Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane

P

Pall

[A pall hummetty, each arm terminating in a unicorn’s head and the upper arms elongated and fretted] The pall not only violated the ancient ban on knotwork, but could not be reconstructed from the blazon, ingenious as it was. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 21)

[Argent, two gussets gules vs. Gules, a pall argent] Regrettably, this is in conflict.... The removal of the inverted triangular portion of the field from the top of the device does not create enough visual difference to carry the two devices truly clear. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 17)

Paly

Pawprints/Footprints

While footprints have been registered in the past, all have been more or less identifiable as such. There was a general feeling that buffalo hoofprints were not identifiable enough (even as being hoofprints) to be used as a charge in the Society. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 10)

[The secondary charges] are not identifiable as bird’s footprints (we are dubious whether anything could be): a significant proportion of the commentors and Laurel staff thought they were caltraps before the blazon was read. (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 10) (See also: LoAR 24 May 87, p. 12)

[Wolf’s pawprint v. bear’s pawprint] No difference can be derived from the change in kind of pawprint. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 11)

We shall continue to register submissions containing pawprints for Society use. (CL 13 May 90, p. 2) (See also: LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 13; LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 7)

Permission

The stated verbal permission [to conflict] means nothing: the motto of the College of Arms is "Non scripta, non est". (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 19)

The addition of the bordure, which is a standard cadency mark, to a badge which was substantially the same seemed to demand a letter of permission. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 11)

Permission to conflict was granted by [Name].... Technically there is enough difference between the two devices ... but there is no arguing that the two devices are close enough visually that the permission to conflict made everyone a little more comfortable. (LoAR 15 Jan 89, p. 9)

Pheon

The primary charge ... was not a pheon: a properly drawn pheon would not allow space for any rounded [tertiary] charge such as the blasted tree. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 12)

Piercing

Pile

What is drawn ... is neither a proper pile inverted nor a field per chevron nor a true point pointed. If it were drawn properly as a pile inverted, there would not be space for the [charge] in chief. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 20) (See also: LoAR 24 Dec 88, p. 16; LoAR 26 Feb 89 p. 19; LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 40)

[Two piles issuant from base, fimbriated] Blazoned with two piles, they [are] neither truly voided nor truly fimbriated and, in either case, constituted "thin line heraldry". (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 21)

Note that, when piles meet in point, they tend to be diminished in length, even in period heraldry. (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 7)

It would be better style by far if there were not two different types of charge in two different tinctures on the pile. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 15)

[Three piles issuant from sinister] This is also a direct visual conflict with [Name]...: the period depiction of the per pale indented field showed large indentations reaching nearly to the edges of the shield such as appear here. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 17)

There is a long-standing precedent in the College for banning charges, including laurel wreaths, below piles on the grounds that a properly drawn period pile would not allow space for another charge to rest, in whole or in part, below the pile. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 19)

Point

What is drawn ... is neither a proper pile inverted nor a field per chevron nor a true point pointed.... If properly drawn as a point pointed, there would be inadequate space for the three [tertiary charges] in pale. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 20)

[Argent, a point pointed sable] In appearance this is a variant of a field "per chevron argent and sable". (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 19)

Visually the sable point on the field is identical to a field "per chevron abased" and thus no more than a minor point can be derived from this. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 8)

The default point in base is centered and contributes to the balance of the design rather than unbalancing it, as does this [dexter] point.... Granted that certain other unbalancing charges (most notably the charged gore) crept into Society heraldry in the past, we see no reason to allow the inherently unbalanced charged dexter (or sinister) point. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 20)

Point-and-a-Half Rule

Flaunches are by definition visually more complex than a bordure or chief so that the fact that one set of flaunches is charged detracts from the simplicity enough that the "Point and a Half Rule" cannot apply. (LoAR 26 Mar 89, p. 17)

Policy

General Statement: The Laurel Office cannot be a judge of political correctness. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 2)

In the Society badges are - or should be - used to identify the individual, not the other way around. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 27)

We do not legislate persona. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 6)

The stated verbal permission [to conflict] means nothing: the motto of the College of Arms is "Non scripta, non est". (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 19)

Whenever clarity and elegance conflict, elegance and/or brevity must be sacrificed. Note that elegance includes brevity, lack of reduplication, inclusion of allusions and cants, all those elements that make for "style" in blazon. We should value them highly, but in our search for the most elegant turn of phrase we cannot lose sight of the fact that elegance is secondary [to the] primary goal of blazon: to describe the emblazon correctly. (CL 18 May 87, pp. 2-3)

It is not only the right but the duty of Laurel to use the best information available. If that information has not been made available for one reason or another through commentary in the College, then it should be my right to go further afield, for example, to use my knowledge of languages or my library to support a name (or refute it). If the right to use expertise from whatever source, whether it has appeared in a letter of commentary or not, is denied, then the position of Laurel becomes merely that of a collator of letters requiring no expertise (and indeed expertise then becomes a handicap!).... I feel that I am robbing the College and the Society if I do not put the same expertise at their disposal as Laurel as I did as a commenting herald. (CL 18 May 87, pp. 3-4)

