The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme
[Per bend sinister, an willow tree and an llama's head vs. Per bend sinister, an ash tree and a spearhead] In each device, the two charges form a single group of primaries. Changes are counted against the entire group: One cannot count a CD for a change to half a group, and another CD for the same category of change to the other half of the same group. Because both devices contain a tree, Rule X.2 does not apply; there is a single CD, for changing the types of charges of a single group. (Edward of Willowwood, July, 1992, pg. 22)
[Azure, two mullets of six lesser and six greater points and a swan naiant within a bordure argent] This conflicts with Iver of the Black Bow ...Azure, two estoiles and a unicorn's head cabossed, all within a bordure argent. Even granting difference between mullets and estoiles, I don't believe there is Substantial Difference as required by Rule X.2. There is thus a single CD, for type of primary charge group; we cannot grant a CD for type of half the group, and another CD for type of the other half of the same group. (Enid of Crickhollow, September, 1992, pg. 38)
[Per bend sinister, a lotus blossom in profile and a moose vs. Per bend sinister, an iris and a dove] There is a CD for type of primary charges, but because both armories contain a cup-shaped flower in dexter chief, we cannot grant Sufficient Difference of Charge per Rule X.2. (Simon Rodbeorhting, September, 1992, pg. 42)
Rule X.4.j.ii requires substantial difference of tertiaries to earn a CD; we would not grant substantial difference between mascles and rustres. The only differences to these tertiaries are tincture and the exact type of voiding --- which may be considered the change of quaternary charges. (Eric Alard, September, 1992, pg. 52)
[Three bear's heads erased] Rule X.2 applies between most types of beast head, just as it does between most types of beast. This is clear of such armories as [three buck's heads erased]. (Damon the Grim, October, 1992, pg. 1)
I count a Substantial Difference between a unicorn and a dragon; even when dormant, the dragon's wings are prominent (Joanna Sparhawke, October, 1992, pg. 2)
[A demi-drakkar couped palewise reversed vs. an antique galley] There's a CD for the change to the ship, but we can't see granting Sufficient Difference per Rule X.2; and as both the drakkar and the antique galley (i.e. lymphad) are nearly symmetrical charges, there's no difference for which half of the boat is cut away. (Lars Gilsson, October, 1992, pg. 26)
[A trillium flower vs. a rose] There is a CD for type of flower, but not the substantial difference required by Rule X.2. (Gwyneth MacAulay, October, 1992, pg. 29)
[A ram's head cabossed vs. a ox head cabbosed] There's ...a CD for the type of head. (Indeed, we'd say that Rule X.2 applies between an ox head and a ram's head. This is well clear.) (Riordan Robert MacGregor., December, 1992, pg. 5)
Just as I would grant Complete Difference of Charge between a griffin and a pegasus, so is there Complete Difference between a griffin and a winged beagle; the only thing they have in common are the wings. (Gwenhwyfar de Hwytinton, December, 1992, pg. 11)
We're willing to grant a CD between a bezant and a hawk's bell, although perhaps not Complete Difference of Charge. (Meurisse de Blois, January, 1993, pg. 20)
I find no evidence that an estoile and a comet are so distinct charges as to permit Rule X.2, the Sufficient Difference Rule, to apply between them. All my sources define the comet as a modified estoile: an estoile with a flaming tail appended. (Parker 130; Woodward 310; Franklyn & Tanner 82) Indeed, Lord Crescent notes examples from Papworth suggesting that the change from estoile to comet is a single cadency step: e.g. Waldock (Or, an estoile flaming [i.e. a comet] sable) and Waldeck (Or, an eight-pointed estoile sable). I am willing to grant a CD between the two charges, but I cannot see granting Sufficient Difference between them. (Styvyn Longshanks, January, 1993, pg. 34)
[Rule X.2 was changed; for the new wording see under ADMINISTRATIVE -- Rule Changes] (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pp. 2-3)
In cases [where a slipped and leaved flower consists primarily of the branch portion rather than the flower portion], I will register the plant as a branch with a flower. Moreover, I intend to grant a Substantial Difference (i.e., sufficient to invoke Rule X.2) between a branch (flowered or not) and a flower. Slipped flowers drawn with the flower dominant will still be considered negligibly different from a plain flower. Flowers whose slips are part of the definition (e.g., trefoil, thistle) will not get extra difference for the slip [for full discussion, see under BLAZON] (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pg. 7)
I would grant Substantial Difference between a human arm and a beast's jambe. (Caomh Beathan Crubach, June, 1993, pg. 13)
We don't grant Substantial Difference between an apple and a pear --- there's at best a CD between the two fruits, and one could argue negligible difference. (Dévora Risée de Apors, July, 1993, pg. 11)
[A tyger's head erased] Possible conflict was cited against [A wolf's head erased within a bordure rayonny]. There's a CD for the bordure; the question was raised on any difference between a wolf's head and a tyger's head. Rule X.4.e specifically grants a difference between a lion and a [heraldic] tyger; but even assuming the same between a wolf and a tyger, that doesn't necessarily require difference between their heads. (By analogy, we grant difference between a dragon and an eagle -- but none between a dragon's foot and an eagle's foot.) The heraldic tyger is described as "having ...the maned neck of a horse, and the head of a wolf, but the upper jaw develops into a frontal horn" ( Franklyn & Tanner 334); there's no way that the heads could be deemed Substantially Different, but I can see granting a CD for the frontal horn and the mane. (Laeghaire O Laverty, August, 1993, pg. 5)
We have hitherto granted no difference for type of ship [galley vs. longship] (Erik the Runt, June, 1992, pg. 4)
The dovetailed line is currently allowed, as compatible with period practice. We grant it no difference from embattled or raguly, however. (Ariel Giboul des Montagnes, July, 1992, pg. 4)
There is a CD between an oak tree and a pine tree. (Duncan Alaric MacDonald, July, 1992, pg. 6)
Urdy (or champaine) is a period line of division, meant to represent a line of palisades (and thus deriving from the same source as the line on the crown palisado). After some thought, we decided we had to grant a CD between it and embattled. (David Thames., July, 1992, pg. 11)
We agree there's a CD between a camel and an ypotril. (Guthfrith Yrlingsson, July, 1992, pg. 12)
There is indeed a CD between a cinquefoil and a shamrock. (Principality of Lochac, July, 1992, pg. 14)
A number of commenters complained about the common use of annulets on fieldless badges, comparing them to bordures on devices (and, in some comments, granting no difference from bordures). I agree that annulets are added to SCA badges for the same reason bordures are added to SCA devices: to provide a quick, easy CD that doesn't greatly change the central design. Beyond that, annulets and bordures are quite different charges: the annulet is always round, where the bordure follows the outline of the display surface. The background shows on both sides of the annulet (even a fieldless badge is usually set against some background), but only on the inside of the bordure. A design may have multiple annulets, but only one bordure. And so forth.
