinct changes under any combination of rules in A5G, including changes to peripheral ordinaries and tertiary charges on them.

For example, Per chevron argent and azure, a lion gules does not conflict with Chevronelly argent and sable, a lion gules; there is a DC for changing at least half the tincture of the field (A5G1a), and a DC for changing the number of pieces of the field (A5G1d). For example, Per pale indented argent and azure, a lion gules does not conflict with Paly argent and azure, a lion gules; there is a DC for changing the style of the partition lines (A5G1c) and a DC for changing the number of pieces of the field of the partition lines (A5G1d). For example, Per pale azure and argent, a lion gules has one DC from Per pale azure and bendy argent and sable, a lion gules (A5G1d), but does not receive a DC for the difference in tincture (A5G1a) as it is less than half of the field.

🔗a. Change of Tincture: If the tincture of at least half the field is changed, the fields will be considered different enough to be a distinct change (DC). There is a distinct change for swapping or rotating the tinctures of a field evenly divided into two, three, or four parts. There is not a distinct change for swapping the tinctures of a field divided into more than four parts. Furs and fields with field treatments are considered different tinctures from their underlying tincture and from other variants which share an underlying tincture.

For example, each of the following has one DC from the other two: Argent, a tree vert, Ermine, a tree vert and Argent masoned sable, a tree vert. In each case, the field tincture is distinctly changed. Per pall sable, gules, and argent has one DC from both Per pall azure, gules, and Or and Per pall gules, argent, and sable. In each case at least half of the field tincture has been changed.

For example, Quarterly argent and azure, a lucy gules has one DC from Quarterly azure and argent, a lucy gules. However, Checky argent and azure, a lucy gules does not have a DC from Checky azure and argent, a lucy gules.

🔗b. Change of Direction of Partition Lines: A change of direction of partition lines creates a distinct change (DC). The major single partition lines include: per bend, per bend sinister, per pale, per fess, per chevron, and per chevron inverted; a change from one to another (whether as single lines or multiple forms) is a distinct change. In addition, a change from any of these to per saltire, quarterly, gyronny (of any number of pieces), per pall, and per pall inverted, checky, and lozengy or a change between any of these is considered a distinct change. A change in direction of half the lines of a design gives a distinct change. In general, the addition, removal, or change of a partition line or group of partition lines that changes the organization of tinctures in ways that affect at least half the field will be considered a distinct change.

For example, Per bend vair and gules is a DC from Per pale vair and gules. For example, Barry bendy sable and Or is a DC from Paly bendy sable and Or. For example, Barry wavy azure and argent is a DC from Per pale and barry wavy azure and argent.

🔗c. Change of Style of Partition Lines: All partition lines have a style, either plain (straight) or complex. A change of style of half the partition lines is a distinct change (DC). The types of complex lines which are distinctly different are discussed in Appendix M.

For example, Per pale is a DC from Per pale embattled. For example, Barry wavy is a DC from Barry engrailed and from Barry (plain). For example, Quarterly is a DC from Quarterly per fess indented.

For example, Bendy sinister and per bend indented is not a DC from Bendy sinister and per bend as only one line of division out of many is changed. Similarly, Paly and per fess is not a DC from Paly and per fess wavy as only the per fess line is changed. However, Paly wavy and per fess is a DC from Paly and per fess as all of the vertical lines have changed while the single horizontal line has not.

🔗d. Change of Number of Pieces: Changing the number of pieces into which the field is divided is a distinct change (DC). When considering the field as a whole, a field with one, two, three, or four pieces has a distinct change from armory with any other number, but above that there is no distinct change. When considering changes to only half of an already divided field, a half with one, two, or three pieces can have a distinct change from armory with a half of any other number of pieces, but any number beyond that is considered the same.

For example, Per chevron gules and argent, a pale azure has one DC from Chevronelly gules and argent, a pale azure. Quarterly Or and sable, a fleur-de-lys gules has one DC from Checky Or and sable, a fleur-de-lys gules. Per pale azure and argent has one DC from Per pale azure and bendy argent and gules. In each case, the change of number of pieces is significant.

For example, Gyronny of six ermine and vert, a roundel sable does not have a DC from Gyronny (of eight) ermine and vert, a roundel sable. There is no DC between Barry wavy of six argent and azure, a dolphin gules and the same design drawn with more traits, and we generally do not blazon that difference.

The one exception is party of six, which is divided in a different pattern (effectively per fess and paly of three) and was seen as a distinct field division in period. Therefore, it has one DC from checky and designs that create large numbers of lozenges (such as paly bendy). However, it does not have a DC from designs such as Paly and per fess which create the same overall impression.

🔗e. Fieldless Armory: A piece of fieldless armory automatically has one distinct change (DC) from any other armory, fielded or fieldless.

Tinctureless armory, as described in A3A2, is treated as fieldless armory for this purpose. However, no DC may be given for tincture of charges when comparing a tinctureless badge to any other design, including changes of tincture due to addition of lines of division.

For example, (Fieldless) A mullet purpure has a DC for fieldlessness from (Fieldless) A mullet of six points purpure, but no other DCs. For example, Per fess gules and argent, a lion counterchanged has a DC for tincturelessness from (Tinctureless) A lion but no other DCs for tincture, even though one of the lions is divided per fess.

🔗2. Adding or Removing a Charge Group: Adding or removing a secondary, tertiary, or overall charge group is a distinct change (DC). The addition or removal of a primary charge gives greater difference and is described under A5E1 above. We count additions and removals in terms of the charge groups they affect, so that adding or removing multiple charges from a single group is only one distinct change. Adding or removing charges from multiple charge groups may give multiple distinct changes.

For example, Sable, a ram argent has one DC from Sable, a ram argent and a chief Or and from Sable, a ram argent and overall a bend Or. In each case one charge group is removed. Sable, a ram argent and a chief, overall a bend Or has two DCs from Sable, a ram argent. Similarly, Sable, a ram argent and on a chief Or three roses sable also has two DCs from Sable, a ram argent. In each case two charge groups are added. Sable, a ram argent and a chief Or has two DCs from Sable, a ram argent and overall a bend Or, as a secondary charge group has been added and an overall charge group removed.

As discussed in A5C2 above, when two pieces of armory have the same number of secondary charge groups, they may not be considered to have added or removed a secondary charge group, even if those secondary charge groups are different kinds of secondary groups.

For example, Sable, a lion argent and a chief Or has only one DC from Sable, a lion argent and in canton a mullet Or, for the change in the type of the secondary charge (under A5G4 below), rather than one DC for removing the chief and a second DC for adding the mullet.

As discussed in A5C2 above, tertiary charge groups are considered comparable for the purposes of this rule if they are on the same type of underlying charge group (primary, secondary, or overall). The addition or removal of comparable tertiary charge groups is a distinct change.

For example, Sable, a cross flory argent mullety gules and a chief Or has two DCs from Sable, a cross flory argent and a chief Or mullety gules, because the tertiary charge group on the secondary charge has been removed and a tertiary charge group on the primary charge group added. These tertiary charge groups are not comparable. However, both of those designs have only one DC from Sable, a cross flory argent and a chief Or, as in each case only one tertiary charge group has been added.

🔗3. Change of Tincture Within a Charge Group: Distinctly changing the tinctures, direction of partition lines, style of partition lines, or number of pieces into which a charge group is divided is a distinct change (DC). At most one distinct change may be derived from changes to tincture of a single charge group.

However, no distinct change for tincture may be given under any section of this rule when comparing a tinctureless badge to another design, as described in A5G1e above.

🔗a. Tinctures: If the tincture of at least half the charge group is changed, the charge group will be considered different. There is a distinct change (DC) for swapping or rotating the tinctures of a charge group evenly divided into two, three, or four parts. There is not a distinct change for reversing the tinctures of a charge group divided into more than four parts. Furs and field treatments are considered different from their underlying tincture.

For example, Azure, a cross crosslet argent has one DC from Azure, a cross crosslet per pale argent and gules. Per fess gules and argent, an annulet counterchanged has one DC from Per fess gules and argent, an annulet counterchanged argent and sable; the first example is a shorthand for Per fess gules and argent, an annulet per fess argent and gules. Each of the following is a DC from the other two: Vert, a tree argent; Vert, a tree ermine; Vert, a tree argent masoned sable.

For example, Gules, a fess argent between three lions quarterly argent and azure has one DC from Gules, a fess argent between three lions quarterly azure and argent, because the tinctures have been swapped. However, Gules, a fess argent between three lions checky argent and azure does not have a DC from Gules, a fess argent between three lions checky azure and argent, because the lions are divided into more than four parts.

Certain tincture changes are considered part of the type of the charge and do not contribute to difference. Charges such as towers and castles that are made of masonry are not considered to be different when drawn with or without masoning, though fields and charges that are not made of masonry are. Some creatures, such as panthers and yales, are often but not always spotted; the absence or presence of these spots does not contribute to difference, though the addition of roundels to another type of charge is considered to be adding a tertiary charge group.

🔗b. Direction of Partition Lines: A change of direction of partition creates a distinct change (DC). The major single partition lines include: per bend, per bend sinister, per pale, per fess, per chevron, and per chevron inverted. A change from one to another (whether as single lines or multiple forms) is a distinct change . In addition, a change from any of these to per saltire, quarterly, gyronny (of any number of pieces), per pall, per pall inverted, checky, and lozengy or a change between any of these is considered a distinct change. A change in direction of half the lines of a design gives a distinct change. In general, the addition, removal, or change of a partition line or group of partition lines that changes organization of tinctures in ways that affect half the tincture will be considered a distinct change.

For example, the following all have one DC from each other: per bend argent and sable, per pale argent and sable, and lozengy argent and sable. The change from barry bendy to paly barry is a DC. There is a DC between barry wavy azure and argent and per pale and barry wavy azure and argent.

🔗c. Style of Partition Lines: All partition lines have a style, either plain (straight) or complex. A change of style of half the partition lines is a distinct change (DC). The types of complex lines which are distinctly different are discussed in Appendix M.

🔗d. Number of Pieces: Changing the number of pieces into which the charge is divided is a distinct change (DC). When considering the overall number of pieces, more than four pieces are considered the same, but smaller numbers are considered different. Alternately, changes that only affect half of an already divided charge can give a distinct change; in that case, more than three pieces are considered the same.

For example, there is a DC between a mullet per chevron gules and argent and a mullet chevronelly gules and argent. There is a DC between an elephant quarterly Or and sable and an elephant checky Or and sable. In each case, the change of number of pieces is significant. A roundel gyronny of six ermine and vert is not a DC from a roundel gyronny (of eight) ermine and vert. Barry wavy of six argent and azure is not a DC the same design drawn with more traits, nor do we blazon such a distinction.

🔗4. Change of Type Within a Charge Group: The change in type of at least half of a charge group is a distinct change (DC). Types of charges considered distinct in period are considered distinctly changed. A charge that was not used in period armory will be considered different in type from another charge if their shapes are distinctly changed. Additional discussion of difference between some specific charges can be found in Appendix M.

For example, there is a DC for the change from a lion to a heraldic tyger, from a mullet of five points to a sun, or from an oak tree to a pine tree (because of their very different shapes). A claymore is distinctly changed from an axe but not from a rapier.

Only one distinct change will be given for change of type of a single charge group, though multiple distinct changes can be given for changes of type of multiple charge groups.

For example, Per chevron gules and argent, a chevron sable between two roundels and a sun counterchanged is only one DC from Per chevron gules and argent, a chevron sable between two tygers and a mullet counterchanged. The charges on both sides of the chevron are in a single charge group. However, Per chevron gules and argent, a chevron sable semy-de-lys argent between two roundels and a sun counterchanged is two DCs away from Per chevron gules and argent, a chevron sable crusilly argent between two tygers and a mullet counterchanged. Here, the type of charges in two separate charge groups is changed.

The edges of ordinaries and similar geometric charges have a style, either plain (straight) or complex. These styles are part of the type of the charge; thus, a change to the style of the edge of an ordinary or similar charge is a distinct change. The types of complex lines which are distinctly different are discussed in Appendix M.

For example, the change from a pale wavy to a pale embattled is one DC, as is the change from a bordure to a bordure nebuly. Changing from a chief wavy to a lozenge embattled is also one DC; the changes from a chief to a lozenge and from wavy to embattled edge are considered a single change of type.

🔗5. Change of Number Within a Charge Group: Distinctly changing the number of charges in any charge group is one distinct change (DC).

A charge group with one, two, three, four, and five charges is a distinct change from groups of any other numbers. A charge group with six or more charges, including semy of charges, is not a distinct change from a group of any number within this size category. Changes to independent charge groups may give multiple distinct changes. Even when the number of charges is fixed by their type, there is a distinct change for changing the number under this rule.

For example, there is a DC between Gules, a talbot statant and in chief a fleur-de-lis argent and Gules semy-de-lis, a talbot statant argent because the number in the secondary charge group has been distinctly changed. There are two DCs between Argent, a chief azure and Argent, flaunches azure, one for change of type (under A5G4) and a second for change of number of the secondary charge group. This is true even though chiefs always appear singly and flaunches always appear in pairs.

For example, while the most common number of charges is partly determined by the ways in which a field is divided, there are two DCs between Per chevron sable and Or, a sexfoil argent between three annulets counterchanged and Quarterly sable and Or, a sexfoil argent between four annulets counterchanged, one for the change of the field (under A5G1) and a second for the change in number of the secondary charge group. However, these designs are also clear of conflict under A5F1 for substantial change of partition of the field.

🔗6. Change of Arrangement Within a Charge Group: Changing the arrangement of a group of charges is generally a distinct change (DC). Arrangement in this rule refers both to the relative positions of the charges (in pale, two and one, etc.) and to their positions on the field (in canton, in base). Arrangement may also apply in the case of a tertiary charge group which only appears on some charges within a charge group with multiple charges. Only one distinct change may be derived from changes to arrangement of a single charge group, though multiple distinct changes can be given for independent changes of arrangement to multiple charge groups.

Changes to other parts of the design frequently cause changes to the arrangement of charge groups. We call these changes forced; there is no distinct change for a forced change of arrangement. A change to the primary charge group can force the change of arrangement of a secondary charge group. When a type of a charge requires a specific arrangement, there is no distinct change for arrangement when the type of charge is changed.

For example, changing from Argent, a fess between two unicorns within bordure purpure to Argent, a pale between two unicorns within a bordure purpure requires that the unicorns move from in pale to in fess. As the change is forced, there is not a DC for the change in arrangement of the unicorns.

For example, there is no DC for change in arrangement between any of: Per pale gules and sable, a clarion and a bordure Or, Per pale gules and sable, a clarion and a base Or, and Per pale gules and sable, a clarion and in chief a garb Or. The position for the base and bordure are forced by their type of charge.

Changes in tincture of a divided field or the tincture of a charge group can force the charges into different positions on the field. These forced changes are also not worth a distinct change.

For example, there is no DC for change in arrangement between Per fess gules and sable, a goat argent between three lozenges Or and Per fess gules and Or, a goat argent and in chief three lozenges Or. There is no DC for the arrangement of the lozenges, because the lozenges in the second design cannot be in the center of the field, since they share a tincture with the bottom half of the field.