It was specifically asked "whether this is a valid application of the principle that occasionally two large minors may be sufficient to clear a conflict with mundane arms." The phrasing here implies that such a principle has and should be accepted by the Laurel Office and the College of Arms. It has not been and should not be. If the principle is not valid then the question of an application of the principle is moot. (LoAR 14 Jun 87, p. 6)

We register the emblazon, not the blazon. The only conclusion to be drawn from the carefully drawn emblazon provided by the submittors was that they desired, not [charge] proper, but [charge] Or. This was not a situation where confusion might be attributed to incompetence on the part of the artist or confusion on the part of the submittor. (LoAR 14 Jun 87, p. 7) (See also: LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 18; LoAR 24 Jan 88, p. 6)

We must draw our general rules from the common usage, not the anomaly. (LoAR Aug 87, pp. 15-16)

No Principal Herald or subordinate shall require a self-addressed stamped envelope as a requirement for making a valid submission. Submittors may be requested or required to notify the appropriate heraldic officer at the Kingdom level of any address change after the original submission is made, but further processing of a submission shall not be made conditional upon the fulfillment of such a requirement. (CL 30 Nov 87, p. 2)

It shall be the responsibility of the Principal Herald of each Kingdom, either directly or through a designated deputy, to send out a properly researched letter of intent to the College of Arms at least every other month. This requirement of one letter in each sixty day period is a minimum; issuance of letters on a monthly basis is strongly encouraged to ensure the timely consideration of all submissions by the College of Arms. (CL 31 Jan 88, p. 2)

In some cases, pointing out the duty of the peerage in general and the Crown in particular to set a good example for the populace may have some effect: try and get the Crown to see that their actions foster a general disregard for the rules of heraldry as much as it would foster a disregard for the Rules of the List, if they fought at a War with patently illegal armour or persistently "rhinohided" (note: only use this approach if the Crown does not use illegal armour or fail to take blows!).

It is [the heralds’] responsibility to persuade all concerned that "official" entities should be official, i.e., registered. Point out that nothing is protected from use elsewhere, if it is not registered. If this does not work, [point out] that unregistered (and unregisterable) names or badges may cause problems for those who receive the awards if they go to another kingdom.

We do not expect that persuasions by heralds (or anyone else) will resolve all cases where the Crown acts in contravention of our heraldic rules. However, with adequate explanation to the Crown and populace of the rationale behind those rules and the decisions made based on them, the number of "flagrant examples" can be reduced to a minimum and, hopefully, the general damage done to the period ambience of the Society by those examples can be mitigated. (CL 17 Mar 88, p. 4)

The Board of Directors at its January meeting has ... decided that the College may not be compelled to register that which is in violation of its existing rules. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 11)

We foster period heraldry which demands identifiability at a distance, not the "bookplate heraldry" of the Tudor period and later. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 13) (See also: LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 27; LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 20)

On a case by case basis objects and/or usages which are first documented after 1600, but may be legitimately supposed to have existed before that date may be granted some "extra slack". A classical case of this would be a name for which the earliest documentation is a marriage record of 1608: it may be supposed that the person who bore that name was born before the turn of the century! (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 14)

Charges maintained by a beast are normally tertiary charges at best (some must be considered negligible in counting conflict) and thus worth at most a minor point of difference. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 8)

[Submission for registration of a badge for an office for which there is a badge for the office at a Society-wide level] The restriction on the use of subsidiary insignia is a very old one. It is mentioned in correspondence by Ioseph of Locksley at the very beginning of his tenure as Laurel as a given so we must assume it to have been traditional prior to 1973.... [This restriction] is clearly based on logic and common sense: the need for insignia which would be readily identifiable on an interkingdom level must have been obvious as soon as there was more than one kingdom in the Society. The common sense of this restriction holds true even more today, when there are twelve kingdoms. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 8)

Laurel tries very hard not to play favourites.... It has been a central tenet of this "administration" that who a person is is immaterial: it is the submission’s content and documentation that is considered.... We have tried to maintain consistency and equity, even when the clamour on both sides has been the greatest.

What we have not been able to do, however, is block out human error. Even were the Laurel Office of the Papacy of the Society as it is sometimes termed, we would have doubts concerning claiming infallibility. As it is, we are all too conscious of the mistakes that can be made.

In this case, we goofed. We missed the comment ... which called the conflict.... Since Society heraldry has had a long-standing policy of protecting registration, even when it has been demonstrated to have been made in error, we can do nothing substantial to rectify this situation.

We do apologise.... We can do no more. (CL, 8 Aug 88, p. 1)

It is important to consider why we protect the names of famous personages and historical figures in the Society. It is certainly not because they are likely to complain about the infringement, since many are long centuries dead. Rather it is to protect our membership against offense or disturbance which might be caused by someone assuming the persona of an actual historical figure. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 18)

Alternative blazons cannot be considered at Laurel level. (LoAR Aug 88, p. 22)

The name was registered in December, 1987, not 1988, as stated on the letter of intent (... Even when we are ahead of ourselves on paperwork, we aren’t that far ahead!). (LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 7)

Any proposed alternate title must be submitted as a "line item" in a letter of intent with the same requirements for forms and documentation that are imposed for names. In the interests of equity, no fee will be charged, but the Principal Herald must include the title as a submission. (CL 7 May 89, p. 5)