If someone can present evidence that the use of annulets encircling other charges is non-period design, we can discuss the issue again. But as far as conflicts are concerned, an annulet and a bordure are separate charges. (Neil Greenstone, July, 1992, pg. 14)
The main difference between a wolf and an enfield is in the front legs; when one of the beasts is holding a charge with those legs, it becomes impossible to tell the two creatures apart. We cannot give a second CD for type of primary here. (Briana ní Óda, July, 1992, pg. 17)
There's ...no difference between a multi-pointed mullet and a sun (Juliana Richenda Trevain, July, 1992, pg. 20)
[Four oak leaves in cross vs. four holly leaves conjoined in cross] We have hitherto granted a CD for type of a single leaf: oak leaf vs. maple leaf (Karl the Meek and Mild), or oak leaf vs. elm leaf (Siobhan O Riordain). But this is offset here by the identical motifs: the arrangement and conjoining in cross add to the visual similarity. [returned for visual conflict] (Anne Chavelle of Silver Oak, July, 1992, pg. 22)
I count no difference between hautboys and recorders (Jame the Heyree Harry's son, August, 1992, pg. 24)
I would grant a CD between a thistle and a pomegranate. (Magdalena Aeleis MacLellan, August, 1992, pg. 24)
[A pall Or fimbriated of flame vs. a pall Or] The complex fimbriation of the pall is worth no difference. (Theodric Alastair Wulfricson, August, 1992, pg. 29)
[A pall between <charges>] This conflicts with [a pall fimbriated of flame]. There's a CD for the secondary charges, but the fimbriation is worth no difference (Marian Loresinger, August, 1992, pg. 31)
[a cubit arm gauntleted vs. an arm embowed and armored] After comparing the emblazons, we really couldn't grant a difference between an armored cubit arm and an armored arm. (Deryk von Halberstadt, August, 1992, pg. 31)
Excepting ordinaries, there is no difference for drawing a charge throughout, or not. (Griffith Dragonlake, August, 1992, pg. 32)
[A pansy vs. an ivy blossom] Comparing the emblazons showed no visible difference in the shapes of the two flowers [thus there is not a CD for type]. (Catherine Elizabeth Anne Somerton, August, 1992, pg. 32)
[A pansy vs. a rose] I cannot grant another CD for type of flower in this case. It's true that flowers of genus Viola have three large petals and two small ones; but in the case of the pansy, the size change is very hard to see. The petals' shape is the same for pansies as heraldic roses. Pansies don't seem to have been used as charges in period, so I must fall back on visual difference; and I must rule that pansies and roses are too close to yield a CD.
The same arguments bring this clear of [a sunflower] and [a rue flower]. (Catherine Elizabeth Anne Somerton, August, 1992, pg. 32)
[On a mullet of four points a sea-lion vs. on a mullet a cross crosslet] Change of type only of tertiary charge is worth no difference, per Rule X.4.j; and we grant no difference between a mullet of four points and a mullet of five points.
The only way I might have called this clear was to redefine a mullet of four points as a type of cross; and if I could have found such a cross in period armory, I might have done so. But I saw no point in replacing an SCA variation of a period charge with another SCA variation of another period charge; and the thought of reblazoning all the four-pointed mullets in the A&O did nothing to soothe my weary brow. (Ilse vom Rhein, August, 1992, pg. 32)
[a garden rose slipped and leaved vs. a rose] [There is not a CD] for heraldic rose vs. garden rose; and we have hitherto granted no difference for slipping and leaving. (Roselynd Ælfricsdottir, August, 1992, pg. 32)
[a garden rose slipped and leaved vs. a cinquefoil] I agree there's no CDs between cinquefoil and (heraldic) rose; and no CDs between (heraldic) rose and garden rose; and no CDs between garden rose and garden rose slipped and leaved. But as Lord Crux Australis notes, conflict isn't necessarily a transitive operation; "A conflicts with B" and "B conflicts with C" doesn't guarantee that, by logical concatenation, "A must conflict with C". Thank Deity I don't have to decide the issue just now...[device returned for other conflict] (Roselynd Ælfricsdottir, August, 1992, pg. 32)
[Argent estencely, a cat couchant sable] Though visually similar, this is clear of the arms of Wither (Papworth 75), Ermine, a lion passant sable. There's a CD for posture; and I would grant a CD (at least) between ermine and argent estencely sable. (Though, to judge from the discussion in Brault's Early Blazon, no period difference would be granted between estencely and mullety or estoilly.) (Caitlin Decourcey Corbet, September, 1992, pg. 3)
[A portcullis between and conjoined to two towers] The primary charge is blazoned [as noted] for the sake of the cant [with Gate's Edge], but is indistinguishable from a castle (Canton of Gate's Edge, September, 1992, pg. 7)
[A schimäre] Schimäre is the German word for "chimera". The chimera of German heraldry has the forequarters of a lion, the hindquarters of a goat, a dragon's tail (often ending in a dragon's head), and often the head and breasts of a woman. (It's illustrated in von Volborth's Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles, p.47.) It looks very little like the chimera of English heraldry, which has a lion's head, a goat's head and a dragon's head all issuant from the shoulders of a goat's body (illustrated in Dennys' Heraldic Imagination, p.154, which in turn is from Bossewell's Armorie of 1572); and neither of these is much like the classic "Homeric" chimaera from ancient Greek drawings.
Were the German form and the English form not intended to be the same mythological monster, we wouldn't hesitate to grant at least a CD between them. The two forms are intended to be the same monster, though; and we don't normally grant a CD for drawing style (e.g. no difference between the Italian-style fleur-de-lys and the French-style fleur-de-lys), nor even distinguish style in blazon.