For example, there would also be no DC for change in arrangement between Per fess gules and sable, in fess three lozenges Or and Per fess gules and Or, in canton three lozenges two and one Or. Even though the relative arrangements are different, the lozenges in the second design cannot be in the same arrangement as in the first design. However, there is a DC for change in arrangement between Per fess gules and sable, in fess three lozenges Or to Per fess gules and argent, in chief three lozenges Or, because the lozenges Or could be in the center of a neutral field with which they do not share a tincture.

Changes in number can also cause a change in arrangement. In general, changes in arrangement only count for difference if the two charge groups are able to have identical arrangements but don't. You may determine whether two charge groups have comparable arrangements by referring to Appendix K, which lists the standard arrangements for charge groups of different numbers. If the two charge groups (based on the number of charges within them) can both take on the arrangement the other is in, then the arrangements are said to be comparable and a distinct change can be given for the difference between them.

For example, two charges in pale and three charges in fess have a distinct change for difference in arrangement, but neither has a distinct change for arrangement against a single central charge.

In general, tertiary charges are unlikely to have changes in arrangement, because the shape of the charge they are on limits their placement. One exception to this is a charge group with multiple charges, only one of which has a tertiary charge group on it. In this case, there may be a distinct change for changing which portion of the charge group has the tertiary.

For example, Potent, in pale two roundels gules, the one in chief charged with an eagle Or has one DC from Potent, in pale two roundels gules, the one in base charged with an eagle Or.

🔗7. Change of Posture or Orientation Within a Charge Group: Animate charges have a posture, which includes their stance, position of limbs, facing, etc.; inanimate charges have an orientation which includes their radial orientation and facing. Distinctly changing the posture or orientation of half of the charges in any charge group, when the charges are comparable, is one distinct change (DC). Only one distinct change can be derived from the changes in posture and/or orientation of any given charge group, though multiple distinct changes can be given for independent changes of posture or orientation to multiple charge groups. Multiple changes to the posture or orientation of the same charges may not be counted separately. Some charges, such as roundels, do not have a posture or orientation to be compared. In general, changes of position and/or orientation that considerably change the appearance of a single type of charge will count for a distinct change. Animate charges do not have comparable postures with inanimate charges. A partial list of postures and orientations that are distinct can be seen in Appendix L.

For example, changing a sword fesswise to a sword palewise or a lion rampant to a lion passant is one DC.Similarly, a lion passant bendwise is only one DC from a lion couchant contourny. For example, while a lion passant may be mostly fesswise, there is not a DC for change of posture between a lion passant and a sword palewise.

🔗a. Change of Posture for Animate Charges: Animate charges are considered to fall into categories by the type of animal for posture. Quadrupeds have comparable postures, birds have comparable postures, insects and other creatures normally found in tergiant positions have comparable postures, fish have comparable postures. Animate charges which fall into separate categories do not have comparable postures.

For example, there is not a DC for change of posture between a griffin segreant and an eagle displayed, although one is to dexter and the other affronty, because while a griffin could be described as displayed, an eagle is unable to be segreant, which is the equivalent of rampant for winged quadrupeds.

To count as a distinct change, a change of posture or orientation among comparable charges must distinctly change the appearance of a charge. For animate charges, a change in the position of the head or tail is not significant; nor is the change from statant to passant, which essentially moves only one leg. Changing from passant to couchant, however, visually removes the legs from the bottom of the charge and is considered significant. Changes that distinctly affect the number of extended wings (from wings folded to raised, or from wings seen on one side of the body to both sides) are sufficient for a distinct change. Changes which alter the orientation of the body or direction of facing are generally significant, though some very different descriptions may result in a similar appearance, such as passant bendwise and rampant. Also, some postures, such as rampant, have a wide range of acceptable depictions which do not count for difference.

Groups of animate charges or their parts may have comparable postures/orientations as a group even if their individual postures are not comparable. For example, there is a distinct change between two groups of animate charges or their parts that can be said to be addorsed versus respectant.

For example, there is a DC for orientation between two lions combatant and two hawks addorsed, even though a lion cannot be close and hawks cannot be rampant. There is a DC for orientation between either of those and two griffin's heads (both to dexter).

🔗b. Change of Orientation for Non-Identical Inanimate Charges: Inanimate charges also may be divided into two categories: compact charges and long charges. Inanimate charges which fall into separate categories do not have comparable orientations.

Compact charges are generally square or round, such as crescents and mullets. Non-identical compact inanimate charges such as pheons and crescents are not generally considered to have comparable postures or orientations. Some compact inanimate charges, like roses and mullets, are not considered to have meaningful orientations.

For example, whether a five-pointed mullet has a point to base or chief is blazonable, but does not give a distinct change (DC). For example, there is not a DC for orientation between a crescent and a pheon bendwise.

Inanimate charges with a long axis, like swords and arrows, are considered to have some comparable orientations: we give a distinct change for orientations that change the direction of the long axis of the charge (palewise, fesswise, bendwise, bendwise sinister), but not those that change the direction of the point or head.

For example, there is not a DC for orientation between an arrow fesswise and a sword fesswise, even though each has the point in a different direction. But there is a DC for orientation between an arrow palewise and a sword fesswise.

🔗c. Change of Orientation for Identical Inanimate Charges: When comparing two identical types of inanimate charges in different orientations, additional differences in orientation can also be granted a distinct change (DC). When the compared charges are identical, compact charges that have clearly distinguished directionality can receive a distinct change for differences in facing. Long charges may receive a distinct change for reversing their direction when the ends are easily distinguished. More details may be found in Appendix L.

For example, crescents, escallops, and pheons are all compact inanimate charges but also have a distinguishable top and bottom. Thus, there is a DC for orientation between an escallop and an escallop inverted and between a crescent and an increscent and a decrescent. For example, axes have easily distinguished ends. Thus, there is a DC for orientation between an axe fesswise and an axe fesswise reversed. However, bows and staves do not have different ends. Thus, there is no DC for orientation between a bow and a bow inverted (and they would likely both be simply blazoned as a bow, since the inversion would not be meaningful).

🔗H. Registration with Permission to Conflict: The owner of a piece of armory may grant permission to conflict to a new submission. Such permission may be granted either individually through a letter of permission to conflict or universally through a blanket letter of permission to conflict.

Any blazonable change is sufficient to allow the registration of armory with a letter of permission to conflict. A blanket letter of permission to conflict must specify the level of conflict allowed; it may allow registration of armory either with any blazonable change or which has only one distinct change. A submission identical to the registered armory will not be registered even with permission to conflict.

Giving permission does not require that the individual have a legal relationship with the person granting permission. You can give a stranger permission to have armory that appears to be the armory of your child, parent, spouse, etc..

🔗A6. Armory Presumption

🔗A. Definitions: Presumption is a false claim. This includes claims of restricted rank or powers that the submitter does not possess within the Society or that we do not allow anyone to claim. It also includes claims of identity or close relationship with a person or entity outside the SCA who is considered quite important by many people within and outside the Society. Presumption is not dependent on intent; even if such a claim was not intended, the appearance of such a claim is not allowed. Items which presume will not be registered, even if a letter of permission could be obtained.

🔗B. Claims through Restricted and Reserved Charges: There are charges whose use is limited because their use would be a form of presumption.

🔗1. Restricted Charges: Restricted elements and designs cannot be registered by anyone. These are charges that are either restricted by treaty (such as the emblems of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies) or used only by people with specific high ranks outside the SCA (such as the rulers of specific places, clan chiefs, or baronets). A complete list of restricted charges can be found in the Glossary of Terms Table 3.

🔗2. Reserved Charges: Reserved elements and designs can only be registered by submitters who have a certain rank or in certain types of branch submissions. A list of charges that are reserved is given in the Glossary of Terms Table 2. To register a design that includes such an element or design, the submitter must demonstrate his or her entitlement to use such an element. Generally a reference to the kingdom order of precedence is sufficient.

🔗C. Claims through Arms of Pretense and Unearned Augmentations: In period and modern heraldry, an individual may assert a claim to land or property by placing the armory associated with that property on an escutcheon in the middle of their existing armory. An augmentation of honor often takes the form of a charged canton; occasionally it takes the form of a charged escutcheon. Therefore, either a canton or a single escutcheon may be used in an armorial submission only if it is uncharged and of a single tincture. Multiple escutcheons do not have to follow this limitation. The use of a charged lozenge as arms of pretense or an augmentation is vanishingly rare. We will not consider a single uncharged lozenge, a single lozenge with a single, non-ordinary, tertiary charge, or multiple lozenges to be a display of independent armory nor its use to be presumptuous.

For example, Argent, a fess gules surmounted by an escutcheon sable charged with a roundel argent is not allowed, because it appears to be arms of pretense. Or, in saltire five escutcheons sable each charged with three roundels argent is registerable, because multiple identical escutcheons were not used for arms of pretense or augmentations.

For example, Argent, a fess gules surmounted by an lozenge sable charged with a roundel argent is registerable as we do not consider a lozenge with a single tertiary charge to be a display of independent armory. However, Argent, a fess gules surmounted by an lozenge sable charged with two roundels argent is not allowed because it has more than one tertiary charge and thus is considered a display of independent armory and presumptuous. Argent, on a lozenge sable a cross Or and Argent, on a lozenge sable a fess Or are not allowed as the lozenges are charged with ordinaries and are therefore considered independent displays of armory and presumptuous.

In period and modern heraldry, quartered arms are often a claim to a marital or inheritance relationship or about an office that the person holds. An augmentation of honor may also appear to be marshalled arms with the augmentation appearing in the first and fourth quarters and the original arms appearing in the second and third quarters. While, as discussed in section A6F, we do not usually allow the registration of armory appearing to be marshalled arms, an exception is made for an augmentation so long as all of the charges of the base (unaugmented) device remain identifiable.

Chiefs are a valid period form of augmentation; however, chiefs (whether charged or uncharged) are much more commonly not augmentations. As such, unless it is part of an augmentation and contains either a peripheral ordinary or an ordinary terminating at the edge, we do not consider a chief to be a display of independent armory nor its use to be presumptuous.

The rules governing earned Augmentations are discussed in A3A3.

🔗D. Claims of Identity or Close Relationship with an Important Non-SCA Entity or Person: If a submission is too close to the protected armory of a person or entity outside the SCA who is considered quite important by many people within and outside the Society, it presumes on that armory and may not be registered. Presumption is closely tied to conflict, as our system of armorial conflict is based on the appearance of close relationship through cadency.

All armorial items currently identified as important enough to protect are listed in the Ordinary and Armorial. Rarely, new non-SCA items that may be important enough to protect may be identified during the submissions process. The fact that they are not listed in the Ordinary and Armorial or a Letter of Acceptances and Returns does not matter. If the new non-SCA item is ruled important enough to protect, it will be added to the Ordinary and Armorial and the new submission will be returned for presumption.

In general, the flags and arms of period and modern countries and similar entities are protected, while the flags and arms of smaller units are not protected. The arms of exceptionally important individuals and places as well as arms that are famous by themselves are protected. Decisions to protect new famous people and places are quite rare.

In rare cases, armory associated with fictitious characters and entities may also be considered important enough to protect, when both a significant number of people in the Society recognize the armory of the entity without prompting and the use of the armory of the entity would generally be considered by those people a clear reference to that entity. Only a few pieces of fictitious armory have ever been ruled important enough to protect.

All currently protected armory is listed in the Ordinary and Armorial; it is protected in those forms. If new forms are identified, they will be listed. New protected armory is protected from the moment it is listed as such on a published Letter of Acceptances and Returns. As soon as possible, such armory will be listed in the Ordinary and Armorial, but they are protected as soon as the Letter of Acceptances and Return is published. Submitters and heralds do not need to look for other forms of protected armory.

Armory that is protected from presumption is protected with the same standards as conflict for SCA-registered armory. Those standards are described in A5 above, including visual conflict.

🔗E. Claims through Combination of Family Name and Armory: Even if a piece of armory is not considered important enough to protect from presumption under A6D above, the use of a piece of historical armory combined with the family name of the holder may be presumptuous. In order for this to be an issue, the name and device must be sufficiently well known that a significant number of SCA members would find this combination a claim to be that person without resorting to obscure reference works. In general, the combination of the family name of a clan chief and the chiefly arms will be considered presumptuous, even if the arms themselves are not important enough to protect. Families that are less important than the family of a clan chief are not important enough for this rule to apply.

A slight modification of the arms, so that there is one distinct change (DC) between the submission and the arms on which it presumes, is sufficient to remove this problem. Likewise, a modification of the family name such that it would be clear of conflict with the family name is sufficient to remove this problem. In the case of a combination that is considered presumptuous, the name will generally be registered but the armory returned.

A few special cases follow more stringent rules. For example, the Lancaster and York rose badges are very widely associated with those families in many forms. Therefore, we do not allow anyone to register the byname (of) Lancaster with armory including a red rose, or the byname (of) York with armory including a white rose. Again, the name will normally be registered but the armory returned.

🔗F. Claims through Marshalling: Marshalling is the combination of two or more arms into a single design. By doing so, it makes a claim about the person that we do not allow in registered arms. This claim can be to a marital or inheritance relationship, about an office that the person holds, or an unearned augmentation. In some cases, such designs may be displayed, even though they cannot be registered.

Arms combined using the per pale field division generally combined either marital arms or the arms of an individual and an office. They are often called impaled arms and were not inherited. The display of registered arms impaled to show a marital relationship is encouraged, even though it is not registerable.

Arms combined using the quarterly field division generally combined inherited arms from armigerous parents. They are often called marshalled arms or quartered arms. Once inherited, they were sometimes further cadenced as a whole. While the Spanish occasionally used per saltire divisions for marshalled designs, they more commonly used quarterly divisions for this, so we do not consider fields divided per saltire as potentially marshalled designs.

Marshalling in these rules refers to both impaling and quartering collectively. Arms which appear to be marshalled cannot be registered unless they are augmentations as discussed in A3A3 and A6C.

Both quarterly and per pale divisions were used in single armorial designs and also in marshalled designs. Therefore, quarterly and per pale divisions of the field may be registered only when there is no unmistakable appearance of marshalling. Most designs are either clearly not marshalled or clearly marshalled, but some require more careful examination:

🔗1. Designs which do Not Create the Appearance of Marshalling: A design with one of these features is not marshalled.

🔗a. Plain Field or Other Field Division: Only designs with per pale and quarterly field divisions are potentially marshalled. Designs with another field division or no field division are not marshalled under these rules.

🔗b. Complex Lines of Division: As marshalling was only used with plain line divisions, the use of a complex line of division with a quarterly or per pale field division does not create the appearance of marshalling.

For example, Per pale azure and Or, a talbot and a hart rampant addorsed has the appearance of marshalling. However, Per pale raguly azure and Or, a talbot and a hart rampant addorsed does not.

🔗c. Single Primary Charge Group Over The Entire Field: A design that contains only a primary charge group of certain kinds does not have the appearance of marshalling. The primary charge group must be one of: semy of identical charges over the entire field, a single identical charge in each charged section, a group of multiple identical charges in a standard arrangement covering the entire field, a single charge that crosses the line of division, or a single standard arrangement of multiple primary charges with at least one charge crossing the line of division. Special rules affect designs with peripheral ordinaries and quarterly field divisions with primary ordinaries like crosses; they are discussed in section 3 (A6F3) below.

