Armory Precedents of the SCA College of Arms
The Tenure of Master François la Flamme
Last Revised: 5 February 2010
Period Covered: 08/2001 -- 03/2004
These are the armory precedents from the first tenure of
Master François la Flamme as Laurel Principal King of Arms.
During this period armory rulings were made primarily by Dame
Zenobia Naphtali, Wreath Queen of Arms. Please verify all
precedents you wish to use with the cited LoAR. There is an
index. The index for the text version of
these precedents is more detailed than for the on-line version.
Other than that, the two version are identical.
If a charge is only referenced once in these precedents (and
doesn't fall into a category such as BEAST -- Miscellaneous), it
will be found under CHARGE -- Miscellaneous. A complete listing
of these charges in found in the index.
These charges are not currently cross-referenced in the
index.
The category VISUAL COMPARISON deals with rulings relative to a
specific piece of armory (e.g., a branch is maintained). These
entries are listed alphabetically by the owner of the armory. A
list of the owners is found in the index.
The category "Mundane Armory" contains a list of real-world
armory that has been ruled not important enough to
protect. These entries are listed alphabetically by the owner of
the armory.
These precedents are referenced by armory owner's name, the
date of the Cover Letter (CL) or LoAR in month/year format (not
the publication date), the action taken (A for acceptance, R for
return, P for pend), and the kingdom where the action is listed
under. Unless otherwise noted at the beginning of a section, the
precedents are arranged in chronological order.
The following heralds are referred to by title: al-Jamal
(Da'ud ibn Auda), Argent Snail (Jaelle of Armida), Brachet
(Frederick of Holland), Clarion (Elsbeth Anne Roth), Crescent
(Dietmar von Straubing), Eastern Crown (Tanczos Istvan), Kraken
(Evan da Collaureo), Laurel Clerk (Daniel de Lincolia), Lions
Blood (Teceangl Bach), Nebuly (Walraven van Nijmegen), Palimpsest
(Rouland Carre), Pelican (Mari Elspeth nic Bryan), Rampart
(Pendar the Bard), and Red Hawk (Gotfridus von Schwaben)
My thanks to al-Sayyid Amr ibn Majid al-Bakri al-Amra for
proofreading these precedents.
Jeanne Marie Lacroix
Noir Licorne Herald
Table of Contents (Armory)
ADMINISTRATIVE
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Comments and
Commenting
ADMINISTRATIVE -- A Cautionary Word
Regarding "Conflict Tables"
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Devices for Consorts
and Royal Heirs
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Generic
Identifiers
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Permission to
Conflict
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Registration Limit
AMPHIBIAN
ANNULET
ARCHITECTURE
ARRANGEMENT
ARRANGEMENT -- Conjoined
ARRANGEMENT -- Forced Move
ARROW and ARROWHEAD
ARTHROPOD -- Bee
ARTHROPOD -- Miscellaneous
ARTHROPOD -- Spider
AUGMENTATIONS
AXE
BALANCE
BASE
BEAST -- Badger
BEAST -- Bat
BEAST -- Bear
BEAST -- Beaver
BEAST -- Boar
BEAST -- Cat, Lion and Tiger
BEAST -- Deer
BEAST -- Dog and Wolf
BEAST -- Elephant
BEAST -- General
BEAST -- Goat
BEAST -- Miscellaneous
BEAST -- Mouse
BEAST -- Rabbit
BEAST -- Weasel
BEND and BEND SINISTER
BIRD -- Cock and Hen
BIRD -- Corbie see BIRD --
Raven
BIRD -- Cornish Chough
BIRD -- Dove
BIRD -- Duck
BIRD -- Eagle
BIRD -- Falcon and Hawk
BIRD -- Generic
BIRD -- Goose
BIRD -- Loon
BIRD -- Martlet
BIRD -- Miscellaneous
BIRD -- Owl
BIRD -- Peacock
BIRD -- Quail
BIRD -- Raven
BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds
BIRD -- Sparrow
BIRD -- Swan
BIRD -- Vulture
BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE see
also APPENDIX A -- Some birds and the
postures in which they are found in period English
heraldry
BLAZON
BOOK
BORDURE
CANDELABRA
CANTING
CARD PIQUE
CASTLE and TOWER
CHARGE -- Maintained and Sustained
CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
CHARGE -- Overall
CHARGE -- Peripheral
CHARGE -- Restricted or
Reserved
CHARGE GROUP
CHESS PIECE
CHEVRON and CHEVRON INVERTED
CHIEF
COLLAR
COMET
COMPASS STAR and SUN
COMPLEXITY
CONTRAST
COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK
CORONET and CROWN
COTISES
COUNTERCHANGING
COUPED and ERASED
COUPED and THROUGHOUT
CRESCENT
CROSS
CROSSBOW and BOW
CUP and CHALICE
DEFAULTS
DELF
DICE
DIFFERENCE -- Substantial
DIFFERENCE -- Groups
DOCUMENTATION
DOCUMENTED EXCEPTION
DOLPHIN see FISH and DOLPHIN
EMBLAZON
EMBLAZON -- Coloring Problems
ENFILE
ERASED and COUPED see COUPED and
ERASED
ERMINE see FUR
ERMINE SPOT
ESCARBUNCLE
ESTOILE
FEATHER
FESS and BAR
FIELD DIVISION -- Barry
FIELD DIVISION -- Bendy and Bendy
Sinister
FIELD DIVISION -- Chapé
FIELD DIVISION -- Checky and Party of
Six
FIELD DIVISION -- Chevronelly
FIELD DIVISION -- Gyronny
FIELD DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
FIELD DIVISION -- Paly
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Bend and Per Bend
Sinister
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Chevron and Per Chevron
Inverted
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Fess
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Pall and Per Pall
Inverted
FIELD DIVISION -- Quarterly
FIELD DIVISION -- Vêtu
FIELD PRIMARY ARMORY
FIELD TREATMENT -- Ermined see FUR
FIELD TREATMENT -- Honeycombed
FIELD TREATMENT -- Mailly and Other Field
Treatments
FIELD TREATMENT -- Masoned
FIELD TREATMENT -- Miscellaneous
FIELD TREATMENT -- Semy see SEMY
FIELDLESS
FIMBRIATED and VOIDED CHARGES
FISH and DOLPHIN
FLAG and BANNER
FLAMES and FIRE
FLAUNCH see TIERCE and FLAUNCH
FLEUR-DE-LYS
FLOWER -- Lily
FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
FLOWER -- Rose
FLOWER -- Thistle
FLOWER -- Trillium
FLOWER -- Tulip
FOIL
FRET and FRETTY
FRUIT
FUR
GOUTTE
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE
GRENADE and FIREBALL
GURGES
HAND and GAUNTLET
HAT
HEAD -- Beast see also
COUPED and ERASED
HEAD -- Bird see also
COUPED and ERASED
HEAD -- Human
HEAD -- Monster
HEART
HELM and HELMET
HUMAN
IDENTIFIABILITY
JAPANESE MON and CHARGES
KNOTS
LABEL
LEAF
LEG and JAMBE
LIGHTNING BOLT
LINES of DIVISION -- Jagged
LINES of DIVISION -- Long
LINES of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
LINES of DIVISION -- Square
LINES of DIVISION -- Wavy
LOCATION see POSITION
LOZENGE
MAUNCH
MOLLUSK -- Snail
MONSTER -- Chimera
MONSTER -- Dragon and Wyvern
MONSTER -- Griffin
MONSTER -- Humanoid
MONSTER -- Merfolk
MONSTER -- Miscellaneous
MONSTER -- Panther
MONSTER -- Pegasus
MONSTER -- Phoenix
MONSTER -- Pithon
MONSTER -- Sea
MONSTER -- Winged
MOUNT and MOUNTAIN
MULLET
MUNDANE ARMORY
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
NESSELBLATT
OBTRUSIVE MODERNITY
OFFENSE
ORIENTATION see POSTURE categories
ORLE see CHARGE --
Peripheral
PALE
PALL and PALL INVERTED
Period Rolls of Arms and Armorials
(discussion)
PIERCED
PILE and PILE INVERTED
PLANT
POSITION
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Animate Charges
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- General
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Inanimate Charges
PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION
PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION -- Crests and
Supporters
PROPER see also PROPER -- Brown Precedent
PROPER -- Brown Precedent
PROTECTED and PROTECTABLE ITEMS
RAINBOW
RECONSTRUCTIBILITY
REPTILE -- Lizard
REPTILE -- Snake
RfS X.4.j.ii
ROGACINA
ROUNDEL
SALTIRE
SCHNECKE
SEMY
SHAKEFORK see PALL and PALL
INVERTED
SHEAF
SHELL
SHIP
SPINDLE
STAFF
STYLE
SUN see COMPASS STAR and
SUN
SUSTAINED see MAINTAINED and
SUSTAINED
SWORD
SYMBOL
TIERCE and FLAUNCH
TINCTURE
TOOL -- Astronomical
TOOL -- Textile
TRADEMARK see COPYRIGHT and
TRADEMARK
TREE
TREE BRANCH
TRIDENT
TRIQUETRA
TRISKELE and TRISKELION
TROUSERS of NOBILITY
VISUAL COMPARISON
WEIRDNESS
WINGED OBJECTS
WINGS and VOLS
WREATH
ADMINISTRATIVE
see also PROTECTED and PROTECTABLE
ITEMS
An interesting conflict question arose this month,
reminding us of the following precedent (still pertinent) from
the cover letter of the March 1993 LoAR:
Beginning immediately, therefore, if two submissions at the
same meeting are deemed to conflict, we will give preference to
the submission from the paid member. If both submitters are (or
aren't) paid members, then the first received takes priority,
as before.
[Magdalena Leonardi, 08/2001,
A-Drachenwald]
[Reblazon of device] The Administrative Handbook mandates
that an error in blazon which requires correction via a Letter of
Intent must also include an emblazon in the Letter of Intent. The
Letter of Intent did not provide such an emblazon in the Letter
of Intent, although a copy of the old form with the emblazon was
provided in the package to Wreath. This is therefore being
returned for lack of necessary paperwork. [Gilbert Rhys
MacLachlan, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
Unfortunately, the College can only register the emblazons it
receives, and we only received the emblazon for the augmented
device. Since we have no emblazon received for the unaugmented
device, it cannot be registered at this time. That would be akin
to making a "holding device", which is not acceptable by College
of Arms policy. [Anna z Pernštejna, 09/2001,
R-Middle]
Please advise the submitter to be careful on future submissions
to avoid outlines so thick that they appear to be fimbriation. My
staff advises me that, in many cases, the problem with thick
outlines that appear to be fimbriation is due to use of the
computer program "Blazons". As a general rule, heraldic art from
that program is flawed, and we encourage the College to educate
their submitters not to use this program to generate the artwork
used on their forms. [Magy McTerlach, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
Gillian's arms conflict with Iamys Huet's, found later in this
LoAR. Gillian is an SCA member, and therefore, her submission
takes precedence and may be registered without a letter of
permission from Iamys. She is unlikely to be surprised by these
events, as she has provided a letter of permission to conflict to
Iamys. [Gillian Kylpatrick, 11/2001,
A-Caid]
[reinstatement of released device as badge] The LoI
provided no evidence that the release of the bat-winged cat
device, on registration of her 1981 device change, was in error,
nor did the LoI present evidence of hardship. There was no
directive in the 1981 LoI, on the device change form, or in other
paperwork in Laurel files, asking that Laurel preserve the
previously registered device as a badge. Standard procedure under
the then-applicable 1979 rules for submission (like today) was to
release an old device if the device were changed, unless the
submitter requested that it be kept as a badge. In this
submitter's previous device change attempt in 1980 (returned at
Laurel), the LoI indicated that the previous device (the
bat-winged cat device) should be maintained as a badge. However,
it has never been College of Arms policy to assume that such
directives from one Letter of Intent carry through to another
Letter of Intent. Laurel notes that the submitter was
heraldically active in the SCA after the badge was released, as
the files show heraldic actions from her through 1983. Therefore
there is no clear evidence of a hardship existing by which she
might not have been informed that the previous device was
released. Laurel Sovereign of Arms would remind everyone that
decisions are made based on the information provided on the
forms, in the LoI, and in the comments provided by the College.
Therefore, we must hold by non scripta, non est: if it
isn't in writing, it doesn't exist. [Su of the Silver
Horn, 11/2001,
R-Caid]
No petition of support was provided for this augmentation. Since
the augmentation modifies the branch arms, a petition of support
is required. [Roaring Wastes, Barony of the, 11/2001,
R-Middle]
The device must also be returned for administrative reasons. The
petition does not include a blazon or emblazon of the arms being
supported. As with real-world petitions, the signatures should be
on the same piece of paper as a clear description of the item
being supported by the petition. That description, in an SCA
armorial petition, would ideally be a statement that We, the
members of (Branch) support this device for our branch device,
accompanied with a colored emblazon and a blazon. Such a petition
makes it clear that all the signatories, including the
blazon-illiterate signatories, understand the design being so
submitted. A line drawing of the emblazon combined with the
blazon (and some text describing the colors for the
blazon-illiterate) is just as good as a colored emblazon. A
blazon on the petition without an emblazon will suffice, as long
as the blazon is an accurate representation of the emblazon. If
that is not the case, then the petition will not be acceptable.
[Fiodnach Eoghan, Shire of, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[Device appeal] There were other procedural problems with
the submission. According to the Administrative Handbook section
IV.C.1: Appropriate forms must be included for all
submissions, including appeals, resubmissions, name and blazon
changes, etc. No forms were sent. There was no mini-emblazon
on the letter of intent. The Administrative Handbook section
V.B.2.e states: An accurate representation of each piece of
submitted armory shall be included on the letter of intent. Such
emblazons must be clearly labeled and large enough that all
elements of the design may be clearly distinguished.
[Madallaine Isabeau de Cat, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[a pall inverted vs. a shakefork inverted] ... by current
precedent, another CD between a pall inverted and a shakefork
inverted.
Note that the precedent giving a CD between a pall inverted and a
shakefork inverted is under discussion this month (see the cover
letter). However, there is no need to pend this submission until
the completion of a general policy discussion: it may be
registered now under current SCA policy. Should the policy change
as a result of the ongoing research and discussion, it will apply
to those submissions received after the policy change. [David
of Caithness, 12/2001,
A-Caid] [Ed.: CD granted between a pall inverted and a
shakefork inverted as of 08/2002 (see below)]
The device submission used wax-based crayons for the colors on
the form. This resulted in a very brownish Or, and was almost a
reason for return. Please do not use wax-based crayons on forms:
the colors do not always stay true, the metallics fade
particularly quickly, and wax crayons have been known to melt and
stick to other items in the forms file or binder. The
administrative handbook suggests Crayola Classic markers in the
General Procedures section (AH IV.C.1): "The preferred medium for
colored armory sets is to use watercolor markers such as Crayola
Classic Markers. Any form of neon or pastel markers or pencils
are inappropriate for the colored armory sets". [Oddr ölfúss
the Tanner, 01/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
The submission form has been altered from the standard West
Kingdom form and omits the check boxes which allow the submitter
to specify the disposition of her previous armory. Therefore her
previous device ... is released, which is the default action.
Please note that the check boxes on the submissions forms, which
should be standard throughout all kingdoms, are not supposed to
be altered. Valuable information may be lost by altering the
forms. In some cases, alterations to the forms may be extreme
enough to cause return of the submission, although that is not
necessary in this case. [Mari Greensleaves, 01/2002,
A-West]
The "Or" tincture is colored in a distinct orange color, which is
not a valid variant of Or. [Asbjørn Pedersen Marsvin,
01/2002,
R-Caid]
[a Norse serpent] The Norse serpent was declared an
unregisterable charge in the LoAR of May 1998, effective in
October of that year. This submitter had a submission in kingdom
using this charge before that deadine occurred, and no
resubmission was received at Laurel level until after the
deadline occurred. However, convincing evidence has been
presented by the Ansteorran College that there were significant
administrative problems with the submitter's local and (to a
lesser extent) regional and kingdom heralds during the period of
time in which he could have put in timely submission of this
device. While there is no paperwork proof that the armory was
resubmitted in a timely fashion, it has also been demonstrated
that much paperwork was lost by the pertinent heralds during the
time in which such a resubmission might have occurred. Kingdom
heralds have stated that the submitter did indeed attempt to
resubmit in a timely fashion. It therefore seems reasonable to
give this submitter the benefit of the doubt and allow him the
use of this charge under the hardship clause, as noted in the
Glossary of Terms:
It sometimes happens that a submission is delayed so long by
circumstances outside the submitter's control that changes in
the Rules for Submissions or their interpretation make it
unregisterable. Depending on the exact circumstances, and on a
case-by-case basis, the submission may be judged according to
the older Rules for Submissions and interpretations; this
policy is popularly known as the Hardship Clause.
[Johann Gunnbjornsson, 02/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[Gules, three axes argent] This is clear of conflict with
Wolfram von Eschenbach, Gules, two axes addorsed argent hafted
proper (important non-SCA arms). There is one CD for changing
the number of axes. The question was raised whether there is a
second CD for changing the orientation of one of Wolfram's axes.
If one looks at Wolfram's arms and counts the orientation change
before the number change then one half of the group is changed
and there is a CD for it. If one counts the number change first
then only one of three charges has changed orientation and so no
CD is granted. (A similar analysis can be made moving in the
other direction, from Sefferey's submission to Wolfram's
arms.)
The Rules for Submission give no indication that one class of
change is to be considered before another. Precedent
superficially appears to favor the less generous reading. As
Palimpsest noted, "Consider the return of the submission of
Leonia Dubarry in the January, 1993 LoAR. This compared three
charges 2&1 vs in chief two charges. Laurel wrote in part,
'To sum up: the change from three charges 2&1 to two charges
in chief cannot count a second CD for placement on the field,
because two charges can't be 2&1' While it is true that two
charges can't be 2&1, it is also true that three charges can
be in chief. This leaves the implication that the less generous
interpretation prevails." Consulting the 1993 text, however,
shows that Laurel also adduced examples of the change from three
charges 2 & 1 to two charges in chief being used as a cadency
step in period. These examples of cadency forced Laurel to apply
the less generous interpretation. In Sefferey's case, there is no
reason to believe that the change from two axes addorsed to three
axes all with blades to dexter is but one cadency step. Therefore
we can give the submitter the benefit of the doubt and grant the
second CD. [Sefferey of Wessex, 02/2002,
A-Meridies]
[Badge for Thrown Weapons Deputy] This badge is for a
deputy for the marshallate in charge of thrown weapons. Precedent
is mixed about whether deputies to major offices may have Kingdom
badges assigned to them, or whether they must use a corporate
level badge. The Sovereigns of Arms and Laurel Clerk discussed
the issue, and Laurel determined the following: A combat marshal
must be quickly identifiable on the field during inter-kingdom
wars. Thus, it is important that the badges for marshals should
be the same throughout the Society. Such badges should therefore
be registered at the corporate level, rather than the kingdom
level. This is currently the case for the Equestrian Marshallate,
whose badge was registered at the Society level as Sable, two
tilting lances in saltire and in chief a chamfron Or. [An
Tir, Kingdom of, 02/2002,
R-An Tir]
Both Dafydd and Maridonna are SCA members, so the item on the
earliest dated Letter of Intent takes precedence, and the
Outlands letter predated the Meridies letter. [Maridonna
Benvenuti, 02/2002,
R-Meridies][Ed.: Returned for conflict with Dafydd]
From Laurel: Similar in the geometric sense: mini-emblazons,
that is
In the last few months, there have been cases where the
mini-emblazon included with the Letter of Intent did not
accurately represent the emblazon on the submission form. If the
emblazon does not match the form, the CoA cannot produce useful
commentary, which in turn does not allow a decision on that item.
The CoA has enough to review without commenting on the "wrong"
item. A mismatch between the LoI emblazon and what is on the
submission form can be reason for administrative return. If you
produce LoIs, please double-check that the mini-emblazons on your
letters are a good representation of the emblazons on the
submission forms.
Photoreduction is recommended over redrawing. Scanning can be
used with care. Many complaints have been received about
mini-emblazons which were produced by scanning at inappropriate
settings, rendering elements of the armory invisible or otherwise
unidentifiable. [04/2002,
CL]
The submitter did not check any boxes on the form indicating the
disposition of his previous device, Ermine, a fox rampant
contourny gules maintaining in dexter forepaw a rapier sable, a
bordure sable semy-de-lys Or. It is therefore released by
default, per the Administrative Handbook, section IV.C.7,
"Instructions for Disposition of Changed Items". [Balthasar
Yvon Charon, 04/2002,
A-An Tir]
[a tower sable ... environed in base with a laurel wreath
vert] The device must be returned for lack of a name to which
to register it. The armory had an additional problem which would
not allow it to be accepted. Laurel wreaths should not be drawn
with another charge between the tips of the wreath, except
possibly when the charge between the tips is very thin. "[A
laurel wreath and in chief a roundel] Second, the laurel wreath
is not closed (or even nearly so), and if it were, there would be
no room for a roundel. A properly drawn laurel wreath should not
have sufficient room between its tips to place another
charge"(LoAR 2/00). [Hawk's Rest, Shire of, 04/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Transfer of name and device to Daniel del Cavallo] This
is a posthumous transfer. The Laurel office was provided with (1)
a copy of Caterina's real-world will, (2) a letter from
Caterina's legal heir transferring Caterina's name and device to
Daniel del Cavallo, and (3) a letter from Daniel accepting
transfer of Caterina's name and device.
We suggest that all people with registered armory consider
writing an explicit heraldic will. Directions on how to create
and file a heraldic will are in the newest Administrative
Handbook section IV.F with a template for the will itself in
Appendix D. This newest version of the Administrative Handbook is
available on-line at http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/admin.html
as well as from the usual print sources. [Caterina del
Cavallo, 05/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
According to the September 2001 LoAR, "We do not have a similar
period pattern of a wide range of field treatments based on
various tessellations. Hence, after the LoAR of April 2002,
honeycombed will no longer be registerable in the SCA."
Therefore, this motif is no longer registerable.
Rampart expressed concern that this ruling was not available at
the time the Letter of Intent was issued, possibly due in part to
a misconception that the ruling was on the November 2001 LoAR,
rather than the September 2001 LoAR. The cover letter for the
LoAR of September 2001 is dated December 12, 2001, and the LoAR
was mailed within a day or two of December 10 (the date that
Master Symond, who is kind enough to do our mailings, received
the LoAR). The decision was therefore available for a full month
before the January 17, 2002, Letter of Intent upon which this
submission was forwarded to Laurel.
Pelican and Wreath expect that submissions heralds will be aware
of all rulings up to and including those made in LoARs which were
mailed during the month before the date of a Letter of Intent.
Standard College of Arms policy schedules the grace period for
disallowed practices (when such grace periods are implemented as
part of the Laurel decision) so that decisions may be made at
kingdom based on the LoAR issued the month previous to the
submission at hand. The grace period is not scheduled to cover
items which were in submission in a kingdom Internal Letter of
Intent, in the hands of a local consulting herald, or earlier in
the consultation and submission process. Some pertinent
precedents showing this timeline, or a slightly tighter timeline
(depending on the postmark date for the LoARs in question) are:
No evidence was presented that a roundel enchancré is a period
charge. Therefore, barring period evidence of its usage, after
the July 1997 Laurel meeting we will no longer register it.
(LoAR March 1997 p. 2) [note: deadline set so that it will
cover all LoIs issued on or before March 1997, when the
decision was published]
Commentary was nearly as strong in favor of banning garden
rosebuds from armory. Consequently, we will accept whatever
garden rosebuds may be in LoIs issued before December 1994, but
no further registrations of this charge will be made. (CL for
November 1994) [note: again, the deadline is set so that it
will cover all LoIs issued on or before the Cover Letter date
of November 1994.]
Please note that not all disallowed practices are
given a grace period before they are disallowed. The institution
of a grace period for a disallowed practice is at the discretion
of the Sovereigns of Arms. [Gauvain Eisenbein, 05/2002,
R-Outlands]
The College should note that a grace period when a new policy is
implemented is not required by Laurel policy, but is implemented
at the discretion of Laurel and the pertinent Sovereigns of Arms.
The wording of the December 2001 Cover Letter on this issue was
interpreted by some to mean that a grace period was required.
This is not so. A grace period did seem to be appropriate in the
case of this submission. [Gwenllian de Castell Coch,
06/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[(Fieldless) A tankard argent] Conflict with Giles
MacManus, registered in the Atlantian section of this LoAR,
Per bend sinister sable and gules, a tankard argent. There
is only one CD, for fieldlessness.
The cover letter for the March 1993 LoAR (dated 8 May 1993)
stated:
At their April 93 meeting, the Board of Directors decided to
accept my recommendation on how to prevent SCA members from
being disadvantaged by non-members during the heraldic
submission process. Corpora explicitly forbids us to consider
the membership status of an armory's owner, once the armory is
registered; the Board agreed that the only time a member's
submission could be returned for conflict by a non-member's
armory is when the two were considered at the same Laurel
meeting. Beginning immediately, therefore, if two submissions
at the same meeting are deemed to conflict, we will give
preference to the submission from the paid member. If both
submitters are (or aren't) paid members, then the first
received takes priority, as before.
This gives an advantage to members' submissions, without
requiring anyone to check every submitter's membership status.
Laurel need only call the Registrar, on those rare occasions
when membership becomes important; this happens seldom enough
to impose no undue burden on Laurel, the Registrar, or the
College.
This policy has not been rescinded. It has been
upheld a number of times since:
Since both submissions were from the same month, we followed
the strictures from the Board which meant that we had to
determine the membership status of the two submitters, since if
one was a member and one was not, the member would get priority
(LoAR September 1996).
According to the registry, both submitters were members in
August 2001, and thus priority is determined by the date on the
LoI (LoAR August 2001).
Wreath therefore telephoned the registry. The
registry indicated that Giles MacManus's membership was current
at the time of the Wreath meeting, and that Caterina had not been
a member since March 2000. Since the armory of a member takes
precedence over armory of non-members, Giles's armory takes
precedence. [Caterina Amiranda della Quercia, 07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Or goutty de sang] The gouttes are too numerous and too
small to be identifiable. There was a significant discrepancy
between the emblazon on the forms and the mini-emblazon on the
Letter of Intent. There are approximately 130 gouttes on the
form, and approximately 40 gouttes on the mini-emblazon. Forty
charges is a large number to have on the field compared to the
standard period depiction of a group of strewn charges (which
often has as few as ten charges on the field). As long as the
charges in a group of strewn charges maintain their
identifiability, they are acceptable regardless of the exact
number of charges in the emblazon. [Steffan von Hessen,
07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
The pile here is drawn with the pile issuing from the upper
corners of the shield. This is different from the mini-emblazon.
Since the full-sized emblazon is the final arbiter of the
drawing, this must be returned. To quote from one of the more
recent of the many rulings on the topic, "The pile is not drawn
properly; a pile should not issue from the corners of the shield,
but from farther in on the chief. As the pile also does not
extend to base, it cannot be reblazoned as a chaussé field" (LoAR
July 2000). [Michael of Ravenskeep, 07/2002,
R-Outlands]
[acceptance of transfer] The Letter of Intent stated, "The
e-mail requesting transfer, and Their Majesties' e-mail accepting
transfer, are attached to the submission form". General Laurel
policy has been explicit in indicating that official
correspondence should be signed and that, while a scanned copy of
a signed document is acceptable, e-mail is not. While the section
of the Administrative Handbook dealing with transfers does not
explicitly reiterate the requirement for a signature, Laurel has
stated that a signature is needed in this case as well. The
kingdom and Mistress Iduna have provided the College with signed
transfer paperwork, so the transfer may be effected.
The LoI noted that this badge was intended to be used by the
officer known as the Keeper of the Kingdom Directory. Per
Laurel, "The Directory Keeper is listed on the Artemisia web page
as a deputy of the Chronicler." Badges may not be registered for
officers (including deputy officers) if a kingdom or corporate
level badge for that position exists. In November 1980, a badge
was registered for the Chronicler of the Society for Creative
Anachronism: Per pale sable and argent, two quills conjoined
in pile counterchanged, a chief gules. We have dropped the
intended designator in order to register this badge to the
Kingdom of Artemisia. [Artemisia, Kingdom of, 10/2002,
A-Artemisia]
The shire's petition does not show support for this device. The
petition does not contain a blazon, or any indication of
tincture. The small line drawing emblazon does not show any
charges on the chief. In addition, the laurel wreath is depicted
on the petition as two curved lines making the bottom part of a
semicircle with an 'x' at the bottom. This could only be viewed
as a stylized laurel wreath with great charity. Because the
petition needs to be reissued, when it is reissued, the depiction
of the laurel wreath on the petition should match the wreath on
the device. [Tir Briste, Shire of, 11/2002,
R-Meridies]
This submission also has administrative problems. It was
submitted as a new device for the alternate persona, on a device
form. A submitter may only have one device, and Cynuise already
has a registered device, Argent, a griffin passant to sinister
vert within a bordure rayonny sable. A submitter may
designate secondary armory for the use of an alternate persona,
but the secondary armory should be submitted on a badge form and
should be designated as a badge instead of a device. Please
advise the submitter, on resubmission, to submit appropriately on
a badge or device form. If submitting on a device form, the form
should indicate that the submission is a device change and should
also indicate whether the previous device should be retained as a
badge or released. [Cynuise ó Cianáin of Bardsea, 11/2002,
R-Trimaris]
[a cross fleury vs. a cross of four ermine spots] There is
a CD ... for changing the type of cross. RfS X.4.e states "Types
of charges considered to be separate in period, for example a
lion and an heraldic tyger, will be considered different." Both
crosses fleury and crosses of ermine spots were considered to be
separate in period and were drawn so that they could be visually
distinguished from each other.