In this case, the two monsters share nothing in common but the name; it seemed safest to define them, for our purposes, as different charges. As was done for the schnecke, I've taken the German name for the German charge, to distinguish it from the English chimera. (Kevin Burnett, September, 1992, pg. 10)
There is at least a CD between a horse and a correctly drawn (i.e. medieval) unicorn (William Palfrey, September, 1992, pg. 14)
We grant a CD between a dolphin and a generic fish. (Deirdre of Shadowdale, September, 1992, pg. 18)
[A dragon's head vs. a water lizard's head] This is clear ...with a CD ...for type of head. (Aethelthryth of Acleah, September, 1992, pg. 22)
[A mullet vs. a compass star] Prior rulings on this point were a bit ambiguous, but in general, when there's a small change (5 vs. 6) in the number of points, we grant no difference for type of mullet --- and we do grant difference when there's a large change (5 vs. 8 or more). In this case, we have a specific precedent (LoAR of Dec 89, p.30) granting a CD between mullet and compass star, which matches the general policy. ...Pending [new] evidence, I will continue the current policy. (Steven of Mountain's Gate, September, 1992, pg. 35)
[An antelope vs. an ibex] According to Franklyn & Tanner ( Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Heraldry, p. 179), "the heraldic ibex is indistinguishable from the heraldic antelope and may even be merely an alternative term." [Thus there is not a CD between them] (Alaric Liutpold von Steinman, September, 1992, pg. 37)
[An antelope vs. a deer] I would grant a CD between a correctly drawn antelope and a deer; the two charges were distinct in period armory (unlike, say, the heraldic dolphin and the bottlenosed dolphin, between which we grant no difference). [Device returned for different conflict] (Alaric Liutpold von Steinman, September, 1992, pg. 37)
[An eagle close vs. a dove close] Prior Laurel precedent (LoAR of Nov 90, p.16) has granted no difference for bird type, when the birds are in identical postures. In this case, when the eagle isn't displayed, it loses most of the traits that let it be identified as an eagle. Almost the only such trait visible on an eagle close is its head crest --- and the heraldic dove has one, too. (Cecilia MacInnes, September, 1992, pg. 37)
[An eagle displayed vs. owl displayed] The owl and the eagle are both raptors, and the main difference between them --- the head posture --- is specifically worth no CDs per Rule X.4.h. [See also Keja Tselebnik, May, 1993, pp. 16-17] (Cecilia MacInnes, September, 1992, pg. 37)
There's no difference between a sun and a multi-rayed estoile. (Eirikr Sigurdharson, September, 1992, pg. 38)
[Three crosses crosslet fitchy vs. three crosses botonny] There's ...no difference for fitching the crosses, and no difference for crosslet vs. botonny. (Geoffroi de la Marche, September, 1992, pg. 39)
[A gurges vs. five annulets one within the other] As seen from the examples in Parker (p.299), Woodward (p.193), and Papworth (p.1122), a set of concentric annulets is simply an alternate method of drawing a gurges or whirlpool [therefore there is not a CD between them]. (Iago al Hasan, September, 1992, pg. 39)
The consensus of the College was that a coiled match is visually too similar to an annulet to grant a CD between the two. (Kazimir Petrovich Pomeshanov, September, 1992, pg. 40)
[A branch of rosemary vs. sprig of three bluebells] There's [not a CD] for type of sprig.
There were also a number of other conflicts, all based on granting no difference for type of sprig: e.g., [a slip of three leaves], or [a sprig of parsley]. (Mairin ferch Howell, September, 1992, pg. 40)
[A chevron rompu between three grenades vs. a chevron between three fireballs fired] There's a CD for making the chevron rompu, but not another for type of secondary charge. (Ragnar of Moonschadowe, September, 1992, pg. 41)
We see no heraldic difference between a roundel and an egg. (Sarah Rumoltstochter, September, 1992, pg. 41)
[A ferret vs. an otter] There's ...nothing for [type of beast]. (Stevyn Gaoler, September, 1992, pg. 42)
The only difference between a wyvern and a sea-dragon is the exact shape of the tail's flukes, not enough for a CD. (Dugal MacTaveis, September, 1992, pg. 44)
[Two orcas sable marked argent vs. two bottlenosed dolphins sable] There is ...nothing for type; and the markings are artistic details, worth no difference. (Tymoteusz Konikokrad, September, 1992, pg. 47)
There's [not a CD] for castle vs. single-arched bridge. (John Quartermain, September, 1992, pg. 50)
There is no heraldic difference between a gillyflower and a carnation (Luciano Giovanni di Churburg, September, 1992, pg. 50)
There's no difference granted for melusine [two-tailed mermaid] vs. mermaid. (Simona Zon d'Asolo, September, 1992, pg. 51)
While we're willing to blazon [the charge] as a hollyhock, we note that there's no heraldic difference between it and a rose. (Megan Althea of Glengarriff, October, 1992, pg. 2)
Legh, 1568, mentions the octofoil ("double quaterfoyle"), though citing no examples of its use. Given that it was described in period, I'm willing to grant a CD between it and a cinquefoil. (Sibylla Penrose of Netherhay, October, 1992, pg. 2)
There's a CD (at least) between a horse's head and a unicorn's head. (Richard Cheval, October, 1992, pg. 7)
I grant a CD between a roundel engrailed and a sun. (Solveig Throndardottir, October, 1992, pg. 10)
[A Celtic cross vs. a Celtic cross equal-armed, quarterly pierced and throughout] There is no heraldic difference for the charge being throughout, or not. However, there's a CD ...for the quarter-piercing, which is visually equivalent to adding a tertiary delf. (Toirrdelbach Ua Máel Doraid, October, 1992, pg. 16)
There's a CD between dolphins and most kinds of fish. (Alethea of Fair Isle, October, 1992, pg. 16)
There is a CD (at least) between a brazier and a beacon (Anastazia Winogrodzka, October, 1992, pg. 16)
There is no difference for tower vs. castle. (Irwyn of Hartwich, October, 1992, pg. 21)
[A saltire parted and fretted vs. a saltire gules charged with another humetty of the field] [The charge] in both armories is essentially a saltire voided. I can't see granting difference for the tiny changes at the intersection of the saltire (Gunnar Birkibeinn, October, 1992, pg. 25)
There's no heraldic difference between a tower and a castle. [See also Irwyn of Hartwich, same letter, pg. 21, Sela nic a'Phearsoin of Clan Chattan, January, 1993 LoAr, Pg. 29, and Maelgwn McCain, August, 1993 LoAR, pg. 20] (Konner MacPherson, October, 1992, pg. 27)
[A fess wreathed Or and purpure vs. a fess Or] Wreathing is a single treatment of the fess; the evidence suggests it's considered a tincture change (Or vs. bendy Or and purpure, in this case), with the "invected line" considered artistic license. The only period examples of wreathing are to be found, naturally enough, on the charge known as the wreath or torse: it could be drawn with the folds of cloth bulging the edge, or as an annulet compony. See the examples in Foster , p.121; Parker, pp.308, 631; and Guillim, p.291. If, for the definitive case of wreathing, the invected edge is considered artistic license, then it cannot count for difference here. The wreathing of the fess is worth a single CD. (Margaret Sayher, October, 1992, pg. 30)
There is no difference between multi-pointed mullets (Susanne Grey of York, October, 1992, pg. 31)
[Argent, a swan displayed sable] Against the ...possible conflicts cited (Argent, [some type of bird] displayed sable, etc.), I'd grant a CD between a swan and the birds in question. (Sveyn Egilsson, November, 1992, pg. 3)
There should be a CD between three stalks of barley and a garb. (Siobhan Chantoiseau de Longpont sur Orges, November, 1992, pg. 5)