For example, Per pale azure and argent all semy of cinquefoils counterchanged does not have the appearance of marshalling. Quarterly gules and Or, four crescents counterchanged argent and sable does not have the appearance of marshalling. Per pale gules and sable, six cauldrons two, two and two argent does not have the appearance of marshalling. Quarterly vair and Or, three crosses moline gules and Per pale vair and Or, a cross moline gules do not have the appearance of marshalling. All of these are registerable.

🔗2. Designs which Create the Appearance of Marshalling: In general, when any section of the field can only be understood as an independent piece of armory, it creates the unmistakable appearance of marshalling.

🔗a. Charges which Terminate at the Edge of a Section: When a charge or charges terminate at the edge of a section, it creates the unmistakable appearance of marshalling. This most commonly occurs with ordinaries. This includes both the situation where a field division appears to be multiple ordinaries and the situation where multiple ordinaries appear to be a field division.

For example, Quarterly gules and chevronelly argent and azure creates the appearance of marshalling and is not registerable.

🔗b. Sections which are Subdivided: A section of the field which is divided further into multiple parts generally creates the unmistakable appearance of marshalling. Such designs can only be registered when it is demonstrated to have been used in similar designs which are not marshalled.

For example, Per pale gules and quarterly argent and azure, a heart argent has the appearance of marshalling and cannot be registered. However, checky is found in quarters of armory that is not marshalled. Thus, Quarterly gules and checky argent and azure, two hearts argent does not have the appearance of marshalling.

🔗c. Multiple Types of Primary Charges: When different sections of the field contain different types of charges, it creates the appearance of marshalling.

For example, Quarterly gules and azure, in bend two crosses crosslet and in bend sinister two roses argent creates the appearance of marshalling, as does Quarterly vert and erminois, in bend a badger and a fleur-de-lys argent. Per pale argent and sable, a unicorn sable and a dragon Or combatant creates the appearance of marshalling. In each case, the different types of charges create the appearance of marshalling.

🔗d. Multiple Charges in a Section: When any section of such a field contains multiple charges of the same type in a way that cannot be described as a standard single pattern covering the entire field, multiple charges of different types, or multiple charge groups, it creates the appearance of marshalling.

For example, Quarterly, azure and Or, in canton three crosses fleury argent creates the appearance of marshalling, because the charges cannot be blazoned as a single pattern covering the entire field. Similarly, Per pale sable and erminois, each section charged with three billets two and one counterchanged creates the appearance of marshalling, because each section appears to be an independent piece of armory. However, Per pale sable and erminois, six billets two, two, and two counterchanged does not create the appearance of marshalling, because the arrangement of all the charges can be blazoned as a single coherent pattern. For example, Quarterly sable and Or, in canton a lion and a unicorn combattant Or creates the appearance of marshalling because a single section of the field contains multiple types of charges. Similarly, Per pale gules and argent, a tree and in chief a mullet gules creates the appearance of marshalling because the tree and mullet are forced into the argent section of the field and thus it contains multiple charge groups.

🔗3. Designs which May or May Not Create the Appearance of Marshalling: Designs which do not fit into section 1 or 2 above must be considered more carefully.

🔗a. Plain Sections Without Charges: When each section of the design appears to be an independent coat of arms, it creates the unmistakable appearance of marshalling. A section of the design does not appear to be an independent coat of arms if it is a plain tincture or fur (such as vair or argent ermined gules) that we do not protect as arms.

For example, Per pale ermine and gules, a leopard's face argent has the appearance of marshalling, but Per pale argent and gules, a leopard's face argent does not. Quarterly azure and ermine, two maunches argent has the appearance of marshalling since the protected arms of Brittany are Ermine.

🔗b. Quarterly Fields with Multiple Charge Groups: In many cases, a design with a charge or charges that cross the quarterly lines of division does not create the appearance of marshalling.

For example, Quarterly azure and erminois, a gauntlet sable between two annulets azure does not have the appearance of marshalling, as the primary gauntlet is partially in all four quarters. Similarly, Quarterly azure and erminois, a bend argent between two annulets azure does not have the appearance of marshalling, as the bend is partially in all four quarters. For example, Quarterly Or and vert semy-de-lys Or, two millrinds vert, a chief gules does not have the appearance of marshalling.

However, marshalling using a quarterly line of division was inherited. Once inherited, the quartered arms might be further cadenced with added bordures, labels, or other charges used for cadency in period. Therefore, adding those charges does not remove the appearance of marshalling for armorial designs with a quarterly line of division. Crosses throughout were also added to marshalled designs, so the addition of a cross throughout that overlies a quarterly field does not remove the appearance of marshalling.

For example, Quarterly ermine and gules, in bend two salamanders gules and in bend sinister two open books Or and in chief a label sable has the appearance of marshalling; the label does not remove this appearance. Quarterly azure and Or, a cross between in bend two millrinds and in bend sinister two annulets counterchanged has the appearance of marshalling; the cross does not remove this appearance.

🔗c. Per Pale Fields with Multiple Charge Groups: As marshalled arms using a per pale line of division were not inherited, the addition of a charge or charge group which crosses the per pale line is generally sufficient to remove the unmistakable appearance that a portion of the field is independent armory. The addition of a bordure or chief that does not itself appear to be part of two distinct original arms also removes that appearance. In general, a chief or bordure which has poor contrast with one side of the field, or one that is charged so that parts of a charge appear on both sides of the line of division, or one that is charged so that identical charges appear on both sides of the line of division or bordure meets this standard.

For example, Per pale gules and ermine, a boar's head and a eagle displayed counterchanged, a chief azure does not have the appearance of marshalling. Per pale vert and Or, a billet and a sun counterchanged, in chief a label argent does not have the appearance of marshalling, because the label crosses the per pale line. The label cannot be unmistakably seen as a mark of cadency, since impaled armory was not inherited. On the other hand, in Per pale purpure and Or, a chief per pale argent and sable the chief divided per pale creates the appearance of marshalling Purpure, a chief argent with Or, a chief sable.

For example, in Per pale gules and sable, a lozenge and a roundel and on a chief argent a hare and a fox sable, the chief does not remove the appearance of marshalling since it has good contrast with both halves of the field and therefore the dissimilar charges on the chief create the appearance of marshalling. However, Per pale gules and sable, a lozenge and a roundel and on a chief argent a hare between two foxes sable does not create the appearance of marshalling, because the hare crosses the center line. Similarly, the same armory with two hares or with two foxes on the chief would also not create the appearance of marshalling.

🔗A7. Armory Offense

🔗A. Definitions: No armorial design that is offensive to a large segment of members of the SCA or the general public will be registered. Offense is a modern concept; just because an armorial design was used in period does not mean that it is not offensive to the modern observer. Offense returns are rare because the bar for determining offensiveness is quite high; it has not been unusual for years to pass between returns for offense.

Offense is not dependent on intent. The fact that a submitter did not intend to be offensive is not relevant. The standard is whether a large segment of the SCA or the general public would be offended.

Similarly, offense is not dependent on clarity. An element commonly used by modern neo-Nazis, for example, may be ruled offensive even if many people have to look it up. However, an element used broadly in both potentially offensive and inoffensive contexts may not be considered offensive.

🔗B. Types of Potentially Offensive Armory: Several types of armory are potentially offensive:

🔗1. Vulgar Amory: Armory which includes pornographic or scatological references will not be registered. Depictions of monsters and human beings who are partially nude or the depiction of the genitals on beasts will not generally be considered vulgar. Some period elements such as those depicting human genitals may be considered vulgar on a case by case basis. Certain depictions may be considered pornographic or scatological even if a standard depiction would not be. This is true even if the design or element can be attested in period armory.

🔗2. Offensive Religious Armory: Armory which uses magical or religious symbolism in ways that mock the beliefs of others or is likely to be offensive to someone who respects the tradition in question will be returned. Magical or religious symbolism is not inherently offensive, but can offend by context. Normal armorial designs including single or multiple elements that identify the person with one religious tradition or another are not offensive. Offense requires a level of religious iconography that would raise eyebrows even for believers. This level of offense will be determined on a case by case basis. Whether or not the submitter is a follower of the tradition whose symbols are being used is not relevant for the purposes of this rule.

For example, while both a Paschal Lamb and a mullet of five points voided and interlaced within and conjoined to an annulet (modernly called a pentacle) are registerable charges, a Paschal Lamb dismembered surmounted by a mullet of five points voided and interlaced inverted within and conjoined to an annulet is a design that would be found offensive by many individuals.

🔗3. Derogatory Stereotypes: Armorial designs that refer to derogatory stereotypes or slurs will not be registered. This is true whether the stereotype is inherent in the usage or created by context. General references to ethnic, racial, or sexual identities are not offensive and may be registered.

For example, while a Moor's head is a registerable charge, a Moor's head within an orle of watermelons is a design that would be found offensive by many individuals.

🔗4. Offensive Political Terminology: Armorial designs associated with political movements or events that may be offensive to a particular race, religion, or ethnic group will not be registered.

Designs identical to those used by or suggestive of groups like the Nazis, the SS, the Ku-Klux Klan, or similar organizations may not be used. Some elements that were inoffensive in period may be offensive because of modern associations. Some designs are offensive because of individual charges: a swastika is inherently offensive because of its association with the Nazis. Others are offensive only in the overall design. The s-rune is not offensive as a charge, but is offensive in a design which closely resembles that used by the SS.

🔗5. Other Offensive Armory: Other sorts of armorial designs may be ruled offensive on a case by case basis, such as one that mocks armory registered to another group.

APPENDICES

🔗Appendix A: Patterns That Do Not Need Further Documentation by Language Group

This appendix lists patterns for naming that do not need further documentation. For the patterns listed below, mention of the pattern and of this appendix is sufficient to document the pattern. Patterns not listed here need further documentation, often including examples. For languages not listed here, all patterns must be documented.

Bynames in many of these languages require grammatical changes to elements. Those changes are not explained here; refer to the listed sources for instructions on creating the correct forms. Each element within this construction must still be documented. Any grammatical changes must be documented as well.
For more information about types of bynames, refer to Appendix B.

In the table below, name patterns are written using a consistent system:

• N is the given name of the person bearing the name in the nominative case.
• B, C, etc. are the given names of relatives or ancestors of the person bearing the name.
• X is used to indicate a place name or region; Y is used to indicate a generic toponym (e.g., 'the woods' or 'the dell'); Z is used to indicate the charge or other name in an inn-sign type location (e.g., star or lion).
• Unmarked means "using the element - location, father's name, etc. - in an unmodified form as a byname;" marked for bynames means using a term such as "son" or "daughter" often with a modified form of the father's name. Using a modified form of the father's name without any other marker is labeled as "genitive alone."
• In "order," byname means "any byname described to the left." Pat = patronymic byname; Loc = locative byname

For example, N filius B would be 'N, the son of B' or 'N, B's son'. N de X would be "N from X".

Boxes that are unmarked and patterns not listed require further documentation to use that pattern. "Rare" means that such names are sufficiently rare that a constructed, as opposed to attested version, of such a byname generally requires the help of an expert in that language to determine if it is plausible.

🔗Arabic

Notes:

Locative and descriptive bynames must match the gender of the person described; see articles below for more details.

Diacritics (long marks, emphatic marks, etc.) may be used or omitted as long as it is done consistently; see Appendix D for more details about transliteration.

For dictus bynames refer to Basil Dragonstrike, "al-ma‛rūf bi-: 'Known As' in Arabic Names" (https://s-gabriel.org/names/basil/general/dictusgen.html).

Please refer to Juliana de Luna, "Arabic Names from al-Andalus" (http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/juliana/alandalus/) or Da'ud ibn Auda, "Period Arabic Names and Naming Practices" (http://heraldry.sca.org/names/arabic-naming2.htm) for additional information.

🔗Baltic

Notes

Estonian: See "A guide to some Estonian naming patterns" by ffride wlffsdotter (http://heraldry.sca.org/names/eepatterns.html) for further information. All patterns documented in that article are acceptable.

Latvian: See "A guide to some 15-16th century Latvian naming patterns" by ffride wlffsdotter (http://heraldry.sca.org/names/slavic/lvpatterns.html) for further information. All patterns documented in that article are acceptable.

Lithuanian: See "A guide to some Lithuanian naming patterns" by ffride wlffsdotter (http://heraldry.sca.org/names/slavic/ltpatterns.html) for further information. All patterns documented in that article are acceptable.

Livonian: Note that "Livonian" is intended to refer to the indigenous group called the Livs or Livonians, rather than the region called Livonia that encompassed modern-day Estonia and Latvia. See "A (very brief) guide to some Livonian naming patterns" by ffride wlffsdotter (http://heraldry.sca.org/names/slavic/livpatterns.html) for further information. All patterns documented in that article are acceptable.

🔗Dutch

Notes:

Bynames based on relationship can be formed with Latinized particles, or with their Dutch counterparts, such as sone/soen/zoen/zone 'son', broeder 'brother', dochter 'daughter', and wijf 'wife' (usually with the relative's name in the genitive case). Bynames of relationship are also formed with the father's name unmodified or placed in the genitive form.

For more details, see Aryanhwy merch Catmael, "Names from Dutch Records Between 1584-1585" (http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/dutch/vandermeulen.html).

🔗East Slavic

All patterns found in Paul Wickenden of Thanet's "A Dictionary of Period Russian Names" (http://heraldry.sca.org/paul/) and "Locative Bynames in Medieval Russia" (http://heraldry.sca.org/names/toprus.html) are registerable.

Notes:

Russian: Adjectival locative bynames may used as given names [Kheron Azovskyi, 06/2022, A-An Tir]. The construction of Russian bynames is complicated; see Paul Wickenden of Thanet's "A Dictionary of Period Russian Names" (http://heraldry.sca.org/paul/) for structures both of individual bynames and for names as a whole. His and "Locative Bynames in Medieval Russia" (http://heraldry.sca.org/names/toprus.html) is also useful for constructing locative bynames.

Other East Slavic languages, like Ukranian and Belorussian, follow similar patterns to Russian; they must generally be documented individually.

🔗English/Welsh

Notes:

Old English: Patronymics take form of X sunu/sune or Xdohtor (X is father's name in genitive); they must match the given name's gender. Alternately, they may follow the Latinized patterns. Locatives use æt or of followed by the placename in dative form. See the introduction to Reaney and Wilson A Dictionary of English Surnames for more details.

Middle/Early Modern English: Marked patronymics may use Fitz X or Xson; women may use these or use Xdaughter. These forms may all use the father's name unmodified; Xson and Xdaughter may also use the possessive form. Alternately, they may follow the Latinized patterns. Late period family names tend to drop articles and prepositions. See the introduction to Reaney and Wilson A Dictionary of English Surnames for more details. Surnames from the second half of the 16th C and early 17th C may be used as given names; they are treated as any other 16th C given name [Alton of Grimfells, 04/2010, A-East].