Some commenters noted the following precedent: "We could see no
more than a minor point of difference between the cross of
conjoined ermine spots and the cross fleury" (LoAR 21 May 89, p.
23). It is important to recall that the criteria of the current
Rules for Submissions are not the same as the criteria of the
rules which were in effect in May 1989. The current version of
the rules relies on historical and visual criteria for
difference, while previous versions of the rules relied mostly on
visual criteria. Thus, a precedent that a particular change was
worth either a major or a minor point of difference under the old
rules does not clearly translate into the presence or absence of
a CD. [Geffroi de Mosterol, 12/2002,
A-Ealdormere]
The Letter of Intent stated that this badge was intended for the
joint use of the Barony of Concordia of the Snows and the Shire
of Bergental. The Administrative Handbook only allows joint
registration by two individuals - branches may not participate in
a joint registration. To quote from section II.D.3, "Badges may
be registered by an individual, by two individuals jointly, or by
a Society branch." There is no administrative ambiguity about
which branch should be registering this badge, as the paperwork
received by the Laurel office only refers to the Barony of
Concordia of the Snows, with no reference to the Shire of
Bergental. [Concordia of the Snows, Barony of, 01/2003,
A-East]
[a cross patonce vs. a cross bottony] A second CD must
come from the type difference between a cross bottony and a cross
patonce.
SCA precedent has so far consistently held that there is a CD
between crosses bottony/crosslet and crosses
fleury/flory/patonce. Kraken provided some citations from
Papworth's Ordinary of British Armorials, taken from the
beginning of the section on single crosses. In these examples, we
find armory using both crosses bottony/crosslet, and crosses
fleury/flory/patonce, belonging to people with the same surname.
He therefore rightly raised the question of whether we should
continue to consider these types of cross to have been distinct
in period (and thus worth a CD for the change in type), or
whether we should consider them to have been artistic variants of
each other in period (with no CD for the change in type).
In researching this question, we have used Kraken's examples, and
added further research from Papworth, as well as Brault's The
Rolls of Arms of Edward I ("Aspilogia III"), Cecil
Humphery-Smith's Anglo-Norman Armory II, and the
Dictionary of British Armorials (henceforth abbreviated
DBA). We realize that these sources provide an unfortunately
Anglocentric view of heraldry, but the sources at our disposal
which allow this sort of research are largely English - and the
research is being used to elaborate on some initial information
that is also English.
The first, and most important question to ask, is whether
changing the type of cross could ever be a change indicating
different branches of the family (cadency). A change which could
indicate cadency is a change which could be worth a CD. It
appears that at least in some cases, the change in the type of
cross indicates cadency. One good example is the family of Ward,
as seen in the various sources cited above, where different
branches of the family are specifically cited as using distinct
cross types. As a general rule, type changes are one of the more
common types of cadency change in period - much more common than
cadency changes in posture and arrangement. So it is unsurprising
that changing the type of a cross is, in some cases, a cadency
change.
Since changing a cross type may sometimes indicate cadency, we
must therefore determine whether the changes in cross type which
we have found are indicative of cadency, or if they are
indicative of artistic variation. Some ways of demonstrating that
two types of charge are artistic variants of each other are:
- Demonstrating a general pattern of interchangeability between
the two types of charge: most armory using one sort of charge
is also found using the other sort of charge, or there is a
temporal trend so that earlier versions of the charge are drawn
in one way and later forms are drawn in the other way.
- Demonstrating that the choice of how to draw the charge was
most likely due to the artist, because the artist of one roll
would draw the charge consistently in one fashion and the
artist of another roll would draw the charge consistently in
another fashion.
- Demonstrating that there are numerous cases in which a single
individual bore variations of the same sort of cross.
In all the cases above, the analysis should consider
the source material and remove any erroneous material.
We were unable to demonstrate a general pattern of
interchangeability between these two types of cross. It appeared
that most of the time, a family used exclusively either crosses
bottony/crosslet (henceforth abbreviated "bottony") or crosses
patonce/fleury/flory (henceforth abbreviated "patonce"). This was
particularly evident in the examination of the better-researched
sources; as a general rule, Papworth's research is considered to
be less authoritative than Brault's, Humphrey-Smith's, or that of
the compilers of the DBA. Note that the DBA does not extend
through the "cross" category yet, but DBA includes a fair number
of examples of armory using either "bottony" or "patonce" crosses
as secondary or tertiary charges in the company of bends,
cantons, and chevrons.
We were unable to demonstrate that the choice of how to draw the
cross was due to stylistic variations between artists. As Kraken
noted, Harleian MS 1407 shows the family of Goldisbrgh/Goldesbry
in both "patonce" and "bottony variants". The families of
Brerlegh and Aton both are shown as using "patonce" and "bottony"
variants in Glover's Ordinary.
We were unable to find any trend where a single individual was
noted as using both "bottony" and "patonce" types of cross. We
freely admit that we were not able to isolate many cases where we
could attribute armory to a specific individual, so our
researches in this area were not particularly compelling.
Lastly, it seemed apparent that Papworth's citations from
Glover's Ordinary were responsible for a disproportionate number
of the cases where one family appeared to use "bottony" and
"patonce" crosses. These examples include the families of Aton,
Brerlegh, Ward, and Taddington/Tuddington. If Papworth's
interpretation of Glover's Ordinary is viewed as suspect, we are
left with almost no reason to consider crosses "bottony" and
"patonce" to be artistic variants of each other.
Thus, until new evidence is presented, we affirm the following
precedent: "...there is still a CD between a cross flory
and a cross bottony" (LoAR August 1999). [Miryam æt
West Seaxe, 02/2003,
A-Caid]
Some members of the College noted that another piece of armory
with similar design was accepted without comment, and asked if
the September 2000 precedent had been overturned due to that
acceptance. Please note that registrations without comment do not
establish precedent. [Magdelena Drucker, 02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
From Laurel: Laurel Does Not Know It All
We have all seen instances when a submission was returned that
was documented from a previously accepted submission - the old
standard phrase is "Past registration does not ensure future
registration." We are hopefully continuing to learn and this
moving target can sometimes cause a name or device to be returned
even just a month after a similar submission was accepted. A few
weeks ago there was a discussion concerning the reply to a "But
Laurel said ..." argument. The best summary of the situation
comes from Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn:
One should always read any decision by Laurel as being prefixed
by "Based on the available knowledge, research, and analysis
available to us at this time, it is our understanding that
..."
Many heralds (on all levels of the hierarchy) often forget this
and word statements of current knowledge as if they were
Absolute Truth, but there's still an onus on the listener as
well to insert the disclaimer.
We require your help to know "the truth". The
current knowledge is extended by the research of the College of
Arms, the College of Heralds, and the submitters. Any
documentation provided on a submission, whether it is from the
submitter, the Kingdom College of Heralds, or the College of Arms
commenters, goes a long way to helping us all learn. If you
provide "the truth" in your commentary and submissions work, that
leads to better recreation and we all benefit from the latest
best attempt at determining "the truth". [04/2003,
CL]
The badge is transferred from the Principality of Northshield. As
an administrative note, both parts of the transfer (the sending
from Northshield and the reception by Moraig) should be separate
items on the Letter of Intent. [Moraig Ann Drummond,
04/2003,
A-Middle]
We apologize to the submitter for not mentioning this conflict at
the time of the previous return, but the College of Arms did not
bring it to our attention at that time. The Laurel office has
been known to give the benefit of the doubt to a submission when
a possible problem was not mentioned in the previous return, but
was present in the previous submission and was clearly visible to
Laurel when viewing the submission. Such a "clearly visible"
problem could include possible problems with the artwork of the
submission or the general heraldic style of the submission.
Unmentioned conflicts are not clearly visible to Laurel and thus
do not fall into this category. [Charles the Grey of
Mooneschadowe, 06/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
Unfortunately, because there was a significant discrepancy
between the artwork in the full-sized emblazon and the
mini-emblazon provided to the College of Arms in the Letter of
Intent, we were unable to get the College's input on this
armorial style problem. ... Usually we would rely heavily on the
College's input to determine whether the artwork in the
submission was too ambiguous to be registered or whether it could
legitimately be registered with instructions to the submitter on
how to draw the emblazon more clearly.
A significant discrepancy between the full-sized and
mini-emblazon can be reason for return in itself, and is
certainly a reason for return when the mini-emblazon's depiction
masks a significant style issue with the armory on the full-sized
emblazon. The Administrative Handbook requirements for
preparation of letters of intent state that "An accurate
representation of each piece of submitted armory shall be
included on the letter of intent." The Cover Letter for the April
2002 LoAR stated:
In the last few months, there have been cases where the
mini-emblazon included with the Letter of Intent did not
accurately represent the emblazon on the submission form. If
the emblazon does not match the form, the CoA cannot produce
useful commentary, which in turn does not allow a decision on
that item. The CoA has enough to review without commenting on
the "wrong" item. A mismatch between the LoI emblazon and what
is on the submission form can be reason for administrative
return. If you produce LoIs, please double-check that the
mini-emblazons on your letters are a good representation of the
emblazons on the submission forms.
Photoreduction is recommended over redrawing. Scanning can be
used with care. Many complaints have been received about
mini-emblazons which were produced by scanning at inappropriate
settings, rendering elements of the armory invisible or
otherwise unidentifiable.
[Yosef ben Ami, 06/2003,
R-West]
The submitter's name, Caterina da Napoli, was returned in August
2002. That LoAR was mailed well before this submission was sent
to Laurel. Holding names are only formed for armory submissions
that appear on an LoI before the LoAR containing the name return
could be received and processed by the submission herald, not
submissions that appear on an LoI long after the name has already
been returned. Thus, even if this submission did not have
armorial style problems, it would need to be returned for lack of
a name under which to register it. [Katerina da Napoli,
07/2003,
R-Lochac]
There are several letters used in the submissions process that
require a signature. If a signature is required, then the letter
must include a copy of the handwritten signature. A text e-mail
message does not meet the requirement for a handwritten
signature. [08/2003,
CL]
... we note that the submission form designated the badge for the
use of the College of Scribes, but this was not stated in the
Letter of Intent. A future resubmission should be clear about
whether Kingdom intends to designate the badge for a particular
use. [Æthelmearc, Kingdom of, 08/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
... we still have not received an acceptable petition of support.
We have received a petition which consists of a piece of paper
which describes the device being submitted (very accurately and
completely) but the signatures are on a separate piece of paper
which has been cut off halfway down the sheet and then taped to
the description paper. As noted in the LoAR of November 2001, "As
with real-world petitions, the signatures should be on the same
piece of paper as a clear description of the item being supported
by the petition." You wouldn't want your bank to cash a check
which had a snipped separate piece of paper with the signature
taped onto the check - the same principle applies here.
Lastly, Administrative Handbook section IV.C.5 states "In the
case of branches with no ruling noble, this support may be
demonstrated by a petition of a majority of the populace and
officers or by a petition of the seneschal and at least
three-quarters of the other local officers." The signatures
provided here do not indicate which (if any) officers have signed
the petition. As a result it is difficult to determine if a
majority of the populace and officers - or the seneschal and at
least three-quarters of the other local officers - have signed
the signature list. The format of the petition is also unclear
about whether the signatures shows both SCA and real names of the
submitters - or just SCA names. It is thus hard to determine how
many people have signed the petition. [Loch Meadhonach, Shire
of, 08/2003,
R-Caltonir]
From Laurel: Time is a Precious Resource
Time is something that we all value and never seem to have in
excess. As busy as we all are, it is a shame to waste time on
activities that accomplish little or no good. It is a crime to do
something only part way that then requires others to spend time
to complete the work. There is a disturbing trend within the
College of Arms to take shortcuts that save a little time up
front but cause others more work.
Letters of Intent
When you take a shortcut on summarizing the documentation in a
Letter of Intent or simply do not include documentation of a
locative byname for a name submission, you are forcing the next
person in the submission process to complete the work you
started. The few minutes you saved by not including the necessary
information will cost one or more people those minutes and
perhaps more to recreate the information. (If you don't have the
information and wish the help of the College then please
specifically ask otherwise it looks like an omission.) If the
omission is corrected by the kingdom college, the number of
people doing the rework is limited, but if the rework must be
done during commentary by the College of Arms, the amount of time
is multiplied by potentially more than 50 people.
If you are unsure what is required either for documentation for a
submission or in summarization in a letter of intent, I direct
your attention to the Administrative Handbook (section V.B.2.b),
the December 2002 LoAR Cover Letter secion "From Pelican:
Inadequate Summarization of Submissions", and the November 2001
LoAR Cover Letter section "From Laurel Clerk: Things Missing from
LoIs".
Commentary
Another place where shortcuts are tempting is in commentary to
the College of Arms. We assume certain expertise and basic
knowledge in our fellow commenters and in the Sovereigns of Arms.
This relied-upon expertise can lull us into believing that a
quick comment such as "we no longer register snort-gaskets" is
sufficient. When making a statement or argument in which you give
an "I think" or "I remember" or even "this is not done", please
provide a reference to support your statement. A reference with
no documentation or support requires us to spend time before or
during the decision meeting looking for what you base your
statement upon. If you do not have the time to provide support
for a statement, it is better to omit that statement from your
commentary.
In Summary
The volume of submissions has grown too large for the College of
Arms to be able to regularly completely (re-)document an element
of a submission. If the supporting documentation is not provided
or adequately summarized on the Letter of Intent, the submission
will be returned so that the deficiency may be corrected.
The high volume also means that the Sovereign of Arms do not have
the time to search for the references that were vaguely given in
commentary. Statements in commentary that allude to documentation
but do not cite the source will be considered rumor and may be
ignored. [09/2003,
CL]
It is important to realize that a submission may need to be
returned because of a problem with the mini-emblazon, even if the
full-sized emblazon does not share that problem. If it appears
that the College fully researched the submission despite the
problems with the mini-emblazon, we may accept the submission.
However, in many cases, the College does not fully research the
submission for all style and conflict problems because they felt
that the artistic problem on the mini-emblazon was a sufficient
reason for return. When this happens, the mismatch between the
mini-emblazon and the full-sized emblazon is a reason for return.
[Caitilín ni Killane, 09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
This month we received a request to honor a heraldic will, and we
were able to honor it. However, the submission was not
accompanied by any evidence that the person who had filed the
heraldic will had, in fact, passed on. This was an uncomfortable
situation. Our staff reminded us that it is by no means unknown
for people to lie about a genuine real-world legal document with
malicious intent, so it would be best if the Laurel office were
provided with evidence of the death of the heraldic testator. On
the other hand, we had no desire to cause any further grief to
the bereaved by requesting this of the submitter. Laurel was able
to determine that the heraldic will was valid. However, we advise
kingdoms to accompany heraldic wills with some evidence
indicating that the deceased has, indeed, passed on, to avoid the
possibility that a living submitter might be a victim of a cruel
prank. [12/2003,
CL]
Note that jointly owned armory counts against the registration
limit of the primary owner of the badge. As noted in the Cover
Letter for the July 1992 LoAR, "My policy shall be that the first
name on the submission be the main badge-holder --- who has the
right to release, grant permission to conflict, etc. --- and the
second name receive the cross-reference in the A&O." The
person with the right to release or grant permission to conflict
must necessarily have this item counted against his registration
limit. [James Andrew MacAllister, 12/2003,
R-West]
In the spirit of the day after the nominal print date of this
cover letter, we should issue a warning about The Quarter,
http://www.thequarter.org/. It is an SCA newsletter completely
devoted to humor and satire. Those incautious enough to read it
while drinking may hurt their nasal passages and their keyboards,
and anyone else may be driven to drink. This newsletter takes
especial pleasure in poking fun at heralds and revealing our
secrets. Laurel and Laurel staff have even been deceived by their
irony.
Therefore, we are putting http://www.thequarter.org/ into
Administrative Handbook Appendix X, "Index Librorum Prohibitorum"
("Index of Prohibited Books"). All heralds are formally enjoined
from reading it without prior written permission from Laurel.
Laurel expects this injunction to be observed as rigorously as
the last time Laurel "formally enjoined" something in Trimaris
(LoAR of December 1992). [01/2004,
CL]
ADMINISTRATIVE
-- Comments and Commenting
There have been a substantial
number of possible visual conflicts called since August 2001. My
staff and I have duly looked at each emblazon, and it has been an
interesting romp through the binders, the CDs, and the occasional
hurried scan and email of a JPG from Filing Central in Austin
(thanks, Pelican!) During our first two months, I made certain
that each visual check was duly discussed in the LoAR. After
looking at the length of the LoARs, the visual checks will only
be reported if they appear to be important to discuss. I'll still
look at all of them, have no fear. [10/2001,
CL]
[Ambiguity in wording] The Cover Letter for the February
2002 LoAR stated:
In this month's submission for Aethelwine Aethelredson
(Calontir), a commenter raised the question of whether we
should protect the non-SCA arms of the Earl of Atholl.
Ordinarily, such a request during the commentary cycle would
cause a pend of the associated SCA armory and would be
discussed there rather than in the Cover Letter. In this case,
the armory in question was returned for a different reason, so
there was no need for a pend. Laurel procedure in the past has
been to rule on all requests for protection, whether they are
raised in commentary pertinent to a submission in progress or
whether they are raised in Letters of Intent to Protect.
Therefore, this "orphaned" issue is presented for your
consideration here in the Cover Letter.
The Cover Letter then quoted the section of the
letter of comment which requested protection of these arms.
This item is being pended for the College's further consideration
for two reasons. One reason is the ambiguity in the wording of
the Cover Letter for the February 2002 LoAR. The second reason is
the amount of new and pertinent information on this item which
was received by the Laurel office, but which had not been
presented to the College.
On the issue of ambiguity: As a general rule, when new items are
presented to the College, the intent of the writer is clear to
the readers. "Letter of Intent" is an accurate term. The Cover
Letter for the February 2002 LoAR did not state that it was the
intent of either Laurel or Wreath to protect the arms of the Earl
of Atholl. It just asked for "consideration" of a commenter's
request for protection of these arms.
The ambiguity in the request for consideration became apparent
when we found that we must rule on this submission based on very
sparse commentary. The general policy of the College of Arms has
long been that "silence implies assent." The intent of the writer
of a Letter of Intent is assumed to be supported (or at least,
not opposed) by all members of the College who do not comment on
the submission. Since the intent of Laurel and Wreath concerning
this submission was not made clear in the Cover Letter, it was
not clear how we should interpret the silence concerning this
request for consideration. We asked some members of the College
how they would interpret this silence, and received very
disparate answers, implying that the ambiguity was a legitimate
problem. Some members of the College felt that, since the Cover
Letter did not state Laurel's (or Wreath's) intent to protect the
submission, silence implied a lack of support for protection.
Others felt that since the cover letter quoted the commenter's
request for protection, silence implied support for the
commenter's request for protection.
While the College is not, and has never been, a "voting
organization", the criteria by which we choose to protect, or not
to protect, real-world arms involve opinions as well as fact.
Fame, familiarity, and importance are not easy to quantify. If
twenty members of the College all provide the same argument
explaining why two pieces of armory conflict, the argument is no
more or less compelling than if only one commenter has done so.
However, if twenty members of the College all state that a
particular piece of real-world armory is, or is not, "important",
"famous" or "familiar", that shared opinion is more compelling
than hearing the same opinion espoused by only one commenter. We
therefore strongly encourage all members of the College to
comment on issues of protection of real-world armory. While
scholarship and informed discussion are always preferred, there
is use in even a short comment like "The evidence presented
[does]/[does not] justify protecting this armory in the SCA."
It is therefore necessary to state unambiguously how silence will
be interpreted in reference to this pended item. Because this
item originated as a request for protection of the Earl of
Atholl's arms as important non-SCA arms, silence will be
interpreted as support for (or lack of opposition to) the
protection of the arms. Please note that this statement does
not reflect the personal opinions of either Wreath or Laurel.
[Atholl, Earl of, 08/2002,P-Laurel]
When quoting from the Armorial and Ordinary, please cite the date
of the armory as well as the name and blazon. The Wreath files
are organized in three different places, based on date: the 1985
and before CD archives, the 1986-1993 CD archives, and the
binders. We can save valuable time in the meeting if the
registration date is on the citation. My staff and I thank you
for your consideration.
Also, when citing cover letters, please cite the LoAR with which
the cover letter is associated, as well as the date of the cover
letter. It helps find the cover letter in the archives somewhat
faster. [10/2001,
CL]
Some members of the College noted that another piece of armory
with similar design was accepted without comment, and asked if
the September 2000 precedent had been overturned due to that
acceptance. Please note that registrations without comment do not
establish precedent. [Magdelena Drucker, 02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
From Laurel: Time is a Precious Resource
Time is something that we all value and never seem to have in
excess. As busy as we all are, it is a shame to waste time on
activities that accomplish little or no good. It is a crime to do
something only part way that then requires others to spend time
to complete the work. There is a disturbing trend within the
College of Arms to take shortcuts that save a little time up
front but cause others more work.
Letters of Intent
When you take a shortcut on summarizing the documentation in a
Letter of Intent or simply do not include documentation of a
locative byname for a name submission, you are forcing the next
person in the submission process to complete the work you
started. The few minutes you saved by not including the necessary
information will cost one or more people those minutes and
perhaps more to recreate the information. (If you don't have the
information and wish the help of the College then please
specifically ask otherwise it looks like an omission.) If the
omission is corrected by the kingdom college, the number of
people doing the rework is limited, but if the rework must be
done during commentary by the College of Arms, the amount of time
is multiplied by potentially more than 50 people.
If you are unsure what is required either for documentation for a
submission or in summarization in a letter of intent, I direct
your attention to the Administrative Handbook (section V.B.2.b),
the December 2002 LoAR Cover Letter secion "From Pelican:
Inadequate Summarization of Submissions", and the November 2001
LoAR Cover Letter section "From Laurel Clerk: Things Missing from
LoIs".
Commentary
Another place where shortcuts are tempting is in commentary to
the College of Arms. We assume certain expertise and basic
knowledge in our fellow commenters and in the Sovereigns of Arms.
This relied-upon expertise can lull us into believing that a
quick comment such as "we no longer register snort-gaskets" is
sufficient. When making a statement or argument in which you give
an "I think" or "I remember" or even "this is not done", please
provide a reference to support your statement. A reference with
no documentation or support requires us to spend time before or
during the decision meeting looking for what you base your
statement upon. If you do not have the time to provide support
for a statement, it is better to omit that statement from your
commentary.
In Summary
The volume of submissions has grown too large for the College of
Arms to be able to regularly completely (re-)document an element
of a submission. If the supporting documentation is not provided
or adequately summarized on the Letter of Intent, the submission
will be returned so that the deficiency may be corrected.
The high volume also means that the Sovereign of Arms do not have
the time to search for the references that were vaguely given in
commentary. Statements in commentary that allude to documentation
but do not cite the source will be considered rumor and may be
ignored. [09/2003,
CL]
Conflict with Earl of Morris, Lozengy sable and gules, a hart
rampant argent. ... More than [one] commenter cited the
conflict above as being "important real-world armory" for
"the Earl of Morris." However, the Armorial and Ordinary,
and the Earl of Morris submission form, are clear that
this registration, originally from 1973 albeit reblazoned later,
is not real-world armory. It is just for some SCA guy named [Sir]
Earl. Please be precise in your citations. . [Áedán uí
Néill, 02/2004,
R-Atlantia]
ADMINISTRATIVE -- A Cautionary Word
Regarding "Conflict Tables"
From Wreath: A Cautionary
Word Regarding "Conflict Tables"
It has come to our attention that there is a growing trend in the
College to create "conflict tables". These tables summarize
precedent on some class of armorial elements, such as crosses,
flowers, or lines of division. The tables use a simple format
that allows one to (for example) compare two types of crosses and
look up whether they have no difference, a single CD
("significant" difference), or X.2 difference ("substantial"
difference.) The tables also allow the user to identify the LoARs
in which the rulings referenced by the table were made.
We understand the desire to provide a quick and simple summary of
conflict issues, and we thank the compilers of these tables for
their hard work. However, we caution the College that these
tables may inadvertently contribute to an inaccurate view of the
heraldic issues. We have reached this conclusion by investigating
the source of some assertions made in College of Arms commentary,
which turned out to be based on overgeneralizations from conflict
tables, rather than being based on the combination of the Rules
for Submission, examples of period armory, and precedents (past
rulings in LoARs). We are happy to see that the conflict tables
of which we are aware do reference an LoAR for each assertion
made in the table. We suggest that people make use of the
conflict tables, but that they do not make up their minds about
conflict issues until they have read the full LoAR ruling
referenced by the table, and until they have read the LoAR
rulings referenced in closely related areas of the table.
In many cases, if there is not a clear general ruling pertaining
to some class of armorial elements, it is because the issues
pertaining to that class of elements are not easily summarized.
RfS X, "Conflicting Armory", explains how armorial conflict in
the SCA is based on an attempt to emulate period armorial
practices:
A piece of armory may not be too similar to other pieces of
armory, as is required by General Principle 3a of these rules.
Period armory frequently distinguished between immediate
relatives, like a father and his son, by making a single change
to the arms in a process called "cadency". The changes made in
such circumstances can be considered the smallest change that
period heralds would recognize. This section defines ways in
which submitted armory must be changed to be sufficiently
different from protected armory.
It is just as easy - or as difficult - to create a
table summarizing the grammar of a language, as it is to create a
table summarizing period armorial practices for difference. In
both natural language and in armory, there are many generally
applicable rules, but also a large number of specific
exceptions.
We would like to address one specific misconception which,
according to some commenters, derived from an overgeneralization
of a conflict table. One conflict table concerning crosses had a
category of "cross throughout" (with sub-categories for the
particular types of cross throughout, such as equal-armed
Celtic quarter-pierced.) As a result of the cursory scan of
this category, which generally gave a CD between the "throughout"
cross and the cross with which it was compared, more than one
College of Arms member incorrectly generalized that all
crosses throughout were a CD from all crosses which were
not throughout. The precedents listed in the LoAR table
explicitly denied that generalization, but one had to look at the
cited precedents to see that information. One example of a
precedent referenced by the conflict table that denied this
generalization:
[A Celtic cross vs. a Celtic cross equal-armed, quarterly
pierced and throughout] There is no heraldic difference for the
charge being throughout, or not. However, there's a CD ... for
the quarter-piercing, which is visually equivalent to adding a
tertiary delf. (Toirrdelbach Ua Mel Doraid, October, 1992, pg.
16)
A relatively recent LoAR also addressed this issue.
Clarifying comments have been inserted into the quote in square
brackets:
While we give a CD for a standard cross throughout [the
ordinary] versus a cross couped, for most crosses (such as
crosses fleury) we do not give such difference for couped
[not-throughout] versus throughout. (LoAR February 2002).
[03/2004,
CL]
ADMINISTRATIVE
-- Devices for Consorts and Royal Heirs
[Device change
for Consort] This submission has insufficient support from
the populace of the Kingdom to be accepted. It is necessary for a
kingdom to show support, not merely indifference, for changing
armory that is as important as the consort's arms. The total
polling, according to the LoI, had 93 respondents with 74 of the
respondents in favor of the change. According to the S.C.A.
Registry, on April 1, 2003, the Kingdom of Atlantia had 1254
sustaining members, 166 associate members, and 663 family
members, for a total of 2083 members. This means that the total
polling of 93 people reflected less than 5 percent of the
Atlantian membership, with the positive responses being even less
than that. We do understand that in any polling, many members
will choose not to respond to the polling. Even taking that fact
into account, the support shown here is insufficient to support
the change in the armory. [Atlantia, Kingdom of, 04/2003,
R-Atlantia]
From Laurel: Devices for Consorts and Royal Heirs
This month we were called upon to reflect on the SCA's policy of
registering devices for a consort (either for a kingdom or a
princpality), or for royal heirs apparent (also for a kingdom or
principality). We have no evidence of a real-world consort having
arms that differed from her husband's (except for marshalling).
We likewise have no evidence of an heir apparent having arms that
were not a differenced version of the arms of their parent,
except for marshalling, and for fiefs that the heir apparent
might have had (such as the Dauphiné, ruled by the dauphin, the
heir to the French throne).
The practice of registering devices for the consort and heirs is
falling out of favor in the SCA in general. Some of the newer
kingdoms have not registered devices for their consorts and their
heirs. We applaud the trend to a more period practice with
regards to arms, or lack of separate armory for the consort and
heirs.
Because the SCA device is parallel to real-world practices for
arms, the SCA shall no longer register devices for consorts or
for heirs to a kingdom or principality after July 2004.