[Sable, six locusts displayed vs. Gules, semy of bees volant] There's a CD for the field, but not for number or type of insects. (Aethelwine Aethelredson, November, 1992, pg. 17)
[A mullet of eight points vs. a mullet of five greater and five lesser points] While the five lesser points are "lesser", they are still points; [the second] mullet is technically of ten points, from which we grant no difference from a mullet of eight points. (Anna Dimitriova Belokon, November, 1992, pg. 17)
We can certainly see granting a CD between a cross moline and a cross patonce. (Dyryke Raleigh, November, 1992, pg. 19)
[A ram's head cabossed vs. a ox head cabbosed] There's ...a CD for the type of head. (Indeed, we'd say that Rule X.2 applies between an ox head and a ram's head. This is well clear.) (Riordan Robert MacGregor., December, 1992, pg. 5)
[A male griffin vs. a griffin] Despite its name, the male griffin is not the male of the griffin species, with the default griffin the female; they are different monsters, both usually depicted with male organs. (The male griffin is sometimes blazoned a keythong, to emphasize its distinction from a griffin.) There's a CD between the two monsters. (Jovan Greyhawk, December, 1992, pg. 6)
[Two maple leaves in chevron inverted, conjoined at the stems] Against the various possible conflicts cited in the commentary (e.g. [four holly leaves in saltire, stems to center]), in each case I count a CD for number and a CD for type of leaf. (Angelina Foljambe, December, 1992, pg. 6)
Period heralds seem to have distinguished between a teazel and a thistle, despite the similarity of the nouns. For armory as simple as this [(fieldless) A teazel slipped and leaved vs. <Field>, a thistle], we can see granting a CD for type of flower. (Ealdgytha of Spalding Abbey, December, 1992, pg. 12)
We can see granting a CD between a comet and a mullet. (Barony of Three Mountains, January, 1993, pg. 3)
I am willing to grant a CD between a rose and a correctly drawn daisy. (Arielle le Floer, January, 1993, pg. 7)
Mundane armory seems to consider a flame proper as streaked of gules and Or, in equal proportions. Society armory considers a flame proper (on a dark field) as the same as a flame Or voided gules (or, alternatively, a flame Or charged with a flame gules). Either way, when used as the primary charge, there's a CD between a flame proper and a flame Or. (Helena of Durham, January, 1993, pg. 8)
[On a chevron three mullets of four points vert vs. On a chevron three estoiles of four rays gules] ...since we currently distinguish between mullets and estoiles [there's] a CD for type and tincture of tertiaries (Johanna Ljubljana, January, 1993, pg. 19)
We're willing to grant a CD between a bezant and a hawk's bell, although perhaps not Complete Difference of Charge. (Meurisse de Blois, January, 1993, pg. 20)
[A Maltese star cross] This conflicts with [a snowflake]. The visual similarity between the Maltese star cross and a snowflake is too large to ignore. It also conflicts with [six sets of arrow fletchings in annulo, points conjoined]. Again, the visual similarity is too great to permit a CD to be granted. (Elgar of Stonehaven, January, 1993, pg. 23)
[A sun of eight points] There's [not a CD] between a mullet of six points and the sun as drawn here. (Eoghan O'Neill, January, 1993, pg. 23)
The previous submission was returned Aug 92 for drawing the bend too narrow, the indentations too small. She's corrected those problems, but introduced another: the bend is indented on the sinister base end, but dancetty on the dexter chief end! The bend must be one or the other, if for no other reason than to check conflict.
One of the heralds at the meeting offered to redraw the submission, sending a copy to the client. The difficulty lay in not knowing the submitter's intent: did she want a bend indented, or a bend dancetty? We were given no clue, and since there's a CD between the two, it's not something to be left to chance or telepathy. (Melisend de Chartres, January, 1993, pg. 25)
[A wa'a outrigger sable, a bordure] This conflicts with [an antique galley with sails furled ]. There's a CD for the bordure. Previous returns have granted no difference between a galley and a drakkar (LoAR of July 91, p.20); evidently, type of ship is left to artistic license. We'd welcome some further evidence on whether this is a reasonable policy to maintain; for now, we'll uphold precedent. (Barony of Western Seas, January, 1993, pg. 27)
[Three leaves conjoined in pall inverted within a annulet vs. A trillium and a chief] There's a CD for changing the annulet to a chief, but the central charges are indistinguishable. (Jaric de l'Ile Longe Sault, January, 1993, pg. 28)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]
There's ...no difference between a castle and a tower. (Sela nic a'Phearsoin of Clan Chattan, January, 1993, pg. 29)
[A trilithon [type of dolmen] vs. a dolmen of three uprights capped by two lintels] Just as there is no difference between a tower and a castle, there is no difference between trilithons and "pentalithons". (Fiacha Suileach, January, 1993, pg. 31)
I find no evidence that an estoile and a comet are so distinct charges as to permit Rule X.2, the Sufficient Difference Rule, to apply between them. All my sources define the comet as a modified estoile: an estoile with a flaming tail appended. (Parker 130; Woodward 310; Franklyn & Tanner 82) Indeed, Lord Crescent notes examples from Papworth suggesting that the change from estoile to comet is a single cadency step: e.g. Waldock (Or, an estoile flaming [i.e. a comet] sable) and Waldeck (Or, an eight-pointed estoile sable). I am willing to grant a CD between the two charges, but I cannot see granting Sufficient Difference between them. (Styvyn Longshanks, January, 1993, pg. 34)
I will ...continue to grant a CD between invected and engrailed, and between invected and indented. In the interests of continuity, I will also continue (for the moment) to grant a CD between engrailed and indented, but I will not hesitate to reverse that policy should I find evidence that Tudor armorial usage used them interchangeably, in defiance of the tracts. [For the full discussion, see under LINES OF DIVISION -- Engrailed and Invected](8 May, 1993 Cover Letter (March, 1993 LoAR), pg. 3)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Difference - Armory - Substantial) |Top of Page |Next Page (Difference - Armory - Visual)]
[A cross swallowtailed] I'd grant a CD between this cross and a cross flory or a cross patonce (which were considered the same charge by medieval heralds). I might not have granted difference against a Maltese cross or a cross fourchy, but no conflicts were cited containing such crosses. (Donata Ivanovna Basistova, March, 1993, pg. 17)
We grant no difference between mullet of four points and mullet of five points. (Bengta Rolfsdatter, March, 1993, pg. 19)
[An ounce rampant Or spotted of diverse tinctures] The creature is not a panther, as blazoned on the LOI (for it isn't incensed of flame), but an ounce or maneless lion. As such, it gets no difference from a standard lion; and its spots here count for no more than the spots on any other spotted cat (e.g. a natural leopard). If she resubmits with a genuine panther, charged with large roundels --- better yet, with a Continental panther --- it should [be a CD from a lion]. (Alysandria of the Fosse Way, March, 1993, pg. 22)
[A wingless dragon "displayed"] The displayed posture is not applicable to non-winged creatures, just as rampant is no longer applicable to birds (LoAR of May 91). No other blazon adequately describes this posture (although if the dragon's back were to the viewer, instead of its belly, it might be tergiant).