Anglicized Irish: See Mari ingen Briain meic Donnchada, "Names Found in Anglicized Irish Documents"(http://medievalscotland.org/kmo/AnglicizedIrish/) for details of how patronymic bynames are marked.

Welsh: See Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn "A Simple Guide to Constructing 13th Century Welsh Names" (http://heraldry.sca.org/names/welsh13.html) and "A Simple Guide to Constructing 16th Century Welsh Names" (http://heraldry.sca.org/names/welsh16.html) for more details.

Scots: See Black Surnames of Scotland for more details.

🔗French

Notes:

All patterns in Frankish must be documented.

Acute accents may be written or omitted, as long as they are used consistently. Other diacritics must be documented to be used, as they were rare in period. Capitalization patterns are inconsistent, but combinations of lower and uppercase elements must be documented.

French: Locatives may be derived from place names, in the form de X (or d'X, if X starts with a vowel); from generic toponyms, with du X, de la X, or des X; or from signs, with au Z, àa Z, or aus/aux Z.

Occitan: Marked locatives look like those from French; inn sign names have not been found in Occitan to date.

🔗Gaelic

Notes:

Pictish: Please refer to Tangwystl verch Mogrant Glasvryn, "A Consideration of Pictish Names" (http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/tangwystyl/pictnames/).

Oghamic: Please refer to Mari Elspeth nic Bryan, Index of Names in Irish Annals (http://medievalscotland.org/kmo/AnnalsIndex/).

Old/Middle Gaelic: For appropriate spellings, refer to Mari Elspeth nic Bryan , Index of Names in Irish Annals (http://medievalscotland.org/kmo/AnnalsIndex/). For structure, please refer to Effric Neyn Ken3ocht Mcherrald, "Quick and Easy Gaelic Names" (http://medievalscotland.org/scotnames/quickgaelicbynames/). See the May 2022 CL for information on compound Irish Gaelic names using descriptives and locatives.

Early Modern Gaelic: Please refer to Effric Neyn Ken3ocht Mcherrald, "Quick and Easy Gaelic Names" (http://medievalscotland.org/scotnames/quickgaelicbynames/) for more details on Gaelic names. See the May 2022 CL for information on compound Irish Gaelic names using descriptives and locatives.

Scots Gaelic: Please refer to Effric Neyn Ken3ocht Mcherrald, "A Simple Guide to Constructing 12th Century Scottish Gaelic Names" (http://medievalscotland.org/scotnames/simplescotgaelicnames12.shtml).

All patronymics are created using the genitive form of the father's name. Byname elements may need to have their spelling modified to soften the pronunciation (lenited) or change the grammar. For guidance on when lenition is required, please refer to Effric Neyn Ken3ocht Mcherrald, "The Spelling of Lenited Consonants in Gaelic" (http://medievalscotland.org/scotlang/lenition.shtml).

Accents may be used or omitted as long as it is done consistently. Capitalization is inconsistent in period records, but must match a period pattern.

🔗German

Notes:

Locatives based on place names use the forms von X; generic toponymics use vom Y, or another form of der; the form de X is found before about 1300. Locatives based on generic toponyms, house names or inn-sign names use the form zum Z. Unmarked locative bynames are found in the 16th and early 17th centuries.

Women commonly used a feminized form of their husband's or father's surname, either by adding the suffix -in/-yn, or used a genitive form ending in -s/-z or -en. Unmodified surnames were also used. Further discussion of women's bynames can be found in Aryanhwy merch Catmael, "Women's Surnames in 15th- and 16th-Century Germany" (http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/german/womenssurnames.html).

🔗Greek

Please refer to Bardas Xiphias, "Personal Names of the Aristocracy in the Roman Empire During the Later Byzantine Era" (http://heraldry.sca.org/names/byzantine/introduction.html). All patterns documented in this article are registerable.

Additionally, the pattern given+given is documented in Hellenistic and Imperial-era Egypt. [Boreas Loukas, 07/2023, A-An Tir]

🔗Hungarian/Romanian

Notes:

Hungarian: Women often have marital bynames that add -ne to her husband's complete name. See Walraven van Nijmegen, "Hungarian Names 101" (http://heraldry.sca.org/names/magyarnames1012.html) or various articles by Kolosvari Arpadne Julia in the KWHSS Proceedings for more details.

Romanian: See Aryanhwy merch Catmael, "Names from the Royal Lines of Moldavia and Wallachia" (http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/other/romanian.html) for more details. The article does not document patronymic bynames, but that appears to be an artifact of the (royal) data.

🔗Iberian

Notes:

Castilian: A patronymic byname may be Latinized (filius B) or in the vernacular, usually formed by adding -ez to the father's name (and dropping terminal -o). Patronyms may also be formed by using an unmodified version of the father's name. For more details see Elsbeth Anne Roth, "16th Century Spanish Names" (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kvs/heraldry/spanish16/) or Juliana de Luna "Spanish Names from the Late 15th Century" (http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/juliana/isabella/).

Catalan: For further details see Aryanhwy merch Catmael, "Catalan Names from the 1510 census of Valencia" (http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/spanish/valencia1510.html), especially the surname section.

Basque: All patterns in Basque must be documented; Basque names often closely resemble Castilian or Catalan names.

Portuguese: A patronymic byname may be Latinized (filius B) or in the vernacular, usually formed by adding -ez to the father's name (and dropping terminal -o). Patronyms may also be formed by using an unmodified version of the father's name or as de B or d'B (when the father's given name starts with a vowel). See Aryanhwy merch Catmael, "Portuguese Names from Lisbon, 1565" (http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/portuguese/lisbon1565.html) for more details.

🔗Italian

Notes:

Italian is incredibly variable in period, with names from Venice, Tuscany, and the south all significantly different. For Venice, see Juliana de Luna, "Names from 16th Century Venice" (http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/juliana/16thcvenice.html). For Tuscany see Juliana de Luna, "Names in 15th Century Florence and her Dominions: the Condado" (http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/juliana/condado/) and Aryanhwy merch Catmael, "Names from Arezzo, Italy, 1386-1528" (http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/italian/arezzo.html). For the south, see Aryanhwy merch Catmael "Names from 15th Century Naples" (http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/italian/naples.html). Latinized patronymic bynames usually are just the father's name in the genitive form, without filius/filia.

Locative bynames in the northern and central areas normally take the form da X, but de X and di X are rarely found. Generic toponymics take the form della/dalla/dello/dallo Y. In the south, de X and di X are far more common.

Family names typically modify a patronym or byname by removing the last vowel (if there is one) ading -i. Unmodified forms are found as well.

🔗Japanese

The following patterns may be used by males and females.

• family name/surname + yobina
• family name/surname + nanori
• uji name + no + yobina (the no is optional)
• uji name + no + nanori (the no is optional)
• family name + yobina + nanori
• uji name + no + yobina + nanori (the no is optional)

Other patterns may be registered if proper documentation of them is provided at the time of submission.

🔗Jewish

Notes:

Jews lived in a location where a vernacular was spoken (German, Arabic, etc.) Men generally had a Hebrew language name and a vernacular name. The vernacular name may be the equivalent of their Hebrew name or an unrelated vernacular name. Women generally had vernacular names only (often the same as local naming pool).

Hebrew: Patronymic bynames are formed using ben B "son of B," and bat B (Sephardic) or bas B (Ashkenazic) "daughter of B"

Vernacular: Vernacular bynames often follow the Hebrew forms (so mostly patronymic), but are generally written following the standards for the local vernacular. Occasionally, the particles are transliterated from the Hebrew (e.g., "N filius B ben C" in a Latin document). Other kinds of bynames (especially locative bynames and the byname meaning "Jew" in the vernacular) are found as well.

🔗Latinized

Latinized names are not a single thing; they must follow the rules of the naming pool from which they are taken.

Bynames based on relationships can be marked with Latinized particles such as filius 'son', filia 'daughter', uxor 'wife', and relicta 'widow'. These are usually followed by the Latinized form of the person in the genitive case, though sometimes the name is not declined.

Locatives can use the preposition de 'of/from,' despite the fact that such usage was not proper in classical Latin. In this case, the locative may be Latinized, but is often left in its vernacular form.

In the early Middle Ages, a second given name is often used as a byname; it is preceded by a term like alias, dictus, or cognomento. In later usage, two bynames will often be connected by these same terms.

🔗Mongol

Notes:

Though some medieval Mongolians used given names constructed from multiple words, we do not have evidence for true double given names.

Bynames based on tribe names and patronymics both use the genitive suffix. For details, see the table in Ursula Georges, "Middle Mongol Grammar for SCA Names" (http://heraldry.sca.org/names/mongolgrammar.html).

Descriptive bynames may be placed before or after a given name, depending on the byname.

🔗North Slavic

Notes:

Polish: In Polish, i/y/j switches are common, and the use of accents is inconsistent. Names will be registered with or without accents as long as they are consistent.

In Polish, bynames based on relationships can be marked with Latinized particles or with their Polish vernacular equivalents, such as B syn 'B's son', B brat 'B's brother', B ona 'B's wife', and B wdowa 'B's widow'. Alternately, the relationship could be indicated by a suffix added to their relative's name, such as Bwic(z)/Bwicc ('son of B') or Byk/Bik ('little B', forming a diminutive). Women's bynames use feminine forms. Most frequently, patronyms are changed by adding the diminutive suffix -ina/-yna, or by adding -ówa (married name) or -ówna (maiden name), making Bina or Bów(n)a. What look like double given names may well be unmarked patronymic bynames.

Locative bynames in Polish-language documents normally take the preposition z/ze 'from/of', followed by the place name in the genitive case. Alternately, an adjectival form can be created by adding -ski for men or -ska for women to the location's name in its grammatically required form.

Czech: Locative byname phrases in Czech-language documents take the preposition z/ze 'from/of', followed by the place name in the genitive case. Use z in all cases except when the place name begins with z or s, in which case ze is correct. Alternately, an adjectival form can be created by adding a suffix to the place name, following these general guidelines:

Place names ending in vowels drop their final vowels, then proceed from the final consonant. If the final consonant is c or s, add -ký for masculine names or -ká for feminine names. If the final consonant is k, replace it with -cký (masc.) or -cká (fem.). For most other final consonants, add -ský (masc.) or -ská (fem.); the main exception to this is final -h, which changes to final -ž before adding -ský or -ská.

There are other types of locatives as well; those listed above are the most common and easiest to form for non-Czech speakers.

Czech allows for double bynames where the second byname is either an occupational term or a locative phrase formed with the preposition z/ze and the place name in the genitive case. Occupational bynames are not capitalized when used as part of a double byname; they may be capitalized when used as the sole byname. Double locatives are rare; they are either <adjectival form of locative> z/ze <place name in genitive> or two locative phrases conjoined by a ("and"). These patterns are all found no earlier than the 15th century.

Academy of Saint Gabriel report 3244 (http://www.s-gabriel.org/3244.txt) gives some additional leads for documenting Czech forms.

🔗Persian

Persian name structures are quite different from European name structures. All patterns found in Ursula Georges, "Persian Masculine Names in the Nafah.â al-uns" (http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/ursula/nafahat/) are registerable. The most common structure is a single given name followed by a locative byname derived from the adjectival form of a placename (usually adding -īo the placename for both men and women). Descriptive bynames are also found. A few examples of women's bynames (all locative) can be found in Aryanhwy merch Catmael and Ursula Georges, "Persian Feminine Names from the Safavid Period" (http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/ursula/persian.html).

🔗Romany

Romany are known to have used two names: a private name used only in their community, and a vernacular use name, used in interactions with locals. We do not currently have evidence of the elements or structure of private names before 1600; without such evidence they cannot be registered. In general, forming a name appropriate for the desired region/language where a Romany persona is living (e.g., "A from X") follows period usage.

🔗Scandinavian

Notes:

Accents and other diacritics (like þ ð and ǫ ({o,})) may be used or omitted, as long as the system is consistent; see Appendix D for more details.

For Old Norse/Old Icelandic, all pattterns in Geirr Bassi Haraldsson's The Old Norse Name and in Lindorm Eriksson's "The Bynames of the Viking Age Runic Inscriptions" are registerable. See Lindorm's article for more information on locative bynames. A name using two non-patronymic bynames in Old Norse is registerable so long as the bynames could reasonably be used to simultaneously describe the same person. For details of construction in Swedish, see http://www.s-gabriel.org/2296.

For Old Norse/Old Icelandic, by precedent, prepended bynames (nicknames that precede the given name) are capitalized, and nicknames that follow the given name may optionally be capitalized.

For later Scandinavian languages (Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Norwegian, Icelandic, etc., the feminine forms of patronymics are variable. Swedish forms include Bdotter, Bdotther, Bdottir, and Bdatter, while Danish forms include Bdother, Bdotter, Bdaatter, Bdaater, and Bdaather. Other forms must be documented.
For Old Norse/Old Icelandic other relationship bynames include two generation patronymic (Bson Csonar), wife (Bkona), brother (Bbróðir), and sister (Bsystir).
For later period Scandinavian languages we find several words for 'wife': kona in Icelandic, hustru/hustrv in Swedish, hustru in Danish, and husprø/hustru in Norwegian. In Icelandic, this relationship marker can be used in one of two ways: given name + kona + spouse's given or full name in the genitive (possessive) case, or given name + spouse's given or full name in the genitive case + kona. In these constructions, the Latin word uxor may also be used.

In Swedish and Old Norse we find relationship bynames meaning 'son-in-law'. In Swedish, this is shown with Bmagh(er), while in Old Norse it is Bmágr.

Locative bynames take the form i X in Swedish, af X in Danish, for example. The placenames must be grammatically correct forms to follow those prepositions.

🔗South Slavic (Serbian, Croatian, etc.)

All patterns must be documented. Our sources for South Slavic names are quite limited. One useful source is Walraven van Nijmegen, "Early Croatian Given Names" (http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/walraven/croat/), which documents the pattern of a single given name followed by a single patronymic byname which is either the father's name unchanged or a construction formed by adding -ov, -ovic. Other sources suggest -ic may sometimes be used to construct a patronymic byname.

🔗Turkish

Turkish names are quite different from European names; they are somewhat like Arabic names, but do not follow all Arabic patterns. All patterns found in Ursula Georges, "Sixteenth-Century Turkish Names" (http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/ursula/ottoman/) are registerable.

🔗Appendix B: Types of Bynames

A byname is a name phrase added to a given name to specify which William or Mary you're discussing. Bynames fall into several categories, discussed below. For a list of the types of bynames are available in various languages, see Appendix A.

🔗1. Bynames of relationship: A byname of relationship describes an individual as someone's child or describes some other important relationship. Patronymic names are found widely; other types of bynames of relationship are far more limited in their use.

a. Patronymic bynames describe someone as their father's son or daughter; they are the most common and broadly found type of byname of relationship.

Examples include the English Johnson, Williams and Robert, the Spanish Perez, the Gaelic mac Nél and inghean Domhnaill, the Scots Makdowall, the Arabic ibn Sulaymān, the German Hainrich, the Italian di Antonio and the Old Norse Bjarnarson.

b. Historical ancestor bynames describe someone as the descendent of their grandfather or earlier ancestors: the Gaelic Ó Ruairc, inghean Uíhriain, and the Arabic al-Ḥasanī 'descendant of Ḥasan.'