Under this decision, consorts in kingdoms or principalities
without consort's arms may use the undifferenced kingdom arms,
and kingdoms may elect to allow both heirs to the throne to
display the kingdom arms differenced by a label or other standard
mark of cadency. This matches some period armorial display for
royal arms.
Kingdoms and principalites that currently have arms registered
for the consort or heirs may submit changes to the registered
armory via the application of the grandfather clause. We shall
require a poll of the populace showing support for changes to the
armory. Note that this poll has not previously been explicitly
required for the armory of the heirs apparent, but it seems
appropriate to require such a poll, which is already required for
consorts.
Kingdoms and principalities that currently have arms registered
for the consort or heirs are encouraged to consider following
period practice and to discontinue the use of the armory.
[12/2003,
CL]
ADMINISTRATIVE
-- Generic Identifiers
From Pelican: What is a Generic
Identifier?
A submission this month raised the issue of generic identifiers
again. Given the confusion that exists regarding what is and is
not a generic identifier, as well as how generic identifiers are
used, we are providing a clarification of this issue.
Generic identifiers are descriptions that may be associated with
registered items (mainly badges) to identify the use of that
item. Unlike registered names (award names, order names, guild
names, household names, et cetera), generic identifiers are not
registered as an independent item and are not protected from
conflict. This does not mean that the group may not use this
identifier, but simply that we will not limit the usage of that
identifier to a single group.
Names that fall into the generic identifier category are names
that would reasonably be used by more than one branch for common
functions of the branch. All kingdoms can have a
university. All baronies can have a baronial guard.
All groups can have an equestrian guild.
Adding the name of the branch to the description does not affect
generic identifiers (because branch identifiers are transparent
for conflict). As an example, Outlands Equestrian Guild
falls into the generic category because the only thing that would
differentiate it from Equestrian Guild of Calontir are the
branch identifiers Outlands and of Calontir.
Some generic identifiers referring to kingdom uses are:
King's battle flag, Ensign, Flag, War banner, populace badge
Some generic identifiers referring to awards or
specific positions are:
Champion, Defender, Kingdom Warlord, King's Champion, Queen's
Bard, Queen's Champion, Children's Defender, Champion of Arts
and Sciences
Some generic identifiers referring to guards and
guilds are:
Baronial Guard, Guard, Queen's Guard
Archers, Archery Guild, Armourers' Guild, Bards' Guild,
Brewers' Guild, Chirurgeon's Guild, Clothiers' Guild, Cooks'
Guild, Equestrian Guild, Herbalist Guild, Needleworker's Guild,
Scribes' and Illuminators' Guild, Waterbearers' Guild
Æthelmearc Equestrian Guild, Equestrian Guild of Calontir,
Outlands Equestrian Guild
Carolingian Brewers' Guild, Drachenwald Brewer's Guild, East
Kingdom Brewer's Guild
Some generic identifiers referring to academies and
universities are:
Atlantian Pages Academy, University of Drachenwald, University
of the East Kingdom
Some generic identifiers referring to offices are:
Office of the Chatelaine, Ministry of Children, Office of the
Minister of Children, Kingdom Chirurgeon, Chronicler,
Chronicler's Office, Hospitaller, Office of the Lists
Descriptions such as these are generic and may be
used to identify the purpose of a registered item, but are not
registerable on their own. They are included in the Ordinary and
Armorial as references, rather than as registered items. In this
manner, they convey the use of the item with which they are
associated, but they are not protected against conflict.
[12/2002,
CL]
The LoAR designated the badge for use by a particular named
academy and stated "Atlantia is not attempting to register the
Academy Name at this time, merely wishing to associate the badge
with that group." Only registered items (such as order names and
household names) and generic identifiers may be associated with
badges. As the (particularly named) academy is neither a
registered item nor a generic identifier, it must be removed from
the submission. One recent ruling affirming this long-standing
administrative procedure is in the February 2002 LoAR: "The
submission was designated as being for the Tinkerer's
Guild. However, this is not a generic designation. A tinker
is a period artisan, and thus a Tinker's Guild would be a
generic designation (like a Blacksmith's Guild) which
could be applied to a badge. However, tinkerer does not
seem to be a period occupation. Since the branch does not have
the name Tinkerer's Guild registered to them, the
designation has been removed."
The Cover Letter to the December 2002 LoAR has a long discussion
of what sort of identifiers are generic. The summary definition
states, "Names that fall into the generic identifier category are
names that would reasonably be used by more than one branch for
common functions of the branch. All kingdoms can have a
university. All baronies can have a baronial guard.
All groups can have an equestrian guild." [Atlantia,
Kingdom of, 07/2003,
A-Atlantia]
ADMINISTRATIVE --
Permission to Conflict
Gillian's arms conflict with Iamys
Huet's, found later in this LoAR. Gillian is an SCA member, and
therefore, her submission takes precedence and may be registered
without a letter of permission from Iamys. She is unlikely to be
surprised by these events, as she has provided a letter of
permission to conflict to Iamys. [Gillian Kylpatrick,
11/2001,
A-Caid]
Unfortunately, the letter of permission provided is not valid.
According to the Administrative Handbook, section IV.C.3, a
written statement of permission must be included, signed by the
owner of the conflicting item with both Society Name and name
used outside the Society. The letter provided was not signed.
Note that a signature is not a computer generated line of
typescript giving the name of the submitter, it is a handwritten
signature or a copy thereof. Perhaps in the future we might wish
to consider email headers, or electronic signatures, as valid
signatures. However, it is worth noting that neither of these
were present in this letter of permission either. [Madallaine
Isabeau de Cat, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[regarding Eleanor Leonard's permission to conflict] Over
the years, there have been many requests for permission to
conflict made of and given by Eleanor. In 1991, Eleanor Leonard
presented the College of Arms with a blanket letter of permission
to conflict reserving only the specific ways she intended to use
the badge, so that she would not continue to be bothered by
requests for permission to conflict.
In the September 1991 LoAR Cover Letter, the relevant portion of
the letter was published with a call for discussion. In the
January 1992 Cover Letter, Da'ud ibn Auda, then Laurel, did not
accept it, giving reasons for not "customizing protection" that
included not wanting to complicate the Administrative Handbook,
the Armorial, and the lives of SCA heralds. It is true that there
would be problems with registering any arbitrary conditions a
submitter might impose. However, one simple blanket permission
was registered in 1997. The recent edition of the Administrative
Handbook now provides for two simple types of blanket letters of
permission in III.C.4, "Blanket Permission to Conflict", and
Appendix D has a template "Blanket Permission to Conflict".
Furthermore, even a more complicated blanket permission may be
worth accepting. We will consider such exceptional letters on a
case-by-case basis, balancing the costs of implementations of
letters versus the benefits to submitters. ...
Therefore, there is permission to conflict for any armory with a
primary charge that is not solidly one of the seven major
tinctures (argent, Or, azure, gules, purpure, sable, and vert).
As well, there is permission to conflict for any fielded armory
(not fieldless) where the field is not solidly one of those seven
major tinctures. [01/2002,
CL][Ed.: See the Cover Letter for the complete
discussion]
[Azure chapé ployé, a tulip slipped and leaved Or]
Conflict with Katheline van Weye, Quarterly vert and purpure,
a tulip slipped and leaved Or. The submitter has a letter of
permission to conflict from Katheline that explicitly pertained
to her previous submission, Azure, a tulip slipped and leaved
Or. However, no letter of permission to conflict has been
received for this submission. As can be seen in Appendix D of the
Administrative Handbook, the standard form letter for a letter of
permission to conflict (which was followed in Katheline's letter)
only specifically gives permission to conflict between two stated
blazons: that of the registered item and that of the submission
in progress. The old letter of permission to conflict, as stated,
does not pertain to this new submission. It is an unfortunate
inconvenience, to be sure, but it does allow precision in
granting permission. Note that more general letters of permission
to conflict are acceptable if stated clearly and unequivocably.
[Sondra van Schiedam, 09/2002,
R-Calontir]
The device is still in conflict with the armory cited in the
previous return, that of Degary Golafre of Pembroke ... The
submitter has provided Laurel with emails from Degary's wife,
issued from Degary's email account, indicating willingness to
provide permission to conflict. However, the administrative
handbook requires that "If permission to conflict has been
granted, a written statement of permission must be included,
signed by the owner of the conflicting item with both Society
Name and name used outside the Society." The emails did not
include a signature, and therefore are not valid letters of
permission to conflict. A scan of a full letter of permission to
conflict (including signature along with the text of the letter)
would be acceptable, but unsigned text email is not.
The submitter, in her long and unfortunately arduous submissions
history, has amassed letters of permission to conflict ... Some
of these letters of permission to conflict are by no means
recent: the one which bears a date is dated November 27, 1995,
and some of the others may be older. The College should note that
the administrative handbook does not mandate an "expiration date"
for letters of permission to conflict, nor does a letter of
permission to conflict cease to be valid if a submission is
returned at Laurel. Yet permission to conflict may be rescinded
by the owner of the conflicting armory at any time before the
submission is registered. Any person wishing to rescind
permission to conflict for a submission which has not yet been
registered must write to Laurel and the submitting kingdom with
an explicit letter to rescind any previously written letter of
permission to conflict. [Elina of Beckenham, 09/2002,
R-West]
It has been requested that the long-standing SCA tradition of
assuming that a submitter automatically grants himself permission
to conflict should finally be enshrined, in writing, in these
hallowed LoARs. Therefore, let it be explicitly known that a
submitter is assumed to give himself permission to conflict with
all names and armory registered to him individually or jointly.
[Timothy of Glastinbury, 11/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[on a bordure ... the words "In Diece von Albrecht von
Halstern"] The text on the bordure was intended to mean "in
service to Albrecht von Halstern." ... In addition, the College
had concerns about the fact that this armory contains text using
another SCA member's registered name (Albrecht von Halstern)
without permission from that SCA member. Note that RfS I.3 states
(emphasis added) "No name or armory will be registered which
claims for the submitter powers, status, or relationships
that do not exist." We decline to rule on this issue at this
time, as we would like to see more commentary from the College on
this topic. However, we strongly suggest that any submitter whose
armory contains text that is a registered SCA name should obtain
a letter of permission from the referenced person or branch.
[Beowulf fitz Malcolm, 02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
The badge conflicts with a badge of Isabel the Mad ... The
submitter included a copy of e-mail from Isabel the Mad, which
gave permission to conflict, but the e-mail was not signed with
an actual signature. The Administrative Handbook section IV.C.3
requires a signature to a letter of permission to conflict:
Permission to Conflict - If permission to conflict has been
granted, a written statement of permission must be included,
signed by the owner of the conflicting item with both Society
Name and name used outside the Society. (See Appendix D for a
standard form for granting permission to conflict.)
In this month of "spoofed" e-mails courtesy of the
computer virus de jour (where the apparent sender of the e-mail
was not in fact the real sender of the e-mail) it seems
appropriate to reaffirm current precedent on this topic, as
stated in the LoAR of November 2001:
Unfortunately, the letter of permission provided is not valid.
According to the Administrative Handbook, section IV.C.3, a
written statement of permission must be included, signed by the
owner of the conflicting item with both Society Name and name
used outside the Society. The letter provided was not signed.
Note that a signature is not a computer generated line of
typescript giving the name of the submitter, it is a
handwritten signature or a copy thereof. Perhaps in the future
we might wish to consider e-mail headers, or electronic
signatures, as valid signatures. However, it is worth noting
that neither of these were present in this letter of permission
either.
[Gabriel Ximenez de Malaga, 08/2003,
R-Calontir]
ADIMINSTRATIVE --
Registration Limit
From Laurel: Enough, or More Than
Enough?
The CoA Administrative Handbook, in defining limits on the number
of items that may be registered, specifically states that,
"Kingdoms, principalities, baronies, provinces, and equivalent
branches are subject to no limit on the number of items they may
register". (AH I.A) In the March 1986 LoAR, Baldwin Laurel
returned the five badges, identical save the color of the field,
submitted by the Barony of Westermark, saying:
No formal restriction is placed on the number of badges a
branch may be submit because it is assumed that branches may
have good and constructive reasons for more than one badge.
This is an abuse of the privilege. Please advise them to pick
one.
Since June 2002, we have been asked to consider
nineteen badges from Trimaris (not counting duplicate submissions
that were withdrawn by the kingdom). Of these nineteen badges,
ten were addressed in June and nine are being considered for
registration this month. The Letter of Intent did not explain the
intended purpose of any of these badges.
The large number of badges submitted in a short time has raised
concerns of abuse of the privilege of unlimited registrations
allowed for kingdoms. All the submissions have been for fieldless
badges using azure charges, most of nautical origin. On
conferring with the submitting kingdom, it appears that they have
been registering badges against future need.
The large number of undesignated badges submitted in such a short
time, especially when a number of the badges are intended for
future use, appears to be an attempt to "corner the market" on
azure nautical badges. We consider this to be an "abuse of the
privilege" of the unlimited number of registered items allowed by
the Administrative Handbook. We believe that badges should only
be registered for current or identified need. Therefore, the nine
badge submissions from Trimaris are being returned to allow
Trimaris to reconsider the need for the registration of these
badges at this time.
Laurel wishes to make it clear that, if the kingdom or any branch
"subject to no limit on the number of items they may register"
has a legitimate need for these badges, it should certainly be
able to register them without forcing the kingdom to provide a
designation - or worse, an unnecessary associated name
registration - to "explain" the need for the badges. Reference to
a generic identifier in an armory submission may assist Laurel
when considering significant numbers of submissions at a single
time. [11/2002,
CL]
AMPHIBIAN
[a frog tergiant inverted] This
device uses a frog in the tergiant inverted posture. The SCA has
general precedents against registering inverted animate charges
unless they are part of a radially symmetrical group such as
in annulo. These precedents are on the grounds that such
inverted animals are generally not readily identifiable, and they
are not found in period heraldry. However, the SCA also has a
registration tradition of allowing animals which are usually
found in a tergiant posture to be registered in the tergiant
inverted posture. We were asked by the submitting kingdom to rule
on the acceptability of the tergiant inverted posture when
considering this submission.
There is very little period evidence for tergiant inverted
animals in heraldry. No evidence was presented by the College. We
were only able to find two instances of period or near-period
tergiant inverted animals after the Wreath meeting, both of which
used scorpions. There is a tergiant inverted scorpion as the
crest of Sir William Sharington/Sherrington c. 1547 in
Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry, p. 104. This crest
is a very unusual depiction of the Sherrington scorpion
crest/badge: in the town of Lacock (where the Sherrington family
was granted the old abbey as a home by Henry VIII), there are
period displays of their armory in the Abbey/Sherrington home and
in the town church, and the scorpion seems always to be in the
default tergiant posture. Guillim's Display of Heraldrie
second edition p.215 gives the arms of Cole, Argent, a
cheueron, Gules, betweene three scorpions reversed, sable.
The emblazon shows the scorpions in what the SCA would call the
tergiant inverted posture. The second edition, published
in 1632, is not in our period, but is in our grey area. The
combination of a perhaps-erroneous emblazon of a crest with a
slightly post-period emblazon of armory is not clear evidence of
period practices for scorpions, and is certainly not compelling
evidence for a general period use of the posture tergiant
inverted.
A significant number of commenters felt that inverting a tergiant
charge which is commonly found as tergiant (such as a tergiant
scorpion or a frog) does not hamper the identifiability of the
charge so much as to render it unidentifiable, and they felt that
it should be acceptable. The frog in this submission certainly
retains its identifiability very clearly in the inverted posture.
As a result, inverting a tergiant charge is acceptable as long as
it does not otherwise violate any basic heraldic principles,
including the requirement for identifiability. Because of the
lack of period evidence for tergiant inverted charges, the
posture will be considered a clear step from period practice
(also known informally as a "weirdness") for any charge that
cannot be found in this posture in period. We explicitly decline
to rule at this time on whether scorpions tergiant inverted
should be considered a "weirdness". [George Anne,
05/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a frog courant] This frog is not drawn identifiably. Most
notably, it lacks the expected webbed feet (appearing, rather, to
have feline paws), and instead of having a frog's long hind legs
and rear feet, its hind legs and hind feet are only slightly
larger than the forelegs and forefeet. In general, the College
uniformly found this emblazon to be difficult to identify for a
number of artistic reasons.
We note that frogs in period heraldry are invariably found in the
tergiant posture. The SCA has registered frogs in other postures
as long as they maintained their identifiability. [Dauid Mac
an Ghoill, 09/2003,
R-Meridies]
ANNULET
[(Fieldless) Three thistles
conjoined in pall inverted bases to center proper within and
conjoined to an annulet Or] The annulet is drawn at the edge
of the circle of the form, so that at first glance it appears to
be a bordure. This sort of depiction should be avoided, as it
causes confusion. [Isabel du Lac d'Azur, 08/2001,
A-Atenveldt]
[three annulets interlaced one and two Or] A question was
raised about possible problems with use of the Ballantine's Ale
insignia. While we did not find the corporate web site, we did
find beer collectors' web sites showing many beer labels of
varying ages, and the Ballantine's Ale logo uses the annulets two
and one, not one and two. Because this is a simple geometric
logo, without any particular nuances of artwork that make these
rings an unmistakable allusion to the Ballantine's logo, the
inversion of the three rings design does not infringe on the
Ballantine's Ale insignia. [Roaring Wastes, Barony of the,
11/2001,
R-Middle]
[Gules, a fireball within an annulet Or] This does not
conflict with ... Gules, a horse rampant to sinister within an
annulet Or. The annulet functions here as a surrounding
secondary charge, like a bordure. This is therefore clear by RfS
X.2, as the type of the primary charges has substantially
changed, and this is simple armory for purposes of that rule ("no
more than two types of charge directly on the field and has no
overall charges.".). [Jehanne le feu du Christ, 06/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[six annulets interlaced in annulo] The submitter is a
knight and thus entitled to use a closed loop of chain. These
annulets interlaced in annulo resemble a chain closely enough
that they could only be registered to someone able to register
the reserved charge of a closed loop of chain. [Ibrahim
al-Dimashqi, 03/2003,
A-Artemisia]
[Quarterly azure and argent, an annulet sable] Conflict
with Conrad Breakring, Argent, an annulet fracted on the
dexter side sable. There is one CD for changing the field but
nothing for fracting the annulet. The LoAR of February 1999, p.
10, gave no difference between a serpent involved (a serpent
biting its tail so that its body is in a circle) and Conrad's
annulet fracted: "[Or, a serpent involved sable] This
conflicts with Conrad Breakring of Ascalon, Argent, an annulet
fracted on the dexter side sable., with one CD for the
difference in the fields." This default annulet should resemble
Conrad's fracted annulet even more strongly than the fracted
annulet resembles a snake involved. [Guðrøðr of Colanhomm,
11/2003,
R-Drachenwald]
ARCHITECTURE
There is no difference
between a tower and a lighthouse given the varying depictions of
towers and similar architecture in period, so there is only one
CD for adding the laurel wreaths. ... A lighthouse, like a
beacon, is correctly enflamed at the top only, according to the
Pictorial Dictionary. [Dun an Chalaidh, Shire of, 08/2001,
R-An Tir]
[a tower argent masoned sable] Architectural charges made
of stonework such as towers, castles and walls may be drawn
masoned as a matter of artist's license. Therefore, there is no
additional tincture difference for adding or removing masoning
for these types of charge. [Gemma Meen, 01/2002,
R-An Tir]
The turnpike, or turnstyle, in this submission would be the
defining registration of this charge in SCA heraldry. Defining
instances of charges require slightly higher standards of
documentation than registrations of previously registered
charges. This policy has been upheld consistently for over ten
years but one of the clearest statements of the policy is in the
LoAR of August 1995:
A registration of this submission would apparently be the
first, and therefore defining, instance of such a charge.
Especially in the case of charges not registered previously,
the College requires documentation that the charge (a) has been
used in period armory or (b) is compatible with similar charges
in period armory, and (c) has a standardized depiction which
would make reproducability [sic] from the blazon possible. We
need such documentation here.
This submission was accompanied by a single piece of
documentation from Parker's A Glossary of Terms used in
Heraldry. This book does not clearly date the charge as
having been used in period armory. The only date provided in
Parker is associated with the crest of Skipworth, but appears to
be the date of the founding of the baronetcy rather than the date
of the crest. We consulted Fairbairn's Crests, but that
volume did not help resolve the date of that particular crest. No
evidence was presented by the submitting kingdom, and none was
found by the College or Laurel staff, for use of a turnpike in
period heraldry.
If a turnpike is a period artifact, it would probably be
"compatible with similar charges in period armory" such as
portcullises and doors. However, no evidence was presented
describing a period turnpike. Nor was documentation presented
showing that a turnpike "has a standardized depiction which would
make reproducability [sic] from the blazon possible." The
submission must therefore be returned until such time as the
turnpike may be documented appropriately for a defining instance
of the charge. [Ian Cradoc, 05/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[an arch top] The SCA has not registered an arch
top before, although it has registered an arch. The
arch top in this submission is the semicircular portion of
an arch only, without any columns on the sides.
In some cases, we routinely create a new charge out of a portion
of a standard heraldic charge without requiring specific
documentation for that portion of a charge being used as an
independent charge in period. It was a standard period heraldic
practice to create demi-beasts and beast's heads
from a beast. In keeping with this real-world practice, if
a particular beast or monster is a documented heraldic charge, we
routinely allow the registration of a demi-beast/monster or a
beast's/monster's head as long as the charge's identifiability is
preserved. For example, a demi-enfield preserves its
identifiability as a portion of an enfield, as it includes the
enfield's fox's head, eagle's forelegs and greyhound's torso.
However, an enfield's head does not preserve its
identifiability, as it would be identical to a fox's head.
We thus would not register an enfield's head, although we
could register a fox's head.
In the case of the arch top, it does not appear to be a
standard period heraldic practice to create an arch top
from an arch, any more than it is a standard period
practice to create a tower top from a tower. The
College felt that the identifiability of the arch top was
not preserved when it is removed from the rest of the arch, and
that this charge violated RfS VII.7.a, which states in pertinent
part, "Any charge, ... must be identifiable, in and of itself,
without labels or excessive explanation. Elements not used in
period armory may be defined and accepted for Society use if they
are readily distinguishable from elements that are already in
use." The College felt that the arch top was not
"identifiable, in and of itself." Moreover, if the arch top is an
"[element] not used in period armory", it is not "readily
distinguishable from elements that are already in use", as it
could be confused with a bridge.
If documentation were provided for an arch top in period
heraldry, then the charge could be registered. The concerns about
the identifiability of this "[element] not used in period armory"
would be removed if documentation were presented showing that an
arch top, in this depiction, was a period charge. However,
no such documentation has been provided with this submission, or
by the College.
Precedent has consistently held that the first submission of a
charge to the College should be accompanied by documentation:
"This is being returned for lack of documentation. We can find no
indication that a 'muffin cap' has ever been registered before in
the SCA. As a consequence, this would be the defining instance of
the charge. Previous Laurel Sovereigns of Arms have held new
charges to the same standard of documentation and have return
them for lacking it, c.f. a winch (Bruce Draconarius of
Mistholme, LoAR 9/92, p. 42), a Mongol helm (Bruce Draconarius of
Mistholme, LoAR 12/92, p. 15), a zalktis (Bruce Draconarius of
Mistholme, LoAR 1/93, p. 28) and a Viking tent arch (Da'ud ibn
Auda, LoAR 5/94, p. 17)" (LoAR August 1997, p. 16). [Odysseus
Titinius Maximus, 12/2003,
R-Calontir]
[a house] This is the first SCA registration of a house.
It is shaped like a horizontal billet with a hip roof and a
slightly sagging ridge beam. The door is arch-topped and is in
the center of the fesswise billet, and there are two small
arch-topped windows over the door, one to either side.
The depiction of the house is taken from Von Volborth's
Heraldry, Customs, Rules and Styles, p. 54. Von Volborth
does modern redrawings but has a good idea of period
sensibilities. The illustration says that the arms are of the
town of Dorfen, in Bavaria, and are derived from 14th C
seals.
Houses are found, if infrequently, in period armory. In addition
to the 14th C coat mentioned by Von Volborth, the Dictionary
of British Arms gives a few examples of armory depicting a
"house" or "hall." Unfortunately, no evidence was either
presented or found showing a period depiction of a house as used
in heraldry.
The LoAR of May 1998 indicates that the usual SCA procedures for
the first registration of a charge are relaxed for architectural
charges. While ordinarily a new charge documented solely from a
modern redrawing (such as Von Volborth's) would not be
registerable, this house meets the criteria set forth in the May
1998 LoAR for first registrations of architectural
charges. This charge is clearly recognizable as some sort of a
house, and houses were period charges. This is thus analogous to
the May 1998 registration of a domed mosque of one minaret
which stated:
A question of reproducibility was raised in commentary in
regards to this submission. Of particular relevance to this
case are period heraldic depictions of buildings. There are,
particularly in Continental heraldry, many coats incorporating
everything from individual buildings up to entire cities. Even
a casual examination of multiple sources will show that there
was little regularity in depiction. The blazon for such charges
is characteristically vague: "a church" or "a city". Clearly
any variation in depiction is a matter of artistry, not
heraldry.
In this case, anyone viewing the emblazon will recognize the
charge as a mosque. A competent heraldic artist may not produce
this particular mosque, but will presumably produce a drawing
which, again, the viewers will recognize. This situation is no
different from period heraldic depictions of churches.
This is a change to our normal policy of having the first
registration of a charge not documented as having been used in
period heraldry be the defining example of the charge. In this
specific case, since the period usage of buildings varied so
widely, we are comfortable with not having a defining example.
[Brian of Leichester and Katryna Robyn,
03/2004,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Argent, an arched wooden double door inset into a stone
archway proper] The Pictorial Dictionary states that
"The door... may be inset into an arch or wall." This submission
insets the door into a stone archway proper. Unfortunately the
grey of stone proper (as defined in the SCA Glossary of terms)
classes as a metal, and has insufficient contrast with the
underlying argent field.
Note that the stone surrounding the door is, as drawn in this
submission, an intermediate grey which has insufficient contrast
with either argent or sable. This adds additional problems to the
depiction, in that the stone proper is not drawn as a correct
depiction of stone proper (which would class as a metal) but is
not dark enough to be considered an artistic variant of sable.
[Sudentorre, Canton of, 03/2004,
R-Atlantia]
ARRANGEMENT
see also ARRANGEMENT -- Forced Move
and ARRANGEMENT --
Conjoined
[Azure, in chief three cups inverted in
chevron Or and in base three plates in chevron] The
arrangement of the charges does not match any period pattern.
However, this is only one weirdness and is thus registerable.
[Ælfgar Greggor of Vulpine Reach, 08/2001,
A-Merides]
[Or, five birds volant two one and two sable] This device
conflicts with ... Or, six ravens close sable. ... There
is no CD for arrangement, since six charges cannot be two one and
two, and five charges cannot be arranged three two and one.
[Robert of Gresewode, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
[Argent goutty de sang, a laurel wreath vert] The device
is clear of conflict with the Barony of Coeur d'Ennui, Argent,
a laurel wreath vert within eight boars' heads couped in annulo
gules. There is one CD for the type of secondary charges and
another for arrangement. This is clearly a group of strewn
charges rather than charges in annulo, as can be seen from the
gouttes in the middle of the laurel wreath. [Campofiamme,
Stronghold of, 10/2001,
A-Drachenwald]
[three fleurs-de-lys vs. three ash leaves stems to center]
When a group of charges has a visually obvious palewise posture,
and a visually obvious top and bottom, there can be a CD between
three palewise charges and three charges which are radially
disposed. [Ysabel la Serena de Lille, 11/2001,
A-Artemisia]
[in chief three lozenges] The original blazon read, in
latter part, ... and in chief three lozenges in fess Or.
Three items in chief will also be in fess by default. We do find
armory in the SCA with three items in chief, arranged one and
two, but this arrangement should always be blazoned. [John de
Lochabre, 12/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[Purpure, a tower within five compass stars in annulo Or]
Conflict with a badge of Roland O'Donnell, Purpure, a tower
within an orle of lions rampant Or. There is a CD for the
change in type of secondary charges. There is normally a CD for
changing the arrangement of a group of unnumbered (and thus
"many") charges from in orle to in annulo, even on
a round badge form. However, Roland's emblazon shows that there
are only seven lions in his group of unnumbered charges. Because
there are relatively few charges in both these secondary charge
groups, the difference in arrangement is much less obvious than
when there are eight or more charges in each group. Most of the
charges in the two groups are in the same place on the field, and
would likely to be in the same place on the field on any shape of
escutcheon. Therefore, there is no difference for the change in
arrangement, and nothing for the change in number from five to
seven charges by RfS X.4.f. [Agripina Argyra, 01/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[Vert, in pale a stag courant inverted and a stag courant to
sinister argent] These stags were originally blazoned as
courant in annulo widdershins, legs outward, argent.