Moreover, since the dragon's posture (however blazoned) is indistinguishable from tergiant, this conflicts with [a natural salamander tergiant] ...putting the dragon in this posture greatly reduces any difference to be granted for type of reptile. (Balthasar of Eastwick, March, 1993, pg. 22)
While I would consider dovetailed to be negligibly different from embattled, I'd grant it a CD from urdy (champaine) [device returned for unrelated reasons]. (Eleri Langdoun, March, 1993, pg. 23)
[A tree eradicated and in chief a <charge>] This is clear of [A tree blasted and eradicated]. There's a CD for the charge in chief, and a CD for the blasting of the tree. (Sileas ní Chinaíd, May, 1993, pg. 4)
We would grant a CD between a fool's cap and most other types of hat (Catherine the Merry, May, 1993, pg. 11)
[A two-headed double-queued eagle-winged wyvern displayed vs. a double headed eagle displayed] The changes to the wyvern (notably, the use of eagle's wings) prevent finding difference between the primary charges. (Alex of Kintail, May, 1993, pp. 16-17)
There's ...no difference for garden rose(bud) vs. heraldic rose, and we've yet seen no evidence that period heralds granted difference for slipping and leaving. (Anna de Battista, May, 1993, pg. 17)
[A seeblatt] Lord Leveret (now Lord Brachet) has brought up a possible conflict with the badge of Douglas, Earls of Douglas (Fox-Davies' Heraldic Badges): [A heart]. His staff has found evidence that the blazon seeblatt could be emblazoned either in its standard form, or in a form indistinguishable from a heart (in the arms of the Duchy of Engern, 16th Century). I've found corroboration in Neubecker & Rentzmann's 10000 Wappen von Staaten und Städten, pp.147, 285: the arms of the Bishopric of Vyborg, in Finland, were blazoned (and emblazoned) either as three hearts conjoined in pall inverted or three seeblätter conjoined in pall inverted.
There are still enough distinct renditions of seeblätter and hearts in period (e.g. the Armorial de Gelre, or Siebmacher) that I hesitate to rule them purely artistic variants. However, there can clearly be cases of visual conflict involving the charges, and the [submitter's badge] is such a visual conflict [returned for this and also for conflict with a water-lily leaf]. (House Windsmeet (Caitlin Davies), May, 1993, pg. 17)
There's ...no difference between suns and multi-pointed mullets --- which includes compass stars. (Friedrich von Rabenstein, June, 1993, pg. 18)
The torii is still permitted in Society heraldry, due to its modern familiarity among Occidentals (for instance, the word is found in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) and its valid reblazon as a Japanese gateway. However, since no heraldic difference can normally be obtained from regional drawing style, we grant no difference between a Japanese gateway (torii) and a standard heraldic gate --- any more than we grant difference between an arch and a dolmen. (Ihashi Hidezo, June, 1993, pg. 22)
Just as we grant a CD between a sun and a mullet (of 5 points), so do we grant a CD between a sun and an estoile (of 6 rays). (Monica Eve le May, July, 1993, pg. 6)
The difference between a fess embattled (top edge only) and a fess counter-embattled (both edges) is as great as that between a fess embattled and a plain fess [i.e. worth a CD]. (Lothar Freund, July, 1993, pg. 10)
We have granted no difference in the past between a bridge and a castle, considering both to be stonework surmounted by towers. (Canton of Pont y Saeth, July, 1993, pg. 15)
[A rose per pale Or and vert vs. Hirayama ( Hawley 27): Dark, a cherry blossom light] There's ...no difference between Hirayama's rendition of a cherry blossom (complete with five petals, barbing and seeding) and an honest heraldic rose. (Oriana d'Auney, July, 1993, pg. 17)
[Knots of four loops and four tassels vs. cotton hanks] After looking at the examples of cotton hanks in Parker and Elvin, I've decided there is a CD between them and [the submitter's] knots of four loops and four tassels: even assuming the hanks were drawn with their loops slightly separate, Rowan's knots could be considered equivalent to "demi-hanks". (Rowan O Curry, August, 1993, pg. 4)
[A tyger's head erased] Possible conflict was cited against [A wolf's head erased within a bordure rayonny]. There's a CD for the bordure; the question was raised on any difference between a wolf's head and a tyger's head. Rule X.4.e specifically grants a difference between a lion and a [heraldic] tyger; but even assuming the same between a wolf and a tyger, that doesn't necessarily require difference between their heads. (By analogy, we grant difference between a dragon and an eagle -- but none between a dragon's foot and an eagle's foot.) The heraldic tyger is described as "having ...the maned neck of a horse, and the head of a wolf, but the upper jaw develops into a frontal horn" ( Franklyn & Tanner 334); there's no way that the heads could be deemed Substantially Different, but I can see granting a CD for the frontal horn and the mane. (Laeghaire O Laverty, August, 1993, pg. 5)
[Four fleurs-de-lys in cross, bases to center] The previous return (LoAR of Sept 91) determined that there was not Sufficient Difference between this arrangement of fleurs-de-lys and a cross flory. Had it been intended that the difference be negligible, however, I suspect the then-Laurel would have come out and said so. I believe there is a CD for type of primary charge group in this case. (Cara Michelle DuValier, August, 1993, pg. 6)
[An opinicus vs. a griffin] The difference between the griffin- variants is too small to be worth a ...CD. (Bleddyn Hawk, August, 1993, pg. 15)
[An owl affronty vs. an eagle displayed] There's a CD for the change in the bird's posture, but nothing for its type: eagles and owls are both raptors, and the main heraldic difference --- the head posture --- is specifically worth no difference under the Rules (as well as having been subsumed into the rest of the posture change). (Stanwulf the Stern, August, 1993, pg. 17)
[A Cavendish knot] The badge conflicts with the badge of the House of Savoy ...A Savoy (or Cavendish) knot. The two knots are identical; as the badge is tinctureless, we can get but a single CD between it and this submission ...Conflict was also cited against other "knotty" badges: e.g. [A Wake knot] and [A Bourchier knot]. In the cases of charges nowed (e.g. serpents nowed, or lions with nowed tails), we've held that "knots is knots" and granted no difference for the exact form of knotwork. In cases where the single primary charge is a recognized heraldic knot, however, we can see granting a CD between certain types of knots. In particular, the Savoy/Cavendish knot is sufficiently different from any other standard knot that I would call this submission clear of the cited conflicts. (Order of the Cavendish Knot (Kingdom of the Middle), August, 1993, pg. 19) The current Rules grant no difference between a tower and a castle. (Maelgwn McCain, August, 1993, pg. 20)
The mandrake is a plant of the genus Mandragora and is native to Southern Europe and the East. It is characterized by very short stems, thick fleshy, often forked, roots, and by fetid lance-shaped leaves ( OED). Of the two examples cited in Parker, p. 390, one (de Champs) blazons them as plantes de mandragore (plants of mandrake). The other cited example, the only one in English armory, is actually shown in Rodney Dennys' The Heraldic Imagination, p.130, as more humanoid. Dennys states that "the Mandrake is not, of course, a monster or chimerical creature in the strict sense of the term, but in heraldic art it has acquired such anthropomorphic characteristics that it can be rated as one of the more fanciful of the fabulous creatures of heraldry" (p. 129). We feel there is a CD between a mandrake and human figures as there is between other fanciful heraldic creatures (e.g. angels) and human figures. (Leandra Plumieg, September, 1993, pg. 12)
[A chief Or vs. On a chief double enarched Or, three mullets] There is clearly a CD for the addition of the mullets, but is the double arching of the chief worth a second CD? It has been previously ruled that there is not a CD between a chief singly arched and a plain chief: "the arching here is virtually identical to that shown on period renditions of a plain chief and adds almost no visual difference" (AMoE, LoAR 19 March 1988, p. 12)
Chiefs double arched have been acceptable in the S.C.A. for over twelve years. According to J.P. Brooke- Little, the first use of this line of partition seems to have been in 1806 in a grant to William Proctor Smith: Gules, on a chief double arched Or, three trefoils proper. (Fox-Davies, A Complete Guide to Heraldry, 1969 revision, footnote, p. 75) Therefore, there is no period evidence upon which to base a decision. However, from this example, we can infer that nineteenth century heralds viewed double arching to be different from a straight line of partition; at least a blazonable difference.