Others do the same thing by listing multiple generations: the Gaelic mac Conchobair mhic Fhearchair, the Welsh ap Ris ap Madoc, and the Norse Ketils son Gríms sonar.

c. Matronymic bynames describe someone as their mother's son or daughter; these are far less common than patronymic bynames. In England they are relatively common, while in Arabic and German, they are quite rare. In other languages, they do not happen at all.

Examples include: the English Maddison 'Maud's son', filia Agnetis 'daughter of Agnes' and Rosedoghter; the Arabic Ibn Fatimah and Ibn al-Labanah 'daughter of the milkmaid'; the German Katerinen son; and the Italian di Maddalena.

d. Other bynames of relationship are found only in very limited times and places. They include the following:

1. Marital bynames describe a woman as her husband's wife. In most cultures in period, women did not change their bynames upon marriage (especially bynames of relationship: your father doesn't change when you get married).

Examples include the Old Norse Véuts kona, the English Jackewyf and Hobsonwyf, and the Gaelic bean Cormaic. Sometimes marital bynames are identical in form to patronymics like the Italian di Giovanni or German Dieterlins.

2. Kunyas are Arabic bynames that describes someone as the parent of a child, most frequently their eldest son. Examples include Umm Badr, Abū al-Jafnā 'father of the curly haired girl', and Abū 'l-Barakāt 'father of blessings'.

3. Other bynames of relationship: Occasionally, someone will be described in terms of another relationship. Examples include: English Parsonbrother, Robertstepson, Parsoncosyn, and Vikersister. A few Arabic examples have very complex descriptions like Ibn ukht Ibn Abi `Uqba 'son of the sister of the man who was the son of the father of `Uqba.'

4. Work relationships describe someone as someone's current or former servant. Examples include the English Mathewservant, Websterman, Gibmayden and Prestewoman as well as the Arabic mawlā Faraj 'freedman of Faraj'.

🔗2. Locative Bynames: A locative byname describes an individual in terms of a place where they were born, have lived, are now living, or are otherwise associated with. There are two aspects to a locative byname: the place referred to, and the grammatical structure. This appendix provides some guidance in constructing new locative bynames, though not every type of place and structure is used in every language. It is not expected that the various sections be cited in a submission when the name is an attested byname.

a. Types of Places: A locative byname can be formed from:

1. The name of a settlement such as a farm, village, town, or city.

2. The name of an administrative region such as a barony, county, duchy, region, district, or kingdom.

3. The name of a man-made structure such as a house, inn, or street. This includes the forms generally referred to as "inn-sign names".

4. The name of specific geographic features, such as a named river, lake, field, or woods.

5. A generic geographic feature, with meanings such as river, meadow, wood, etc.

6. A generic man-made feature, with meanings such as gate, bridge, crossroads, etc.

b. Structure: A number of structures are used in locative bynames:

1. An adjective as such, like Berliner, al-Qurṭubī, Berger ("mountain") etc. In some languages, the word "the" or its equivalent can, or must, be used.

2. A prepositional or other phrase, such as of London, atte Broke ("at the brook"), de la Vega ("of the meadow"), æ geate ("at the gate"), von München ("of Munich"), etc. Some languages require changes to the place name; for example, one kind of Old Norse locative byname is a preposition followed by the place name in the dative case.

3. Ethnic/racial/national names, as nouns, often preceded by the, or the equivalent in another language, such as l'Alemant ("the German"), Breatnach ("Welshman"), etc.

4. A noun modified according to the language's grammatical rules. For example, in Gaelic Loch Cime is "Lake Cime" and Cellach Locha Cime is "Cellach of Lake Cime". Possessive forms also fit in this structure.

5. A noun with a prefix or suffix other than those which turn the noun into an adjective (which would fall under structure a) such as Novgorodtsev ("son of Novgorodets").

6. An adjective modifying a generic geographic or man-made feature such as in der altgassum ("in the old street") and de Newehawe ("at the new hall").

7. The location name, unaltered.

🔗3. Occupational Bynames: An occupational byname describes an individual in terms of an occupation, generally one that they hold, but sometimes one that a parent or other relative holds. They are common in some languages. Other languages, like Gaelic, Spanish, and Russian, use only a few specific occupational bynames.

Most are literal occupational terms, like the English Draper or Dyer, French Boulengier, German Bauer, or Spanish Guerrero. Other occupational bynames take the names of the items that people make, sell, or work with; this are called metonymic bynames. Examples include the English Coffyn or the Italian Sardello 'sardine.'

🔗4. Descriptive Bynames: A descriptive byname describes an individual in terms of their mental or physical characteristics. The names are literal in nature and the sorts of descriptions another person would immediately recognize. Therefore, the suitability of a constructed byname of this sort must be shown with attested bynames that are similar in content and level of abstraction. Examples include the Old Norse gullskeggr 'gold-beard' and the English le Proude 'the proud'.

One unusual (and less literal) type of descriptive byname found in English is the "phrase name," which gives a typical phrase the owner uses as a byname, such as Fallinthewell.

🔗5.Dictus, cognomento, and alias Bynames: Especially in earlier European names, a byname is another given name by which a person is known. They are generally, but not always marked by a phrase like dictus, cognomento, or alias. Both the suitability of the phrase and the name that follows it must be demonstrated for a particular language and culture.

🔗6. Inherited Family Names: In many languages and cultures, literal bynames of the sort described in A through E above gave way to inherited surnames over time (though in most cultures, some literal bynames continued until after 1600). Some cultures will never adopt inherited family names.

🔗Appendix C: Regional Naming Groups and Their Mixes

As explained in PN2A, each regional naming group includes a group of naming pools that are geographically and culturally linked. They are not necessarily linguistically linked. In accordance with PN2C2, name elements within a single regional group may be mixed when dated within 500 years of each other. Names from two regional groups that are listed as combinable may be mixed when dated within 300 years of each other.

🔗Appendix D: Acceptable Transliteration Systems for Non-Latin Scripts

We require each submission to follow a single transliteration system, as different systems may use the same letter to indicate different sounds. In general, we allow both relatively formal systems and relatively casual ones.

Transliteration systems not listed here must be documented by the submitter as appropriate. For languages written in a non-Latin script that is not listed here, the submitter needs to document the system of transliteration.

🔗1. Western European Languages:

🔗a. Runic Old Norse: The runic system used by the Norse lacks information used in the later forms written in Latin script. Therefore, we require that the runic forms be registered using a Standardized Old Norse spelling as explained below. A discussion of the problem of making sense out of runic forms can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse_orthography.

🔗b. Non-Runic Old Norse: We will register documentary forms for names (such as those found in Lind).

In addition, we will register names written using the conventions of Standardized Old Norse (which appears in Geirr Bassi's The Old Norse Name, dictionaries by Zoega and Cleasby & Vigfusson, and header forms in Nordiskt runnamnslexikon) which includes several special characters, including accents, thorn and edh, and {o,} (o-ogonik). We will register forms that include all of those characters, those that omit accents but include other special characters, forms that use only thorn and edh, or forms that include none of them. We will also register names that use a terminal -R rather than -r, such as UlfR rather than Ulfr from Nordiskt runnamnslexikon. All of these forms are found in documentary forms.

We will not register forms that replace æ or œ with ae or oe, as no evidence of that replacement is found. Moreover, these characters are easily used and represent different sounds than one would expect from the separate letters.

🔗c. Irish Gaelic: Irish Gaelic uses some characters that we do not use in the English alphabet, particularly the punctum delens (a dot above the letter). We register lenited characters using the current convention in Gaelic, which is to add an h after the character that would otherwise have a dot above it. As documentary forms sometimes have and sometimes omit, accents, we will register transliterations that systematically either have or omit accents.

🔗d. Old English: The letters ð (edh) and þ (thorn) are generally interchangeable in Old English. Both may be transcribed as th or d; this need not be consistent in the same name.

🔗2. Eastern European languages:

Many Eastern European languages use the Latin script with special characters; in general we require the use of those characters. However, the forms used in period are often simpler than modern forms, as some special characters did not come into use before 1600.

🔗a. Russian: We have registered Russian names using the Library of Congress system, the International Phonetic system, and the Revised English system. These are described in Paul Wickenden of Thanet, A Dictionary of Period Russian Names, particularly: http://heraldry.sca.org/paul/zpreface.html

🔗b. Other languages using the Cyrillic alphabet: These generally use the same transliterations systems as Russian.

🔗c. Greek: Names composed only of elements dated before 330 CE must use a classical (Ancient/Medieval) transliteration/transcription system. Names composed only of elements dated 1454 CE or later must use a Modern Greek transcription/transliteration system. Names containing a combination of elements dated between the founding of the Byzantine Empire (330 CE) to the fall of Constantinople (1454 CE) must choose a single transcription/transliteration system for either classical (Ancient/Medieval) Greek or Modern Greek and apply it consistently to all elements.

🔗3. Middle Eastern Languages:

🔗a. Arabic: We have registered Arabic names using the Hans Wehr (Deutsche Morgenläische Gesellschaft) system, American Library Association/Library of Congress system, and the Encyclopedia of Islam system.

For each, we will register a simplified form that omits macrons (long marks) over letters and replaces emphatic (dotted) consonants with undotted ones. We also allow transliterations that omit `ayn (`) and (') hamza or that use ' for both, but only if they also omit the macrons and emphatic marks.

For more information about how the particle al behaves when it is followed by a sun or a moon consonant in Classical Arabic, please reference this guide by Sara al-Garnatiyya: https://sarasartsandsciences.wordpress.com/2021/12/12/classical-arabic-grammar-diatrical-marks-the-definite-article-sun-letters-and-moon-letters/. We encourage people to consider transliterations that include that pronunciation information as long as the whole name is transliterated consistently.

🔗b. Turkish: Turkish was written until recently using the Arabic script. We will register transliterations that follow the standards for Arabic above as well as those that use the modern Turkish letters (such as that used in the articles by Ursula Georges).

🔗4. East Asian Languages:

🔗a. Chinese: We have registered Pinyin, Wade-Giles, and the Yale system (these are often called Romanization systems). A good starting point is the articles in Wikipedia; a useful source for the systems is found at http://denner.org/reinhard/neijia/romanisation/mapping.html.

🔗b. Japanese: We have registered the Hepburn system, as well as that system with two modifications: one that omits all macrons (long marks) and another that that uses ou for o-macron. A good starting point is the Wikipedia article; another is http://www.omniglot.com/writing/japanese_romaji.htm.

🔗Appendix E: Currently Registerable Elements for Non-Personal Name Submissions

Any modern English language designator in the following lists may be used as a lingua Societatis designator.

🔗1. Branch Names: The modern English language forms of the officially recognized branch designators are:

• Kingdom
• Principality
• Barony
• Province
• Shire
• Canton
• Riding
• College
• Stronghold
• Port

We will be pleased to register a designator in an appropriate language. To register a form in another language, the submitter must demonstrate that the term is an appropriate and precise translation. In addition, the submitter must demonstrate that it is a term that was in use before 1600 or is otherwise appropriate for SCA use.

For example, scola and universitas are not considered appropriate translations for college, so that they are available for use in household and association names. Terms such as Collegium (for College), Forteleza (for Stronghold), and -scir (for Shire) have been registered.

Hamlet is a designator allowed for groups in the kingdoms of Drachenwald and Lochac that fall somewhere between a branch and a household. The requirements for Hamlets are listed in the April 2018 Cover Letter (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/04/18-04cl.html). The required evidence of support for a Hamlet is identified in the January 2020 Cover Letter (https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2020/01/20-01cl.html).

🔗2. Award and Order Names

🔗a. Award and Order Designators: The appropriate modern English forms for order names are Award and Order. The designator Company and Fellowship, and their translations may be used.

The terms Companions and Defenders are not registerable as designators for orders and awards. Companions can be used to describe the members of an order, but such terms were not used in order names, and will not be registered. Defenders may be used in the substantive element of an order, but may not be registered as a designator.

Order has been found in attested forms in many languages:

• Order, Ordre, Ordoure (English)
• Orden (Spanish)
• Ordre (French)
• Orden (German)
• Ordo (Latin)
• Ordine (Italian)

In some languages, words meaning 'Society' are also used for orders:

• Geselschaft (German)
• Geselsscaf, Geselschap (Low German)
• Societas (Latin)

There are other terms used for knightly orders in period. Many of them use words that refer to knighthood; these are not registerable, because they are considered a claim that the members are peers.

🔗b. Generic Order/Award Patterns: The following are generic patterns for order and award names and are appropriate for any language within the Society's period. In the patterns below, Order is used to represent the designator and the patterns are described according to English practice. In the submission, matters of grammar such as word order and marking possessives must conform to the language of the substantive element. Alternate designators and appropriate prepositions can be used based on the rules in NPN1B2.

The patterns:

• Order of the <Heraldic Charge>
• Order of the <Heraldic Tincture Equivalent>+<Heraldic Charge>
• Order of <Deity>
• Order of <Personal Name> (may include Saint before the name)
• Order of <Personal Name in possessive form>+<Heraldic Charge> (may include Saint before the name)
• X of <branch name> (where X is one of the patterns above)
• Order of <placename> (placename may be a registered branch name)

<Heraldic Charge> is not limited to the terms that Wreath would use to blazon a charge but may use an everyday term for a plausible heraldic charge. The spelling must be either period or an appropriate lingua Societatis form.

🔗3. Heraldic Titles: The modern English terms for heraldic titles for kingdoms and local branches are Herald and Pursuivant. Some appropriate translations into other languages can be found in Juliana de Luna's "Heraldic Titles from the Middle Ages and Renaissance." http://medievalscotland.org/jes/HeraldicTitles/index.shtml

The following are generic patterns for heraldic titles and are appropriate for any language within the Society's period. In the patterns below, Herald is used to represent the designator. Alternate designators can be used based on the rules in NPN1B4. The patterns:

• <Heraldic Charge> Herald
• <Heraldic Tincture Equivalent>+<Heraldic Charge> Herald or <Heraldic Charge>+<Heraldic Tincture Equivalent> Herald (order depends on the grammar of the substantive element)
• <Motto> Herald (mottos include virtues and desirable qualities)
• <Placename> Herald
• <substantive element of order/award name> Herald (registerable to branches only)

<Heraldic Charge> is not limited to the terms that Wreath would use to blazon a charge but may use an everyday term for a plausible heraldic charge. The spelling must be either period or an appropriate lingua Societatis form.

Additionally, the pattern <Surname> Herald is allowed with English and French surnames.

🔗4. Household Names: This category includes guilds, military companies, and similar groups of people. A variety of designators have been registered for households; in any case both the designator and substantive element must follow a single pattern for a group of individuals found in period. Models that have been used include groups like a guild or military company, members of a dynastic or personal household, and the people resident at an inn or other named residence.
Discussions of registerable designators for household names can be found at:

• Alys Mackyntoich, Alys's Simple Guide to Household Names
  http://heraldry.sca.org/names/households.html
• Sharon Krossa, "A Brief, Incomplete, and Rather Stopgap Article about European Household and Other Group Names Before 1600"
  http://medievalscotland.org/names/eurohouseholds/index.shtml
• The Compiled Names Precedents: Designations
  http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/CompiledNamePrecedents/Designations.html

Examples of approved household designators (and corresponding languages) include:

Note that the above list does not include all designators registered or that are registerable. Remember that not all designators can be used with all models for naming households. Please refer to the relevant precedents for more detail on the contexts in which these designators can be used.