The character, real or rumoured, of the group of submittors is irrelevant to the submission. They deserve precisely the same treatment as any other group submitting a household name and badge. The converse of this is that they must be held to the same standards. (LoAR 26 Mar 89, p. 22)

The style we strive for is that of an earlier period when heraldry was actually used for identification, not book plates and carriage embellishments. This is the underlying principle behind the ban on complexity and the requirements for contrast. (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 10)

As has frequently been noted before, not all items documented in period are suitable for heraldic charges. (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 10)

Since no emblazon was submitted with the letter of intent so that the commentors could not judge the accuracy of the blazon ... when checking for conflict, this must be returned.... The commentors must have an emblazon ... before they can comment adequately. (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 14)

Since no group was specified on her forms, we had to use the Kingdom for designation in the holding name (the Laurel staff cannot make guesses based on home address!). (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 2)

The submittor indicated on her forms her desire to allow her husband or daughter to have her device if she died or went inactive. If she plans to go inactive, she must file a transfer to a specific individual. If she wishes, she may file a copy of her "heraldic will" with the [Principal Herald’s] Office and the Laurel Office to take effect in the event of her death, but the heir must be specified as a specific individual by name. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, pp. 2-3)

"Typos" are more than possible even in hand-written documents, as any palaeographer will assure you. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 11)

It is heartbreaking to have to return something on technical grammatical ground like this, when it could be fixed by adding an accent and a silent "e", simply because the forms forbid any changes. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 14)

We do not by tradition ban anachronistic names. (When a Viking can sit next to an Elizabethan lady at high table, it would probably be a futile effort.) (LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 3)

Tradition and Laurel precedent dictate, for example, that regalia earned in one kingdom may be worn in another, even if the second kingdom does not recognise that insignia (for example, viscomital coronets). (CL 24 Nov 89, p. 6)

The submission was depicted on the emblazon forms and in the letter of intent on a round shield, causing much confusion to the commentors. While the submittor may display his submission on any shape shield he likes, the processing heralds should be sure to use the standard heater or lozenge for all device submissions to avoid such problems. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 25)

Under Corpora and long-standing Board [of Directors] ruling Shires may not register Order names or armoury. Merely attributing the Shire’s Order to the Kingdom on the letter of intent does not change this restriction. It is clear from the forms that this is intended as an order for the use of the Shire. Therefore, for it to be registered as a Kingdom Order, we would have to have some evidence that it was indeed to be reserved to the kingdom and given out by the Crown. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 34)

Seventeen years is a long time for a single individual to have used a device and we understand his attachment to it. However, while we sympathize with the submittor’s affection for the design and his long use of it, we cannot feel that long-time unregistered use of a name or device automatically proves its compatibility with the standards of our Society...: that would undermine the very point of registration by the College of Arms and the attempt to create Society-wide standards for armoury.... Use alone does not make an item acceptable any more than the rank of the submittor does. If they did, the very underpinnings of equitable registration of submissions, used since the early days of the Society, would be in question. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, pp. 41-42

Strictly speaking, we cannot let our own goofs set precedent. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 14)

[The submitting herald] is correct when he notes that later period heraldry did place ermine on Or or, more commonly, Or on ermine. Most of the examples cited were granted or confirmed or appeared in rolls from the Tudor period and there is some doubt as to whether the use of ermined furs as a generally neutral colour was all that common in period. Be that as it may, long since the College of Arms decided that the interests of the Society, particularly its need for heraldry recognisable in battle conditions in poor weather or across a large encampment required somewhat higher standards of contrast than prevail in contemporary mundane heraldry. This decision was reviewed and discussed at some length in the course of the rules discussion and there was considerable support for strengthening the requirements for contrast, not weakening them. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 24)

The documentation for the appeal includes a resubmission of the lengthy persona story to which the submittor is clearly very attached, but persona stories are irrelevant to registration. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 26)

I would use as the rule of thumb for determining the validity of registering a badge whether there was a national officer for the kingdom office who had the right of warranting directly with the Crown, without intervention of any other kingdom office. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 6)

As we do not consider alternatives at the Laurel level, the mention of an alternative badge is somewhat superfluous. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 16)

Herald’s titles are registered by the Society without any rank, with the rank determined by the kingdom to which the title is registered. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 22)

There is a long-standing precedent, preserved in the new administrative regulations, banning the registration of badges for subsidiary offices when a badge/seal exists for the primary office. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 22)

As the submittor specifically forbade the formation of a holding name, we have to return the device submission as well. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 23)

The letter of intent indicated that the submission was being sent up even though the name was illegal in order to protect the armoury. This is technically using a "holding name" as a place marker on the submission and is against the administrative rules of the College: holding names are allowed only at Laurel level. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 21)

The submittor did not offer new evidence on this point (which means that this was not a valid appeal). (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 1)

This was shown as on the letter of intent as a new name in conjunction with a transfer of her tinctureless badge to her new persona. This is incorrect and could have confused armorial.... Such transactions must be labelled as a change. When such a change is made, all armoury attached to the previous name will automatically be transferred to the new name unless specifically accompanied by a request for release or additional change. (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 2)

While the principle that a plain (i.e., undivided) tinctured field was not protected was written into the old rules, this principle existed by precedent long before it was added to the rules. We do not feel that this precedent has been voided by the new rules. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 6)