From a visual perspective, single arching has been used to give representation to the curvature of a shield, especially with bends. Double arching does not appear to be an artistic method of denoting curvature. It involves a distinct action in the drawing of the line of partition in the same way as bevilling. This makes it one step removed from a plain line of partition. Therefore, we feel a clear difference can be counted between a chief plain and a chief double arched. (Richard Stanley Greybeard, September, 1993, pg. 13)
There is a CD ...for the difference between a goose and a swallow (though not between a goose and a generic bird). (Brighid of Lindisfarne, September, 1993, pg. 16)
There's [not a CD] for comet vs. mullet elongated to base. [charge actually attempted was a compass star elongated to base] (Ysmay de Chaldon, September, 1993, pg. 20)
We grant no difference between a compass star and a rivenstar, and no difference between a compass star and a sun. (Jacques Gilbert de Gascogne, September, 1993, pg. 23)
Note: the fact that [the harpy or frauenadler] were considered distinct charges in period allows us to grant a CD against eagles. (Barony of Red Spears, September, 1993, pg. 25)
There [not a CD] for the difference between nebuly and wavy: there are simply too many examples of these lines being used interchangeably, even in late period. (The arms of Blount: Barry nebuly/wavy Or and sable (Dictionary of British Arms, p. 96) are the best known example.) Even the late period tracts, the first citations of nebuly as an independent complex line, give wide variation in its depiction: Bossewell, 1572, gives a number of different forms of nebuly (fo. 29, 56 and 76), two of which are indistinguishable from his depictions of undy or wavy (fo. 100 and 123). If wavy and nebuly were so indistinguishable in period, we can grant no CDs between them in the SCA. (Tristram Telfor, September, 1993, pg. 26)
[A lion Or vs. a Bengal tiger Or marked sable] There is no heraldic difference between a lion and a Bengal tiger, and no difference for the markings on the tiger. (Isabeau Celeste de la Valliére, October, 1993, pg. 18)
[Four oak leaves in cross v. four holly leaves conjoined in cross] We have hitherto granted a CD for type of a single leaf: oak leaf vs. maple leaf (Karl the Meek and Mild), or oak leaf vs. elm leaf (Siobhan O Riordain). But this is offset here by the identical motifs: the arrangement and conjoining in cross add to the visual similarity. [returned for visual conflict] (Anne Chavelle of Silver Oak, July, 1992, pg. 22)
[A compass star and overall a lion's head cabossed] As drawn, the compass star is almost completely obscured by the lion's head, rendering it unidentifiable. Charges must be drawn so as to be recognizable, per Rule VIII.3. Visually, the star's rays blend with the lion's mane, making it almost a sun in splendour Or; as such, it's very close to [a charged sun].
Some of the commentary mentioned possible conflict between this "irradiated lion's face" and a lion's face jessant-de-lys --- e.g. [a leopard's head jessant a fleur-de-lys]. I believe there's a visible difference between the straight rays shown here and a fleur-de-lys' curved petals. (Tirlach Kinsella, September, 1992, pg. 44)
[A skull argent, vested of a jester's cap Or] This is returned for visual conflict with [a leopard's head argent jessant-de-lys Or]. The jester's cap is split in three points, looking much like a fleur-de-lys. It's also visually close to [a woman's head couped proper crined Or]. (Gareth Shieldbane, September, 1992, pg. 45)
[An estoile gyronny wavy of twelve Or and purpure] This conflicts visually [A mullet of six points gyronny of twelve Or and gules]. ...While we concede sufficient technical difference, a visual comparison confirmed they were too close. [Badge returned for this reason and for using gyronny of more than eight on a charge] (Katrine Vanora of Maidstone, October, 1992, pg. 26)
[Or, two swords inverted in saltire sable between two foxes combattant gules marked proper] This is in visual conflict with [Or, a sword inverted azure hilted sable between two red foxes combattant proper]. We concede sufficient technical difference, with a CD for number of swords and a CD for their tincture --- but when held side-by-side, technical difference is outweighed by the visual similarity. (Lucas Phelan MacPhail, January, 1993, pg. 29)
[Per pale and per chevron purpure and argent, three roses counterchanged] Visual conflict with [Per pale and per chevron azure and argent, three roses counterchanged]. Though we concede sufficient technical difference, the consensus of those at the Laurel meeting was that the two were too similar. Some attributed it to the similarity of blue and purple, others to the identical complex patterns of light and dark; but all agreed that the visual similarity overrode the CDs for field and charge tincture. (Grainne of Starmount, January, 1993, pg. 33)
[A seeblatt] Lord Leveret (now Lord Brachet) has brought up a possible conflict with the badge of Douglas, Earls of Douglas (Fox-Davies' Heraldic Badges): [A heart]. His staff has found evidence that the blazon seeblatt could be emblazoned either in its standard form, or in a form indistinguishable from a heart (in the arms of the Duchy of Engern, 16th Century). I've found corroboration in Neubecker & Rentzmann's 10000 Wappen von Staaten und Städten, pp.147, 285: the arms of the Bishopric of Vyborg, in Finland, were blazoned (and emblazoned) either as three hearts conjoined in pall inverted or three seeblätter conjoined in pall inverted.