However, these are not clearly in annulo as they are not
embowed enough to make a circle. Such a posture may not be
possible for stags with their legs outwards, since in order to
truly make a circle, the stags would need to be drawn with
extremely arched backs. Such a depiction is likely non-period
style. In any case, animals in annulo are expected to have their
legs inwards and their identifiability and period style are
hampered by this posture.
We have precedent against animals which are almost, but not
really, in annulo:
[A coney courant and another courant contourny inverted
conjoined at the paws argent] The rabbits were originally
blazoned as conjoined in annulo. However, the beasts were not
drawn in annulo, where the two animals are embowed, but were
drawn as courant and courant inverted. By precedent we do not
register inverted animals unless they are part of an
arrangement in annulo. (LoAR October 2000)
This is clear of conflict with ... Vert, two
stags combattant argent. There is one CD for the difference
in arrangement between in fess (as with two animals
combattant) and in pale. There is also a CD for changing
the posture, for the change between rampant/rampant to sinister
and courant inverted/courant to sinister. [Katrín
Þorfinssdóttir, 02/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Gules, in dexter chief, sinister chief, and base a bear
rampant Or, and in chief, dexter base and sinister base a tree
argent] No documentation was presented, and none was found,
for this arrangement of two types of charge on a plain field. The
arrangement is very difficult to blazon, hence the laborious
blazon above. Some less explicit blazons were suggested, but none
of them would unambiguously recreate this emblazon. The
combination of the lack of documentation and difficulty of blazon
indicates that this design is too far from period style to be
accepted.
While we were unable to find this arrangement of two types of
charge on a plain field, it may be found on a field divided
party of six pieces. See, for example, a grant of arms
c.1558, Party of six azure and Or, three fountains and three
lion's heads erased gules (Gwynn-Jones, The Art of
Heraldry, p. 103). This blazon for the 1558 coat is patterned
on the blazon for Theodoric of Salt Keep, Party of six pieces
per fess nebuly gules and ermine, three anvils argent and three
falcons close sable. In these cases, the divided field causes
the charges to fall into the desired arrangement by default,
simplifying the blazon. [Sofia Chiudskaia Smolianina,
05/2002,
R-Middle]
[Per pale vert and sable, six gouttes three two and one
argent] It is not clear whether the default for six objects
on a per pale field should be three two and one (as on a
plain field) or two two and two (so the charges are placed
on opposite sides of the line of division.) We have thus blazoned
the arrangement of the gouttes explicitly. [Malcolm
Makalestyr, 07/2002,
A-Outlands]
Note that the SCA default for six objects on a plain field is
three two and one. This matches the default for six
objects on a plain field in most of the times and places in which
heraldry is found before 1600. [Edward of Hartwell,
09/2002,
A-Caid]
[in base three millrinds two and one] The millrinds'
arrangement was not originally explicitly blazoned on the LoI,
but it was blazoned on the form. On a shield shape three charges
in base will be two and one by default, but this is not
necessarily the case on other shapes, such as a rectangular
banner. Since the submitter explicitly blazoned the charges in
base as two and one, we have reinstated this term. If the
submitter would prefer to have this left as a matter of artist's
licence, she may request a reblazon. [Áine Sindradóttir,
10/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[Azure, an orle of oak leaves argent] This does not
conflict with Catterina da Calabria, Azure, six leaves
argent. There is one CD for changing the type of leaf. There
is a second CD for changing the arrangement from three two and
one to in orle. While six charges three two and one
could conceivably be misdrawn to leave a clear open space in the
center, that is not the case with Catterina's emblazon, so there
is no visual conflict problem between the two pieces of armory.
[Jake de Twelfoaks,10/2002,
A-East]
We have blazoned the ermine spots in base as a bar of ermine
spots, parallel to armory using arrangements of unnumbered
charges such as an orle of martlets. "Unnumbered" charges,
such as the charges in an orle of martlets, are too many to
explicitly enumerate: generally eight or more charges.
Orles of unnumbered charges are found in period armory, but no
documentation has been provided for barrulets abased of
unnumbered charges (or other ordinaries abased of unnumbered
charges). This arrangement is a step from period practice. The
fact that the unnumbered charges in question are ermine spots is
a second step from period practice. While ermine spots are
reasonable charges when taken in small numbers, unnumbered ermine
spots are indicative of an ermined fur rather than a group of
charges. This combination is too many steps from period practice
to be acceptable. This design could alternately be blazoned with
a counter-ermine bar on a sable field, but that would contravene
the rules of contrast, further indicating that this design is not
period style. [Iuliana inghean Domhnaill, 10/2002,
R-East]
[three fleurs-de-lys in pall bases to center] These
charges were originally blazoned in annulo, but three
charges, two and one, bases to center, are generally blazoned
in pall bases to center. A number of commenters questioned
whether these charges could allowably be blazoned in pall
because the angle of the fleurs-de-lys was not the standard angle
for such an arrangement. The problem with the angle of the
fleurs-de-lys in the letter of intent is due to the way that the
mini-emblazon was cut-and-pasted, or scanned, into the letter of
intent. On the full sized form, the three fleurs-de-lys are
oriented as one would expect for three charges in pall bases to
center. [Atenveldt, Kingdom of, 12/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[Per bend sinister azure and sable, three crosses potent two
and one argent] The three crosses are blazoned explicitly as
two and one because, on a per bend sinister field, three charges
default to having two in the dexter chief portion of the field
and one in the sinister base portion. [Marmaduc de
Thystelesworthe, 01/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[Argent, two double-bitted battleaxes and a phoenix azure]
We have reblazoned the device to show that it consists of a group
of equally-sized primary charges arranged two and one. There were
some questions in the commentary about the way in which the
charges were arranged. Because all three charges are longer
vertically than horizontally, it is a reasonable artistic choice
to draw them so that the bottom part of the chiefmost charges is
alongside the top part of the basemost charge. [Simon von
Beckum, 01/2003,
A-East]
[three dolphins embowed-counterembowed in annulo] The
College had some concerns about whether the dolphins could
reasonably be blazoned in annulo. The one in dexter chief
is haurient to sinister, that in sinister chief is urinant and
the one in base is fesswise. We encourage the submitter, on
resubmission, to draw these charges so that they are more clearly
in annulo, or to posture them so that they may be blazoned
clearly. [James of Essex, 01/2003,
R-Trimaris] [Ed.: Returned for conflict.]
[Per bend argent and sable, a hound rampant and a hound
rampant contourny counterchanged] This does not conflict with
Matthew de Wolfe, Per bend sinister embattled argent and
sable, in bend two wolves rampant combattant counterchanged.
To understand why there is no conflict, it is helpful to remove
all blazon shortcuts and blazon each of these pieces of armory
explicitly. Note that there are two important common blazon
shortcuts which are found in both Matheus' and Matthew's current
blazons. The first blazon shortcut is that two charges on a
divided field are placed on opposite sides of a line of division
by default. The other blazon shortcut is the use of the word
counterchanged rather than using the tinctures
argent and sable.
Thus, when we remove blazon shortcuts, Matheus' arms may be
blazoned Per bend argent and sable, in sinister chief a hound
rampant sable and in dexter base a hound rampant to sinister
argent. Matthew's arms may be blazoned Per bend sinister
embattled argent and sable, in dexter chief a wolf rampant to
sinister sable and in sinister base a wolf rampant
argent.
Precedent has consistently held that "you cannot 'blazon your way
out of' a conflict" (stated succinctly in this quote from the
LoAR of February 2000, which upheld years of previous precedent).
Thus, we must compare these two pieces of armory using the
"explicit" blazons. There is one CD for changing the field. There
is no difference for changing the type of canine from wolf to
hound.
The charges may not lie on a portion of the field with which they
have no contrast. Matheus' charges could not be arranged like
Matthew's (with the sable charge in dexter chief and the
argent charge in sinister base) on a per bend argent
and sable field, because each charge would have no contrast
with half of the field on which it lies. The charges must change
their arrangement. Because this change in arrangement is "caused
by other changes to the design" (namely, the changes to the
field) it is not worth difference per RfS X.4.g for arrangement
changes. (This is often known as a "forced" arrangement change or
"forced" position change.)
The second CD comes from the change of posture. Each canine is
facing in the opposite direction from the corresponding canine in
the other coat. This posture change is a CD by RfS X.4.h.
By this analysis we are expressly overturning the precedent set
in January 1994 that stated in pertinent part:
[Per pale and per chevron argent and sable, in chief two
<charges> counterchanged vs. Huffam, Per bend sable and
argent, two <charges> counterchanged ] Because the
charges are counterchanged, they could legitimately be placed
anywhere on the field, even over the line(s) of division. As a
consequence, the change in position of the <charges>
cannot be considered to be "forced" by the field division
(though in Huffam they are in the expected position, one on
either side of the line of division), thus giving a CD for
position on the field
By this precedent, the use of the word
counterchanged would remove a conflict which would apply
if the tinctures of the charges were explicitly sable and
argent, which is contrary to long-standing SCA policy.
[Matheus of Coppertree, 02/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[in pale three labels couped] The armory depicts all three
labels in the top two-thirds of the escutcheon. These labels are
therefore not in the in pale arrangement (which would
distribute them equally across the shield). However, the labels
cannot be blazoned in chief, because that would place the
labels considerably higher on the field. The blazon term
enhanced only applies when there is a standard position on
the field for the charge (from which the charge has been moved
towards chief). There is no standard position on the field for
three labels, so enhanced is not meaningful in this
context. Thus, this device is not blazonable as drawn. At this
time, it appears that the armory would be acceptable if the three
labels were correctly drawn in pale, as indicated in the
blazon.
There was a question about whether it is acceptable to have
multiple labels in a piece of armory. This is not a common period
design but al-Jamal provided a number of period or near-period
examples from various sources. [Valentino da Siena,
03/2003,
R-An Tir]
[a chevron between three towers argent and a fleur-de-lys]
The three towers would default, given this blazon, to lie in
chief. However, they are arranged somewhere between in
chief and one and two. This arrangement is not
blazonable and thus is not acceptable by RfS VII.7.b.
[Julienne de La Rochelle, 04/2003,
R-East]
[five <charges> in saltire vs. four <charges> in
pall] There is a CD for changing the arrangement of the
charges. It is possible to arrange five charges in pall by
arranging them two, one, one, and one. Therefore, the change in
arrangement of the charges from in pall to in
saltire "is not caused by other changes to the design" and
thus is worth difference under RfS X.4.g. [Jordan
Catharne, 05/2003,
A-An Tir]
The triangle inverted voided ployé fleury at the points
azure may have been considered a single charge in German
armory. However, this single charge is not heraldically distinct
from three fleurs-de-lys conjoined in pall azure. We do
not give difference between three charges and three conjoined
charges when both groups of charges are in in the same
orientation and arrangement. This is noted in the following
precedent, which specifically treats of charges in annulo: "There
is no difference between charges in annulo and charges in annulo
which are also conjoined, although the conjoining must be
blazoned when present" (LoAR January 2002).
As a result, this only has one CD from a badge of Atenveldt
(registered in December 2002), Or, three fleurs-de-lys in pall
bases to center azure. There is one CD for fieldlessness but
nothing for conjoining the fleurs-de-lys. [Sonnet Manon,
08/2003,
R-An Tir]
We have received the occasional comment asking whether the
charges in an orle of [charges] are conjoined by default.
They are not. By default an orle of [charges] is an
unnumbered group of charges (generally, eight or more charges)
that are arranged in orle. Each individual charge is in its
default posture unless otherwise blazoned. The arms of the
Valence family (sometime earls of Pembroke) are, perhaps, the
best-known example of this sort of design in real-world armory.
Their arms are protected as important non-SCA arms as Barruly
argent and azure, an orle of martlets gules.
In a charge group blazoned as An orle of [charges] in
orle, the charges are arranged in orle and the
postures of the charges tilt so that they follow each other.
Thus, an orle of fish naiant would all be in the default
naiant (fesswise) posture, but an orle of fish naiant in
orle swim head to tail. [Olivia de Calais, 09/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[Per chevron vert and per pale Or and gules, a chevron
dovetailed on the upper edge argent between three compass stars
Or and a fleur-de-lys per pale gules and Or] There were some
questions in the commentary about whether it was necessary to
explicitly blazon the arrangement of the charges on the top half
of the field. Note that charges on the top half of a field
divided in a roughly horizontal fashion (per fess or per chevron)
will have the charges in a horizontal row in chief by default.
[Oriana Luisa della Francesca, 09/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[Argent chapé azure, three goblets two and one gules] It
is not clear what the default arrangement for three charges on a
chapé field should be. The usual default on a plain field (two
and one) doesn't fit well on a chapé field, and thus seems an
unlikely default for that field. We have thus blazoned the
arrangement explicitly. [Waldemar Stanislaw of White
Mountain, 09/2003,
A-Trimaris]
[Or, in pale two talbots courant contourny gules] In
period armory, one would usually expect two long horizontal
charges on a plain field to be in pale. However, the SCA does not
have a default arrangement for two charges on a plain field.
Armory using two charges on a plain field is so uncommon in both
SCA and real-world heraldry that it is best to blazon the
arrangement of such charges explicitly rather than define default
arrangements. We have therefore explicitly blazoned these talbots
as in pale. [Aster Peyton, 10/2003,
A-An Tir]
[Or, two foxes counter-salient in saltire purpure] His
previous blazon, Or, two foxes countersalient purpure, did
not clearly indicate that the foxes were in saltire. Although the
most common illustrations of two animals counter-salient show
animals which are counter-salient in saltire, research indicates
that animals counter-salient must face in opposite directions,
but are not in saltire by default. In addition, all the other SCA
blazons using counter-salient for this arrangement blazon the
animals explicitly in saltire. [Alfred of Warwick,
10/2003,
A-Middle]
[Or, semy of mullets of five greater and five lesser points
sable] This also conflicts with ... Or, five mullets in
annulo sable... When one considers a group of as few as five
charges, there is no difference between the arrangements in
annulo and semy, because in annulo is about as
close as one can come to strewing five charges evenly on an
entire field. This is similar to the ruling in the LoAR of
September 2000, which ruled, "[semy of fraises Or] Conflict with
... Azure, six roses, two, two and two, Or. There is not a
CD ... for arrangement." [Timothy of Glastinbury, 10/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[in pale a scorpion Or and two swords inverted in saltire
argent] Conflict with ... Azure in pale a horse's head
erased Or and two swords inverted in saltire argent. There is
one CD for changing the field. There is not a CD for changing the
type of only the topmost charge in a group of three charges
arranged in this fashion on a plain field. There is a
special-case precedent allowing a CD for changing the type or
tincture of bottommost charge of a group of three charges
arranged two and one, but that precedent is specific to that
arrangement, and does not apply here. [David of Clayton,
10/2003,
R-Artemisia]
[Argent, two daggers in chevron sable each distilling
gouttes] The gouttes in this emblazon are too large to be
merely considered artistic license and omitted from the blazon,
and they cannot be blazoned in a manner that reproduces the
emblazon. This submission therefore violates RfS VII.7.b, which
states, "Elements must be reconstructible in a recognizable form
from a competent blazon."
The gouttes are not drawn in a fashion that one would expect
given the blazon on the Letter of Intent, which states that the
daggers are distilling the gouttes. One would expect such
distilled gouttes to be small gouttes which drip from the
point of the dagger and are placed close to the point of the
dagger. These gouttes are too far from the tips of the daggers to
be distilled from the daggers.
The arrangement of the gouttes could not otherwise clearly be
blazoned. To attempt to describe this emblazon: there are two
vertical columns of gouttes, each column of two gouttes each
(making a total of four gouttes). In each column, the top goutte
is about one-fourth of the field below the tip of the dagger, and
the lower goutte another one-fourth of the field below that. The
dexter column of gouttes is a bit higher on the field than the
sinister column. The group of four gouttes is not arranged in an
heraldic arrangement such as two and two or one two and
one. The gouttes are thus in an unblazonable arrangement.
[Bora Gan, 11/2003,
R-An Tir]
[three dragons each involved in annulo inverted] Each of
these dragons is inverted: on its back with its paws in the air.
"The College has judged inverted creatures to be unacceptable
style, barring documentation of this practice in period heraldry"
(LoAR of September 1993, p. 21). The College has not yet found,
or been presented with, documentation for animals in this
involved in annulo inverted posture. The device must
therefore be returned.
We note that the ruling in the October 2000 LoAR stating, "By
precedent we do not register inverted animals unless they are
part of an arrangement in annulo", does apply to the armorial
design found in this submission. This submission consists of
three dragons in an arrangement two and one, not an
arrangement in annulo. The precedent refers to an
arrangement in annulo without specifying the posture of the
animals in that arrangement. For example, Three dragons
courant in annulo would be in an arrangement where the three
courant dragons would be running in a circle, feet towards the
center of the shield. As a result, the bottommost dragon in the
group must perforce be inverted. The precedent makes clear that
such an arrangement in annulo is acceptable, even though
one of the animals in such an arrangement is inverted. [Avice
Greylyng, 11/2003,
R-East]
[seven roundels two three and two argent, the centermost
Or] There was much commentary regarding the style of the
device. The group of roundels is in a clearly blazonable (albeit
not standard) heraldic arrangement. While it is one step from
period style (a "weirdness") to tincture only one of these
roundels differently from the others in the group, it is not so
far from period style to be a bar to registration. Note the
following precedent from the LoAR of September 2000:
[an octofoil within eight octofoils in annulo] Size is
not the only thing that determines a primary charge. We were
unable to devise a way to describe arrangement of the charges
in a way that did not imply that they were a primary charge
surrounded by a secondary group. Such arrangements cannot use
the same type of charge. The problem could be solved by
arranging them in a diamond (1,2,3,2, and 1) or in a square
(3,3, and 3).
In this September 2000 precedent, it was made clear
that if the charges could be arranged so that they were clearly
all in the same charge group, the design would be registerable.
[Bull Pitte, Shire of, 03/2004,
A-Calontir]
ARRANGEMENT -- Conjoined
[two
Wake knots conjoined in pale] A Wake knot, as per the PicDic,
is fesswise by default. Two Wake knots in pale would be arranged
like these. However there is no guarantee that the loose ends
would tie up as neatly as in this badge. It is as likely that the
loose ends would stick out and the round parts would be
conjoined.
The fact that the loose ends do connect up with each other in an
unbroken interlace could imply that this is "knotwork". On the
other hand, the knots maintain their identifiability as Wake
knots, which are themselves a standard heraldic knot. The
conjunction may not be the only way to conjoin the knots, but it
is an acceptable way to do so.
A pertinent precedent on the topic is in the LoAR of November
1994, for the Middle Kingdom's Order of the Cavendish Knot,
[Fieldless] Four Cavendish knots conjoined in cross vert:
There was much commentary on the issue of whether the charge
runs afoul of our long-standing ban on knotwork; the consensus
here seems to be similar to that of several years ago when we
were considering three Wake knots conjoined in pall: "The
question is whether the conjunction of the knots diminishes
their identifiability to the point where they should not be
allowed. In this case, the answer seems to be 'no'. Note,
however, that this would not be the case were the knots not of
themselves clearly defined period heraldic charges, were the
knot itself complex or requiring modification in shape to
produce the conjunction (as would be the case with a Lacy knot)
or were the numbers so increased ... as to diminish the size
seriously." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR of 26 November
1989, p. 9)
It should be noted, however, that this badge is probably
pushing right to the limits of the allowance; an increase of
number would probably begin to reduce the identifiability of
the separate knots.
This conjunction of knots is a weirdness, but as
there is only one such weirdness, it is registerable.
[Nottinghill Coill, Barony of, 08/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[Purpure, a chevron between three grape leaves inverted within
an orle Or] It is standard SCA practice for an ordinary
within an orle or double tressure to stop at the inside of the
surrounding charge, as per the reblazon of Rouland Carre's arms
in January 1991:
Rouland Carre. Device. Argent, on a bend cotised azure within
an orle gules, in chief a Latin cross argent.
The LoAR blazoned this as "cotised couped", which would
not have the bend throughout within the orle.
In the real world, both the "throughout" and the
"within and conjoined to" combinations of ordinaries and
orles/double tressures may be found, without a clear default.
David Lindsay of the Mount's 1542 roll of arms gives five
examples of ordinaries combined with double tressures flory
counterflory. There is support for both designs in this book:
with the ordinary throughout, and with the ordinary within and
conjoined to the double tressure flory counterflory. Both designs
are specifically found with chevrons. [Inigo Missaglia,
08/2001,
A-Caid] [Ed.: The emblazon has the chevron terminated at the
orle]
[Argent, a cat sejant erect guardant azure between two rose
branches in chevron inverted conjoined in base sable] This
submission was listed in the Letter of Intent as a device and
augmentation. However, this is a simple new device registration.
The original blazon referred to a wreath of roses around this
cat, but a wreath of roses is circular (or nearly so.) The
emblazon here shows rose branches, and we have therefore so
blazoned them.
The design of two rose branches in a "V" shape is close to many
SCA depictions of a rose wreath. Thus the only persons who may
use such a design without presumption are those who are entitled
to bear a rose wreath. The submitter is a countess and Lady of
the Rose and is thus entitled to such a wreath. [Judith
Maryse, 10/2001,
A-Trimaris]
[Azure, three crescents one and two horns to center Or]
Conflict with ... Sable, three crescents one and two conjoined
at the horns Or. There is one CD for changing the field.
There is not a CD between a given group of charges conjoined and
another group of charges in the same arrangement which are not
conjoined. [Selim ibn Murad, 12/2001,
R-Atenveldt]
[Five crescents conjoined in annulo horns outward argent]
This is clear of conflict with ... Purpure, six crescents in
annulo argent. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There is
another CD for changing the posture of the group, since over half
the charges have changed their posture from palewise to some
other orientation. There is no difference between charges in
annulo and charges in annulo which are also conjoined, although
the conjoining must be blazoned when present. There is also no
difference between five and six charges, by RfS X.4.f. [Caid,
Kingdom of, 01/2002,
A-Caid]
[Four fleurs-de-lys conjoined in cross bases to center Or]
Conflict with Katlin von Kappel, Per saltire sable and gules,
four fleurs-de-lys bases to center Or. There is one CD for
fieldlessness. The four fleurs-de-lys in Katlin's device are
placed by default into the four sections of the per saltire
field, which arranges the fleurs-de-lys in cross. The two groups
of fleurs-de-lys are arranged identically except for the
conjoiniWe do not give difference for conjoining the charges,
although it is necessary to specify the conjoining in the blazon.
[Otelia d'Alsace, 08/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
Some commenters asked whether it was necessary to blazon the
saltire as "within and conjoined to" the orle. "It is standard
SCA practice for an ordinary within an orle or double tressure to
stop at the inside of the surrounding charge" (LoAR August 2001).
See that LoAR for further details of period practices for orles
combined with ordinaries. [Roesia de Blakehall, 11/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[Three birds close conjoined in annulo sable] These birds
are conjoined in annulo. The only conjoining is where the beak of
each bird touches the tail of the bird in front of it. This
emblazon thus meets the objections stated in the previous return.
The outline of the group is somewhat more triangular than round,
because the birds have straight backs, but this is an acceptable
group of birds conjoined in annulo. [Bran Trefonin,
01/2003,
A-Atlantia]
We have received the occasional comment asking whether the
charges in an orle of [charges] are conjoined by default.
They are not. By default an orle of [charges] is an
unnumbered group of charges (generally, eight or more charges)
that are arranged in orle. Each individual charge is in its
default posture unless otherwise blazoned. The arms of the
Valence family (sometime earls of Pembroke) are, perhaps, the
best-known example of this sort of design in real-world armory.
Their arms are protected as important non-SCA arms as Barruly
argent and azure, an orle of martlets gules.
In a charge group blazoned as An orle of [charges] in
orle, the charges are arranged in orle and the
postures of the charges tilt so that they follow each other.
Thus, an orle of fish naiant would all be in the default
naiant (fesswise) posture, but an orle of fish naiant in
orle swim head to tail. [Olivia de Calais, 09/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[Quarterly gules and azure, in bend sinister a Danish axe
sustained by a bear rampant contourny argent] This is clear
of conflict with the Barony of Bjornsborg, ...(Fieldless) A
bear statant erect reguardant contourny supporting a berdiche
blade to sinister argent. There is one CD for fieldlessness.
There is another CD for arrangement: the Bjornsborg bear and its
sustained axe are in the default arrangment for a statant erect
beast sustaining a polearm (in fess), while the charges in this
submission are in bend sinister. [Leifr Vagnsson, 09/2003,
A-Outlands]
ARRANGEMENT -- Forced
Move
There is not a CD for the placement on the field,
since the arrangement on the field is forced because the Or
wolves in Katherine's arms may not lie on the erminois parts of
the field. [Ingilborg Sigmundardóttir, 08/2001,
R-Caid]
[... a falcon contourny argent] Conflict with ...
Azure, a falcon close contourny argent. There is only one
CD for changes to the field. It also conflicts with ... Per
chevron argent and azure, in base a falcon counter-close
argent. There is one CD for the field but nothing for the
forced move of the bird to base. [Ailill Lockhart,
09/2001,
R-Atenveldt]
[Gules, in dexter chief a fret couped argent] This does
not conflict with ... Per fess gules fretty argent and
sable. There is one CD for the change to the field. The
comparison between the fretty in chief and the fret couped in
dexter chief is like the comparison between a mullet in chief and
a mullet in dexter chief. This is an unforced move and thus worth
a CD. This also does not conflict with ... Per saltire gules
and pean, a fret argent. There is one CD for the change to
the field and another for the unforced move of the primary charge
to dexter chief. [Ané{zv}ka z Ro{zv}mitála, 11/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[Quarterly vert and argent, two Latin crosses argent]
Conflict with ... Per pale azure and sable, two Latin crosses
fitchy argent. There is a CD for changes to the field, but
nothing for fitching the crosses. There is no difference for the
change of the arrangement of the crosses, since Faílenn's are
forced to be in bend by the field tincture. [Faílenn inghean
Mheanmain of Ulster, 11/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[Per chevron azure and vert, a chevron and in base a cross
clechy argent] This also conflicts with ... Per chevron
azure and vert, a chevron and a chief embattled argent. There
is one CD for changing the type of secondary charge to a cross
from a chief. RfS X.4.g only allows difference to be gotten for
changes to charge placement or arrangement if the change "is not
caused by other changes to the design". The placement change here
is caused by the change of type of secondary charge from a chief,
which has a mandatory placement. Therefore, there is not a second
CD for changing the arrangement. [Áine inghean uí
Ghríobhtha, 01/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Quarterly per fess rayonny Or and gules, in bend two birds
displayed sable] The device therefore conflicts with Edward
de Maccuswell, Per saltire argent and sable, in pale two
double-headed eagles displayed sable. There is one CD for
changing the field. There is no difference for arrangement by RfS
X.4.g. This rule states "Changing the relative positions of
charges in any group placed directly on the field or overall is
one clear difference, provided that change is not caused by other
changes to the design." Here, the change of arrangement is due to
another change to the design: the field tincture. The black birds
in Edward's arms may not lie on the black portions of the field
and therefore cannot be in bend like Brangwayn's birds.
There is no type difference between these generic birds and the
double-headed eagles. [Brangwayn Snowden, 01/2002,
R-Middle]
[Gules, in bend three escallops argent] Conflict with ...
Per fess azure and vair ancient, three escallops in chief
argent. There is one CD for changing the field. However,
there is not a second CD for the change in the arrangement of the
escallops. The change in the arrangement is caused by the change
in the field. One could not put three escallops argent in bend on
a per fess azure and vair ancient field, because the the
bottommost and centermost argent escallops would be placed wholly
or in part on the vair portion of the field, with which they have
inadequate contrast. According to RfS X.4.h [Ed: should be
X.4.g], "Changing the relative positions of charges in any
group placed directly on the field or overall is one clear
difference, provided that change is not caused by other changes
to the design." [Laurence of Damascus, 08/2002,
R-An Tir]
[Per chevron gules and sable, in base a dragon passant Or]
This does not conflict with ... Per fess indented azure and
gules, a wyvern passant Or. There is one CD for changing the
field and a second for the unforced move of the dragon to base.
While it is true that the dragon, in order to fill the space,
extends slightly into the upper half of the shield, the fact that
the dragon is entirely below the per chevron line of division is
an unmistakable visual cue that the charge is, indeed, in base.