It is unfair to the submittor to prevent registration of a valid submission pending action on another submission [by the same submittor] which may be invalid. If this policy were to be followed as a general rule, we would not act on any device or name if a letter for change of that submission were received prior to the point at which the earlier submission was scheduled to be considered. In some cases, this could result in passage of conflicting armoury/names in the interval before the change was considered. If the change were not then accepted, the submittor would lose both ways. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 10)

As only at the Laurel level are holding names permitted, passing the submittor’s armoury under the submitted name would mean that the submittor would be required to pay for a name change at Laurel level. This is not fair to the submittor.... As there was no name submission for the College to consider, we could not [pend the otherwise acceptable device and the name for the consideration of the College]. [Device returned for lack of name] (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 14)

Any order name or heraldic title which appears on the list of awards and titles or the list of heraldic titles which appears in the 1987 edition of the Armorial and Ordinary published by Free Trumpet Press under the auspices of the Laurel Office shall be considered to be registered for the purposes of section A of the passages on protection in the Administrative Handbook. Any item which does not otherwise appear in Laurel correspondence shall be considered to have an acceptance date of August 1, 1987. (CL, 31 Jul 90, p. 2)

Given the popularity of D & D in the Society, we feel that we really must protect these entities. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 14)

Position

As the change in position [of the secondary charges] derives entirely from the change in type of primary charge, there is only one difference: the change in type of primary charge. (LoAR 21 Jan 90, p. 17)

The radical and clear-cut difference in position for a primary charge to a position definitely in sinister canton must be considered [a] difference. (Note that, as under the old rules, such positional changes must be considered on a case by case basis as they can be affected by the presence of other charges and other design elements.) (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 3)

In point of fact, the [charges] are not totally abased from the normal position for such charges and so no difference can be derived from the change in position. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 14)

Posture

There is ... only a minor point [of difference] for the type of tertiary, since the change of posture is derived from the change in type of charge. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 24)

The position of the bird was blazoned originally as volant, but the posture of the wings, body and legs is clearly much closer to that which we associate with "striking". (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 12)

It might be suggested to the submittor that the style and posture of the human figure [courant] is not really period. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 15)

Courant is only a minor point of difference from passant (Determination of Difference, p. 2, under posture). (LoAR 24 May 87, p. 15)

The position of the [monster’s] tail must be specified since it is not the norm. (LoAR 14 Jun 87, p. 2)

[Beast statant erect] The beast is not truly salient, as blazoned on the letter of intent, since its spine is in a perfectly perpendicular position. (LoAR Jul 88, p. 15)

[The principal herald] has argued that a "properly drawn" pegasus volant will have the body essentially horizontal while the same beast rampant has the body essentially vertical. Unfortunately, there is no standard default depiction for monsters volant in the Society (the issue tends not to arise in mundane heraldry!) and the body position tends to vary somewhat. [LoAR July 88, p. 20)

Only one major point of difference can be derived from the cumulative changes of posture. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 27)

There is difference for type of primary charge and another for position of primary charge here.... While posture is not generally counted between dissimilar items (e.g., a flower and a deer) in this case, the [dolphin] could be (at least in Society heraldry!) in a posture directly analogous to that of the [bird] displayed, if it were affronty. Since it is not, an additional difference for posture may be derived. (This is analogous to counting one difference for a charge being a horse, not a bird, and another for its being to dexter rather than to sinister, which we have fairly frequently done in the past.) (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 8)

Precedent

Since they seem to have been used exclusively as royal badges, sunbursts with rays Or may not be used in Society heraldry. Sunbursts of other colours may be used freely. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 6)

The original submission of the name change [to "Thorin [patronymic]"] was returned because the name Thorin was held by Laurel to be an exclusively dwarven name both in Tolkien and in Norse myth and therefore not eligible for use in the Society. The submittor has presented an impressive array of arguments in support of his position that the name is in fact compatible with the period ambience which we are trying to create and that the bulk of the populace would not (and in fact do not) feel that he was claiming dwarven descent by using the name. Taken by themselves, they add only plausibility to the argument that the name could have been used in period for a human. The existence of the Irish patronymic form "O Torain" cited by MacLysaght (Surnames of Ireland, p. 288), which would derive from a nominative form of "Torin" argues that it was actually used. Therefore, acceptance of this name should not be taken as a general precedent for non-human names in the Society. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 2)

For the purposes of AR2c, where it is stated that "in simple cases only, a party field tinctured either all dark or all light may use a complex line of partition", a simple case shall be defined as follows:

1. No charge shall significantly obscure the line of division.

2. The line of division shall be one of those specified in AR2a, i.e., shall divide the field into no more than four parts.