🔗5. Heraldic Tinctures and Ordinary Color Words Registerable in Non-Personal Names:

This chart is applicable to non-personal names submissions using patterns involving colors and heraldic charges. In addition to the tinctures listed on this chart, single-name furs are also registerable as heraldic tinctures in non-personal names per the March 2020 and August 2022 Cover Letters.

Not all of the heraldic tinctures that are used in SCA blazon were used in all cultures with a strong heraldic tradition in our period. Where there is no ordinary color word found in a period armorial or heraldic treatise to describe a heraldic tincture used in SCA blazon, a word was found in a period dictionary or text and marked with [D] in the chart. Similarly, words were added for yellow and white in Dutch, since the other four languages have them. This was done in an effort to be equitable to all languages in the chart. Heraldic tinctures that we do not currently use in SCA blazon are only listed as they are attested in the period heraldic sources.

This chart is not intended to represent every possible spelling of the heraldic tinctures and ordinary color words that may be registered in non-personal names. Rather, it was built to provide a starting point. It is encouraged to look through period texts and dictionaries for these languages to discover spelling variants that might be more appropriate for a desired time period or dialect.

¹The heraldic tincture sinople first referred to a red pigment. However, because the everyday word for green in French is the same as the English blazon term (vert), the word came to represent green in French, Dutch and Spanish heraldry. In the SCA, this tincture is considered equivalent to vert.

🔗Appendix F: Some Armorial Elements that Do Not Need Further Documentation

🔗1. Charges

Charges which were listed as being in use before 1600 in standard references such as Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme and Akagawa Yoshio, A Pictorial Dictionary of Heraldry, Gerald Brault's Early Blazon, and James Parker, A Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry do not need to be further documented. The second edition of A Pictorial Dictionary of Heraldry is available from the SCA Stock Clerk, and the third edition can be found online at http://mistholme.com/pictorial-dictionary-of-heraldry/. Parker can be found online at: https://archive.org/details/aglossarytermsu08parkgoog/ or http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker/.

Many charges which were registered in the distant past are not currently registerable; as our knowledge of pre-1600 practice becomes better, we can say clearly that some charges are not used. It is generally safe to assume that most charges registered in the last decade do not need to be documented to be used (but beware the existing registration allowance, which allows a submitter to register charges that would otherwise not be registerable). Charges which have not been registered in over a decade should be redocumented.

🔗2. Complex Lines

The following complex lines of division and complex lines for ordinaries and similar charges were in common use for most of our period:

• embattled
• engrailed
• indented
• wavy

Others are less common, but clearly attested to period:

• bretessed
• dancetty
• dovetailed
• embattled counter-embattled
• enarched/ployé
• flory-counterflory
• indented fleury at the points
• invected
• lozengy
• potenty
• raguly
• rayonny
• urdy

A few complex lines of division that are allowed only with restrictions:

• bevilled: only allowed for per bend, per bend sinister, a bend and a bend sinister; use with charges around it is a step from core practice
• denticulada: only allowed for bordures
• right step/left step: only allowed for per fess
• rompu: only allowed for chevrons
• triangular: only allowed for a chief
• engouled: only used for bends (and bends sinister)

Other complex lines of division must be documented as having been used before 1600 to be used in an armorial submission. Such lines will generally only be allowed with restrictions, as they were normally used only in certain kinds of simple designs.

🔗3. A Partial List of Registerable Postures

Creatures fall into several categories: quadrupeds, birds, insects (and other invertebrates whose default position is tergiant), fish, humans (and humanoid monsters), and sea-creatures (along with a few other creatures whose default posture is erect). Each has specific defined postures and cannot be registered in the postures suitable for another category without further documentation. This list of postures does not include head positions (such as guardant and reguardant) or wing positions (such as inverted, elevated, addorsed, and displayed; these are often not blazoned).

🔗a. Quadruped Postures:

• Rampant (to dexter or sinister)
• Salient (to dexter or sinister)
• Courant (to dexter or sinister)
• Passant (to dexter or sinister)
• Segreant (to dexter or sinister)
• Statant (to dexter or sinister)
• Sejant (to dexter or sinister)
• Sejant Erect (to dexter, to sinister, and affronty; affronty is a step from core practice for non-lions)
• Statant Erect (to dexter or sinister)
• Couchant (to dexter or sinister)
• Winged ones may be displayed, but this is generally a step from core practice

🔗b. Bird Postures:

A more complete discussion of period bird postures can be found at http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2003/11/03-11brd.html

• Close (to dexter or sinister)
• Displayed
• Volant (to dexter or sinister)
• Migrant (to chief or to base)
• Rising/rousant (to dexter or sinister)
• Naiant (for water birds, to dexter or sinister)
• Striking (to dexter or sinister)

A few birds have specific postures: peacock in his pride, pelican in her piety, crane in its vigilance.

🔗c. Insects (also frogs, lizards, turtles):

• Tergiant (in any direction, except possibly inverted)

🔗d. Fish:

• Haurient (may be embowed or embowed-counterembowed)
• Naiant (to dexter or sinister, may be embowed or embowed-counterembowed)
• Urinant (may be embowed or embowed-counterembowed)

🔗e. Humans and Humanoid Monsters:

• Statant (affronty, to dexter, or to sinister)
• Riding a horse or other mount

🔗f. Sea-Creatures, Wyverns, etc.:

• Sejant/passant (to dexter or sinister)
• Erect (affronty, to dexter, or to sinister)
• Winged ones may be displayed, but this is generally a step from core practice

🔗4. A Partial List of Registerable Tinctures

The main heraldic tinctures are listed in A3B1. Furs are treated as a single tincture; a fur may combine any listed color with any listed metal. For example, gules ermined Or and vairy argent and sable are both considered single tinctures. Other heraldic tinctures may only be registered as part of an Individually Attested Pattern.

🔗Appendix G: Some Specific Elements that are a Step from Core Practice

As discussed in A2B armorial designs documented under the Core Style rules may only have a single step from core practice. This is a list of some specific items that are a step from core practice. In general, types of charges and motifs similar to these are likely to be ruled a step from core practice. However, if they can be demonstrated as occurring in period heraldry, they will no longer be considered a step from core practice.

🔗1. Charges: The following charges have been ruled a step from core practice:

• compass star
• compass rose
• pawprint, footprint, etc.
• valknut
• hexagon
• complex machines known to Europeans
• chief doubly-enarched
• cross of Saint Brigid
• a triskele or triskelion arrondi

🔗2. Motifs: The following motifs have been ruled a step from core practice:

• counterchanging a bordure over a central ordinary
• an overall charge surmounting a fimbriated ordinary
• a spiderweb covering part of the field
• a bend bevilled with charges around it
• a gurges as a tertiary charge
• a schnecke with secondary or tertiary charges
• charged gores, charged gussets, and charged complex-line tierces
• counterchanging a field treatment across a field and ordinary
• jessant-de-lys with any charge other than the head of a leopard or lion
• the head of a leopard or lion jessant of any charge other than a fleur-de-lys
• a central charge on a gyronny arrondi field drawn with the corners of the field in the center of a gyron
• animate charges oriented in annulo (see the August 2019 Cover Letter for details)
• three charges in three tinctures in the same charge group (not a step from core practice if the charges are the same type, see the September 2020 CL for details)

🔗Appendix H: Low-Contrast Complex Lines of Division

The primary standard for low-contrast complex lines of division is that they be readily identifiable. Note that ployé is considered a variant of a straight line, not a complex line of division, therefore not subject to the restrictions on low-contrast combinations below.

In many cases, a charge overlying a low-contrast complex line of division will render the line of division unidentifiable. Thus, divided fields with low-contrast tinctures with complex lines of division will be registered with a charge overlying the line division only if the line of division remains readily identifiable.

In some cases, even if there is no overlying charge, a low-contrast complex line of division may be unidentifiable and thus unregisterable. Similarly, in some cases, the specific shades used in a submission may render a low-contrast complex line of division unidentifiable and thus unregisterable, even if the combination has previously been registered.

The low-contrast complex line combinations which have been ruled unregisterable, even when there is no overlying charge, are:

• sable and purpure (Landric Dægmær, 08/1992, R-Atlantia)
• sable and azure (Tymm Colbert le Gard, 09/1997, R-Trimaris)

Fields that are divided per pale offset, per bend (sinister) bevilled, or per fess with a (left or right) step are not subject to this restriction so long as there is no overlying charge and the line of division is readily identifiable.

Other combinations are registerable on a case-by-case basis so long as the line of division is readily identifiable.

🔗Appendix I: Charge Group Theory

The style and conflict rules are built around the idea of a charge group. A charge group is a group of charges of approximately the same size and visual weight that act as a single visual unit. This idea of explicitly organizing an armorial design in terms of charges groups is not a period heraldic idea, but a modern SCA invention. It is our attempt to codify what we see happening artistically, stylistically, and for cadencing in medieval armory.

🔗1. Primary Charge Group: The primary charge group is the charge or group of charges which are directly on the field in the visual center of the shield. Not every device has a primary charge, but most do. The primary charge group will typically be the largest charge or charges on the field.

If the armory has at least one central ordinary, they are the primary charge group. This is true even if there are other charges around it or the ordinaries are drawn narrowly. If there are no central ordinaries and the armory has a central charge or charges, they are the primary charge group. This is true even if the charges are on opposite sides of a field division. If there are no central ordinaries or central charges, but there are semy of charges on the field, those charges are the primary charge group. If there are two or more charges of similar visual weight or size in the center of the field which are touching, they are sustained and all part of the primary charge group.

For example, in Argent, a bend sable and Argent, two bendlets sable, the bend or bendlets are the primary charges. In Argent, a lion sable, Argent, three lions sable, and Argent semy of lions sable, the lions are the primary charges. In Argent semy of lions sable, a cross azure, the cross is the primary charge and the lions are secondary charges.

For example, in Per fess vert and argent, a lion argent and a cross couped azure, the primary charge group is the lion and the cross together. In Per fess vert and argent crusilly azure, a lion argent, the white lion cannot be on the white part of the field and is only in the top half of the field. Therefore, the primary charge group is the lion and the crosses together. In Azure, two swords in saltire proper, the primary charge group is the swords. In Vert, in fess a cinquefoil Or sustained by a dragon argent, the primary charge group is the cinquefoil and the dragon together.

In armory with a divided field, there are two potential situations. Either each of the charges is entirely in a single section of the field, or one or more charges overlie the line(s) of division. In the first situation, the charges are collectively the primary charge group. This is true even when the bottom charge is drawn larger than the others, as this is common in period depictions. This is true even when one of the divisions contains semy of charges. This is true even if you use blazon terms like "in chief" or the line of division is blazoned as "enhanced". In the second situation, where one or more charges overlie the line of division, those charges are the primary charge group and the other ones are in a secondary charge group.

For example, in Per fess gules and Or, two crosses bottony and an owl counterchanged, the crosses are both above the per fess line and the owl is below the per fess line. In this case, the primary charge group is the crosses and the owl all together. In Per fess gules and Or, an owl counterchanged and in chief two crosses bottony Or, the owl must cross the per fess line and be partially Or and partially gules. In this case, the owl is the primary charge group and the crosses are a secondary charge group. On an undivided field, a design that puts the owl completely or almost completely below the center of the shield (the per fess line) would give the impression of a single primary charge group, no matter how it was blazoned.

A peripheral ordinary (chief, base, bordure, orle, etc.) can never be a primary charge. If there are only peripheral ordinaries (or no charges whatsoever) in a piece of armory, it is known as field-primary armory. Field-primary armory is also discussed in Appendix IB below, and has special conflict rules as described in A5F and A5G1. However, if there are no central ordinaries or central charges, but there are non-ordinary charges in chief, in base, in canton, or in orle, they are the primary charge group.

For example, in Sable, a canton Or and in Sable, a chief Or, there is no primary charge group and they are both field-primary armory. In Gules, in canton a lion Or, and Gules, in base a lion Or, and Gules, in chief three lions Or, and Per bend gules and Or, a lion Or and Gules, in canton a lion within a bordure Or, the primary charge group is the lions. However, in Gules, a cross bottony and in chief three lions Or, the primary charge group is the cross and the lions are a secondary charge group.

For example, in Azure, a bordure argent and Azure, a bordure argent semy-de-lys azure there are no primary charges and the bordure is a secondary charge group. These are both field-primary armory. However, in Azure crusilly, a bordure argent, the primary charge group is the semy of crosses. In Per fess gules and Or, there is no primary charge group and this is also field-primary armory. In Azure, in chief a cloud argent, the primary charge groupis the cloud, but in Azure goutty d'eau, in chief a cloud argent the primary charge group is the gouttes.

🔗2. Secondary Charge Group: A secondary charge group is a single charge or group of charges directly on the field around the primary charges. Therefore, you cannot have a secondary charge group without a primary charge group to surround, except in field-primary armory. In general, secondary charge groups will be drawn smaller than the primary charge group.

For example, in Argent, a fess between three lions sable and Argent semy of lions, a fess sable, the lions are the secondary charges, surrounding the primary fess. In Argent, a fess and in chief a lion sable, the lion is the secondary charge. In each case if you removed the fess the lions would become the primary charge group.

Several kinds of secondary charge groups can occur together in a design. Armorial designs with multiple secondary charge groups must generally match a pattern for period arrangement of charge groups.

Types of secondary charges include:

🔗a. Peripheral Ordinary: This type of secondary charge group consists only of peripheral ordinaries: the chief, the bordure, the base (including the point pointed), the quarter, the canton, the gyron, the orle, the double tressure, the tierce, and flaunches.

For example, in Argent, a bend and a bordure gules, the bordure is a secondary charge group. In Argent, a bordure gules, the bordure is still a secondary charge group and there is no primary charge group; this is field-primary armory.

🔗b. Semy: This type of secondary charge group consists of charges strewn over all or over one part of a field. Charges semy are almost always in a separate charge group from all other charges. However, when a divided field (with or without a central ordinary) has a semy of charges (or charges semy) on one half of the field and another charge or group of charges on the other, the charges form a single secondary charge group around the primary ordinary.

For example, in the armorial submission Argent crusilly, a bend gules, the crosses are the secondary charge group. In the armorial submission Per chevron argent crusilly gules and azure, a chevron Or and in base a griffin argent, the crosses and the griffin together form a single secondary group.

🔗c. Cotises, Endorses, Etc.: This type of secondary charge group consists of charges that tightly mirror the line of a primary ordinary but are slimmer.

For example, in the armorial submission Argent, a bend cotised gules, the cotises are a secondary charge group, and the bend is the primary charge group.

🔗d. Other Types of Charges: Other kinds of secondary charge groups exist. They may consist of a single charge in canton, a group of three charges around an ordinary, and the like. As discussed in I5, sustained charges may be secondary charges and maintained charges are generally secondary charges.