[Alex the Scribe, 09/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
ARROW and
ARROWHEAD
[Azure, eight pheons in annulo shafts to
center argent] A question was raised in commentary about
whether this was overly reminiscent of the "Chaos shield"
insignia, which is a major item of insignia in Michael Moorcock's
Melniboné books. The Moorcock insignia is described with the
arrows conjoined in the center, as if they compose an eight-armed
cross. The separation of the pheons here should be sufficient to
avoid an overwhelming reference to that insignia. [Alessandra
di Fióre, 08/2001,
A-Meridies]
[Two arrows in saltire surmounted by a double-bitted axe
Or] Conflict with the device of Michael of York, Gules, a
sheaf of three arrows bound by a serpent coiled to sinister
guardant, all Or. ... The arrangement of the charges has not
changed: a sheaf of three arrows consists of two arrows in
saltire surmounted by a third arrow. RfS X.4.e only gives a CD
for changing the type of a group of charges when at least half
the group has changed in type. Here only one-third of the group
has changed in type. The serpent binding the sheaf in Michael's
arms is effectively a maintained charge, and its addition or
deletion is not worth difference. [Conall of Twin Moons,
08/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[fire arrows inverted proper flighted] An arrow
proper, according to the Pictorial Dictionary, has a
brown shaft and black head. A fire arrow, when proper, is
enflamed near the head in proper flames. [Ád Fáid,
09/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[a bend counter-ermine between a bow nocked with an arrow and
a lion rampant] The group of charges around the bend is not
considered to be a group of three unlike charges (which would be
overly complex by RfS VIII.1.a):
[considering a strung bow and arrow along with another
charge] The question was raised as to whether or not this is
considered slot machine since it has three dissimilar charges
in one group. While it is true that it has three charges, when
a bow and arrow are in their standard, expected position they
are considered one charge, just like a sword in a scabbard is
considered one charge. It is only when they are separated, or
put into non standard positions for their normal use, such as
being crossed in saltire, that they become two separate
charges. (LoAR April 1999 p. 6)
[Roderick de Graham, 01/2003,
A-Calontir]
The elfbolt is an SCA-invented charge referring to a
stone-chipped arrowhead. The Pictorial Dictionary states
that "prehistoric specimens found by the ancients were attributed
to the Little People."
The College generally found that this artwork, which uses a
smoothly rounded charge to depict the elfbolt, was not
identifiable as the roughly chipped and angular SCA elfbolt. This
is reason for return under RfS VII.7.a.
The College also questioned whether an elfbolt should continue to
be registerable in the SCA, as it is an SCA-invented charge. The
charge clearly was an artifact that was known in period, namely,
old chipped arrowheads that could be found by period people. As a
period artifact, a stone-chipped arrowhead may be registered if
it is drawn identifiably. [Eckhart von Eschenbach,
03/2003,
R-Meridies]
There is substantial (RfS X.2) difference between arrows and
crampons. The charges were treated quite distinctly in period,
and there is notable visual difference between them. While it is
true that both arrows and crampons are long and pointed at one
end, so they have a certain similarity of shape, they are as
different in appearance from each other as a bow and a crossbow
(ruled substantially different in the LoAR of November 1996), a
pretzel and a triquetra (ruled substantially different in the
LoAR of April 2001), and a pear and a pinecone (ruled
substantially different in the LoAR of May 2001). [Diethelm
Waltorfer, 12/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[Gules, a sheaf of arrows within an annulet argent]
Conflict with Aeddan Ivor, Gules, a sheaf of three arrows
argent fletched vert marked sable, a chief embattled argent.
There is one CD for changing the chief to the annulet under RfS
X.4.e. However, there is no additional difference for changing
the tincture of the arrows. The head and fletching of arrows are
together considered half the tincture of the arrow (per the LoAR
of January 1992, p. 6), but the fletching alone is not half the
tincture of the arrow. Therefore, since less than half the
tincture of the arrow has changed, there is no difference per RfS
X.4.d. Note that Aeddan's fletching is indeed vert marked
sable, the sable markings are not elsewhere on the arrow.
[Ichijou Jirou Toshiyasu, 02/2004,
R-Atlantia]
ARTHROPOD -- Bee
[two
bees and a dragonfly counterchanged] When drawn clearly,
there is a CD between a bee and a dragonfly. However, there is
significant potential for visual confusion when the two are used
in the same group. In the drawing here, the types of charges are
not easily distinguished from each other. Hence, this must be
returned for redrawing. [Syslye ferch Morgan, 09/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
[Azure, in chevron two wasps statant respectant within a
bordure argent] The previous device submission was returned
for using rampant insects. Those insects had their bodies
palewise with their limbs extended forward and outwards in a more
or less rampant fashion. This emblazon clearly uses statant
wasps. Even though their bodies are, as noted in the blazon,
tilted in chevron, they do not appear to be rampant, and they are
drawn differently from the wasps in the previous submission. This
redrawing meets the objection of the previous return.
The SCA has registered many insects statant, as well as other
arthropods statant (such as scorpions), even when the insect or
arthropod has only been documented as tergiant in period
heraldry. Without an extensive change in policy concerning the
acceptability of insects or arthropods statant, this may be
registered. [Robert Pine, 08/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[a bee rising] Rising is not a defined posture for
insects. These bees are seen in profile with their wings addorsed
and their bodies hovering in intermediate postures between
bendwise and palewise. Their posture cannot be blazoned, and
therefore, this device must be returned.
Note that the SCA accepts bees in a statant posture (horizontal
body, legs down, wings addorsed). The SCA also accepts bees which
are statant in a clearly defined bendwise or bendwise sinister
posture. However, it is not acceptable to rotate a statant bee 90
degrees to a "palewise" posture. The resulting posture, with a
vertical body, and legs extended to dexter, is equivalent to the
previously forbidden "rampant" posture for bees and similar
insects. [Patrick Olsson, 10/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[(Fieldless) A bee statant proper] In the SCA, a bee
statant has its wings addorsed by default, as in the
August 2002 registration of Robert Pine's device.
This badge does not conflict with Aideen the Audacious,
(Fieldless) A bumblebee fesswise proper. There is one CD
for fieldlessness. Aideen's bumblebee is in its default tergiant
posture, and then rotated fesswise. There is a CD between a bee
tergiant fesswise and a bee statant. Both postures show the bees
with fesswise bodies, but a bee tergiant fesswise has wings
visible on both sides of the bee's body, while a bee statant only
has wings visible on the chiefmost side of the body. This
difference is worth a CD, analogous to the difference between a
bird rising wings displayed and a bird rising wings addorsed.
[Catríona nic Theàrlaigh, 12/2002,
A-An Tir]
[butterflies vs. bees volant en arrière] ... and a second
CD for changing the type of the group ... from bees to
butterflies. [Sorcha inghean Shearraigh, 07/2003,
A-Atlantia]
ARTHROPOD --
Miscellaneous
There does not appear to be a well defined
proper for ladybugs, and they can be found in various
colorations when in nature. Therefore, this bug has been blazoned
explicitly. [Morgan Skeene, 09/2001,
A-Calontir]
[two bees and a dragonfly counterchanged] When drawn
clearly, there is a CD between a bee and a dragonfly. However,
there is significant potential for visual confusion when the two
are used in the same group. In the drawing here, the types of
charges are not easily distinguished from each other. Hence, this
must be returned for redrawing. [Syslye ferch Morgan,
09/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
[butterflies vs. bees volant en arrière] ... and a second
CD for changing the type of the group ... from bees to
butterflies. [Sorcha inghean Shearraigh, 07/2003,
A-Atlantia]
ARTHROPOD --
Spider
... the spider is not recognizable as drawn. A
spider has two roughly equally sized body segments, the
cephalothorax (a slightly smaller segment to which the legs are
attached) and the abdomen. The spider's legs are each, roughly,
as long as the body. In this emblazon, the abdomen is
disproportionately large: about four times the length that one
would expect given the size of the legs and cephalothorax, and
wider than one would expect as well. This changes the outline of
the spider so much that it cannot be recognized. [Valdís
Osborne, 09/2002,
R-An Tir]
AUGMENTATIONS
[Vert, a bull's
head caboshed Or, for augmentation, in chief a lance fesswise
argent dependent therefrom a pennant bearing Argent, a pale
gules, overall a dragon passant vert, in chief a laurel wreath
proper] The armory on the pennant isn't the Midrealm arms, as
stated on the LoI, because it does not include the crown. It does
include a laurel wreath, which may not be used in personal
armory, even in an augmentation (see Jan w Orzeldom, Ansteorra
returns, April 1992 LoAR). The arms of a branch without either
laurel wreath or crown may be used as an augmentation on personal
arms (see Jonathan DeLaufyson Macebearer, Ansteorra returns,
August 1988 LoAR). [Anna z Pernštejna, 09/2001,
R-Middle]
[Vert, in pale a lion couchant guardant and a laurel wreath
Or, as an augmentation, within the laurel wreath a triskele
argent] This armorial design consists a group of three
co-primary charges of different types, which violates RfS
VIII.1.a. However, RfS VIII.7, "Augmentations of Honor", states
"The augmentation may, however, on a case by case basis break the
rules in relation to the original armory." Augmentations in
period were commonly made by adding charges, which increases the
complexity of the armory thus augmented. Therefore, it seems
reasonable to grant an exemption for augmented armory that
violates the complexity rules if the armory is augmented in a
period fashion.
Some commenters asked whether adding a "random" charge on the
field is a period form of augmentation. Anthony Wagner and Arthur
Colin Cole co-authored "The Venetian Ambassador's Augmentation"
in The Coat of Arms, volume III (old series) numbers 19
(July 1954) and 20 (October 1954). The article states that
"during the reigns of Henry VII to George III it was customary
for the Ambassador of the Republic of Venice in London, at all
events if he remained in office for some length of time and
rendered distinguished service, to be knighted and granted an
augmentation of arms under the Great Seal ... Occasionally other
Venetians also were honoured by receiving grants of
augmentation." It then describes these augmentations. This
article shows a number of types of augmentation: creating
entirely new arms, adding quarterings, adding charged cantons,
adding charged chiefs, and adding charges to the field. As period
(or near-period) examples of the last practice, on February 12,
1550, Edward VI granted an augmentation to Daniel Barbar of
Venice. The original arms were Argent, an annulet gules,
and the augmentation placed a Tudor rose within the
annulet, much in the same way as the augmentation in this device
places a triskele within the laurel wreath. In 1608, James I
knighted and granted an augmentation to George Giustinian,
Ambassador of the Republic of Venice. The original arms were
Gules, on a double-headed crowned eagle Or an escutcheon Gules
charged with a fess Or, and the augmentation was in chief
a lion passant guardant maintaining a Scottish thistle Or.
[Oldenfeld, Shire of, 06/2002,
A-Trimaris]
[Sable, a torteau fimbriated and conjoined in fess with an
increscent and a decrescent Or, and as an augmentation on the
torteau, a rose sable charged with a rose Or, thereon a mullet of
five greater and five lesser points sable] Because this
submission uses a sable rose on a gules roundel, it violates the
rules of contrast in RfS VIII.2.a. It has been explicitly ruled
that augmentations may not violate the rules of contrast until
such time that documentation is presented showing such violations
of contrast to be standard in period augmentations:
The basic question raised by this submission is can an
augmentation break the rule of tincture? ... only one example
of period use of an augmentation breaking the rule of tincture
was found. Barring documentation of large numbers of period
augmentations that break the rule of tincture, we are unwilling
to register this practice. (LoAR August 1997 p. 26)
In addition, the augmentation violates the stylistic
"layer limit" (RfS VIII.1.c.ii). The most generous interpretation
of this augmentation would place a type of mullet on a double
rose, which double rose lays entirely on a roundel (not "directly
on the field"), thus violating the rule. It is necessary to
demonstrate that such a violation of the layer limit would be
compatible with period styles of augmentation in order for this
practice to be acceptable.
The submitter has been given permission for the augmentation to
match a registered badge of the Kingdom of Ansteorra,
(Fieldless) A rose sable charged with a rose Or, thereon a
mullet of five greater and five lesser points sable. The SCA
has registered numerous augmentations in which a kingdom badge is
used as an augmentation for an individual. In all such cases, in
order for the augmentation to be registered, the kingdom must
give permission for the badge to be used as the augmentation, and
the badge must be stylistically acceptable as an augmentation in
the context of the armory which it augments. [Tivar
Moondragon, 09/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[... a chief vert and for augmentation, on a canton Or a tower
and overall a sword sable] This emblazon does not appear to
depict a correct way of combining a canton with a chief. The
canton as drawn in this emblazon takes up a bit less than the
dexter third of the chief in its horizontal extent and extends
exactly to the bottom of the chief in its vertical extent. This
seems neither the correct way to charge a chief with a canton,
nor the correct way to place a canton so that it surmounts the
entire device.
Parker, in A Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry, states
that a canton, when combined with a chief, will overlie the
chief. This implies that the canton will extend onto the field.
In this armory, since the canton and the field are of the same
tincture, this might result in problems with our rules for
contrast (RfS VIII.2). Franklyn and Tanner, An Encyclopaedic
Dictionary of Heraldry, p. 59, indicate that a canton can be
charged on a chief but they also state that "A canton on a chief
ought to be slightly smaller than the chief's width in order not
to appear like a chief party per 'side'."
We suggest that, if the submitter resubmits, she include
documentation that the form of augmentation that she plans to use
is found in period armory. Note that if she attempts to resubmit
with the canton lying entirely on the chief, or to otherwise
submit with a charged charge on the chief, she should
specifically address how such a violation of the "layer limit"
(RfS VIII.1.c.ii) would be compatible with period styles of
augmentation. [Rachel Wallace, 09/2002,
R-Atlantia]
[adding coronets to a device] This submission exceeds the
rule of thumb for complexity in RfS VIII.1.a, as the number of
tinctures and the number of types of charge total nine. This rule
of thumb may be exceeded in cases where the armory adheres
strongly to period armorial design, but that is not the case in
this device.
It is important to note that the allowances for overcomplexity
when considering augmentations do not apply to simple device
changes. Device changes incorporating symbols of rank are not
augmentations. Augmentations are a special honor from the crown.
[Sara Charmaine of Falkensee, 01/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
From Wreath: Augmentations
This was a busy month for augmentations. An augmentation is one
of the highest honors bestowed by the SCA: it behooves us to make
policies for augmentations as clear as possible, so that the
excellent people receiving the honor have as little difficulty
with registering augmentations as possible. Therefore, while the
ensuing discussion mostly addresses issues raised by the
augmentations this month, it also addresses some other general
issues and policies that arise frequently when considering
augmentations.
We particularly direct kingdom heralds to the sections on
"Kingdom Badges that are Designated as an Augmentation" and
"Augmentations and Appropriate Content", as they set forth some
previously unstated policies and interpretations.
Who Specifies the Form of an Augmentation
We remind the College that the form of an augmentation is
determined according to the normal registration process: the
submitter proposes the form of the augmentation and it is either
accepted (or not) based on the Rules for Submission. The form of
the augmentation cannot be mandated by the crown bestowing it.
RfS VIII.7 states "While the right to an augmentation is bestowed
by the crown, its form is subject to the normal registration
process." The Board of Directors has upheld this policy:
[Concerning an augmentation whose form was specified by the
granting Crown] At the time of the August [1987 Laurel] meeting
this submission was pended, despite the strong conviction of
most of the College that it infringed on the proper usage of [a
reserved charge]. Since it involved a "constitutional issue",
i.e., in the event of conflict between the will of the Crown
and the decision of the College, which takes priority. As the
Board of Directors at its January meeting has now decided that
the College may not be compelled to register that which is in
violation of its existing rules, this submission is now
formally returned. (LoAR February 1988)
Augmentations and General Paperwork
If a person's device changes at the same time that an
augmentation is added, the armorial changes need to be performed
in two separate submissions actions, each with its own set of
submission forms: one for the change of the device (without the
augmentation) and one depicting the changed device and adding the
augmentation: "... as we protect both the augmented arms and the
unaugmented arms, a device change and an augmentation must be
submitted as two separate actions" (LoAR October 2000).
Augmentations and General Conflict Issues
RfS VIII.7 states, "If [the augmentation] has the appearance of
being independent armory, for example a charged escutcheon or
canton, then it is independently subject to the normal rules of
armorial conflict." This means that the augmentation must be
checked for conflict as if it were a separate piece of
armory.
Note that the converse is not true: it is not necessary to check
new devices or badges for conflict against previously existing
augmentations that have the appearance of being independent
armory. This is because the augmentations do not have an
existence separate from the arms that they augment, and therefore
are not independently protectable entities. Per the LoAR of
October 1985: "Arms may be borne with or without an augmentation,
but the augmentation should not be used separately from the
arms."
Some commenters have theorized that if a person registers an
augmentation that appears to be independent armory, the
independent armory is somehow grandfathered to the kingdom that
originally bestowed the augmentation, and thus (the theory
continues) the independent armory could be registered by any new
recipient of an augmentation from that kingdom. But this cannot
be the case, because the augmentation does not have an
independent existence, and because the kingdom has no ownership
of, or even control of, the form taken by an individual's
augmentation.
Note also that, per RfS VIII.7, it is not necessary to check
augmentations for conflict when they do not have the appearance
of an independent display of armory. If someone's augmentation
takes the form ... and for augmentation, in chief a rose
argent, the rose in chief does not have the appearance of an
independent display of armory, and one does not have to check it
for conflict as if it were (Fieldless) A rose argent.
We also remind the College that augmented arms are to be checked
for conflict both with and without the augmentation:
"Augmentations in Society armory should always be blazoned as
such; the bearer has the option of displaying the armory with or
without the augmentation, and conflict should be checked against
both versions" (LoAR September 1992, pg. 26).
Augmentations and Letters of Permission
The SCA has previously registered augmentations that appeared to
be independent armory and were in conflict with - or identical to
- a badge owned by a kingdom or some other entity. In these
cases, it has been necessary for the person with the augmentation
to have a letter of permission from the owner of the badge in
order to register that augmentation. As noted in the LoAR of
September 1995 regarding an augmentation (which was in conflict
with armory belonging to a kingdom):
For the ... conflict, we need to receive a letter of permission
to conflict signed by the Crown or the kingdom Seneschal. It
has always been the policy of the College not to assume that
permission is given even if explicitly stated in a LoI (which
was not the case here), but to require a copy of a written
letter of permission to conflict.
Such permission was explicitly stated to be present
in the first of a (relatively) long line of augmentations from
the crown of Caid where the recipient elected to use the Caidan
War Banner on a charged canton or escutcheon, per the LoAR of
October 1995: "A letter of permission from the Crown of Caid for
the use of the War Banner of Caid as an augmentation has been
received by the Laurel office." These letters of permission to
conflict have not always been mentioned in the LoAR, but are
present with the paperwork.
Kingdom Badges That Are Designated as an Augmentation
In the case where a kingdom has a badge designated as an
augmentation, it seems appropriate to rule that a person or
entity with an augmentation from that kingdom may be assumed to
have permission for his/her/its augmentation to conflict with the
specifically-designated augmentation badge. Kingdoms that already
have badges that are serving as an augmentation should strongly
consider adding the "augmentation" designation to those badges,
to cut down on subsequent paperwork with letters of permission to
conflict.
A kingdom badge that is designated as an augmentation may not
imply any particular rank or status for the bearer. It is
appropriate for a kingdom to consider adding an "augmentation"
designation to a populace badge, ensign, war banner, or a
previously undesignated badge without reserved charges. It is not
appropriate to add an "augmentation" designation to an order,
award, or office badge, or to an undesignated badge with a
reserved charge.
The augmentation of the Kingdom of Meridies, (Fieldless) Three
mullets one and two argent, was registered in the LoAR of
March 1996 with the following comments: "This is an augmentation
of arms which the Crown of Meridies may grant to individuals it
deems worthy. It's [sic] purpose is not the same as a
fieldless badge; as an augmentation, it should always be
displayed on a field by the recipients." These LoAR comments
referred to the fact that the armory contained charges that were
not conjoined. Then, as now, such armory was illegal style on a
fieldless badge per RfS VIII.5. But, because an augmentation will
always be displayed on a field, a designated augmentation may
break these fieldless style rules. The other constraints in RfS
VIII.5 could also be broken for an augmentation, so a kingdom
could register an augmentation of (Fieldless) a bordure
embattled ... or (Fieldless) a bend charged with ...,
even though these would not be registerable designs for any other
type of fieldless armory.
It also seems appropriate to allow a kingdom's designated
augmentations to incorporate armorial motifs that are
grandfathered to that kingdom, thereby allowing users of a
designated augmentation to receive the same grandfathering that
the kingdom would have. As an example, hypothesize that the
Kingdom of Atlantia chose to designate its badge, (Fieldless)
A unicornate natural seahorse erect azure, finned argent, as
an augmentation. The SCA's current policies do not allow new
registrations of unicornate natural seahorses without the use of
the grandfather clause. A hypothetical Atlantian recipient of an
augmentation could place the designated augmentation on any
suitable place on his device. If he already had an uncharged
canton Or on his device, he could create the augmentation for
augmentation, on the canton a unicornate natural seahorse erect
azure, finned argent. However, a hypothetical Atlantian
recipient of an augmentation could not use the designated badge
to create the augmentation for augmentation, on a canton Or a
unicornate natural seahorse erect azure finned argent. This
augmentation would not be identical to the designated
augmentation, and thus, the kingdom's grandfathering would not
extend to this augmentation.
Augmentations and Appropriate Content
The September 1995 LoAR ruled in general that no piece of armory
could be exactly duplicated as an augmentation: "We have not
previously allowed armory, even as an augmentation, to be an
identical version of the armory of a group or office, whether or
not a letter of permission to conflict existed." However, this
portion of ruling has been overruled by the October 1995
acceptance of the Caidan War Banner as an augmentation, and by
successive similar registrations. At this point, in some cases
augmentations may be identical to armory belonging to a group (or
an individual). However, the point that an augmentation must not
appear to be a claim to "status or powers the submitter does not
possess" (RfS XI) is one that must be considered whenever an
augmentation is registered.
Precedent notes that, in at least some cases, the use of a badge
of office as part of an augmentation may give an incorrect
implication that the holder of the augmentation is the holder of
the office. Since that statement will not always be true, the
augmentation is not allowed in that circumstance. The LoAR of
September 1995 dealt with an augmentation where the owner of the
augmentation quartered her original coat with a quartering that
was a tinctured version of a kingdom herald's seal. That ruling
read, in the immediately pertinent part:
The exact conflict with the seal of the office of the ...
Principal Herald is more troublesome for a couple of reasons...
[one reason that] it is troublesome is that it was a period
practice for the holders of an office to marshal the arms of
the office with their personal arms. This does not appear to
apply to former holders of the office, but only to
incumbents. As a consequence, this augmentation appears to be a
claim to be the current ... Principal Herald, which does then
fall afoul of our rules against the claim to 'status or powers
the submitter does not possess' (RfS XI).
We also believe that any augmentation that
incorporates the badge of an office in a fashion that resembles
an independent display of arms is likely to give a very strong
implication that the submitter holds that office, even outside of
the context of marshalling. We note that there is no pattern of
use of badges of office used in the SCA as augmentations. Only
one such augmentation has been registered (a sinister canton
of the arms of the Exchequer of the West registered in 1979).
Therefore, we rule that it is not permissible for an augmentation
to exactly duplicate a badge of office, even with a letter of
permission.
Precedent holds that individuals may not register an augmentation
that uses an inappropriate reserved charge, as it would be such a
claim to "status or powers the submitter does not possess". Per
the LoAR of April 1992: "Laurel wreaths have always been reserved
in the Society to branches of the Society, and may not be
registered to an individual. (see, e.g., Baldwin of Erebor, LoAR
of 10 March 1985, p.4) It is Laurel's belief, and that of many of
the commenting heralds, that this restriction applies to
augmentations as well as to devices, the same way that coronets
and loops of chain, even as augmentations, have been restricted
to those who may rightfully bear them."
It also seems appropriate to consider whether an augmentation may
ever duplicate the badge of an order or award. Such an
augmentation gives a strong implication that the owner of the
augmentation is a member of that order, or a holder of that
award. We at this time rule that such an augmentation cannot be
registered if the owner of the augmentation is not a member of
that order or does not hold that award, even if he has a letter
of permission from the branch that owns the badge. We leave open
the question of whether it is ever appropriate to register an
augmentation that is identical to an award or order badge.
[10/2003,
CL]
[for augmentation on a canton purpure a cross of Calatrava and
a bordure Or] The augmentation conflicts with ... Purpure,
a cross moline disjointed, a bordure Or. The augmentation in
this submission appears to be a display of the armory Purpure,
a cross of Calatrava and a bordure Or, which has one CD ...
for changing the type of cross, but does not have the substantial
difference required to qualify for RfS X.2. [Edward Cire of
Greymoor, 10/2003,
R-An Tir]
We are aware of the previous registration of an augmentation to
Valens of Flatrock in 1993, Vert, a bend azure fimbriated Or
between a tower argent and a castle Or, and for augmentation, on
a canton purpure a cross of Calatrava within a bordure Or.
He, like Andreas, is the recipient of an augmentation from the
Crown of Calontir. However, Valens' augmentation (which predates
Bianca's 1996 registration) does not protect the armory
Purpure, a cross of Calatrava within a bordure Or against
conflict, nor does it in any way grandfather the use of this
armory for recipients of augmentations from the Kingdom of
Calontir. As stated in a pertinent excerpt from the Cover Letter
to the October 2003 LoAR:
It is not necessary to check new devices or badges for conflict
against previously existing augmentations that have the
appearance of being independent armory. This is because the
augmentations do not have an existence separate from the arms
that they augment, and therefore are not independently
protectable entities. Per the LoAR of October 1985: "Arms may
be borne with or without an augmentation, but the augmentation
should not be used separately from the arms."
Some commenters have theorized that if a person registers an
augmentation that appears to be independent armory, the
independent armory is somehow grandfathered to the kingdom that
originally bestowed the augmentation, and thus (the theory
continues) the independent armory could be registered by any
new recipient of an augmentation from that kingdom. But this
cannot be the case, because the augmentation does not have an
independent existence, and because the kingdom has no ownership
of, or even control of, the form taken by an individual's
augmentation.
We note that Bianca registered her device through
the kingdom of Calontir. Since it appears that many recipients of
augmentations from Calontir wish to use the augmentation found in
this submission, we strongly suggest that the kingdom of Calontir
attempt to register Purpure, a cross of Calatrava within a
bordure Or as a badge designated as an augmentation. If it is
able to do so (which will require, at minimum, permission to
conflict from Bianca), then as stated in the October 2003 Cover
Letter, further recipients of augmentations from Calontir will be
able to use this designated augmentation badge as an augmentation
on an appropriate form of display (including a canton or
inescutcheon), without requiring letters of permission from the
Crown of Calontir against their badge, and without requiring a
letter of permission to conflict from Bianca. [Andreas
Seljukroctonis, 12/2003,
R-Calontir]
[Per bend sinister gules and purpure, on a bend sinister
dovetailed argent between two double-bitted axes Or a bull's head
caboshed palewise sable and for augmentation, on a canton purpure
a cross of Calatrava within a bordure Or] It is acceptable
for an augmentation to surmount a portion of the underlying
armory even if, as in this emblazon, it renders one of the
charges unidentifiable by surmounting it almost entirely. The
effective invisibility of the charge under the canton is apparent
from the blazon and should be taken into account when doing
conflict checking. [Andreas Seljukroctonis, 12/2003,
R-Calontir] [Ed.: Augmentation returned for conflict]
[Per bend sinister sable and gules, on a bend sinister wavy
argent a ducal coronet bendwise sable, in chief three passion
nails inverted bendwise in bend sinister gules enflamed Or and in
base, for augmentation, an inescutcheon azure charged with a
demi-sun issuant from base Or within a bordure argent] The
device change was made on a form that also depicted the
(pre-existing) augmentation. Precedent states "As we protect both
the augmented arms and the unaugmented arms, a device change and
an augmentation must be submitted as two separate actions" (LoAR
October 2000). The same logic implies that, because we protect
both the augmented arms and the unaugmented arms, in order to
register this we will need two actions, each action with
associated forms: one representing the unaugmented device change,
and one representing the augmented device change.
It is important to note that if armory is changed with a
previously existing augmentation, it is possible for that
augmentation to become incompatible with the underlying armory
due to the armory change. When this happens, the augmentation is
not "automatically grandfathered", because (as noted in the Cover
Letter to the October 2003 LoAR) "Augmentations do not have an
existence separate from the arms that they augment, and therefore
are not independently protectable entities."
As an example, consider the case of a submitter with the
hypothetical armory Or, a pall inverted vert, for
augmentation, in canton an estoile azure, who then submits a
device change for the underlying device to Vert, a pall
inverted Or, and for the augmented device to Vert, a pall
inverted Or, for augmentation, in canton an estoile azure.
The augmentation would violate RfS VIII.7, which states that "The
augmentation must itself follow the armory rules", in conjunction
with the ruling in the LoAR of August 1997, p. 26, which stated
"Barring documentation of large numbers of period augmentations
that break the rule of tincture, we are unwilling to register
this practice."
Because the old augmentation is not compatible with the new
device change, Laurel would be forced to (without extra direction
from the submitter) register the new device change (unaugmented)
and return the augmented device change. The "old augmented
device" could not be retained as a badge and thus must be
released. At the end of this series of actions, the submitter
would no longer have a blue estoile augmentation on his list of
registered items. In order to avoid this situation, the submitter
could, as part of the original submission, add an administrative
note to the submission indicating that, if the changed augmented
arms were not registerable, the unaugmented device change is to
be withdrawn, and the previous device (augmented or not) is to be
retained. [Kathryn of Iveragh, 02/2004,
R-Outlands]
AXE
[axe vs.
double-bitted axe] ... nothing for changing the type of axes.