3. Where two colours are involved, they must be of sufficient contrast, i.e., must be a combination of gules with sable, vert or azure. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, pp. 2, 10-11) (See also: LoAR 28 Jun 87, p. 2)

Any period form of anchor, including the curved-arm, barbed ancient or straight-armed form, may be used in Society heraldry. (CL 7 Dec 86, p. 3)

By tradition, "a sword is a sword" when counting difference. (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 17)

Cross-gender names are so well-established a tradition in the Society that it would be pedantic to object that the byname is masculine in form. However, ... Gaelic would normally demand the feminine form of the byname. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 7)

NOTE: We considered at some length whether it would be proper to issue a general ruling rescinding the current ruling which makes fields divided of [an] even number of pallets or bars "neutral" where an odd number is not. After drawing up several examples of fields divided evenly and unevenly, it became clear that contrast of overlying ordinaries such as chiefs and bordures of the same class as the dominant tincture (i.e., the one with an even number of ordinaries on an uneven field) is considerably poorer when the field is unevenly divided. The distinction between the neutral field evenly divided and the "field plus ordinaries" which is unevenly divided is drawn from mundane heraldic tradition. It is, however, applied with far less vigor since the charges which come into conflict with the Rule of Tincture in the Society because of the distinction (the chief and the bordure) are largely exempt from that restriction in mundane heraldry. Our conclusion was that it would not be feasible to drop the even-uneven distinction at this time without also modifying Society practice with regard to a chief or a bordure to follow mundane precedent. We are not prepared to do that at this time. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 9)

We still have major objections, personal and institutional, to pawprints as heraldic charges, but the Society precedent in their favour is strong. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 13)

While "plain fields" are specifically not protected from conflict furs are not, strictly speaking, a plain field but a specialized form of semy and there is precedence for protecting famous seme fields (e.g., France).... In reviewing this issue, we considered how ermine fields simply charged had been treated in the past and were forced to the inescapable conclusion that Society tradition does not protect the ermine field of Brittany unless it appears in the context of quartering or attached to a name which is strongly redolent of Brittany. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 2)

Note that solid evidence for the use of the form Lucina as a given name in period was derived from Withycombe (p. 200, under Lucy). It should not be taken as precedent for the use of the names of stars as given names in the Society. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 14)

By long-standing Society precedent, a name which appears so close to Rhiannon, whether it is derived from it or not, cannot really be used with a unicorn or horse as an element of the related armory. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 22)

[A rose overall Or, slipped and leaved vert] It might be argued that in this case the slipping and leaving are non-trivial and should be required to obey AR4 which dictates that charges overall should be required to have adequate contrast with the field.... However, in this case, ... we elect to allow an exception as specifically provided for in AR4. This exception is peculiar to this submission and should not be taken as setting any general precedents. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 7)

Note that acceptance of the given name [Tezar] should not be taken as a precedent. It is not compatible with either of the languages which could be taken to be the primary language (i.e., Latin or Greek) and has dubious linguistic support. However, since Master Baldwin specifically promised to accept the name, we feel bound to honour that promise. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 4)

Both my predecessors have with great consistency upheld the rule that both elements of a patronymic name must be derived from the same language or a language combination that would demonstrably have occurred (e.g., "mac" plus an English given name form in the Lowlands of Scotland). (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 19)

In view of its strong suggestiveness of a "Hand of Glory", a hand appaumy or averse enflamed may not be used as a charge in Society heraldry. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 9)

The wave crest has, by consensus of the College, been barred from general use in Society heraldry since 1983. Given the strong feeling on the part of the commentors that this usage is not acceptable style and the lack of indication of period usage in the citation from Woodward..., there seems no reason to change this precedent. (LoAR 14 Jun 87, p. 6)

By long-standing Society precedent braided knotwork is not permitted for Society armoury, however common it may be in Society artwork. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 12)

Wavy crested is an out-of-period construct. It was first banned as a line of division by Laurel in 1976. This ban was confirmed by a different Laurel in 1983. Neither the College nor Laurel sees any reason to change that restriction. (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 13)

As an ordinary wreathed of one colour (or "cabled", as the original blazon had it) has previously been disallowed (February, 1985), we have substituted an orle invected: any interior diapering would not contribute difference in any case. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 6)

Society precedent indicates that complete difference of charge cannot exist between two quadrupeds. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 10)

As long ago as July, 1980, it was ruled that the use of ordinaries cut off by the quartered division would create the presumption of quartering and thus compel return of a device. (LoAR Aug 87, p. 11)

Although we are inclined to feel that the precedent ... (by which an armorial item was returned for conflict with a crest) is not necessarily a desirable one, under the current order this does conflict with the crest of [English Earl]. [Device returned] (LoAR 31 Oct 87, p. 11)

It has previously been ruled that translations of such generic names as these [Riversmeet, Aberafonydd] may be registered if the group with which it conflicts [by translation] gives permission. (LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 11)

Although [the principal herald] blazoned the gussets as "debased", long Society precedent indicates there is no such heraldic charge (gussets themselves are a bit controversial as a period charge). (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 19)

The established precedent for pawprints as a Society charge require[s] that [they] be registered. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 7)

We have long since held that registrations made in error, while protected, do not create a precedent. (LoAR Jun 88, p. 17)

There is overwhelming precedent for allowing spouses and children of those with registered bynames to use those bynames, even if they are no longer "legal". (LoAR Aug 88, p. 15)

Symbols associated mundanely with the medical profession are restricted to those with appropriate mundane medical qualifications, i.e., medical doctors, registered nurses and mundanely qualified emergency medical technicians. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, pp. 5-6)

The field treatment "honeycombed", consisting of a variation on masoning in which the "cells" are equilateral hexagons, as in a honeycomb seen edge on, is hereby accepted for use in the Society. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 8)