There are still enough distinct renditions of seeblätter and hearts in period (e.g. the Armorial de Gelre, or Siebmacher) that I hesitate to rule them purely artistic variants. However, there can clearly be cases of visual conflict involving the charges, and the [submitter's badge] is such a visual conflict [returned for this and also for conflict with a water-lily leaf]. (House Windsmeet (Caitlin Davies), May, 1993, pg. 17)
It was the consensus of the meeting that this name [Catharini] does not conflict with ...Contarini; the two are aurally similar, but by my predecessor's "Auda/Ali test", they seemed to be clear. (Isabella Catharini, July, 1992, pg. 4)
[Wyvern Heyghts] If Heyghts is considered the designator (equivalent to House), then Wyvern is the substantive element here, and this is clear of Wyvernwood and Wyvern Cliff: their substantive elements are wood and Cliff, respectively. If Heyghts is not the designator (i.e. not transparent, but an integral part of the name), this is still clear, for changing the substantive element from Heights to wood or Cliff respectively. (Wyvern Heyghts (Elyramere of Tymbrelyne Heyghts), July, 1992, pg. 5)
[Aldberct the Smith] This did not conflict with the character of Alberich in Wagner's Ring Cycle; though he was a smith, he was never called so. He seems to have always been called Alberich the Dwarf or Alberich the Niebelung. (Aldberct the Smith, August, 1992, pg. 14)
[Sean O'Connor] This conflicts with John O'Connor, Archbishop of the Diocese of New York, who has gained national attention with his anti-abortion opinions. He is listed in general referernces ( Encyclopedia Americana, 1992 ed., vol.20, p.628), so he's important enough to protect. (See also the LoAR of Nov 88 [Shane O'Connor, pg. 17], where another submission was returned for the same conflict.) (Sean O'Connor, August, 1992, pg. 23)
[Egil's Nest] This conflicts with Eagle's Nest, a place among the Killarney Lakes in County Kerry, Ireland. It is cited in a general reference ( The New Century Cyclopedia of Names, vol.I, p.1379), so it's important enough to protect. (Egill von Stahl, August, 1992, pg. 27)
[Porsche Audi] This infringes on the Porsche-Audi division of Volkswagen of America, a registered corporation. Laurel took the most direct method of discovering this: he visited a local Porsche-Audi dealership. The conjunction of the names is distinctive and famous enough to warrant protection. [see also "Style -- Modern," pg. 50] (Porsche Audi, August, 1992, pg. 28)
[House von Neunkirchen] This conflicts with the city of Neunkirchen, in the Saar region between France and Germany. By our standards, the city is important enough to protect: it's a center for the European iron industry, and appears in at least two general references ( The New Century Cyclopedia of Names, vol.III, p.2919; 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, vol.XIX, p.426). The fact that it is a "generically formed name" does not detract from its importance: Iceland is a generically formed name, too. Nor does the fact that several other towns share the same name reduce the importance of this one. Neunkirchen meets the criteria for protection under the Administrative Guidelines; this must therefore be returned. (Astrid Radulfsdottir, August, 1992, pg. 30)
[William of Lee] The name ...conflicts with William Lee, the inventor of the knitting machine ...The addition of the preposition of is worth no difference here. (William of Lee, August, 1992, pg. 31)
[House Snathadan Airgid] The household name does not conflict with the Order of the Silver Needle; per Rule V.4.b, translation is sufficient difference between names (except when pronunciation remains unchanged). (Diorbhail ni Ruaidhri, September, 1992, pg. 5)
[Marion of Sherebrooke] None of Laurel's staff had any difficulty distinguishing this name from Marian of Sherwood (Marion of Sherebrooke, September, 1992, pg. 34)
[Tempest Tower] If Tower is considered the household designator (and therefore transparent with respect to conflict), this conflicts with the Order of the Tempest ...Were we to add a designator (e.g. House Tempest Tower), so that Tower became the substantive element of the name, this would conflict with the Order of the Towers of Dreiburgen ...The designator is transparent; the addition of the branch name is worth no difference, per the ruling on the Golden Swan of Calontir; the only countable difference, under the current Rules, is the addition of the adjective Tempest --- which is insufficient, per Rule V.2. (David van den Storm, September, 1992, pg. 38)
[Christian Vicarius] Though each element in the name is reasonable in itself, the combination is too evocative of the title Vicar of Christ (Christis Vicarius), one of the titles of the Pope. (Christian Vicarius, September, 1992, pg. 44)
[House Shadowhawk] Under our current standards, the name conflicts with the Hawk Herald ...; the designator House/Herald being transparent, there is only the addition of an adjective, which is insufficient per Rule V.2. (House Shadowhawk (Elden the True), September, 1992, pg. 45)
[Juan Sanchez Ramirez] The name infringes on that of Juan Sanchez Villalobos Ramirez, the immortal played by Sean Connery in the film Highlander and its sequel. (The name is unlikely to soon fade into obscurity, for two reasons. First, the Highlander films have spawned a TV series, keeping the name in the public eye for some time to come. Second, the character is played by Sean Connery, which evidently makes the character ipso facto memorable; there are people [like some of my female friends] who would drive a hundred miles to hear Sean Connery read the telephone directory.) (Juan Sanchez Ramirez, September, 1992, pg. 45)
[Maison des Animaux] The name is intrusively modern, strongly evoking the film Animal House (of which the name is an exact translation). Translation into another tongue can bring a name clear, per Rule V.4.b --- but only if the pronunciation is significantly altered. The difference between Animal and Animaux is too small to be considered significant; and the household designator (House, Maison) is transparent, and counts for no difference. As for the "fame" of the conflict, if a sizable fraction of the populace (of which the College of Arms may be considered a representative sample) recognizes Animal House as a movie title, it's probably necessary to protect it from conflict --- not so much for its own sake, as to keep the modern movie reference from intruding on our medieval re-creation. (Jacqueline de Lyons, September, 1992, pg. 49)
[Richenda] Using my predecessor's "Auda/Ali" test, this is clear of [Richard]. The two names have differently emphasized syllables, and Richenda does not seem to directly derive from Richard. (Richenda of Locksley, October, 1992, pg. 2)
[Order of the Swan and Escallop] This is clear of [Order of the Swan] Per Rule V.2, addition of the phrase "and the Escallop" brings it clear. A similar argument brings it clear of the [Order of the Escallop]. (Order of the Swan and Escallop (Barony of One Thousand Eyes), October, 1992, pg. 4)
[Warriors of the Chalice] Though similar in sound, this is clear of the Order of the Warlord's Chalice (Barony of Rising Waters, October, 1992, pg. 15)
[Compaignie Mercurie] The name is a technical infringement on the planet Mercury; according to the OED, it was spelled as Mercurie in period and was known to be a place. It's certainly famous enough to protect. We might have argued jesuitically that, per the Administrative Handbook (p.3), the College protects only "geographical locations" --- with emphasis on geo-, "earth". But that line of reasoning would seem to open the door for such submissions as House of Antares, and we have a long history of returning extra-terrestrial names ...while the name might be argued to conflict with the Roman god Mercury --- who, like the planet, meets the criteria for protection in the Handbook --- allusions to supernatural guardians were common enough to allow us to call it clear. That is, Compaignie Mercurie no more conflicts with the god Mercury than, say, the Company of St. Jude conflicts with St. Jude. (Brynjolfr Myrkjartansson, October, 1992, pg. 26)
[Ard Thir] This conflicts with the Kingdom of An Tir (SCA). Per Rule V.2, the addition of the adjective ard "high" is not enough to bring it clear. Nor can the definite article an in An Tir be considered an adjective; even though the Kingdom name is never used without the article, it's still an article, not an adjective. (A similar example in modern English might be South Bronx vs. The Bronx.) [returned for this and one other conflict]. (Shire of Ard Thir, October, 1992, pg. 30)
[William the Blacksmith] This technically conflicts with William Smith, the English geologist (1769-1839). He is listed in several general references (Webster's Biographical Dictionary, p.1377), so he's important enough to protect. The addition of the modifier black is insufficient, per Rule V.2; and the presence or absence of a space between words doesn't seem significant here. If William the Black Smith would conflict, so must William the Blacksmith. (William the Blacksmith., December, 1992, pg. 19)
[Duncan MacLeod] The name [conflicts] with Duncan MacLeod, hero of the "Highlander" television series. We hated to have to consider the latter conflict, but a random sampling of local SCA folk showed the majority recognized the character. (Duncan MacLeod of Edinbane, December, 1992, pg. 19)
[James the Small] Possible conflict was cited against St. James the Less (St. James Minor). The saint is given the epithet to distinguish him from St. James the Greater; it appears to refer to either importance or age, but not to stature (Metford's Dictionary of Christian Lore and Legend, p.133). James Minor does not ever seem to have been called James the Small in English; this is therefore not an infringement, either in meaning or in sound. (James the Small, January, 1993, pg. 15)
When considering conflict against an historical figure, we must consider all the names by which the figure is known; the removal of the middle name is thus usually insufficient difference. John Kennedy, for instance, would definitely conflict with John Fitzgerald Kennedy; Thomas Edison, with Thomas Alva Edison; and so on. See the case of Patrick MacManus, LoAR of March 92, p.14. (William Hayes, January, 1993, pg. 32)
[L'Ordre du Papillon Argente d'Artemisie] Possible conflict was cited with the Papillon Pursuivant, registered to the Kingdom of the West. The original submission (Order of the Papillon of Artemisia) was returned Nov 90 for that conflict; the submitters have added the color. Many commenters felt that there was still a conflict: the designator (Pursuivant/Order of) is transparent, and explicitly worth no difference, per Rule V.4.d; and neither the addition of the adjective nor the branch name is sufficient difference.