[Eleri of Caerleon, 11/2001,
R-Meridies]
Note that under current precedent, there is no difference for
changing the tincture of the hafts of the axes: "[A woodaxe
reversed argent] Conflict with... a battle axe Or, headed
argent, the edge to sinister... In each case there is... nothing
for the change in tincture of the handle only." (LoAR June 1992
p.18). [Sefferey of Wessex, 02/2002,
A-Meridies]
BALANCE
[Sable, a hanging balance atop
a sword argent] The hanging balance is not depicted
correctly. The balance should have pans hanging by chains at each
end of the arm of the balance. Instead, the emblazon shows all
the space between the chains and over the pans as argent (in
addition to the argent chains and pans). As a result, this
submission more closely resembles two bags hanging from a yoke
than a hanging balance. The artwork needs to be redrawn to
clearly depict either a hanging balance, or two bags hanging from
a yoke.
Please note that there is a conflict problem with this submission
as well. A hanging balance atop a sword resembles a standing
balance so closely that it is not given difference from a
standing balance. The LoAR of January 1998 noted that a hanging
balance resting atop a vertical "stand-shaped" charge can be
given no difference from a standing balance: "[Gules, a
double-bitted axe inverted and balanced on its haft a set of
scales Or.] This conflicts with ... (Fieldless) A standing
balance Or., with one CD for the field." The same problem
applies to this design. Thus, if the hanging balance were redrawn
correctly, this would conflict with ... Sable platy, a
standing balance argent. There would be one CD for removing
the plates, but no difference between the hanging balance atop
the sword and the standing balance. [Cathal the Black,
09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[in pale a hanging balance and a sword inverted Or] In
this emblazon, the hanging balance and the sword inverted are so
close to each other that they are almost conjoined. This emblazon
resembled a standing balance so closely that this submission is
in visual conflict under RfS X.5 with ... (Fieldless) A
standing balance Or.
Note that precedent has previously held that a hanging balance
resting atop a vertical "stand-shaped" charge can be given no
difference from a standing balance without invoking RfS X.5, in
cases where the hanging balance was conjoined to the
"stand-shaped" charge. The LoAR of January 1998 noted that:
"[Gules, a double-bitted axe inverted and balanced on its haft a
set of scales Or.] This conflicts with ... (Fieldless) A
standing balance Or., with one CD for the field." This
precedent was reaffirmed in the LoAR of September 2003 where a
hanging balance atop a sword was given no difference from a
standing balance. [Tigernan Fox, 01/2004,
R-East]
BASE
see also MOUNT and MOUNTAIN
[a
base engrailed] The engrailing is too small and shallow to be
acceptable. There are ten cups in the engrailing, which would be
a fairly large number on a fess. Here the width across the base
is much smaller than the width of a fess. [Derdriu de
Duglas, 10/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[Argent, three crosses of Cerdaña sable between a chief and a
base azure] This armory is visually equivalent to Azure, a
fess argent charged with three crosses of Cerdaña two and one
sable. It therefore conflicts with a number of pieces of
armory protected by the SCA, including the flag of Honduras
(important non-SCA flag), Azure, on a fess argent five mullets
in saltire azure, and ... Azure, upon a fess argent, a
mole's paw print sable. In each case there is only one CD for
the cumulative changes to the group of charges on the fess.
[Bianca Sereni, 09/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[three points] Previous precedent has held:
Although all three 'points' are mentioned in heraldic tracts,
in practice only the base one appears to have been used; and
even in the tracts, the dexter and sinister points are
described as abatements of honor, to be used separately, and
not in conjunction." (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR 4/92, p. 19) No
documentation was presented to contradict this precedent. As a
consequence, the precedent disallowing the use of dexter and/or
sinister points remains in place (LoAR December 1993).
We also have not been provided with documentation to
support this design as period style and thus continue to uphold
the previous precedents. [Shirin al-Adawiya, 12/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Per chevron ployé argent and vert, three compass stars
counterchanged] The submission was originally blazoned using
a point pointed rather than a per chevron field division.
However, because the three compass stars are of the same type and
size, and because heraldic designs of the form Per chevron
three [charges] counterchanged are much more common than
designs using a point pointed in any fashion, the overwhelming
visual impression is of armory using a per chevron line, with the
line drawn somewhat lower on the shield than usual. We have thus
reblazoned it accordingly. [Duncan Darroch, 01/2003,
R-An Tir]
This emblazon does not clearly use a point pointed, nor does it
clearly use a per chevron division. This is reason for return by
RfS VII.7.a.
The top of the point pointed is slightly above the fess line in
the large sized emblazon. The mini-emblazon showed a standard
point pointed, which was notably shorter than the one in the
full-sized emblazon. Therefore, the difference between the
mini-emblazon and the full-sized emblazon did not allow the
College to comment properly on this submission. [Wilhelm von
Düsseldorf, 02/2003,
R-West]
[Per chevron argent and azure, in chief a rose slipped and
leaved fesswise and in base six gouttes three two and one,
counterchanged] The device does not clearly use a per chevron
line of division, nor does it use a point pointed. Because of
this ambiguity this must be returned under RfS VII.7.a.
Note that a per chevron line of division should appear to divide
the field into two equal pieces. This emblazon does not give that
appearance. One reason is that the per chevron line is drawn
somewhat low on the field - it appears to have been drawn by
using the form's guidelines for a per saltire division and
drawing the bottom section of that field. In addition, the fact
that the rose in chief is drawn as a small charge, with lots of
field around it, implies that it is not a charge filling its half
of an equally divided field. [Duvessa of Movilla, 03/2003,
R-Middle]
[Argent, a pile inverted vert issuant from a ford proper]
The ford is drawn with the blue stripe to chief, lying entirely
against the vert pile inverted. This has insufficient contrast,
as the remainder of the ford does not have enough stripes to
clearly identify it as a ford. If the ford were drawn with two
more stripes, or if the pile issued from the center of the ford
(so that the top stripe on the ford laid partially against the
field), there would not be a problem with having the blue stripe
at the top of the ford.
The College had some questions about the way that the bottom of
the ford extends exactly across the bottom of the pile inverted.
As a general rule, we would expect a pile inverted to be somewhat
thinner and thus issue from the center of the ford, rather than
extend all the way across the ford. [Kateryne Segrave,
04/2003,
R-East]
[Sable, a dhow Or sailed argent issuant from a ford proper and
in chief a decrescent and an increscent Or] Some commenters
inquired if this armory was overly pictorial armory per RfS
VIII.4.a, "Pictorial Design", which states, in part, "Design
elements should not be combined to create a picture of a scene or
landscape. For example, combining a field divided per fess
wavy azure and Or with a sun and three triangles Or, as well
as a camel and two palm trees proper to depict the Nile Valley
would not be acceptable." It is important to remember that
heraldry reminiscent of simple landscapes is not uncommon period
armory. The "landscape" in this armory is similar to period
armorial designs, and is much simpler than the example given in
RfS VIII.4.a.
In particular, period civic armory often includes designs where a
ship or a building issues from a ford or similar charge depicting
water in base. Jiri Louda's European Civic Coats of Arms
gives the history of many civic coats of arms along with
illustrations. The arms of Paris in the 13th C were Gules, a
lymphad issuant from a base wavy argent, and Charles V added
a chief azure semy-de-lys Or in 1358. A piece of civic
armory even more reminiscent of a landscape was granted to
Cambridge in 1575, Gules an arched bridge throughout, in chief
a fleur-de-lys Or between two roses argent barbed and seeded
proper, in base three lymphads sable sailing atop a ford
proper. [Achmed ibn Yousef, 05/2003,
A-Atlantia]
A question was raised about the depiction of the ford, which has
four barry wavy traits. Some commenters asked whether it was
necessary to draw the ford with six traits. It is perfectly
acceptable (and sometimes ideal) to draw a ford with four barry
wavy traits. Perhaps this question arose due to the recommended
way of drawing a barry wavy field. A barry wavy field is usually
drawn with six or more traits, but there is much less room to
draw that many traits on a ford, which is often less than
one-third of the height of the field. Six or more barry wavy
traits on a ford will often result in undesirably narrow traits.
Four traits is an excellent compromise depiction for many fords.
[Helga lómr, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
Note that SCA blazon always explicitly tinctures a ford. If the
tinctures of the ford are argent and azure (or the other way
around) it may be blazoned as proper. [Thomas Joseph de
Lacy, 11/2003,
A-Caid]
[a merman .... issuant from a base] Some commenters
mentioned the fact that the merman has his tail reflexed up in a
'u' in this emblazon. The main body of the merman through the top
of his tail (where his hips would be if he had them) issues from
the base, and the end of his tail also issues from the base, and
these two pieces of the merman are not conjoined to each other.
This is an acceptable way of drawing a merman issuant from a
base. It is analogous to the period practice of drawing a
demi-lion issuant from a line of division so both the demi-lion
and the end of the demi-lion's tail are issuant from the line of
division and are not conjoined to each other. It is the choice of
the heraldic artist to decide whether to draw the merman in this
fashion, whether to draw him so that his body and tail end are
conjoined, or to draw him without the tail tip showing at all.
[Christopher MacEveny, 01/2004,
A-An Tir]
BEAST --
Badger
[a badger rampant sable] The badger was
originally blazoned as sable marked argent, but it is
predominantly sable with only a few small argent details. We
generally do not blazon a charge as "marked" when the marking
details are so small. In addition, we might mistakenly give the
impression that large portions of the badger (such as its
underside) are argent, which might lead to emblazons that have
inadequate contrast with the argent field. [Gareth Craig,
08/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
This month, some questions were raised about the tincture of a
previously registered SCA brock proper. The tincture of a brock
(or badger) proper is not clearly defined in SCA or real-world
heraldic practice. We here state explicitly that the SCA has no
default proper tincture for brocks or badgers. In this LoAR, we
have reblazoned the few pieces of existing SCA armory that were
blazoned using brocks or badgers proper. [11/2003,
CL]
[brock vs. wolverine] A wolverine is not a charge that is
used in period heraldry, so its difference from a badger must be
determined on visual grounds per RfS X.4.e. There is not
sufficient difference between a badger and a wolverine to give a
CD for this type change. [Caisséne Merdrech, 11/2003,
R-Atlantia]
BEAST --
Bat
[a reremouse displayed head to dexter] The
reremouse is both displayed and guardant by default. Since this
reremouse is displayed but has its head turned to dexter, its
posture has been explicitly blazoned for clarity. [Mat of
Forth Castle, 03/2002,
A-Meridies]
The submitter requested that these charges, normally blazoned as
reremice, be blazoned using the common term bats.
Since the term bat for this animal is not heraldically
ambiguous, and it has been registered recently (in July 2001), we
may accede to her request. [Elynor O'Brian, 09/2002,
A-Caid]
[a reremouse inverted] Bats inverted have been explicitly
allowed in the SCA in the past, as long as they are identifiable
(as is the case here):
While the inversion of the bat is unusual, it remains (even at
a distance) identifiable... Because of the bird-like nature of
the bat, we believe that it should be allowed a posture which
is not so very different from "migrant to base", which posture
has not been disallowed under the ban on "inverted creatures"
noted in the September 1993 LoAR. [The badge was registered]
(LoAR September 1994)
There is also a recent precedent concerning tergiant
animals which applies equally well to bats displayed:
A significant number of commenters felt that inverting a
tergiant charge which is commonly found as tergiant (such as a
tergiant scorpion or a frog) does not hamper the
identifiability of the charge so much as to render it
unidentifiable, and they felt that it should be acceptable. The
frog in this submission certainly retains its identifiability
very clearly in the inverted posture. As a result, inverting a
tergiant charge is acceptable as long as it does not otherwise
violate any basic heraldic principles, including the
requirement for identifiability. Because of the lack of period
evidence for tergiant inverted charges, the posture will be
considered a clear step from period practice (also known
informally as a "weirdness") for any charge that cannot be
found in this posture in period (LoAR May 2002).
We will accordingly consider a bat (displayed)
inverted to be a step from period practice ("a weirdness") unless
documentation is provided for bats inverted in period heraldry.
[Zhou Long Xi Xian Sheng, 10/2002,
A-Lochac]
[a reremouse dormant pendant from a branch] The reremouse
is hanging upside down and has its wings wrapped around its body
in a natural sleeping posture. This posture is not registerable
by previous precedent: "[a reremouse dormant dependent from an
annulet] The bat was not dormant, but was rather in
its natural sleeping posture. We know of no examples of this
posture in period heraldic depictions of bats, and for good
reason: this posture eliminates any identifiable aspects of the
bat. Therefore the device violates VIII.4.c, Natural Depiction:
... Excessively natural designs include those that depict
animate objects in unheraldic postures ... and VIII.3,
Armorial Identifiability" (LoAR August 2000). [Sebastian
Goulde, 09/2003,
R-Middle]
BEAST --
Bear
[a panda bear] By current precedent, it is not
acceptable to use a species of flora or fauna in armory which was
not known to Europeans in period: "The primary charge is the leaf
of a vanillaleaf plant (genus Achlys). Europeans did not
discover it until the 18th century so [it] cannot be used in SCA
armory" (LoAR February 2000). The most recent precedent
explicitly concerning pandas notes in pertinent part that the
panda was not known to Europeans in period: "Lanner provided some
distinct evidence that the panda was not seen by an European
until this century and that its furs were not known to Europeans
until the last century" (LoAR December 1989). The panda is
therefore not acceptable for registration. [Zubaydah
as-Zahra, 02/2002,
R-Meridies]
[a bear rampant contourny gules] Conflict with Elfarch
Myddfai, Or, a bear legged of an eagle's legs rampant to
sinister gules. There is one CD for changing the field but no
difference for changing the type of the bear's feet. [Od
Barbarossa, 07/2002,
R-Calontir]
[a bear vs. a winged bear] There is one CD for removing
the wings ... [Wilhelm Bär, 02/2003,
R-Calontir]
BEAST --
Beaver
[a beaver vs. a sea-dog] ... and a second CD
for the type difference between a sea-dog and a beaver.
One commenter asserted that the sea-dog is "the heraldic
depiction of a natural beaver", and went on to reason that, as a
result, no difference should be given between a sea-dog and a
beaver. No references or documentation were provided to support
this assertion. Two questions are begged by this unsupported
assertion:
-
What natural animal (if any) is the origin of the
sea-dog?
-
If the sea-dog originates from some natural animal, should
we give difference between the sea-dog and the heraldic
version of that originating animal? (and in any case, should
we give difference between a sea-dog and a beaver?)
As for the first question, the only source we found saying
that the beaver is the origin of the sea-dog is Fox-Davies' A
Complete Guide to Heraldry, where the sea-dog is discussed
with the other dogs in the chapter titled "Beasts". Parker's A
Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry mentions a conjecture that
the crocodile is the origin of the sea-dog. However, it seems
generally agreed that the most likely origin of the sea-dog is
the otter (as stated in Parker's A Glossary of Terms Used in
Heraldry, Woodward's A Treatise on Heraldry British and
Foreign, and Moule's The Heraldry of Fish).
As for the second question, RfS X.4.e gives clear criteria for
when we should, and should not, give difference between two
charges. That rule states "Types of charges considered to be
separate in period, for example a lion and an heraldic tyger,
will be considered different."
In comparing the sea-dog with the most likely animal of origin,
the otter, Woodward states explicitly that "The otter may be the
original of the heraldic creature known as the sea-dog, but it is
quite clear that, as represented, the latter finds a fitting
place among armorial monsters. The otter, of whose use in armory
The Heraldry of Fish contains a sufficient number of
instances both as a charge and as a supporter, is usually drawn
proper, and is thus very unlike the heraldic sea-dog." By
"drawn proper" it is clear in context that Woodward means "drawn
naturalistically" rather than "in its proper tincture": The
Heraldry of Fish, pp. 147-149, provides a sizeable discussion
of armory using otters, none of which are tinctured
proper, but which are illustrated using naturalistic
otters.
Visually, the sea-dog is quite distinct in period heraldry from
period heraldic otters and from period heraldic beavers. The
sea-dog is drawn like a talbot with prominent scales and fins. It
often has a paddle-shaped tail, but not always: the sea-hounds
dated to 1547 on p. 155 of Dennys' The Heraldic
Imagination do not have paddle-shaped tails. The sea-dog's
prominent fins often extend to the head of the creature as in the
crest circa 1528 for Thomson on the bottom row of figure 13 of
Woodcock and Robinson's The Oxford Guide to Heraldry,
stated in the index to be a sea-dog.
By contrast, the heraldic otter is drawn as a smooth-furred
animal with the shape of an ermine, except with a wider tail, as
can be seen in the various arms of Meldrum (a good example is in
the 15th C Armorial de Berry). The otter's head is a
particularly popular charge in period Scottish heraldry, and is
very different from the finned talbot-like head of a sea-dog: the
heraldic otter's head has a pointed weasel-like face and small
erect round ears, rather than the blunt muzzle, large floppy
ears, and finny details of a sea-dog's head.
The heraldic beaver is drawn with a stocky, smooth-furred (not
finned or scaled) body, a wide (usually, but not always,
paddle-like) tail, and small or nonexistent ears. It is sometimes
contorted into an unspeakable posture based on the medieval view
of this animal's habits, as noted in Dennys' The Heraldic
Imagination, p. 151. As an example of a beaver in a standard
heraldic posture, see the family of Biber, Or, a beaver
rampant sable, in the 14th C Zuricher Wappenrolle
(http://ladyivanor.knownworldweb.com/zroadt2r.htm). Some heraldic
beavers did not resemble naturalistic beavers but did maintain
the smooth-furred body, wide tail, and small (or nonexistent)
ears of the beaver. Note, for example, the arms of the town of
Biberach from 1483 (redrawn in Fox-Davies' A Complete Guide to
Heraldry from the Concilum von Constanz), also in the
chapter on "Beasts". Note also the arms of the same town on f.
219 of Siebmacher from 1605, which depict a less stocky beaver
than the other examples, but which still cannot be visually
confused with a sea-dog.
The evidence above appears to strongly indicate that a sea-dog
and a beaver were considered distinct charges in period and
should be given a CD for type difference under RfS X.4.e.
We do note that Fox-Davies, in his discussion of the sea-dog,
states that "There has been considerable uncertainty as to what
the sinister supporter [of the city of Oxford] was intended to
represent. A reference to the original record shows that a beaver
is the real supporter, but the representation of the animal,
which in form has varied little, is very similar to that of a
sea-dog." Certainly the sinister supporter of the city of Oxford
in the emblazon used in Fox-Davies' time does not closely
resemble a sea-dog, although it does resemble Siebmacher's
beaver. A depiction of the emblazon used in Fox-Davies' time
(roughly 100 years ago) is depicted at
http://www.oxfordbusiness.info/civic/old_oxford/town_hall.htm,
which site states that the charge is indeed intended to depict a
beaver. It is not clear what emblazons Fox-Davies is using to
support his assertion that the depictions of the sea-dog and the
beaver are "very similar": it is entirely possible that any "very
similar" emblazons are found after 1600. Given the other evidence
above, we do not feel that Fox-Davies' assertion contravenes the
demonstrated general pattern by which sea-dogs were drawn
distinctly from beavers before 1600. [Elia Stefansdottir,
01/2004,
A-Outlands]
Based on period heraldry, naturalism, and the Pictorial
Dictionary, beavers proper are brown by default. [Adelicia
of Caithness, 02/2004,
A-Caid]
BEAST --
Boar
[winged boars vs. boars] There is one CD for
the number of boars and another for removing the wings:
[A winged wolf] Conflict with ... a wolf ... there is only one
CVD for adding the wings. (LoAR October 1991 p.16).
[Ruaidhri ua Ceallaigh, 09/2001,
A-Calontir]
[a boar statant sable crined gules] The crining of
the boar refers to the ridge of bristles along its back.
[Rycharde de Northewode, 12/2001,
A-An Tir]
There is a CD between a correctly drawn hippopotamus and a
correctly drawn boar. [Tat'iana Travina, 11/2002,
A-Outlands]
BEAST -- Cat, Lion and
Tiger
[a natural tiger couchant guardant contourny Or
marked sable] The device conflicts with ... Gules, in pale
a Grecian fa�ade argent and a cat couchant to sinister guardant
Or. There is one CD for removing the second primary charge
(the fa�ade). There is no difference for changing the type of
cat, or for the tincture change represented by the markings,
which are less than half the charge. This also conflicts with ...
Gules, a lion dormant contourny Or, a chief wavy argent.
There is one CD for the removing the chief but nothing for the
changing the posture from dormant to couchant guardant. Again,
there is no difference between types of cats. [Sheila
Stuart, 11/2001,
R-Meridies]
[Manx cat rampant] The College could not identify this
animal as a cat, generally believing it appeared to be some sort
of dog, or perhaps a bear. While period heraldic art was by no
means always realistic, it had unmistakable cues to the identity
of the type of animal, especially in stylized artwork. Because
the Manx cat has no tail, one of these cues was lost, making it
all the more important that the remainder of the animal be drawn
recognizably as a cat. Since this drawing was not identifiable,
the armory must be returned. [Zachary Strangeman, 11/2001,
R-Meridies]
[winged lion vs. a lion-dragon] ... and at least another
[CD] for the difference between a winged lion and a lion-dragon.
As seen in the Pictorial Dictionary, a lion-dragon is a
demi-lion conjoined to the tail of a dragon, much like a sea-lion
is a demi-lion conjoined to the tail of a fish. [Maredudd
Angharad ferch Gwenhyfar, 01/2002,
A-Outlands]
[a winged lioness] We have preserved the submitter's
desired blazon of a lioness, since the creature does not have any
of the characteristics that would mark it specifically as a male
lion, such as a mane or a pizzle. However, it should be noted
that this artwork probably would have been perceived as a winged
lion in the culture which originated it, not a winged lioness.
Lions in period could be drawn without a distinct mane, and often
were not drawn with any mane in early period. Also, period lions
were often drawn without a pizzle. [Þórunn Vígadóttir,
06/2002,
A-Trimaris]
There is no type difference between a cat and a natural panther.
[Isabel Margarita de Sotomayor y Pérez de Gerena, 11/2002,
R-Trimaris]
The lion was blazoned as a Saracenic lion, but we do not
blazon the national origin of charges unless such an adjective is
needed to distinguish between different types of charge. This
appears to be a reasonable artistic variant of a lion guardant
and we have so blazoned it. [Scheherazade al-Zahira,
01/2003,
R-East]
[a lion vs. a continental panther] There is one CD, but
not substantial difference, between a heraldic (as opposed to
natural) panther and a lion, just as there is only one CD between
a heraldic tyger and a lion per RfS X.4.e. [Jane Atwell,
02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[a cat rampant guardant] This device does not conflict
with ... Per chevron sable and azure, an English panther
rampant reguardant argent pellety incensed Or, an orle
argent. ... Precedent indicates that there is a CD between a
panther and a lion, so there should also be a CD between a
panther and a cat: "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]" (LoAR March
1993). [Catte MacGuffee, 03/2003,
A-Meridies]
We have reblazoned the cats from herissony to
statant, as their backs are not arched enough to be
blazoned herissony. [Garrett Fitzpatrick, 04/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[a lion] The primary charge was originally blazoned as a
Chinese lion. We do not specify the artistic or ethnic
origin of a charge in blazon unless the modified blazon indicates
a significantly different type of charge from the unmodified
blazon. As an example where such an adjective indicates a
significantly different charge, an Oriental dragon is a sinuous
wingless monster, while the default dragon has wings and a much
more compact body.
Because of the wide range of depictions of lions in period, this
maned quadruped with clawed feet, fangs, and a long feathery tail
is sufficiently identifiable as a standard lion, and is therefore
blazoned as such. [Uggedei Mighan Nidun, 07/2003,
A-Artemisia]
Lions' tails, when nowed, are generally blazoned as such,
although this distinction is not worth difference. [Asshelin
Chrystal, 11/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
The leopard was originally blazoned as spotted sable, but
the spots of a natural leopard are usually left as an artistic
detail rather than blazoned explicitly. [Skarpheðinn
Irlandsfari, 11/2003,
A-Drachenwald]
There is no difference for changing the type of feline from a
lynx to a natural leopard. [Jenet Froste, 02/2004,
R-Atlantia]
This charge was originally blazoned as a panther, but it
is neither a heraldic panther (as it lacks the appropriate
incensing) nor a natural panther (as it has the elaborately
tufted tail and legs of a heraldic lion, which would never be
found on a natural panther). It is an appropriately stylized lion
for much of the heraldry in the last two centuries of our period.
While it has either a minimal or nonexistent mane, this lack of
mane is common with heraldic lions in our period. [Racheel
Dominique de Brienne, 03/2004,
A-Middle]
BEAST --
Deer
[three unicorns couchant] There were some
suggestions in the commentary that these unicorns were not in a
standard couchant posture, and perhaps might be better blazoned
as lodged. Lodged is just a synonym for couchant used when
blazoning deer and their close relatives, and there is no
difference in the way lodged and couchant are drawn. The slight
bend in one foreleg is an acceptable artistic variant for any
animal in this posture, although it is found most often with a
long-legged animal such as a deer. [Myfanwy ferch
Rhiannon,11/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
The term springing is, in the SCA, a synonym for
salient used when blazoning deer and their close
relatives, and should not be used for other animals.
[Stierbach, Barony of, 11/2001,
A-Atlantia]
BEAST -- Dog and
Wolf
Per the cover letter for the June 2001 LoAR, there is
no difference between talbots and wolves. This means any
additional difference must be derived from the posture of the
beasts. [Ingilborg Sigmundardóttir, 08/2001,
R-Caid]
[talbots vs. foxes] By long standing precedent, there is
no difference between foxes and talbots. [James Jacob
Talbot, 11/2001,
R-East]
... no difference for the type change from a fox to a wolf ...
[Æthelwynn Rædwulfesdohter, 01/2002,
R-Trimaris]
The LoI suggested that the blazon term ravissant be used.
This term is sometimes used for a wolf which is grasping its prey
by the neck and holding it over its back. However, it might also
be considered appropriate for other sorts of predator/prey
arrangements. Therefore, the term ravissant should not be
used without more explicit arrangement and posture description.
[Sigmundr Hákonsson, 02/2002,
R-Drachenwald]
Some commenters felt that the terrier was hard to identify, but
most were able to identify it as a dog. The particular terrier in
this emblazon has a short muzzle with a long hairy "beard" or
"mustache", which seemed to be the source of the identifiability
issues. Similar small dogs were documented with the submission,
from the Arnolfini Wedding portrait circa 1434 and from the
Unicorn Tapestries circa 1500 (which dog resembles a West
Highland terrier, except that it is tan colored). The period
sources showed dogs with small fluffy tails, so the fact that
this dog's tail is also small (possibly docked) does not require
blazoning. [Helena d'Évreux, 06/2002,
A-West]
A fox proper in the SCA is "Red with black 'socks' and white at
tip of tail", according to the Glossary of Terms. [Piero
Antonio Volpe, 10/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[a dachshund] Ammalynne Starchild Haraldsdottir's "May I
Use a Collie In My Arms" (KWHS, Meridies, AS XVII, pp. 45-55)
indicates that the dachshund is probably a period breed of dog.
The dachshund is literally a badger-hound, bred to hunt badgers.
The New Zealand Kennel Club
(http://www.nzkc.org.nz/breeds/dacsh.htm) states that "Earliest
records now available of dogs hunting badgers include several
woodcuts in a book first published in 1560. These dogs had long
bodies, short legs, medium length heads, pendant ears, short
necks and sickle tails." This description matches the emblazon
here. It seems reasonable to register dachshunds as period
charges. If nothing else, the term for the breed is generic
("badger-hound") and closely resembles a period sort of dog used
for hunting badgers. [Marie Boleyn, 11/2002,
R-Middle]
Many commenters noted the similarity of this emblazon to the
Dalmatian breed of dog, and questioned whether that breed was
period. Clarion stated:
Dalmatians are probably a period breed, there is a mention of
spotted dogs in an Elizabethan Journal (National Geographic
Book of Dogs). As the shape of the dog resembles a Dalmatian,
we might as well use it. I would still give its color as
argent spotted sable, especially as modern Dalmatians
can have brown spots as well.
This is sufficient evidence to allow this sort of
depiction of a dog in SCA heraldry, as the type of dog is
compatible with period types of dog. Because the submitter
originally blazoned this dog simply as a dog argent spotted
sable rather than a Dalmatian argent spotted sable we
will continue to blazon it as a dog. [Lyn the
Inquisitive,12/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[an armored wolf] The wolf's armor is not dissimilar from
period dog-armor. Dog-armor was found in various places in Europe
by the end of period, according to documentation provided from
Brassey's Book of Body Armor by Robert Woosnam-Savage and
Anthony Hall. This book also describes other sorts of animal
armor. While the armored animals in the body armor book are all
domestic animals, the arms of Finland, Gules semy of roses
argent, a lion rampant crowned Or brandishing with one human arm
armored a sword and in base a falchion fesswise reversed proper,
incorporate a wild creature wearing armor. All in all it
seems unusual, but acceptable, to have an armored wolf in SCA
armory. Because the armor does not affect the outline of the wolf
and is of the same tincture as the wolf, it is considered a
blazonable artist's detail and is not worth difference.