Effective immediately, the registration of a household name will not carry protection against infringement by others who may, through use of the name in their personal names, claim to be members of the household. Household names will continue to be protected against infringement by the names of official groups, orders, heraldic titles, other household names, etc. For example, the name of House Smith would not prevent registration of the name Peter Smith, but would prevent registration of House Green Smith, the Order of the Iron Smith and the title of Poor Smith Herald. (CL 20 May 89, p. 6)

PRECEDENT: For the purposes of the rule on Armorial Identifiability, any ordinary placed at the center of the shield (e.g., a pale, pall, bend, fess, etc.) may be fimbriated, even if it uses a complex line of division, provided that the identifiability of the charge and the line of division are not significantly reduced by the voiding or fimbriation or any other element of the design (e.g., the placement of superimposed charges). (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 23)

Strictly speaking, we cannot let our own goofs set precedent. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 14)

We shall continue to register submissions containing pawprints for Society use. (CL 13 May 90, p. 2)

It is certainly a possibility to consider that the phrase "alone on the field" should be taken literally in the new rules and the significant difference of charge license apply even where the primary charges are themselves charged.... After much wrestling with this issue, we have come to the conclusion that the letter of the law in this case is also the spirit of the law and thus section X.2 [Difference of Primary Charges rule] of the new rules can apply to charged primaries. However, it must be stressed that the tertiary charges cannot significantly diminish the identifiability of the primaries in each case (by definition, both must be charged or else the two coats would be clear under the new rules). Also, it is presumed that the "visual conflict" rule may apply in cases such as that cited above where charges of the same type and tincture are modified with no other modifications. (LoAR 29 Apr 90, p. 5)

Pre-existing precedents are not rescinded by issuance of the new rules unless they are specifically contravened by the new rules. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 18)

Presumption

[The submittor’s] last submission, although returned on other grounds, came perilously close to infringing on the arms of Struan Robertson (it was submitted under the name Robert Struanson). If I may quote [one commenter], "Now we have Robert...macDuncan...and a device which is a major-plus-minor from both Duncan and from Robertson. This is compounded by the fact that the Duncan/Duncanson families are related to the Robertson clan, as evidenced by the similarity of their coats; the Duncans also use the Robertson tartan....This is too much to ask of coincidence; in my opinion, the submittor is trying, by his choice of name and device, to lay claim to a specific mundane coat." The name and device together constitute infringement. To pass the name, we have returned the device. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 12)

[Ekaterina Petrovna (Surname)] The consensus was that ... the conjunction of the names Catherine and Peter in a Russian context were arguably "too much". Taken with the double-headed eagle sable, used by both the Holy Roman Empire and the Russian Empire as symbol of their being the "New Rome", it becomes definitely "too much". In order to pass the device, the patronymic has been dropped. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 6)

[Elffin of Mona] There was a general nervousness about this name. Many felt that the given name combined with a device that was strongly reminiscent of the heirs of Elendil would be offensive to many. Even more worrisome to the Laurel staff was the fact the Elffin is the name of the individual whom Welsh myth claims plucked the infant Taliesin from the sea, Taliesin who becomes a byword in literature for Druidic knowledge, knowledge particularly associated with the isle of Anglesey (Mona), last stronghold of the Druids. The name itself, which caused some twitches, becomes intolerable in the context of the oak tree under the "summer stars". Giving the submittor the benefit of the doubt on intent, we have compromised by accepting the name and returning the device. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, p. 6)

[Quarterly sable and gules, three lions dormant in pale within a bordure Or] The closeness [of] this device to the arms of the English royal family, particularly several of the cadet branches which used a bordure for difference, made many in the College rather uncomfortable and any redesign should attempt to diminish the strong visual suggestion of England here. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 25)

The precedent in this case appears to be the badge of Albert von Drechenveldt which was returned in December, 1985, for appearing to be a "no outhouses" symbol. Since the tincture of the ordinaries in that case was Or, evidently the use of gules is not a consideration. Not also that in the Discouraged practices section (X3) merely specified "the bend-plus-bordure ‘no X’ motif". That this is a design that well could have existed in period (and show cadency from a family [arms]) is rendered irrelevant by the problems raised by the essentially twentieth-century perceptions of the majority of the membership. My feeling, however, is that rendering the bend and bordure in different tinctures would remove the visual suggestion of the "no [charges]" sign and thus resolve the problem. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 29)

[(Name) Son of (Tree)] This implied too strongly that he was claiming to be the son of a tree so we have simplified the byname to "of the [Tree]", as suggested by several commenters. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 9)

[(Name) Chastellain l’Angevine] While Chastellain by itself was a not uncommon occupational surname by the end of our period, in conjunction with "Angevin" it struck us as a bit presumptuous. Those in the College long enough to recall the lists of dynastic names compiled in the tenure of Master Wilhelm will recall that the Angevin dynasty of England (as some historians prefer to refer to the early Plantagenets) played no small role. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 9)

For good or ill, Society tradition has protected the names of mundane kings and regnant princes as being "important" by definition. To say that Pictish kings collectively or individually were less important than, for example, Richard the Lionheart or Frederick Barbarossa may well be true, but it does not change the ban on conflicting with their names.... In this instance, where the only examples of the given name offered were Pictish kings, we are compelled to take the conservative line. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 18)