The question is whether the combination --- the adjective and the branch name --- is sufficient difference. We've had conflicting precedents on this point: the Order of the Sable Thistle of Ansteorra was deemed clear of the Order of the Thistle on the LoAR of May 80, but the Order of the Golden Swan of Calontir was deemed to conflict with the Order of the Swan on the LoAR of June 88. Neither of those precedents, however, was made under the current Rules.
Under current precedent, the combination of the adjective and the branch name is sufficient difference. This was ruled in the case of the Order of the Sable Lion of Caerthe (LoAR of Aug 90), which was deemed clear of the Lyon King of Arms. We might be moved to make an exception to this policy in extreme cases (e.g. the Order of the Noble Chivalry of the West, or some such thing), but in general it seems a reasonable policy to maintain. (l'Ordre du Papillon Argente d'Artemisie (Principality of Artemisia), May, 1993, pg. 2)
[Order of the Radiant Rose of Atenveldt] The name conflicts with the SCA's Order of the Rose. Our general policy is that the addition of an adjective plus the territorial branch name is sufficient difference between names --- that is, a hypothetical Order of the White Star of the Middle would not conflict with France's Order of the Star. But we make an exception for the SCA Orders of Peerage, due to their universal application and importance within the Society. We suggest choosing some other noun for the order's name. (Order of the Radiant Rose of Atenveldt (Kingdom of Atenveldt), May, 1993, pg. 14)
[Wilhelm von Regensburg] Regensburg being the capital of the Upper Palatinate of Bavaria, the LOI questioned whether the name conflicted with those Dukes of Bavaria named Wilhelm. However, the Dukes in question never seemed to have been called of Regensburg; the name no more conflicts with the Dukes of Bavaria than John of London would conflict with King John (whose capital was London). (Wilhelm von Regensburg, June, 1993, pg. 3)
Rule V.4.b permits us to consider Elizabeth to be significantly different from Elspeth: the number of syllables, and their emphasis, have greatly changed. (Elizabeth de Westwood, July, 1993, pg. 2)
[Margery of Kent] The name does not conflict with the English mystic Margery Kempe (d.1440); the change in final consonants is (ahem) pronounced. (Margery of Kent, August, 1993, pg. 3)
John is not the same name as Jonathan, nor its diminutive [therefore they do not conflict with each other]. (Jonathan ap Morgan, September, 1993, pg. 3)
This submission raised the question of how much difference is needed between the SCA and mundane names. In the LoA&R of November 1992, I returned us to our previous standard of non-identity: "The minimum change (the one regarded as a loophole by liberals and conservatives alike) is probably the addition or deletion of a single syllable (e.g. John Smith to John the Smith)." [LoA&R of April 1985]. Any changes smaller than a single syllable may not be sufficient; they must be argued case by case.
In this case, the submitter's mundane name (Valerie La Rue) was too close to the name she submitted (Valerie Le Roux). The fact that the bynames had different derivations and spellings was irrelevant; their pronunciation was nearly identical. Even under our new relaxed standards, there was not enough separation between the mundane name and SCA persona. Fortunately (!), the submitted byname was also grammatically incorrect: it used the masculine form of the adjective. The feminine equivalent is la Rousse and this is sufficiently different from La Rue to be acceptable in this case. (Valerie la Rousse, September, 1993, pg. 16)
This client's original submission ...was made in the Middle Kingdom in 1976. The name was rejected by Laurel in August 1979 for being too close to the Virgin Mary. Current evidence indicates that this decision was in error. While mildness was an attribute ascribed to the Virgin Mary (see the OED for citations under mild), so were most of the other virtues. Nowhere in A Dictionary of Mary by Donald Attwater (P.J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1956), including in the entry "Titles of Mary", is this particular formation found. The Mild doesn't seem to have been one of her formal titles (such as the Virgin or Queen of Heaven), nor was it so intimately associated with Mary (as would be the Immaculate or the Sorrowful) that the usage must of necessity refer to her. (Mary the Mild, September, 1993, pg. 17)
Iain MacArthur is clear of John MacArthur ... since Iain and John are different enough in sound to bring this clear, per Rule V.4. (Iain MacArthur, October, 1993, pg. 4)
[Ian MacLochlainn] This does not conflict with the TV commentator John MacLoughlin. The translation of John to Ian changes the pronunciation enough to bring this clear per Rule V.4.b. (John and Sean, on the other hand, still sound too similar.) (Ian MacLochlainn, October, 1993, pg. 7)
Documentation solely in a foreign alphabet (be it Hebrew, hiragana, or hieroglyphics) is of little use unless interpreted. (Levia Rhys Llaw Wen, September, 1992, pp. 16-17)
[Iestyn ap Cadfael ap Ianto ap Danno ap Richard ap Owen ap Rhys o'r Cwm] Lord Hund has noted the use on a Welsh gravestone of a similarly lengthy name (John ap Robert ap Porth ap Daffyd ap Gruffydd ap Daffyd Vaughan ap Blethyn ap Gruffydd ap Meredith ap Jerworth ap Llewellyn ap Jerom ap Heilin ap Cowryd ap Cadwan ap Alawgwa ap Cadell of Powys, born 1547). The gravestone is as much a legal "document" as a birth record. (Iestyn ap Cadfael ap Ianto ap Danno ap Richard ap Owen ap Rhys o'r Cwm, September, 1992, pg. 33)
[MacFlandry] The submitter ...noted the registered names of Robert MacFlandry of Dundee and Duncan MacFlandry. However, those names were registered back in 1981; both our naming standards and the quality of our name resources have increased since then. ...The submitter is blood kin to neither Baron Robert nor Baron Duncan, so the Grandfather Clause doesn't apply here; the registration of their names a decade ago does not oblige us to register the current submission. (Lyulf MacFlandry, September, 1992, pg. 43)