For example, in the armorial submissions Argent, a chevron between three roundels gules and Gules, a bend and in chief a roundel gules, the roundels are the secondary charge group.

🔗3. Tertiary Charge Group: A tertiary charge group is a charge or group of charges which are entirely on another charge and are not on the field themselves. Tertiary charges may be found on other types of charge groups, including an overall charge group, but not on maintained charges.

A single charge group may only have one tertiary charge group on it. There are two exceptions to this rule. 1) Augmentations may have more than one tertiary charge group on a single charge group as long as those tertiary charges maintain their indefinability. 2) Charges with closely associated maintained charges (or otherwise including smaller charges, such as a pelican nesting with its chicks) may be used as tertiary charges with the following conditions:

• The maintained charges must be identifiable.
• The charge combinations must appear on the list in section I6 of this appendix or be documented through an IAP.
• Only the dominant charge will contribute difference. The maintained charges will be treated as a limited form of artistic license and will not be considered for purposes of difference though they are considered blazonable details.

A piece of armory may have different tertiary charge groups on different underlying charge groups.

For example, in Argent, on a pale sable three mullets argent, the mullets are a tertiary charge group. In Argent, on a pale sable a tower between two mullets argent, where the tower and the mullets are the same size, they collectively form a tertiary charge group, and this design is registerable. However, in Argent, on a pale azure a tower and in chief a mullet argent, where the tower is much larger than the mullet, two distinct tertiary charge groups are formed by the tower and the mullet on the same charge, and this design is not registerable.

For example, in Gules, a lion Or charged on the shoulder with an annulet gules, a bordure Or crescenty gules there are two tertiary charge groups: the annulet on the lion is one tertiary charge group and the crescents on the bordure are a separate tertiary charge group. This design is registerable. In Sable, three delfs Or each charged with a mullet vert, the mullets form a single tertiary charge group, as each mullet is on a delf that is part of the primary charge group. This design is also registerable.

For example, Argent, on a chief gules a bear maintaining a book argent is not allowed. As the bear is much larger than the book, two distinct tertiary charge groups are formed (and a bear maintaining a book is not found in section I6 of this appendix). However, Argent, a chief gules and for augmentation, on the chief a bear maintaining a book argent is allowed as an augmentation assuming that the book is identifiable since augmentations may have two different tertiary charge groups on the same underlying charge. Argent, on a chief gules a squirrel maintaining an acorn argent is registerable because a squirrel maintaining a nut appears in section I6.

Charges on tertiary charges are known as quaternary charges and are not allowed, unless documented as an Individually Attested Pattern (IAP) or they are part of an augmentation. Quaternary charges used as part of an augmentation must be large enough to be identifiable. Quaternary charges do not contribute to difference.

For example, in Vert, on a pale Or a roundel purpure charged with a rose Or the rose is a quaternary charge and thus this is not registerable. However, Vert, on a pale Or a roundel purpure and for augmentation the roundel charged with a rose Or is registerable even though the rose is a quaternary charge because it is an augmentation.

🔗4. Overall Charge Group: An overall charge group is a charge or group of charges which crosses the center of the field, lying partially on the field and partially on other charges. It can only appear on a design that has a primary charge group. The underlying charge is the primary charge, while the overlying charge is an overall charge. There can be only one overall charge group in any design. In period heraldry the overall charge is almost always a bend.

An overall charge must overlie a primary charge; if there is no other primary charge, there is no reason to refer to a charge as "overall". An overall charge must have a significant portion on the field; a design with a charge that has only a little bit sticking over the edges of an underlying charge is known as "barely overall" and is not registerable. We do not allow overall charges to overlie peripheral ordinaries, except as an Individually Attested Pattern. Labels are an exception to this and may be overall in chief, overlaying a peripheral ordinary without overlaying the primary charge.

For example, in Argent, a lion sable, overall a bend gules the bend is the overall charge, and the lion the primary charge. However, given a field divided per pale sable and gules, with a bend argent, there is no reason to blazon it as Per pale sable and gules, overall a bend argent, as there is no primary charge for the bend to be "overall". This armory is simply Per pale sable and gules, a bend argent.

For example, Or, a pale gules and overall a bend and in chief a mullet, where the mullet partially overlies the pale and partially lies on the field has two overall charge groups and is not registerable. For example, Or, a pale gules, and overall in chief a mullet, where the mullet is almost entirely on the pale but has a small portion on the field is not registerable, as this is "barely overall".

For example, Gules, a lion and bordure argent, overall in chief a sword fesswise Or is not registerable as the sword does not overlie the primary charge and it does overlie a peripheral ordinary. However, Gules, a lion and a bordure argent, overall in chief a label Or is registerable as a label may overlie a peripheral ordinary rather than the primary charge when in chief.

🔗5. Sustained and Maintained Charges: Charges that are held by, suspended from, or are otherwise touching another charge fall into two categories. Those that are large enough to be of equal weight with the charge holding them are considered to be part of the same charge group (primary, secondary, tertiary, or overall) as the charge holding them. We call these sustained charges. For primary charges, the fact that the charges are co-primary is indicated by including the arrangement such as in fess an X sustaining a Y. For primary charges, sustained or sustaining without an arrangement means that the charge is relatively large but not of equal weight with the primary charge. In that case, the sustained charge is considered a secondary charge. Charges that are much smaller than the charge holding them may only exist as maintained secondary charges of primary or secondary charges unless they meet one of the exceptions listed in section I3 (Tertiary Charge Group) above. Maintained charges must have good contrast with the field and be large enough to be identifiable. Charges maintained by primary and secondary charges contribute to difference and are considered secondary charges. When maintained by secondary charges, the maintained charges are part of the same secondary group as the charge maintaining them. Orientation of maintained charges does not contribute to difference and may or may not be blazoned.

For example, Gules, a lion maintaining an open book argent has a primary lion holding a small, secondary book while Gules, a lion sustaining an open book argent has a primary lion holding a large, secondary book. In this case, the only difference between maintaining and sustaining is an indication of how large the book is. Sustaining is generally used when the held charge is at least half as large as the charge holding it; though maintaining may still be used. However, Gules, in fess an open book sustained by a lion argent and Gules, in fess a lion contourny sustaining an open book argent mean that the lion is holding a book that has the same visual weight as the lion. The two charges are arranged in fess and are co-primary charges.

🔗6. Charges with Closely Associated Maintained Charges (or other small charges): These charge combinations may be used as tertiary charges in accordance with section I3 of this appendix. The intent of this list is to identify combinations of charges where the inclusion of the dependent charge reinforces the identity of the dominant because of the close association. It is not an exhaustive list. Other common charge combinations may be added based on their appearance in sources such as period heraldry and/or period bestiaries.

• A crane in its vigilance (standing on one leg and maintaining a stone in the other)
• A dove maintaining an olive branch
• An elephant maintaining a castle or tower on its back
• A hedgehog, its quills impaling grapes
• A mermaid in her vanity (maintaining a comb and a mirror)
• An ostrich maintaining a horseshoe in its mouth
• An otter maintaining a fish in its mouth
• A pelican nesting with its chicks
• A quiver with arrows
• A roc maintaining an elephant in its claws
• A sagittary (a centaur maintaining a drawn bow)
• A savage maintaining a club
• A squirrel sejant erect maintaining a nut between its forepaws
• A stork maintaining in its bill a serpent or an eel
• A tyger gazing at a mirror

🔗Appendix J: Documented and Forbidden Arrangements of Charge Groups on Armory

This appendix describes arrangements of charge groups on the field that are documented, as well as a few that are not allowed. Other arrangements must be documented.

All designs with a single charge group are presumed to be registerable except those listed below.

All designs with two charge groups on the field are presumed to be registerable except those listed below. New designs may be ruled unregisterable from time to time, if they cannot be found in period armory.

Designs with One or Two Charge Groups On the Field that We Don't Allow (barring evidence that they were used in period):

• A design with charges in a single charge group located only "in sinister chief and in central base" and variants (like "in chief and dexter base")

All designs with three or more charge groups on the field must be documented to be registerable. A list of groupings that have been documented is listed below.

Designs with Three or More Charge Groups On the Field that Have Been Documented:

• A central ordinary, a secondary charge group around the ordinary (semy or numbered charges), and a peripheral ordinary
• A central ordinary, a secondary charge group around the ordinary (semy or numbered charges), and a peripheral ordinary, with a tertiary charge group on the central ordinary
• A central ordinary, a secondary charge group around the ordinary (semy or numbered charges), and a peripheral ordinary, with a tertiary charge group on the peripheral ordinary
• A central ordinary, a secondary charge group around the ordinary (semy or numbered charges), and a peripheral ordinary, with tertiary charge groups on both the central and peripheral ordinary
• A central ordinary, a secondary charge group around the ordinary (numbered charges), and another secondary charge group (semy)
• A central ordinary, cotises or endorses, and another secondary charge group
• A central ordinary, cotises or endorses, and another secondary charge group, with a tertiary charge group on the central ordinary

• A primary charge group between a secondary charge group (ordinaries), surrounded by another secondary charge group
• A primary charge group, with sustained or maintained secondary charges, with a separate secondary group
• A primary charge group, a secondary charge group around the primary charge group (semy, in orle, or numbered charges), and a peripheral ordinary
• A primary charge group, a secondary charge group around the primary charge group (semy, in orle, or numbered charges), and a peripheral ordinary, with a tertiary charge group on the primary charge group
• A primary charge group, a secondary charge group around the primary charge group (semy, in orle, or numbered charges), and a peripheral ordinary, with a tertiary charge group on any ordinaries
• A primary charge group surrounding a secondary charge, with a separate secondary group
• A primary charge group, a secondary charge group around the primary charge group (semy, in orle, or numbered charges), and a peripheral ordinary, with tertiary charge groups on the primary charge group and any ordinaries
• A primary charge group, any type of secondary charge group, and an overall charge (a label only can be overall and in chief)
• A primary charge group, any type of secondary charge group, and an overall charge (a label only can be overall and in chief), with a tertiary charge group on the primary charge group
• A primary charge group, any type of secondary charge group, and an overall charge (a label only can be overall and in chief), with a tertiary charge group on any ordinary
• A primary charge group, any type of secondary charge group, and an overall charge (a label only can be overall and in chief), with a tertiary charge group on the primary charge group and any ordinary

Other arrangements of charge groups must be individually documented.

🔗Appendix K: Standard Arrangements for Charge Groups of Different Number

This appendix is a tool to determine if two charge groups of different sizes with different arrangements have comparable arrangements. First, identify the number of charges in each group and their arrangement. If the arrangement of either group is not listed below, then they are not in a standard arrangement and no DC can generally be given for arrangement between the two designs.

Pairs of charges in saltire and sheaves of charges are special cases for determining number. When there are multiple sets of charges each set counts as one charge for purposes of determining standard arrangement. So, for example, three pairs of axes in saltire and three sheaves of arrows both count as three charges for standard arrangement.

Next, check to see if the arrangement of the first group is also listed for the number of charges in the second group. Also check to see if the arrangement of the second group is also listed for the number of charges in the first group. If the answer is yes for both, then the arrangements are comparable and there is a DC between them for change to arrangement. If the answer is no to either one (or to both), the change to arrangement is forced and there is no DC between them.

List of Standard Arrangements by Number of Charges in a Group:

• For groups with one charge: in chief, in canton, in sinister chief, central, in base
• For groups with two charges: in pale, in fess (whether respectant, facing the same way, or addorsed), in (fess in) chief, in bend, in bend sinister, crossed in saltire
• For groups with three charges: two and one, one and two, in pale, in fess, in (fess in) chief, in bend, in bend sinister, in annulo
• For groups with four or more charges: in cross, in saltire, in pale, in fess, in (fess in) chief, in bend, in bend sinister, semy, in annulo, an orle of charges

🔗Appendix L: A Partial List of Postures and Orientations

This is a list of postures and orientations that can be used to determine whether two charges or groups of charges conflict or whether there is a distinct change for posture/orientation.

🔗1. Animate Charges

🔗a. Quadrupeds: The postures listed within each group generally conflict, though a distinct change may be given for facing to dexter or to sinister.

• rampant, segreant, salient, sejant erect, statant erect
• passant, statant, courant
• sejant, sejant erect
• couchant, dormant
• sejant erect affronty, sejant affronty

🔗b. Birds: The postures listed within each group generally conflict, though a distinct change may be given for facing to dexter or to sinister.

• close, naiant
• displayed, migrant
• volant
• rousant, rising, striking

🔗c. Insects and Other Tergiant-Default Creatures: This category is for insects and other creatures whose default is tergiant. The postures listed within each group generally conflict.

• tergiant
• tergiant inverted
• bendwise
• bendwise sinister

🔗d. Fish: The postures listed within each group generally conflict, though a distinct change may be given for facing to dexter or to sinister.

• haurient, urinant
• naiant

🔗e. Humanoids: This category is for humans and humanoid monsters. The postures listed within each group generally conflict.

• statant
• statant affronty
• mounted on a horse or other creature

🔗f. Sea creatures and other Erect-Default Creatures: This category is for sea creatures and other creatures whose default is erect. The postures listed within each group generally conflict.

• erect

🔗g. Other Animate Charges: Animate charges with postures that do not fit into these categories, including the body parts of animate charges, may be classified into one of those categories on a case by case basis, or may be ruled to receive complete change of posture against none of them.
The posture is also changed if the orientation is changed from one of these to another (noting that some of these postures are not allowed for some creatures):

• head to chief
• bendwise
• bendwise inverted
• bendwise sinister
• bendwise sinister inverted
• fesswise
• fesswise contourny
• head to base

🔗2. Inanimate Charges

Inanimate charges are split into two types: compact charges and long charges.

Compact charges of different types do not have a distinct change for orientation changes.

Compact charges that are radially symmetric, like roses, mullets, and suns, do not have a distinct change for orientation changes under any circumstances.

Compact charges with a clear top and bottom may have a distinct change for changes when the two orientations are different and on this list:

• top to chief
• bendwise
• bendwise inverted
• bendwise sinister
• bendwise sinister inverted
• fesswise
• fesswise reversed
• top to base

Long charges of different types may have a distinct change for changes that alter the orientation of the long axis of the charge, so

• palewise (upright or inverted)
• bendwise (upright or inverted)
• bendwise sinister (upright or inverted)
• fesswise (to dexter or reversed)

Long charges of identical types may also receive a DC for facing - the change from dexter facing to sinister facing and from upright to inverted - if they have a clearly defined point or head. There is a DC between a sword palewise and a sword palewise inverted. Long charges may also receive a DC for facing if they have another clearly defined axis, like right and left or up and down. Thus there is a DC between a bow fesswise and a bow fesswise inverted.

🔗Appendix M: Some Resources for Conflict Checking

🔗1. Some notes about conflict and types of charges

In general, two charges that were considered independent charges in period will have at least a distinct change. Charges that were used interchangeably are considered not to have a distinct change for type.

For the most part, the Ordinary lists types of charges that conflict in a single category.

🔗a. Canines/Lupines

We do not distinguish among types of canines/lupines, because creatures like wolves and foxes or wolves and dogs were often distinguished in period armory based on the cant of the owners name (so Woulf would have a wolf, while Vuhs would have a fox). The variety of kinds of canines we register also makes it difficult to draw lines between types of dogs.