As one may not combine the White Rose of York and the name of York, it is forbidden to combine the Red Rose of Lancaster with the use of the name Lancaster. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 21)

It ... seems necessary to correct a misapprehension in the Letter of Intent where it was stated that "a priory, unlike its parent abbey, has no territory jurisdiction..." We could go on for hours on this subject [and have been known to!] but will quote one of the briefer sources: "An abbey is a monastery whose head was a monk with the rank of abbot... A priory was ruled by a prior. In purpose and function, in number of monks and size of buildings there need be no visible difference, although generally an abbey tends to be the larger establishment, suitable to the higher status of its superior, but this is not necessarily so. In the great monastic order of Cluny, for example, only the original house ... of that name was an abbey, all the offshoots or daughter-houses were priories, even though many exceeded abbeys fo other orders in size, wealth and importance." [Stewart Cruden, Scottish Abbeys: An Introduction to the medieval Abbeys and Priories of Scotland, p. 3] (LoAR 26 Jul 87, pp. 2-3)

The conjunction of the name Katherine and the black eagle of the Imperial Russian arms in the Russian languages was "too much". (LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 13)

The submittor states that the Campbells were actually lords of Lochow or of some other seat and not of Argyll. Unfortunately, her own documentation indicates that Sir Duncan Campbell of Lochow, created Lord Campbell in 1445 and chief of the clan, assumed the designation of Argyll. The use of the name Campbell of Argyll in modern mundane usage is tantamount to a claim of kinship with the chief and it will be so taken by the bulk of members of the Society, causing offense to some....

[The submittor] provides copious extracts from Burke to support the contention that members of the clan may use differenced versions of the chief’s arms. Unfortunately, the examples support the original contention of the College that the use of the clearly cadenced arms ... implies a claim to kinship with the head of the clan, which is not permitted. The general feeling of the College was that an allusion to the Campbell arms or badges might be permissible with the simple name Campbell, but that the arms differenced went beyond the differences required for what Scots heraldry charmingly calls a "stranger in blood". (LoAR Aug 87, pp. 15-16)

To take the arms of the Hohenzollerns ("Quarterly argent and sable") ..., and then effectively place dimidiated forms of the arms of the Hohenzollern rulers of Brandenburg and Prussia ("Argent, an eagle displayed gules" and "Argent, an eagle displayed sable", respectively) pushes the edges of acceptability. [Device registered] (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 3)

[FitzGerald] Given [the name], the arms become rather presumptuous.... They differ the well-documented period arms of FitzGerald primarily by adding a monkey, which is the crest added to those arms by the Earl of Leinster, head of the FitzGerald family. Taken with the name, this is a bit too much. (LoAR 18 Sep 88, p. 13)

[Order of the Long Rangers] While the commentors cringed a bit at the assonance, the consensus seemed to be that the name would be acceptable provided that no armoury was submitted with allusions to the Lone Ranger (e.g., masks, billets argent, etc.). (LoAR 30 Oct 88, p. 4)

You cannot be the son of a tree. (LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 6)

The arms of Farnese ("Or, six fleurs de lys azure.") deserve extra protection because they were a sovereign ruling house. (LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 9)

Neither "squire" nor "apprentice" nor "protege" is a title of rank. As the designation is not a title of rank, it cannot be restricted from use under then on use of titles in NR13. (LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 10)

The question ... arises whether Brandenburg itself was a dynastic name "within the meaning of the act". It does not appear to have been. (LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 11)

The conjunction of the lions rampant gules on an Or field (from the royal arms of Scotland), the thistle (the royal badge of Scotland), and the saltire azure on a metallic field (the St. Andrew’s flag) seemed more than a little excessive to us, particularly when conjoined to the surname of so many kings of Scotland [Stewart]. (LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 19)

While Isengrim, like Reynard, may have been used as a given name in period, the conjunction of the given name of the lupine archetype with a byname indicating a woodland origin appears to be too close to the legendary Isengrim for comfort. (LoAR 27 Nov 88, p. 21)

Uniting the boar’s head badge of the Campbell chiefs with their arms was overly presumptuous when taken into the context of the use of the Campbell surname. (LoAR 15 Jan 89, p. 12)

[Quarterly azure and azure, ermined, on a cross floretty engrailed between in bend two (beasts) heads jessant-de-lis, a cross floretty] This device pushes close to the limits of acceptability from the point of view of complexity and presumption, but falls just this side of disaster. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 9)

Laurel can recall telling a would-be submittor ... that if the Society only protected a dozen mundane insignia, [the insignia of the Knights of Malta] would be one of them. We see no reason to change our view now and feel that the original insignia of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem (better known as the knights of Malta) should be rendered the protection offered sovereign states for they certainly functioned as a sovereign entity for a significant part of their history, ruling first Rhodes and then Malta as de facto sovereign states. (LoAR 26 Feb 89, p. 19)

[Avram Moishe ha Cohen] When the name was fully translated into English forms from the transliterated Hebrew (Abraham Moses the High Priest), it caused major twitches which were transformed into major convulsions when the device which combines the colours associated with the Zionist movements and the two most recognizable symbols of the Jewish faith (the menorah and the Star of David). (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 15)