[Vilk{u,} Urvas, Shire of, 12/2002,
A-Middle]
The dog was originally blazoned as a Bouvier de Flandres
but that is a modern breed. The Zuricher Wappenrolle shows a dog
much like this one, stocky, fuzzy, with short pointed ears and a
short tail, for the family of Toggenburg. Pastoureau blazons this
dog simply as a chien (or dog) in Traité
d'Heraldique. It thus seems appropriate to register this very
similar-looking dog simply as a dog. [Jean Philippe des
Bouviers Noirs, 01/2003,
A-East]
... no type difference between a fox and a wolf. [Ichijou
Jirou Toshiyasu, 01/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[a brown vixen proper] The vixen was originally blazoned
as proper, which is defined in the SCA Glossary of Terms
as "Red with black 'socks' and white at tip of tail". The vixen
drawn here is brown with black feet, white chest, and white
tail-tip. This is not acceptable by the following precedent,
which requires that the brown fox proper be all brown:
A falcon proper will be considered to be all brown, not brown
head, wings and back, buff breast with darker spots, and a tail
striped with black; a hare proper will be considered to be all
brown, not brown with white underbelly and tail and pink ears.
This also appears to be more in keeping with period heraldic
practice. (Cover Letter for the October 1995 LoAR)
If period evidence is shown for a brown fox proper
with black socks and white at the tip of the tail (and on the
chest), we may reconsider the return. However, no evidence for
such a period heraldic depiction of a fox has been presented. We
can find find evidence for period foxes that are solid brown (for
example, the canting arms of Die Fuchsen in Siebmacher's 1605
Wappenbuch, fol. 62, Or a brown fox salient
proper). [Apollonia Voss, 01/2003,
R-East]
[A wolf couchant sable] This does not conflict with a
badge of Thylacinus Aquila of Dair Eidand, (Fieldless) A
thylacine couchant gardant proper, orbed and langued gules.
There is one CD for fieldlessness and another CD for the tincture
of the beast. The thylacine proper in Thylacinus' emblazon is
predominantly tan in color. The College's researches also
indicate that this is the expected proper coloration for a
thylacine. [Rhys ab Idwal, 06/2003,
A-Middle]
[enfield vs. talbot] Previous precedent strongly implies
that there is difference between a wolf and an enfield (and thus,
a talbot and an enfield) as long as the forelegs of the enfield
are not obscured by other elements of the design: "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" (LoAR July
1992, pg. 17). There is thus a second CD for changing the talbots
to enfields. [Dafydd ap y Kynith, 09/2003,
A-Meridies]
[a wolf statant argent] The cumulative problems with the
artwork call for redrawing. The wolf is not clearly identifiable
as a wolf. It does not have a wolf's long bushy tail, nor does it
have a wolf's erect pointed ears. The head and neck are slightly
in trian aspect, which causes the neck to effectively disappear,
which also hampers the identifiability of the animal. Only about
half the people who commented on this submission or who viewed
this submission at the Wreath meeting were able to clearly
identify this charge as a canine, and few of them believed it to
be a wolf. [Randolf Garard, 10/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[wolves vs. seawolves] There is a ... CD for changing the
type of secondary charges. Most (albeit not all) "sea-beast"
monsters are constructed as fish-tailed demi-beasts (the top half
of the beast conjoined to a fish's tail). A sea-wolf follows this
general practice: it is a fish-tailed demi-wolf, just as a a
sea-griffin is a fish tailed demi-griffin. As a general rule,
there is a CD between a quadruped (or quadrupedal monster) and a
fish-tailed demi-quadruped. While there are not many explicit
precedents on this topic, one such precedent is found in the LoAR
of January 1992, p. 6: "There is a CD... for the difference
between a sea-griffin and a griffin." [Daniel of Whitby,
11/2003,
A-Ealdormere]
The dogs were originally blazoned as mastiff hounds but
they should simply be termed mastiffs. From a heraldic
perspective, a mastiff and a hound are different types of dogs,
and the phrase mastiff hound is as nonsensical as the
phrase talbot greyhound. [Grimbrand Hundeman,
12/2003,
R-Calontir]
BEAST --
Elephant
[Gules, in pale a woolly mammoth statant
proper atop a hurt fimbriated argent] The Laurel files did
not contain a colored emblazon for this very old submission, and
so we were unable to clarify the tincture of the mammoth in the
blazon. [Aaron the Mighty, 03/2002,
A-West]
[Per bend Or and vert, an elephant argent] Conflict with
Andrew Castlebuilder, Per chevron purpure and Or, overall an
elephant [Elephas sp.] trumpeting passant proper, on its back a
carpet purpure, fimbriated Or, supporting a tower argent, masoned
sable. There is a CD for changing the field but no difference
for adding the tower. Towers are commonly found on the back of
elephants, and must be blazoned when present. However, such
towers are of much less visual weight than the elephant, and are
therefore equivalent to maintained charges. The tower in Andrew's
arms follows this pattern. [Dionello Cristoforo dei
Medici, 03/2002,
R-An Tir]
BEAST --
General
[a
horse's head contourny erased Or collared gules] This is
clear of conflict with ... Sable, a single headed chess knight
contourny Or. There is a CD for changing the field and a
second CD for adding the collar. "When considering a full beast
or monster gorged, the gorging is usually treated as an artistic
detail, worth no difference. When consider the same creature's
head gorged, however, the gorging is much more prominent in
proportion --- and treated as a tertiary charge." (LoAR 9/93 p.5)
[Ceinwen ferch Rhys ap Gawain, 03/2002,
A-Caid]
The College was generally in agreement that the addition or
deletion of a crown from the head of a (whole) animal should not
be worth difference. Some period evidence was presented
suggesting that, in armory using a crowned animal, the crown was
at times dropped from the emblazon. Such an easily deletable
artist's distinction should not be considered to be worth
difference.
The College was not able to find period evidence about whether
crowned animal's heads could have the crown added or deleted by
artistic license. Some commenters suggested that perhaps crowns
on animal's heads should be considered analogous to collars on
animal's heads. Current precedent gives a CD for collaring an
animal's head (as if the collar were a tertiary charge) but does
not give a CD for adding a collar to a whole animal. However,
these two designs are not truly analogous. A collar on an
animal's head does indeed function as a tertiary charge and thus
must have good contrast with the head on which it lies. This good
contrast enhances the collar's visual prominence. However, a
crown on an animal's head does not generally have such good
contrast. The crown generally either has poor contrast with the
field or with the animal's head. In addition, a crown may be
further obscured by some artistic details of the head on which it
lies, such as ruffled eagle's feathers or a lion's mane.
Without period evidence to the contrary, and because of the
contrast problems inherent in the design of a crown on an
animal's head, it does not seem appropriate to give difference
for adding a crown to a charge consisting only of an animal's
head. [12/2002,
CL]
Most demi-quadrupeds (including winged demi-quadrupeds, such as
demi-griffins) are erect in period armory. Erect appears
to be the default posture for such charges in the real world.
Therefore, erect should be the default posture for
demi-quadrupeds in the SCA. [Thomas von Hessen, 08/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[stag's head erased gorged of a pearled coronet ...
argent] A beast's head gorged of a coronet or collar is
treated by the SCA as having a tertiary charge. "When
[considering a] creature's head gorged, however, the gorging is
much more prominent in proportion --- and treated as a tertiary
charge." (LoAR of September 1993). A tertiary charge needs to
have good contrast with the underlying charge. This coronet is
the same tincture as the underlying head, so it violates our
rules for contrast. On a full-sized beast, where a collar is
considered an artist's detail rather than a charge in its own
right, it would be acceptable to have a no-contrast detail of
this nature. [Chrestienne de Waterdene, 04/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
BEAST --
Goat
[goats
clymant] Some commenters suggested that clymant was
not a correct blazon and that these goats should be reblazoned as
salient. This is an erroneous suggestion, as
clymant may be used as a synonym for either salient or
rampant goats. Parker's A Glossary of Terms used in
Heraldry defines clymant as "salient, applied to the
goat", and, under goat, he notes that "[clymant] may be
used for either salient or rampant." It is thus acceptable to use
the term clymant to refer to a goat which is either
rampant or salient. [Christophe de
Lorraine, 11/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
Note that, in the SCA, the default sheep does not have horns...
[Boddi bjarki Bjarnarson, 11/2003,
A-East]
[A ram statant gules] The ram was tinctured on the Letter
of Intent as gules armed Or. The horns of the ram are a
large enough artistic detail so that their tincture could be
blazoned (unlike the tincture of the hooves of the ram, which the
SCA always leaves entirely to the artist). However, the tincture
of the horns of the ram is not so important that it must be
blazoned. The submitter did not blazon the horns as Or on the
form, so we suspect the submitter would like to leave the
tincture of the horns to artist's license, and we have omitted
the arming tincture from the blazon. [Aaron Graves and
Alessandra Gabrielli, 12/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
BEAST --
Miscellaneous
[a
pillar sable surmounted by a horse passant] While the pillar
and horse combination were universally found to be evocative of a
carousel horse, it does not appear to be so obtrusively modern as
to warrant return. Please note a very similar design found in the
period arms of v. König, Siebmacher f. 146, Azure a pillar Or
surmounted by a horse salient argent. [Micaela
Leslie, 02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
Camels may be brown as part of their natural color variations.
Just as we register brown wolves proper (even though natural
wolves are often grey) we may register brown camels proper, under
the criteria set forth in the cover letter for the October 1995
LoAR.
The original blazon was simply a camel. Since there is no
default proper tincture for a camel, it is necessary to specify
that this is a brown camel proper.
The blanket on the back of the camel was originally blazoned as a
saddle, but it is simply a blanket. As drawn in this
submission, the blanket is an artistic detail worth blazoning,
but not a tertiary charge, and therefore does not need good
contrast with the camel. [Aminah of Nithgaard, 03/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
Please advise the submitter to draw the squirrel more
identifiably. A squirrel has shorter and smaller forelegs and
larger round hindquarters. Its tail, while full, also tends to be
less shaggy than in this submission. The squirrel's
statant posture does not enhance its identifiability, as
squirrels are sejant erect by default and almost always
found in that posture in period armory. As drawn, this squirrel
risks being confused with another animal. [Isabel Fosson,
04/2002,
A-Middle]
There is a CD between a correctly drawn hippopotamus and a
correctly drawn boar. [Tat'iana Travina, 11/2002,
A-Outlands]
[gorillas] The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
(http://88.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GO/GORI.htm) states:
It was long supposed that the apes encountered on an island off
the west coast of Africa by Hanno, the Carthaginian, were
gorillas, but in the opinion of some of those best qualified to
judge, it is probable that the creatures in question were
really baboons. The first real account of the gorilla appears
to be the one given by an English sailor, Andrew Battel, who
spent some time in the wilds of West Africa during and about
the year 1590; his account being presented in Purchas's
Pilgrimage, published in the year 1613. From this it appears
that Battel was familiar with both the chimpanzee and the
gorilla, the former of which he terms engeco and the latter
pongo-names which ought apparently to be adopted for these two
species in place of those now in use. Between Battel's time and
1846 nothing appears to have been heard of the gorilla or
pongo, but in that year a missionary at the Gabun accidentally
discovered a skull of the huge ape; and in 1847 a sketch of
that specimen, together with two others, came into the hands of
Sir R. Owen, by whom the name Gorilla savagei was proposed for
the new ape in 1848.
We require that animals used in our armory were
known to Western Europeans. In the past this has not been taken
as a requirement that Western Europeans were very familiar as a
group with the animal in question. Rather, it has been taken as a
requirement that the animal had been seen by some explorer or
explorers. It appears from the 1911 Encyclopedia citation that a
Western European explorer had seen a gorilla before 1600. Thus,
this charge may be accepted.
The College should note that the standard heraldic ape, found in
the crest of the Irish family of FitzGerald, has a long tail and
is thus biologically a representation of a type of monkey.
[Seth MacMichael, 02/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
The primary charges were blazoned on the forms and the LoI as
buffalo. We have reblazoned them to ensure that the
correct animal will be drawn from the blazon. The term
buffalo, according to the American Heritage Dictionary
of the English Language, primarily refers to the large-horned
water buffalo and African buffalo. The term bison is used
for a different sort of ruminant noted for its "large
forequarters, a shaggy mane, and a massive head with short curved
horns." Bisons include the American bison (bison bison)
and the European bison or wisent (Bison bonasus). Even
though the word buffalo may properly be used in modern
English to refer to bison, the SCA has previously registered
bison as bison. [Tarasius of Galata,
03/2003,
A-Calontir]
The armadillo is a New World animal. The Oxford English
Dictionary dates the word "armadillo", referring to this animal,
to 1577 and 1594. Armadillos are also found in several regions
occupied by the Spanish long before the end of period. As
armadillos were known to Western Europeans in period they may be
registered, albeit as a step from period style (a "weirdness").
Per the LoAR of August 1999, "New World flora and fauna... are a
discouraged weirdness, but registerable." Armory with a single
step from period style may be registered, and there are no other
steps from period style in this device. [Drogo Rabenwald,
01/2004,
A-Æthelmearc]
BEAST --
Mouse
[mouse
vs. mole] ... a CD for changing the type of beast. While
moles were found in period armory (e.g. Twistleton, Argent,
three moles sable; Dictionary of British Armorials Volume I
p.295), we've found no period examples of armory using mice or
rats. Woodward, in A Treatise on Heraldry, British and
Foreign, indicates that mice and rats were found in
real-world heraldry but were limited to the Continent in their
few appearances, and he gives no dated examples of their use. We
must therefore judge the difference in the types of charges by
visual distinctions, per the provisions of RfS X.4.e. Given that
the mouse has prominent ears and tail, while the mole has none,
there should be a CD between them. [Eileen ingen
Dubh-luchag, 12/2001,
R-An Tir][Ed: Evidence was later found - see Franz Belgrand
die Mus below.]
[mouse vs. ferret] Weasels are found in many forms in
period heraldry: ermines, martens, and so forth. Without period
examples of armory using mice, the distinction must be made on
visual grounds. The weasel has very different body proportions
from the mouse and lacks the prominent ears. It has at least a
CD's difference for type change. [Eileen ingen
Dubh-luchag, 12/2001,
R-An Tir]
Please advise the submitter that a lemming resembles a mouse with
a short mouse tail. [Hierytha Storie, 05/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
The gerbil is a Mongolian animal that was first found by Western
Europeans in the 19th C. While some members of the College
suggested reblazoning this animal as a hamster, hamsters have
vestigial tails and gerbils have long thin furry tails. Because
this is not a period animal, and cannot easily be reblazoned
using a period heraldic animal, it may not be registered under
RfS VII.4, "Period Flora and Fauna". [Kis Mária, 01/2004,
R-East]
[a brown mouse rampant proper] We are glad to see a
submission including a mouse, as it gives us an opportunity to
modify, due to later developments, the statement in the December
2001 LoAR that "we've found no period examples of armory using
mice or rats." We've found some now. The Stemmario
Trivulziano, a 15th C Milanese armorial, has armory using
both mice and rats. The arms of di Francavila on p. 150 and da
Sorexina on p. 329 both include a mouse statant sable (blazoned
in modern Italian by Carlo Maspoli as "sorcio"). The canting arms
of di Topi on p. 354 also include a mouse (or rat) statant sable
(modernly blazoned as "topo", which word can mean either rat or
mouse). Canting rats (from the dialectical Italian "ratt" variant
of the more common "ratto") may be found in the arms of Ratazi on
p. 312, using a rat statant sable, and Ratanate on p. 308 using a
rat rampant sable.
Note that all these rats and mice are sable. There are no mice
proper in Stemmario Trivulziano - although there are a number of
other proper brown animate charges in this book including canting
dormice. Dormice are distinctly visibly different from mice or
rats, with bushy tails, and we do not believe that practices for
dormice can necessarily be extended to practices for mice. We
thus continue to uphold the Glossary of Terms entry in Table 3
stating that there is no default proper tincture for mice.
This leaves the question of whether a brown mouse proper should
be allowed. As noted in the LoAR of August 1995 and upheld since
then (including the extensive discussion in the Cover Letter for
the March 2002 LoAR), "Animals which are frequently found as
brown but also commonly appear in other tinctures in the natural
world may be registered as a brown {X} proper (e. g., brown hound
proper, brown horse proper)." Mice are commonly found in a brown
tincture in the natural world, so brown mice proper may be
registered. [Franz Belgrand die Mus, 03/2004,
A-Æthelmearc]
BEAST --
Rabbit
[a
hare passant gules breathing flames] Breathing fire is (to
put it mildly) an unusual attribute for a hare, and may be
considered a weirdness. [Maeve of Trimaris, 08/2001,
A-Trimaris]
[a rabbit sejant erect affronty paly argent and azure] The
identifiability of the rabbit is unacceptably compromised by the
combination of the unusual sejant erect affronty posture and the
paly tincture of the rabbit. While there is period armory
depicting animals in multiply divided tinctures such as barry and
checky, the period animals so tinctured are in their most
identifiable postures. Sejant erect affronty is not such a
posture. In addition, period examples of sejant erect affronty,
such as the crest of Scotland, are generally drawn with the
forepaws displayed. Such a rendition is more identifiable than
the depiction in this emblazon, where the forepaws lie entirely
on the rabbit's body. [Tieg ap Gwylym, 07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[A hare-headed man argent statant to sinister vested
azure] The primary charge was blazoned on the letter of
intent as a hare-headed man, and blazoned by the submitter
as a hare. The charge has a hare's feet and head but a
man's proportions. This is a style of drollery which is found in
period art, but no documentation has been presented for such a
charge in period heraldry. Most of the commentary received on
this submission indicated that it was difficult to identify the
charge. As a result, this may not be accepted without either
documentation for such a charge in heraldry, or a redrawing so
that the charge is clearly either a hare-headed man or a hare.
[Bright Hills, Barony of, 07/2002,
R-Atlantia]
BEAST --
Weasel
[a
black-footed ferret proper] Reblazon to: Azure, a
black-footed ferret passant guardant Or marked sable and argent,
grasping in its dexter forepaw a rose argent, barbed, seeded,
slipped, and leaved proper. Her original blazon was Azure,
a black-footed ferret passant guardant proper, grasping in its
dexter forepaw a rose argent, barbed, seeded, slipped, and leaved
proper [Mustela nigripes]. Members of the College were
confused about what tincture a black-footed ferret proper might
be, citing various references to support interpretations of
either argent or Or. Inspection of her form shows that the ferret
is predominantly Or with a black mask, forefeet, and tail, and
white showing at the very bottom of the belly. The blazon has
been changed to reflect the predominant Or tincture. The term
black-footed has been retained in the blazon. We would not
currently specify a species to this level of detail in blazon,
but this term is grandfathered to the submitter. The Linnaean
species reference has been omitted, as it was only necessary due
to the use of Linnaean proper. The term black-footed
should specify the type of ferret sufficiently. [Megan
Glenleven, 10/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[mouse vs. ferret] Weasels are found in many forms in
period heraldry: ermines, martens, and so forth. Without period
examples of armory using mice, the distinction must be made on
visual grounds. The weasel has very different body proportions
from the mouse and lacks the prominent ears. It has at least a
CD's difference for type change. [Eileen ingen
Dubh-luchag, 12/2001,
R-An Tir]
BEND and BEND
SINISTER
A baton in heraldry
is, by definition, a bend couped. [Lucia Francesca de
Valencia, 04/2002,
A-East]
The bendlets sinister are far too enhanced to be acceptable.
Overly enhanced ordinaries have been a reason for return for many
years. As an example: "These bendlets are enhanced so much to
chief that the style becomes unacceptably modern" (LoAR of
January 1992). Scarpes enhanced should issue from most of the way
across the chief, taking up most of the top half of the armory.
These issue from less than halfway across the chief. [Gruffydd
ap Idwallon, 04/2002,
R-Artemisia]
[three barrulets bevilled] The bendlets provided here are
not bevilled. A bend bevilled, as illustrated in
the Pictorial Dictionary, is a bend which has been cut
along a vertical line and offset so that the top edge of the
chiefmost portion of the bend touches the bottom edge of the
basemost portion. Each of the bars here is in a "Z" shape: the
bar is not broken but bent at two sharp angles. No evidence has
been presented that a bar in this shape is a period heraldic
charge or an SCA-compatible heraldic charge.
Moreover, the nested Z-shaped barrulets are each individually
much too thin and much too close together for good heraldic style
for any sort of barrulet. This emblazon is much more like a
single Z-shaped barrulet with white artistic details rather than
three barrulets bevilled. We cannot, however, reblazon this, as
we lack a term of art for a Z-shaped barrulet of this sort.
While the College speculated about whether a charge of this shape
might be a traditional element of Japanese mon, no such example
has been found. The closest that could be found is the
traditional Japanese stream depiction, which uses S-shaped
barrulets.
As this design cannot be blazoned in either Eastern or Western
terms, and as it is not a documentable design in either the East
or the West, it cannot be accepted. [Kusunoki Yoshimoto,
10/2002,
R-East]
Please advise the submitter to draw the bend sinister closer to a
45-degree angle. It is drawn somewhat too steeply in this
emblazon, with the result that it lies low on the field.
[Richard de Frayne, 02/2003,
A-Caid]
[a bend sinister embowed-counterembowed] The bend sinister
was originally blazoned as wavy but did not have enough waves for
that blazon. The concensus of the College appeared to support the
SCA-acceptability of a bend sinister embowed-counterembowed.
Because there is no evidence that a bend sinister
embowed-counterembowed is a period charge, we must determine any
difference from a bend sinister wavy on solely visual grounds. A
bend sinister wavy and a bend sinister embowed-counterembowed do
not appear to be so visually distinct as to warrant
difference.
Thus, this conflicts with ... Vert, on a bend sinister wavy
between two ox heads erased affronty argent a scarpe wavy
azure. There is a CD for changing the type of the secondary
charges. A bend sinister wavy argent charged with a scarpe wavy
azure is heraldically equivalent to a bend sinister azure
fimbriated argent, so there is no additional difference.
[Aíbinn ingen Artáin, 03/2003,
R-Trimaris]
Some commentary asked whether this depiction of an ermine bend,
which charges the bend with five bendwise ermine spots, should be
blazoned as A bend argent charged with five ermine spots
sable rather than a bend ermine. This is an excellent period
depiction of an ermine bend. As noted in the January 2002 LoAR:
There seem to be few ermine bends in period, but they may be
found throughout the heraldic period. Those which [Maister Iago
ab Adam] found are all depicted with the ermine spots tilted
bendwise on the bend.
Maister Iago has provided some additional detailed
information about English depictions of ermine bends throughout
our period:
Out of seven period examples of ermine bends studied, two had
two offset rows of spots (like footprints up the bend), one had
seven spots arranged 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, one was charged and had the
spots arranged to fit around the charges, and three were drawn
as in this submission, with a single row of five spots
(although it should be noted that these last three examples are
all mid-16th C. or later.)
[Catarina de Zaneto Rizo, 04/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a bend engrailed to base Or between two pineapples Or leaved
vert] Pineapples are new world flora and thus considered a
step from period style (a "weirdness"): "New World flora and
fauna... are a discouraged weirdness, but registerable" (LoAR of
August 1999). It appears that having a two-sided ordinary (like a
bend) with a complex line on only the lower side of the bend
should also be considered a "weirdness": "The only period
examples of treating one side of an ordinary which were noted was
that of embattling the upper edge of an ordinary" (LoAR of
November 1990 p. 15). As a result, the armory has two steps from
period style armory ("two weirdnesses") and is stylistically
unacceptable. [Pamela Gattarelli, 04/2003,
R-East]
[a fess of three conjoined fusils] This does not conflict
with Vert, a dance Or between three daisies proper. There
is one CD for removing the secondary daisies. There is another CD
for the difference between a dance and a fess of fusils:
[a bend sinister fusilly vs. a bend sinister dancetty]
Evidence taken from the Dictionary of British Arms
strongly indicates that bends dancetty were not used
interchangeably with bends fusilly; in fact, they were
used by different people and in different ways. Thus there is a
CD for changing the line of division on the bend ... (LoAR
April 2001)
We have also researched the question in the
Dictionary of British Arms in the two bars section,
and also found that bars dancetty were used by different people
from bars lozengy. Unfortunately, the Dictionary of British
Arms is not yet published to the point where we could
research fesses, but the evidence so far found implies strongly
that what is true for bends and bars should also be true for
fesses.
We do note that there is some interchangeability in period
between the somewhat analogous lines
embattled-counterembattled and bretessed, which
also differ by putting the top and bottom lines 180 degrees out
of phase. As a consequence of the period interchangeability, we
do not give difference between embattled-counterembattled
and bretessed. However, the square and indented line
treatments are not exactly analogous, because there is no
"zig-zag" form of the square lines analogous to dancetty. The
"zig zag" form of embattled-counterembattled would look like the
shaft of the SCA charge of a lightning bolt (see the Pictorial
Dictionary for an illustration). There is no period treatment
of an ordinary which makes this sort of square "zig zag". Because
the two sides of a period ordinary
embattled-counterembattled or bretessed are always
separated by at least a thin amount of central ordinary, the two
treatments are much more visually similar, and this may have
contributed to the period confusion between them.
Some commentary on this submission addressed previous precedent
on this topic, which appears to need some clarification
(especially when only excerpts of the precedent were quoted).
Here is some discussion clarifying these past precedents. As
always, we encourage people quoting precedents to consider going
back to the original LoAR and reading the excerpts in context.
As a bend sinister of fusils is an artistic variant of
indented, there is not a CD between it and a bend
sinister indented (LoAR April 2001, p. 13)
This precedent only refers to the lack of difference
between an ordinary indented and an ordinary of fusils -
ordinaries dancetty are not discussed by this precedent at all.
Ordinaries indented and ordinaries of fusils were indeed
interchangeable artistic variants in period. In both an ordinary
indented and an ordinary of fusils, the top and bottom lines are
180 degrees out of phase, and the only difference is whether the
artist decides to touch the "inside" parts of the top and bottom
lines (creating an ordinary of fusils) or whether to leave some
space between them (leaving an ordinary indented).
...the distinction between 'dancetty' and 'indented' when
applied to ordinaries being not one of amplitude, as White Stag
suggests, but a distinction parallel to that between
counterembattled and bretassed (LoAR December 1988)
This precedent did not discuss the determination of
difference between ordinaries dancetty and indented, but solely
discussed the definitions of the two treatments. It makes the
very good point that there is no implication of an amplitude
difference between indented and dancetty (as indicated in some
very post-period treatises). As noted in the discussion above,
the difference between dancetty and indented is indeed "parallel"
to that between counterembattled and bretessed, but it is by no
means exactly the same. [Elena Bertholmeu, 05/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[a bend abased and cotised argent] No documentation was
presented for ordinaries which are both abased and cotised.
Abased ordinaries are so rare in period armory that this
treatment appears to be too far a departure from period heraldic
style to be acceptable without documentation. [Arabella
Mackinnon, 06/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[Argent, three bendlets azure each charged with a mullet of
six points palewise Or] Conflict with ..., Per pale gules
and sable, three compass stars in bend sinister Or. Because
armory with three or more bendlets is equivalent to armory with a
bendy field, this armory needs to be considered as if it were
blazoned as Bendy argent and azure, in bend sinister three
mullets of six points Or. Under this interpretation, there is
one CD for changing the field. There is no type difference
between the compass stars and the mullets of six points. Because
of the unusual (and non-period) design of compass stars, with
their four greater and four lesser points, they are considered as
variants of both mullets of four points and mullets of eight
points. There is no type difference between mullets of six points
and mullets of eight points and, hence, no difference between
mullets of six points and compass stars. [Brian Sigfridsson
von Niedersachsen, 07/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[Gules, three bendlets abased argent each charged with a
bendlet azure] Her previous armory submission was very
similar to this but was blazoned as using bendlets abased
azure fimbriated argent. That submission was returned for
using fimbriated charges that were not in the center of the
design, which is forbidden by RfS VIII.3. The submission is
blazoned as using bendlets each charged with a bendlet, and is
proportioned acceptably for that blazon.
Per the LoAR of February 2000, "In this case the blazon can make
a difference: while you cannot 'blazon your way out of' a
conflict, you can 'blazon your way out of' a style problem." In
the colored-in full-sized emblazon, the bendlets are identifiable
as bendlets (rather than part of a complicated bendy field), and
are not debased so far as to be unregisterable. [Ann
Busshenell of Tylehurst, 10/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[Quarterly gules and sable, three bendlets argent]
Conflict with Ysfael ap Briafael, Per bend bendy vert and
argent and vert. Ysfael's device could alternately be
blazoned as Vert, three bendlets enhanced argent, and was
originally submitted under that blazon. Ysfael's registration in
the LoAR of December 2000 stated, "Originally blazoned as
three bendlets enhanced, the blazon above more closely
describes the emblazon." When considering Ysfael's device under
the alternate blazon of Vert, three bendlets enhanced
argent, and comparing it to Tigernach's submission, there is
one CD for changing the field, but the second CD must come from
the change of location of the bendlets from enhanced.
Our original inclination was to give a second CD for enhancing
the bendlets under RfS X.4.g. However, evidence indicates that,
in period, armory using three bendlets enhanced was not distinct
from armory using three bendlets in their default location on the
field. We thus should not give difference between these
designs.