🔗b. Fish

We do not distinguish among most types of fish for similar reasons. Additionally, a heraldic whale conflicts with a natural whale, a natural dolphin, and a heraldic dolphin. A natural dolphin also conflicts with a heraldic dolphin (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2020/03/20-03cl.html).

🔗c. Cats

We do not distinguish among various types of cats because the animals are normally drawn very similarly.

🔗d. Birds

Birds, on the other hand, can be substantially different. As discussed on the November 2003 Cover Letter (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2003/11/03-11cl.html), birds fall into four categories:

• "regular-shaped" birds (like martlets, ravens, eagles, falcons)
• a generic bird is considered a "regular-shaped" bird (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2012/08/12-08cl.html).
• owls are considered "regular-shaped" birds (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2021/07/21-07cl.html)
• hummingbirds are considered "regular-shaped" birds (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2023/02/23-02lar.html)
• jackdaws are considered "regular-shaped" birds (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2023/07/23-07lar.html)
• swan-shaped birds (like swans, geese, and ducks)
• poultry-shaped birds (like chickens, quail, and peacocks)
• crane-shaped birds (like cranes, herons, and storks)

Birds in a different category can be substantially different in type if they are in two different groups and are in a period posture for that sort of bird (see http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2003/11/03-11brd.html for the list). So, Sable, a duck close argent and Sable, a stork close argent are clear; both are also clear of Sable, a falcon close argent.

Birds in the same category may be granted a distinct change (DC) between them when they are (a) different in period, (b) in a period posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is some visual difference.

🔗e. Dragons/Wyverns

As of the September 2018 Cover Letter (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/09/18-09cl.html):

• There is a DC between a dragon and a wyvern.
• There is a DC between a dragon and a sea-wyvern.
• There is a DC between a dragon and a sea-dragon.
• There is no difference between a wyvern, a sea-wyvern, and a sea-dragon.

Note that period blazons (except Elizabethan England) call the wyvern "dragon," so care must be taken when analyzing these sources.

🔗f. Crosses

Crosses are divided into a number of categories which are considered substantially different. However, standard period variants of a particular style of cross will not be considered separate; no difference is granted for fitching, changing between equal-armed and Latinate, etc. As discussed on the May 2009 Cover Letter (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2009/05/09-05cl.html), the categories are as follows:

• Plain crosses couped, including Latinate and humetty.
• Crosses flory, floretty, patonce, clechy, Calatrava, and Santiago.
• Crosses crosslet and bottony.
• Crosses moline, sarcelly, recercelly, anchory, fourchy, and miller.
• Crosses formy/paty. (Note: While in period paty could refer to crosses in the flory family, in the SCA it does not.)
• Crosses doubled, patriarchal, and Lorraine.
• The cross potent/billety.
• The Tau cross.
• The cross of Calvary.
• The cross of Toulouse.
• The cross gringoly.
• The cross pomelly/bourdonny.
• The Maltese cross.

🔗g. Mullets/Estoiles/Suns

As discussed on the April 2012 Cover Letter (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2012/04/12-04cl.html), mullets, estoiles, and suns may or may not have difference between them, as follows:

• we will continue to grant difference between mullets, with all straight rays, and estoiles, with all wavy rays
• suns with fewer than eight projections (points or rays or a combination) will not be registered
• there is no difference granted between mullets of any number of points
• there is no difference granted between estoiles of any number of points
• an estoile or mullet of seven or fewer points will be granted difference from a sun
• a mullet of eight or more points is equivalent to a sun and will not be granted difference from a sun
• an estoile of eight or more rays is equivalent to a sun and will not be granted difference from a sun

🔗h. Trees

Trees are divided into two categories: generic and coniferous. Trees which are not coniferous, with triangular foliage, fall into the category of generic tree shape, and all conflict with one another; details such as fructing do not count for difference. Coniferous, triangle-shaped trees likewise conflict with one another. (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/12/18-12cl.html)

There is a DC between generic and coniferous trees. There is not a DC for blasting or eradicating a tree.

🔗i. Flowers/Foils

The March 2020 Cover Letter (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2020/03/20-03cl.html) provides a comprehensive ruling on differences between flowers:

• There is no difference for type between few-petaled flowers affronty (roses, sexfoils, poppies affronty, cherry blossoms, etc.).
• There is no difference for type between trumpet-shaped flowers in profile (columbines, lilies, tulips, daffodils, etc.). There can be a DC for orientation (as between columbines and lilies when both are in their default).
• There is no difference for type between multi-petaled flowers affronty (gillyflowers, chrysanthemums, daisies, etc.).
• There is an SC for type between few-petaled flowers affronty, multi-petaled flowers affronty, and trumpet-shaped flowers in profile.

Flowers that don't fall into the above categories (the all-encompassing "miscellaneous" category) are treated as individual cases, by type. There is a distinct change between a trefoil and a cinquefoil. There is also a DC between a trillium and a rose. No difference is granted between a cinquefoil and a rose.

🔗2. Complex lines of division that conflict

Broadly, complex lines of division fall into several groups. In general, there is a DC between variants that belong to different groups. In addition, there is in general a DC between any two lines in the "other" group, as it is a catch-all with no relationship between them. Those lines of division listed as "straight line and variants" also conflict with a straight line.

• Straight line and variants: plain, ployé enarched, arrondi (for divisions greater than four)
• Square: embattled, dovetailed, bretessed, embattled counterembattled, raguly, denticulada
• Wavy: Wavy, nebuly, urdy
• Long: Rayonny
• Jagged: indented, engrailed, invected, dancetty, lozengy
• Other: bevilled, potenty, flory-counterflory, indented fleury at the points, left step/right step, rompu, triangular

For a two-sided ordinary, such as a fess or a pale, there is a DC between "dancetty" and other line styles in the "jagged" group.

🔗3. Comparable Posture and Orientation

The July 2019 Cover Letter (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2019/07/19-07cl.html) provided information on how to determine if charges have comparable postures and orientations when determining if armory meets the requirements of section SENA A3D2c. Charges are classified as either animate (which have posture) or inanimate (which have orientation), with multiple categories in each of those divisions. Those categories are:

Animate Charges (Posture)

• Standard quadrupeds
• Quadrupeds that can be tergiant (reptiles, amphibians, moles)
• Birds
• Insects, arthropods, and other crawling critters with too many legs
• Fish and other non-limbed aquatic life
• Humanoids (including mer-folk)
• Tailed non-humanoid bipeds (sea-creatures, wyverns, cockatrices, etc.)
• Serpents

Inanimate Charges (Orientation)

• Compact, non-orientable charges (suns, roses, roundels, annulets, etc.)
• Compact, orientable charges (crescents, fleurs-de-lys, compass roses)
• Long charges

Generally, charges in different categories are not comparable. A bear rampant and a serpent nowed may be in the same charge group despite requiring different terms to describe their relative postures since serpents cannot be rampant because they haven't the requisite limbs, while bears cannot be nowed because they are not long or flexible enough. A spear bendwise and a sun may be in the same charge group despite requiring a specified orientation for only one of the charges since a sun is a radially symmetrical charge that has no orientable top or bottom, while a spear is a long charge that has a definitive top, bottom, and angular orientation.

Within each category, charges are comparable, and so must be in comparable postures or orientations. For purposes of this rule, defaults are treated as if they had been blazoned; while the default postures of a lamb and lion are passant and rampant respectively, if they appear in the same charge group they must be in the same posture. For orientation, this is a bit more permissive; the default orientation of a sword is point up while the default orientation of an arrow is point down, but the assumptions of top and bottom are a default-based concept; as long as they are both in the same orientation (palewise, bendwise, fesswise, etc.) or in an arrangement that involves their orientation (in cross, in saltire, in chevron, etc.) then whether they are point-up or point-down is immaterial. If, however, there are two swords in the same charge group, they must both be oriented with the point either to chief or to base, to dexter or sinister, because they are identical charges.

There are two major exceptions to these categories. The first is if one charge in the category is in an orientation or posture that another charge in the same category cannot take on. For example, there are quadrupeds which are almost exclusively found as tergiant in period, such as lizards, tortoises, and frogs. If these charges appear in a charge group with another quadruped which is not found as tergiant in period (e.g., a lion) then they must either be tergiant (and thus not comparable) or in an identical posture to the other quadruped. In other words, a lion rampant and a tortoise tergiant is acceptable, but a lion rampant and a tortoise statant is not. As another example, a stag's attire is usually found straight (and thus a long, orientable charge) but is also found in annulo in period. However, a sword (a long, orientable charge) cannot be in annulo. If a stag's attire and a sword are in the same charge group, they must either be in comparable orientations, or the attire must be in annulo (effectively rendering it a compact, non-orientable charge and thus in a different category).

The second major exception is when an orientation of an animate charge is modified from the posture which is inherent to its orientation. Humanoids, sea-creatures, and most quadrupeds have postures with an inherent and immutable orientation (e.g., rampant or statant erect have the body palewise, passant and statant have the body fesswise). But some postures have orientations that are found to be flexible in period. We see, for example, eagles displayed fesswise and both tortoises and frogs tergiant fesswise. If two charges in orientation-flexible postures appear in the same charge group, they must be in the same orientation for purposes of SENA A3D2c.

🔗Appendix N: Banned and Potentially Problematic Place Names

The following names, in any form, are banned from being used in personal or non-personal names. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. Names not on this list may still be found offensive per SENA NPN5B or SENA PN5B. Names may also still be found offensive due to a combination of proposed name and armory.

The following names, while not banned, are recommended for use with caution. Heralds are reminded of SENA NPN5B and SENA PN5B. regarding Offense by Association when considering names with these elements. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. Names not on this list may still be found offensive per SENA NPN5B or SENA PN5B. Names may also still be found offensive due to a combination of proposed name and armory.

🔗Appendix O: Existing Registration Allowance and Bynames

The existing registration allowance (ERA), including the required documentation, is defined in PN1B2g. This appendix provides some examples and guidance for creating gendered bynames, that is, names that must change in order to match the gender of the given name, and relationship bynames. This list is not exhaustive nor exclusive; it is meant to provide guidelines for using the ERA. Names submitted under the exceptions to PN1B2g will be decided on a case-by-case basis.

🔗1. Unmarked Relationship Bynames

In languages with unmarked patronymics/matronymics, a registered given name can be used without change to indicate a parent/child relation.

For example, English uses unmarked patronymics. Therefore a registered Arabic Da'ud can be used with a submitted Thomas to form Thomas Da'ud. As no changes are required to the name, Da'ud can be legally related in any way to Thomas, not just his father, as neither exception under PN1B2g is required.

🔗2.Latin Relational Bynames

In Latin, relational bynames (particularly patronymics/matronymics) in many cultures can be found in period where the given name is treated as indeclinable. That is, the name doesn't change to show genitive case. In cases where there are no examples of how the name was treated in Latin (period or post-period), it may be treated as indeclinable.

For example, a young woman's father has a Japanese persona, and his registered given name is Tokihiro. She's not quite sure where she wants to eventually land in the SCA and chooses the name Anna in Latin because it works across multiple cultures. As we don't have example of Tokihiro in Latin, it may be treated as indeclinable and her name registered as Anna filia Tokihiro. Similarly, if Tokihiro's brother and nephew decide to register Johannes and Georgius respectively while denoting their relationship to Tokihiro they could register Johannes frater Tokihiro and Georgius nepos Tokihiro.

🔗3. Relationship Bynames in Original Language

There are a number of names that were previously registerable but have become unregisterable, or only registerable in a different language, as our knowledge has improved. These names can be registered following the grammar of the language they were considered when registered assuming that they are compatible with the new name being registered.

For example, pre-2009 a gentleman registered the given name Ian with the Middle Irish byname mac Gadhra. The Ian element has been since redocumented as a grey period English masculine given name through FamilySearch records. His daughter, however, wants to register a multi-generational Gaelic name and be Oébfinn ingen Iain mhic Gadhra. Treating the element Ian as Gaelic rather than English means it would be in the genitive case but not lenite, and the modification of grammar for the multigenerational byname (mac to mhic) would be permitted using the exception in PN1B2g.

For example, suppose the daughter of a woman named Eowyn wants to register the name Elizabeth and mark herself in English as Eowyn's daughter. The submitter does not want to use an unmarked matronymic, even though Elizabeth Eowyn would be permitted. Because the submitter intends to have an English name, and Eowyn was registered as an Old English name, Eowyn can be treated as English and we would therefore register Elizabeth Eowynsdohter.

🔗4. Relationship Bynames in Different Languages

Registered names are considered neutral in time and place; therefore, relationship bynames can be formed in one language from a name registered based on a different language. In many cases it is possible to simply add the appropriate marker to the registered name to create the relationship byname.

For example, a woman wishes to include the registered name of her husband Cedric in her name but wants to be Taisiia as her persona is Russian. As Wickenden's A Dictionary of Period Russian Names tells us that one way a spousal byname in Russian would have been formed is by adding -skaia to the given name, an option for her would be Taisiia Cedricskaia. She could not, however, register Taisiia Cedricskona, as that spousal byname construction is Old Norse (and neither Taisiia nor Cedric is Old Norse).

For example, Lórien has a son who wants to go by the Old Norse name Flosi and wants to be known as Lórien's son. Since Lórien is not an Old Norse name the matronymic may be created by adding -s, so the name can be registered as Flosi Lóriensson. Similarly, in 1979 we registered the given name Strider. Say his hypothetical wife finally wants to register her name, and she wants to be Inga, wife of Strider. She could register Inga Striderskona, using the attested construction for a spousal byname in Old Norse.

For example, the mother of someone with the registered name of Olaff wishes to be known by the Arabic name Maryam and as the mother of Olaff. Following the examples in Da'ud ibn Auda's Period Arabic Names and Naming Practice she may construct the name using the kunya pattern umm <child's name> which would result in the name Umm Olaff Maryam ("the mother of Olaff, Maryam").

For example, Welsh has a pattern of ap <given name> or verch <given name>. Thus the daughter of a registered Da'ud who wishes the Welsh given name Jenett may register Jenett verch Da'ud.

🔗5. Gender Change in the Same Language

a. If a submitter has a gendered byname (a byname that must or may change to match the given name) registered and changes the gender of their registered name, they may change the gender of the byname following the normal rules of the language even if the name is no longer registerable.

For example, say someone registered the name Tofi Durinsson when such things were permissible, and now they wish to change their registered name to Tofa Durinsdottir. ERA allows them to keep the element Durin in a Norse name despite its redocumentation as a French literary name and simply modify the remainder of the name to match the now feminine given name.

b. If a submitter wishes to register a gendered byname through the ERA and the language sometimes marks the gender of a byname and sometimes doesn't, they may register either version.

For example, a hypothetical Marie la broderresse ("the embroiderer") wishes to use the byname via ERA with the Arabic Da'ud. The masculine form of the byname is le brodeeur, allowing the registration of Da'ud le brodeeur. If a hypothetical Jean le brodeeur wished to register the given name Áine they may register either Áine le brodeeur or Áine la broderresse, using ERA to combine a Gaelic given name with a French byname (a combination not normally allowed).