The use of the fleurs-de-lis in orle here on the azure field creates precisely the appearance of a field azure, semy-de-lis Or, upon which the [charge] has been placed. As this field is not permitted in the Society due to its close association with the royalty of France, the submission must be returned. (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 17)

Several of the commentors still felt uncomfortable with the use of Atalanta and a stag’s head. However, the bulk of opinion was that this did not pass the boundaries of presumption if this is the only allusion to the myth of Atalanta in the device. (LoAR 30 Apr 89, p. 17)

There was strong feeling in the College that the orle [flory counterflory] infringed on the royal tressure of Scotland. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 21)

[A sprig of peascods gules] While [it] is correct to note the defining usage of the planta genista in mundane heraldry in the vegetative badge of the Angevins which gave its name to the Plantagenet dynasty, the badge [there] seems to have been used in its proper tinctures and so would not conflict with this submission. (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 12)

Primary Charge

Primary charges should not be demoted when a charge is placed overall: in mundane usage it is the charge overall which is considered to have been added for cadency, just as are secondaries around the primary charge. The blazon represents the reality: the primary charge will remain the charge which lies closest to the center of the field in the plane closest to the field. Under certain circumstances, charges overall can be held to have equal weight, but this will not "demote" the original primary charge, if the two are drawn in proper proportion. (LoAR 26 Apr 87, p. 10)

The primary charges on both coats must be "themselves uncharged" for a major and minor point to be derived from the simple change of type of primary charge. (LoAR 19 Mar 88, p. 18)

It has long been our feeling that heralds can count above six, when necessary: most have ten fingers. Seriously, period sources blazon charges up to nine or ten fairly regularly when they are primary or secondary charges (as opposed to charges "semy" or tertiaries) and this should be permitted when the numbers are not excessive. (The numbers seven and nine appear particularly frequently, possibly because of numerological considerations.) (LoAR Aug 88, p. 12)

"Proper"

Antlers proper have been defined as "white or light yellow brown" (Wilhelm von Schlussel, 26 December, 1983). (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 11)

The [copper charges proper], whose default tincture must be heraldically Or. (LoAR 27 Sep 86, p. 14)

There is a precedent in Society usage for the unusual bordure with the device of [Name] ("[Tincture], a bordure of flames proper") (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 2)

Unfortunately, since the breed of wolf specified (the Alaskan tundra wolf), like all breeds which change colouration with the season, varies in tincture widely, there is no way of telling what "proper" should be. Therefore, we have blazoned the heads, as they were drawn on the emblazon, simply as "wolf’s heads argent".... (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 8)

Since human flesh [proper] is a "light" tincture, it has insufficient contrast with the argent field. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 19)

Since the ferret ... can exist in several colorations, it cannot be proper. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 20)

This device totters on the edge of acceptability: it strains at the proper use of proper (sic), with the beast-monster as well as the trees being proper. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 20)

The grape vine [proper] has insufficient contrast with the [gules] field: the brown vine and green leaves are almost invisible, although the grapes themselves, carefully placed on the [primary charge], show up reasonably well. If you consider the vine a major design element, the device must be returned for breaching the Rule of Tincture. (LoAR 25 Jan 87, p. 23)

Since the brideskold can appear in various tinctures and forms, there can be no "proper" and a specific form must be specified. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 18)

What appeared on the emblazon sheet were not flames proper. It was a base of flames Or, with the line of delineation from the field gules (it was not thick enough to call it fimbriation). This is an improper use of proper. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, pp. 15-16)

The mountain lion [proper] on the emblazon sheet is shown as a dark brown, but all our sources show the beast as a much lighter tincture that could only be blazoned as Or, so the cat would have insufficient contrast with the argent field. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 21)

Proper charges must always have "sufficient contrast" [with the field or charges they overlie]. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 24)

The "proper" tincture for a boar’s head is brown. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 2)

There is no true proper for bone: this would best be blazoned as argent. (LoAR 21 Feb 88, p. 13)

The primary criterion for determining whether a charge proper has sufficient contrast is the visibility of the portion of the charge which identifies it. (LoAR 23 Apr 88, p. 18)

[Or, two bottlenosed dolphins proper] The dolphins are grey (i.e., argent) which breaks tincture by being placed on the metal field. (LoAR 29 May 88, p. 20)

As a pell has no fixed form or material, it is difficult to see how it could be "proper". (We have seen modern and period exemplars made from various kinds of woods, with and without metal sheathing, from cloth and from metals, even - in the case of modern pells - plastics.) (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 11)

An acorn proper is defined as brown by both mundane and Society convention. (LoAR 30 Jul 89, p. 9)

The wing was blazoned on the letter of intent and the forms as proper and is in fact brown so it cannot be reblazoned in any heraldic tincture. If there had been any method of determining what sort of wing this was intended to be, we would have pended this for appropriate commentary and conflict-checking. However, the depiction of the wing is such that ... it was exceedingly unclear what type of wing this should be. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 25)

[Tambourine] The frame is dark wood and the "jingles" are argent which is usual for such things and may be covered by the terms "proper". (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 11)

Introduction and Index to Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane

Jump to Precedents main page
Jump to Laurel main page

maintained by Codex Herald
This page was last updated on $lastmod"; ?>