The Dictionary of British Arms (DBA) volume two gives very
few coats of arms using three bendlets enhanced (on p. 117). Most
of these coats are also found belonging to the same family but
with the three bendlets in their default position (on pp.
114-116): the arms of Byron, Argent, three bends [enhanced]
gules, Greeley, Gules, three bends [enhanced] Or, and
Mawnyse/Mauvesin, Gules, three bends [enhanced] argent.
For one of these families, there is scholarship which explicitly
states that the coat with the three bendlets enhanced is a
later version of the coat with three bendlets, rather than
a distinctly different, cadenced, coat. Woodward's A Treatise
on Heraldry British and Foreign discusses the arms of Byron
on p. 132, stating, "What appears to have been the original coat
of Biron viz., Argent, three bendlets gules, is now borne
with the bendlets enhanced (Fr. haussés) i.e. placed
higher in the shield, as in the arms of the poet, Lord
Byron."
The difference between three bendlets and three
bendlets enhanced is thus similar to the difference between
crosses bottony and crosses crosslet. We give no
difference between these crosses because, as discussed in the
LoAR of August 2002, "It is important to recall that the cross
bottony and the cross crosslet are both used to represent the
same charge throughout our period's heraldry. The bottony form is
found predominantly in earlier artwork, and the crosslet form
predominantly in later artwork." The evidence in DBA and Woodward
suggests that three bendlets and three bendlets
enhanced are both used to represent the same armory
throughout our period's heraldry. Just as the cross crosslet
became distinct from the cross bottony after our period, three
bendlets enhanced became distinct from three bendlets after our
period. [Tigernach Mag Samhradh�in, 11/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Or, three bendlets sinister vert] This submission is
heraldically equivalent to Bendy sinister Or and vert. It
thus conflicts with ... Bendy sinister of four vert, argent,
purpure and argent. There's no difference between bendy
sinister of four and bendy sinister of six. The two pieces of
armory share a tincture so X.4.a.ii.b does not apply. This leaves
one CD for changing the tincture of the field, but that is all.
[Gabriel Halte, 12/2003,
R-Drachenwald]
BIRD -- Cock and
Hen
[dunghill
cock] According to J. P. Brooke-Little's An Heraldic
Alphabet, a "dunghill cock" is "the common farmyard cock".
[Barbara Sterling, 08/2001,
A-Meridies]
There is a CD between a correctly drawn turkey cock and an
ostrich. The turkey has a much shorter neck and legs and has a
distinctive fan-shaped tail. [William Crome, 09/2002,
A-Calontir]
[cock vs. secretary bird] This is clear of the Society for
Creative Anachronism's badge for the Privy Clerk to Morsulus
Herald, (Tinctureless) A secretary-bird sejant regardant.
[Sagittarius sepentarius]. There is one CD for
tincturelessness. A secretary bird is a thin African raptor, with
a shaggy crest, long tail and long legs. It is unique among hawks
for killing its prey by stamping with its powerful legs and
taloned feet. Because the secretary bird is a charge that was not
used in heraldry in period, difference from a period charge (such
as a cock) is determined on visual grounds by RfS X.4.e. The
secretary bird should thus have at least a CD from a cock.
[Sancha de Flores, 08/2003,
A-East]
... no difference between a dunghill cock and a hen. While the
dunghill cock generally has a more pronounced tail and comb than
the hen, given the period variations with which these charges are
drawn, there is little visual difference between them. No
evidence has been presented or found to indicate that period
heralds would have given difference between these charges.
[Alienor of Iron Mountain, 11/2003,
R-Meridies]
[dunghill cock] This also conflicts with ... Azure, a
simurgh close Or. A simurgh is a monster which is effectively
identical to a peacock. Per this month's cover letter, both
dunghill cocks and peacocks are "poultry-shaped" birds, and
substantial difference cannot be given between them, which would
be necessary to clear this conflict under RfS X.2.
Both dunghill cocks and peacocks have details on their heads (a
crest for the peacock, a comb and wattles for the dunghill cock)
and both have prominent tails. Despite these vague similarities,
they are considered different in period, and consistently drawn
differently in period. They are thus significantly different, and
a CD is given between them. [Alienor of Iron Mountain,
11/2003,
R-Meridies]
[(Fieldless) A rooster vert] This badge is clear of ...
(Fieldless) A raven vert. Per the Cover Letter to the
November 2003 LoAR, there is substantial difference between a
rooster (a "poultry-shaped" bird) and a raven (a "regular-shaped"
bird) when both birds are in period postures and drawn correctly.
The two badges are clear of conflict by RfS X.2.
This is also clear of conflict with ... (Fieldless) A dodo
close vert armed Or. The dodo is not a bird used in period
heraldry, and its eligibility for RfS X.2 is thus determined on a
case by case basis. Because RfS X.2 is not required to clear
these two pieces of armory, we are declining to rule on the
question of the dodo's eligibility for RfS X.2. There is one CD
for fieldlessness, and a second CD under RfS X.4.e between a
rooster and a dodo. While both the rooster and the dodo are
heavy-bodied short-legged birds, the dodo lacks the distinctive
tail, crest and wattles of a rooster. [Carlo Gallucci,
03/2004,
A-Æthelmearc]
[duck vs. dunghill cock] Per the Cover Letter for the
November 2003 LoAR, "swan-shaped" birds and "poultry-shaped"
birds are eligible for X.2 (substantial) difference when they are
drawn correctly and in period postures, which is the case in this
armorial comparison. [Rainald Slater, 03/2004,
A-Ansteorra]
BIRD -- Cornish
Chough
see also BIRD -- Ravens and
Similar Birds and BIRDS and
SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE
[Cornish chough] There is no
difference between the falcon and the Cornish chough. For more
details on the reason why falcons have no difference from either
ravens or Cornish choughs, see the cover letter. [Muirenn
Faulkner, 01/2002,
R-Ansteorra] [Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included
below under "From Wreath: Ravens and
Similar Birds"]
Cornish choughs are black birds with red beak and feet, and so
this is a correctly tinctured proper Cornish chough's leg.
[Leona of Remington, 02/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
BIRD -- Dove
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar
Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE
The bird in chief was originally blazoned as a
dove. However, the bird lacks the head tuft which is used
to identify a heraldic dove, and is not in the dove's standard
close posture. It has thus been reblazoned as a generic
bird, per the Cover Letter for the January 2000 LoAR: "In
the future I will be stricter about requiring that a bird be
drawn with its defining attributes (i.e., a dove should have a
tuft). Without the defining attributes, the bird may just be
blazoned as 'a bird.'" [Kyne Wynn the Kind, 08/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[Vert, a dove rising wings addorsed Or] We have reblazoned
the dove from volant wings addorsed to rising, as
its somewhat bendwise body posture and legs "planted on the
ground" are indicative of the rising posture. A bird volant
wings addorsed would have a fesswise body posture and the
legs would be tucked up as with a bird in flight.
The device conflicts with Conall Ó Cearnaigh, Vert, a hawk
striking within a bordure embattled Or. There is one CD for
removing the bordure. "There is ... nothing for the difference
between striking and rising" (LoAR January 2001). Per the Cover
Letter for the LoAR of January 2000 (which should be read in its
entirety for a full discussion of the interaction between bird
posture and type difference), "In the future I will be more
likely to grant difference between different types of birds when
they are (a) different in period, (b) in a period posture, (c)
drawn correctly, and (d) there is some visual difference." Hawks
and doves would be considered different in period when in their
default postures. However, Conall's striking hawk is not in a
period posture, and Sarah's rising dove is not in a standard
period posture for doves. Sarah's dove is drawn with the dove's
heraldic attribute of a tuft at the back of the head. However,
Conall's hawk is also drawn with a tuft or crest at the back of
its head. The body shapes and beak shapes of the two birds as
depicted in their emblazons are not as distinct as one would
expect for good depictions of either type of bird. After visually
comparing the two emblazons, it was the strong opinion of the
people present at the Wreath meeting that there was not much
visual difference between these two birds. As a result, we cannot
give additional difference for changing the type of bird.
[Sarah nic Leod, 07/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
The bird ... was originally blazoned as a dove. However,
it lacks the tuft at the back of the head, which is the defining
characteristic of a heraldic dove. It also has some
characteristics that are not found in heraldic doves: it has a
deeply forked swallow-tail. Because the type of bird is not
clearly apparent, we have reblazoned it as a generic bird.
[Riguallaun map Guoillauc, 09/2003,
A-A-Ansteorra]
BIRD --
Duck
By examination
of period armory, ducks and geese are close by default - this is
by far the most common posture for either of these birds. Ducks
and geese do not share the same default posture as the larger and
more aggressive swan, which is rousant by default. [Svana
ormstunga Vermundardottir, 11/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[duck vs. dunghill cock] Per the Cover Letter for the
November 2003 LoAR, "swan-shaped" birds and "poultry-shaped"
birds are eligible for X.2 (substantial) difference when they are
drawn correctly and in period postures, which is the case in this
armorial comparison. [Rainald Slater, 03/2004,
A-Ansteorra]
BIRD --
Eagle
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar
Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE
An examination of the development of the
various heraldic eagles shows that the direction of the wingtips
of a displayed eagle is entirely a matter of artistic license. To
avoid incorrectly limiting the submitter's ability to display the
arms in reasonable period variants, we will no longer specify
"elevated" and "inverted" when blazoning displayed birds.
[Robert Michael McPharlan, 08/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
The birds were originally blazoned as "ravens displayed". Ravens
are not found in the displayed posture in period heraldry. They
are close by default and almost always found in that posture. The
unusual posture makes them more closely resemble eagles, which
are usually found in the displayed posture. Because of the
difficulty of identifying these birds as any particular sort of
bird, they have been reblazoned as generic birds. See the cover
letter of January 2000 for a more complete discussion of the
interaction between bird type and bird posture.
... There is no type difference between these generic birds and
the double-headed eagles. [Brangwayn Snowden, 01/2002,
R-Middle]
[Vert, an eagle Or] Conflict with Constantinople, Emperor
of, Gules, a double-headed eagle Or. There is one CD for
changing the field, but nothing for changing the type of eagle
from a double-headed to a single-headed eagle. This also
conflicts with Napoleon I, Azure, an eagle displayed contourny
grasping in both claws a thunderbolt Or. There is one CD for
changing the field but nothing for changing the head posture only
of the eagle and nothing for removing the small held thunderbolt.
There are other conflicts as well, but none so illustrious.
[Egil Haraldsson, 05/2002,
R-Meridies]
[three hawks jessed displayed] Some commenters suggested
that these birds be reblazoned to eagles. The birds in this
submission are jessed, which is an identifying attribute for
hawks. They can thus be visually distinguished from eagles.
[Randal Gartnet, 08/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Per bend azure and argent, an eagle striking to sinister,
wings elevated and addorsed, Or and a Lebanon cedar proper]
The previous blazon was Per bend azure and argent, an eagle
rising to sinister, wings elevated and addorsed, Or and a Lebanon
cedar proper. The submitter's request for reblazon asked that
we change the eagle's posture to striking. Striking
is an SCA blazon term describing a hawk terminating its dive by
braking with its wings and extending its claws down in order to,
with luck, send some smaller animal into the afterlife. It is
different from stooping, which depicts the hawk in the
midst of the dive. Striking is similar to the period
posture rising and no difference is given between these
postures, but the SCA has continued to use striking when
the posture seems appropriate. The eagle here is drawn in a
posture that is at least somewhat characteristic of
striking and we may therefore accede to the submitter's
request. [Jamal Damien Marcus, 09/2002,
A-Caid]
[an eagle enflamed] The bird was originally blazoned as a
firebird, which is an SCA-defined charge representing a
folk art design. The SCA firebird resembles a peacock. This
charge is an eagle enflamed (surrounded with small tufts of
flame). We have reblazoned it accordingly.
Conflict ... no difference ... for removing the small tufts of
flame. [Piera da Ferrara, 04/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[a raven displayed vs. a double-headed eagle displayed]
There is no type difference given between a raven displayed and a
double-headed eagle displayed: "[a raven displayed vs. an
eagle displayed] Even though ravens and eagles were different
birds in period, only eagles were ever displayed.
Therefore there is not a CD for type" (LoAR November 1999; see
also the extensive discussion in the Cover Letter for the January
2000 LoAR). There is also no difference for the number of heads:
"...(not too dissimilarly to not granting a CVD for the
difference between an eagle and a double-headed eagle)" (LoAR
October 1990 p.14). [Njall Randvesson, 04/2003,
R-East]
[an eagle Or] We have removed the explicit armed
sable from the blazon; this is too small a detail to mention
on an eagle, and is invisible from any distance. [Heinrich von
Melk, 05/2003,
R-Atlantia]
BIRD -- Falcon and
Hawk
see also BIRD -- Ravens and
Similar Birds and BIRDS and
SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE
There is no difference between the
falcon and the Cornish chough. For more details on the reason why
falcons have no difference from either ravens or Cornish choughs,
see the cover letter. [Muirenn Faulkner, 01/2002,
R-Ansteorra] [Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included
below under "From Wreath: Ravens and
Similar Birds"]
... there is another CD for changing the type of bird from an owl
close to a falcon close. [Falco de Jablonec, 06/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
There is another CD for changing the type of bird from a stork
statant (which is equivalent to a stork close) and a falcon
close. [Falco de Jablonec, 06/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
There is no posture difference between birds naiant and birds
close. However, there is another CD for changing the type of bird
from a swan naiant to a falcon close. [Falco de Jablonec,
06/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
[three hawks jessed displayed] Some commenters suggested
that these birds be reblazoned to eagles. The birds in this
submission are jessed, which is an identifying attribute for
hawks. They can thus be visually distinguished from eagles.
[Randal Gartnet, 08/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Per bend azure and argent, an eagle striking to sinister,
wings elevated and addorsed, Or and a Lebanon cedar proper]
The previous blazon was Per bend azure and argent, an eagle
rising to sinister, wings elevated and addorsed, Or and a Lebanon
cedar proper. The submitter's request for reblazon asked that
we change the eagle's posture to striking. Striking
is an SCA blazon term describing a hawk terminating its dive by
braking with its wings and extending its claws down in order to,
with luck, send some smaller animal into the afterlife. It is
different from stooping, which depicts the hawk in the
midst of the dive. Striking is similar to the period
posture rising and no difference is given between these
postures, but the SCA has continued to use striking when
the posture seems appropriate. The eagle here is drawn in a
posture that is at least somewhat characteristic of
striking and we may therefore accede to the submitter's
request. [Jamal Damien Marcus, 09/2002,
A-Caid]
There is a second CD for the type difference between a falcon and
a wren.
We have no reason to believe the two charges would not have been
considered distinct in period. They are certainly different types
of bird (the falcon is a raptor and a wren is a small perching
bird), and real-world heraldry generally distinguishes between
these types of bird, at least in blazon. Falcons and wrens are
certainly quite visually distinct. A wren has a thin pointed
beak, and horizontal body posture with its tail pointing straight
up. A falcon has a hooked raptor's beak, and vertical body
posture with its tail pointing downwards. The falcon in this
device is further identified as a falcon or hawk by its prominent
bells and jesses. [Kateline Hicch, 09/2002,
A-East]
[Ermine, a hawk striking wings displayed sable tailed and in
chief three triquetras gules] Conflict with Malutka sep
Srebnitska, Ermine, a turkey vulture [Cathartes aura]
displayed, dexter wing erect, sinister wing inverted, proper.
There is one CD for adding the triquetras.
There is no type difference between a turkey vulture and a hawk.
The turkey vulture is a New World bird, which is not a period
heraldic charge. Per RfS X.4.e, when determining difference from
a non-period charge, difference is determined by a visual
comparison. A visual comparison shows that there is insufficient
difference between a turkey vulture and a hawk to give difference
on solely visual grounds.
There is no difference between the visually similar postures of
displayed dexter wing erect and striking wings displayed. There
is no difference for changing tincture, as less than half the
charge has changed in tincture. Malutka's turkey vulture is black
with a red head, and Morgan's hawk is black with a red tail. The
head and the tail combined make up less than half the tincture of
these birds. [Morgan mac Máeláin, 09/2002,
R-Caid]
[A hawk striking maintaining in its talons a compass star
sable] Conflict with ... Argent, a raven rising regardant
wings disclosed proper, maintaining in the dexter claw a sword
gules. There is a CD for changing the field. There is no
difference between a hawk and a raven (see the discussion in the
January 2002 cover letter). There is no difference in posture
between these birds except for the head position, which is
insufficient for posture difference by RfS X.4.h. There is no
difference for changing the maintained charge.
This is also a visual conflict by RfS X.5 with ... (Fieldless)
A raven striking sustaining a spur rowel of eight points
sable. The only obvious visual difference between these two
pieces of armory is the angle of the bird's wings (which is never
worth difference) and the piercing of the spur rowel. Only on
close comparison is it clear that in Jared's case the spur rowel
is co-primary while in Ricart's case the compass star is a
maintained charge. The visual similarities of two designs are so
close as to give an unavoidable visual conflict. [Ricart
Berenguer Falcón, 03/2003,
R-Meridies]
[Vert, a dove rising wings addorsed Or] We have reblazoned
the dove from volant wings addorsed to rising, as
its somewhat bendwise body posture and legs "planted on the
ground" are indicative of the rising posture. A bird volant
wings addorsed would have a fesswise body posture and the
legs would be tucked up as with a bird in flight.
The device conflicts with Conall Ó Cearnaigh, Vert, a hawk
striking within a bordure embattled Or. There is one CD for
removing the bordure. "There is ... nothing for the difference
between striking and rising" (LoAR January 2001). Per the Cover
Letter for the LoAR of January 2000 (which should be read in its
entirety for a full discussion of the interaction between bird
posture and type difference), "In the future I will be more
likely to grant difference between different types of birds when
they are (a) different in period, (b) in a period posture, (c)
drawn correctly, and (d) there is some visual difference." Hawks
and doves would be considered different in period when in their
default postures. However, Conall's striking hawk is not in a
period posture, and Sarah's rising dove is not in a standard
period posture for doves. Sarah's dove is drawn with the dove's
heraldic attribute of a tuft at the back of the head. However,
Conall's hawk is also drawn with a tuft or crest at the back of
its head. The body shapes and beak shapes of the two birds as
depicted in their emblazons are not as distinct as one would
expect for good depictions of either type of bird. After visually
comparing the two emblazons, it was the strong opinion of the
people present at the Wreath meeting that there was not much
visual difference between these two birds. As a result, we cannot
give additional difference for changing the type of bird.
[Sarah nic Leod, 07/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
BIRD --
Generic
see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE
[A bird close gules] There is ...
nothing for the difference between a generic bird and another
sort of bird. [Tatiana Heinemann, 08/2001,
R-Trimaris]
An examination of the development of the various heraldic eagles
shows that the direction of the wingtips of a displayed eagle is
entirely a matter of artistic license. To avoid incorrectly
limiting the submitter's ability to display the arms in
reasonable period variants, we will no longer specify "elevated"
and "inverted" when blazoning displayed birds. [Robert Michael
McPharlan, 08/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
There is no CD for type for ravens vs generic birds ...
[Robert of Gresewode, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
[a bird displayed] The bird was originally blazoned as a
martlet, but as drawn it was not clearly a martlet. It was
not in the martlet's default close position and does not show the
martlet's leg stumps. It has therefore been reblazoned as a
generic bird. [Aidan of Aran, 04/2002,
A-Middle]
The bird in chief was originally blazoned as a dove.
However, the bird lacks the head tuft which is used to identify a
heraldic dove, and is not in the dove's standard close posture.
It has thus been reblazoned as a generic bird, per the
Cover Letter for the January 2000 LoAR: "In the future I will be
stricter about requiring that a bird be drawn with its defining
attributes (i.e., a dove should have a tuft). Without the
defining attributes, the bird may just be blazoned as 'a bird.'"
[Kyne Wynn the Kind, 08/2002,
A-Artemisia]
The birds in chief were originally blazoned as ravens but they
are not in a standard period posture for ravens and they do not
have any particularly defining attributes of ravens. They have
thus been reblazoned as generic birds. [Wulf Gray Wind,
09/2002,
A-East]
[Three birds close conjoined in annulo sable] These birds
are conjoined in annulo. The only conjoining is where the beak of
each bird touches the tail of the bird in front of it. This
emblazon thus meets the objections stated in the previous return.
The outline of the group is somewhat more triangular than round,
because the birds have straight backs, but this is an acceptable
group of birds conjoined in annulo. [Bran Trefonin,
01/2003,
A-Atlantia]
The bird was originally blazoned as a nightingale.
However, the drawing is not clearly a nightingale; it has a
significantly longer tail than a nightingale, and has some other
artistic details (such as wing bars) which are not present on a
nightingale. According to Peterson's A Field Guide to the
Birds of Britain and Europe, a nightingale in nature is a
brown bird with a buff underside and rusty tail. We have thus
blazoned this bird as a generic bird. [Arlindis o
Gordon, 02/2003,
A-An Tir]
[a bird displayed] The bird was originally blazoned as a
raven, but it is neither in the raven's default posture
nor is it otherwise clearly identifiable as a raven. We have thus
blazoned it as a generic bird. [Bronwyn Mewer,
02/2003,
A-An Tir]
The College generally felt that this bird, drawn in some sort of
early period artistic stylization, was not recognizable as a
raven. However, this charge is clearly identifiable as a bird
close, albeit a stylized one. We have therefore reblazoned it as
a bird. [Brenna of Storvik and Gauss Magnússon,
04/2003,
R-Atlantia]
Note that a generic bird does not have a defined proper
tincture. [Lachlan McBean, 08/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
The bird ... was originally blazoned as a dove. However,
it lacks the tuft at the back of the head, which is the defining
characteristic of a heraldic dove. It also has some
characteristics that are not found in heraldic doves: it has a
deeply forked swallow-tail. Because the type of bird is not
clearly apparent, we have reblazoned it as a generic bird.
[Riguallaun map Guoillauc, 09/2003,
A-A-Ansteorra]
In the last months we have often received commentary suggesting
that some charge should be reblazoned from a specific sort of
bird to a generic bird (e.g., reblazoning a hawk as a
bird). We remind the College that we should only reblazon
a specific sort of bird as a generic bird when the specific bird
truly cannot be identified as such. We also remind the College
that the reblazon to a generic bird has unfortunate side effects
for conflict. As noted on the LoAR of April 1998, "Blazoned on
the LoI as [a specific type of bird], as drawn it is not clearly
any species of bird, so we have reblazoned it as a generic bird.
Unfortunately, generic birds conflict with all birds, so this
conflicts with ..." When one proposes to reblazon an
imperfectly-drawn "hawk" as a generic "bird", it would lose an
often-critical type CD from past or future submissions using
swans, herons, chickens, peacocks, ostriches, hummingbirds,
penguins, and so forth. Never forget that the suggestion to
reblazon a specific bird as a generic bird is also a proposal to
reward a poor artist with an unwontedly huge slice of armorial
space. When we reflect on the quality of much period heraldic
artwork, which is rarely precise in its depiction of birds or
other animals, I think we can all agree that birds should only be
reblazoned as "generic" birds when there is no other
alternative.
We have also continued to receive commentary indicating that
ravens that are not drawn as "hairy" birds should be reblazoned
as generic birds. This suggestion does not match period armorial
style, which often depicts ravens as smooth-feathered birds.
Please refer to the cover letter to the January 2002 LoAR, which
discusses this matter in detail, including citations in
commonly-available heraldry books showing specific examples of
smooth-feathered/non-hairy corbies in period heraldic art.
[10/2003,
CL]
BIRD --
Goose
While swans are rousant by default, their barnyard
cousins, geese, are close by default. Note, for example, the
canting arms of Die Gansen on fol. 150 of Siebmacher's 1605
Wappenbuch, and von Ganse on fol. 182 of the same volume.
Each of these canting coats uses a goose close as the sole charge
on the armory. [Effie Little, 03/2003,
A-An Tir]
By examination of period armory, ducks and geese are close by
default - this is by far the most common posture for either of
these birds. Ducks and geese do not share the same default
posture as the larger and more aggressive swan, which is rousant
by default. [Svana ormstunga Vermundardottir, 11/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
BIRD -- Loon
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar
Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE
[Argent, a loon naiant contourny sable]
The loon was originally blazoned as sable marked argent,
but it is predominantly sable on the color emblazon. The
depiction of this loon on the mini-emblazon included details that
closely resemble the markings of the black and white bird that
the Americans call a Common Loon and the British call a Great
Northern Diver, but most of the details that would be white in a
naturalistic depiction of this species were tinctured sable in
the color emblazon. If we blazon this loon as sable marked
argent, it would likely be drawn by an artist as a
naturalistic loon/diver, and would then have too many argent
markings against the argent field to have acceptable contrast. We
have thus blazoned the loon as sable. Per the LoAR of
March 2000, concerning an orca proper (black and white) on an
argent field, "The argent portions of the orca cannot be placed
on an argent field." The same constraints apply to a Common Loon
in its natural colors. [Helga lómr, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
[loon vs. raven] No evidence has been presented or found
indicating that a loon is a charge found in period heraldry.
Thus, per RfS X.4.e, we must determine the type difference
between a raven and a loon on visual grounds. A loon is similar
to a duck, except that it has a thin pointed bill rather than a
duck-bill. The visual difference between the loon and the raven
merits significant difference ... [Helga lómr, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
[loon vs. quail] Per the LoAR of March 2002, "Quails are
round birds, shaped much more like a hen than like a corbie...
The European quail, like the quail in Kathren's badge, has a
round body. However, it is worth noting that the quail in
Kathren's badge is distinctly a California or Gambel's quail, New
World birds with a distinctive feather shaped like an inverted
comma atop their heads. Old World quails do not have this
distinctive crest." Neither the loon nor the California or
Gambel's quail are found in period heraldry, and thus the
difference between them must be determined visually per RfS
X.4.e. There is certainly sufficient visual difference between
the loon and the New World quail to give a CD between them.
[Helga lómr, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
Note that this loon does not clearly and obviously fall into any
of the categories of birds set forth in this month's cover
letter. While the loon resembles the "swan-shaped" birds more
than any of the other types of birds found in period heraldry, it
lacks the rounded bill of a "swan-shaped" bird. While a loon does
have webbed feet, its feet are not visible when is naiant (as in
this submission), and thus a naiant loon also lacks the prominent
webbed feet of a "swan-shaped" bird. The armorial comparisons
between this submission and ... do not require us to determine
whether loons are substantially different from either ravens or
(New World) quail, and thus we are not ruling on those questions
at this time. [Helga lómr, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
BIRD --
Martlet
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar
Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE
[a bird displayed] The bird was
originally blazoned as a martlet, but as drawn it was not
clearly a martlet. It was not in the martlet's default close
position and does not show the martlet's leg stumps. It has
therefore been reblazoned as a generic bird. [Aidan of
Aran, 04/2002,
A-Middle]
Some commenters inquired about the depiction of the martlet in
this emblazon. The College should note that martlets across
Europe are drawn in varying depictions. The standard English
depiction is based on a swallow, with its slim body and long
forked tail. However, the depictions on the continent and even in
Scotland more resemble a European blackbird (with a thrush-like
shape) or a lark. Neither of these birds have long forked tails,
and both types of bird have stouter bodies than the swallow. In
all cases, a martlet is drawn without visible feet, although the
way that this 'footlessness' is depicted also varies from period
emblazon to period emblazon. Martlets may be drawn with forked
'leg stubs', couped 'leg stubs', and probably other leg
variations. The important thing in drawing a martlet is that the
legs should not end in clawed bird's feet. [Renee
Claymore, 11/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[a martlet volant "brown"] The martlet is tinctured in
brown, and was originally blazoned as proper. However, the
martlet is a heraldic (rather than natural) creature, and does
not have a defined proper tincture. Because brown may not be used
in SCA heraldry except as a proper tincture, this may not be
registered. [Tamar bas Reuven, 08/2003,
R-East]
BIRD --
Miscellaneous
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar
Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE
An examination of the development of the
various heraldic eagles shows that the direction of the wingtips
of a displayed eagle is entirely a matter of artistic license. To
avoid incorrectly limiting the submitter's ability to display the
arms in reasonable period variants, we will no longer specify
"elevated" and "inverted" when blazoning displayed birds.
[Robert Michael McPharlan, 08/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[a swan rousant vs. a stork passant, wings elevated and
addorsed] There is one CD ... and another for the change of
type of bird between a swan and a stork. While both birds do have
long necks, they appear to have been considered distinct types of
bird in period. Moreover, the stork is visually distinct from the
swan, both in general and in ... emblazon. The stork has much
longer legs and a spearlike beak. [William Lindsay,
11/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[a penguin statant affronty, head to dexter vs. a vulture
close affronty] Penguins are arguably in their most
identifiable posture when in this posture (statant affronty, head
to dexter.) The most identifying portions of the vulture (the
head and neck ruff) and penguin (flipper wings) are easily
visible. Since penguins are not birds found in period heraldry,
the difference between the penguin and vulture must be determined
on visual grounds. A second CD is available for changing the type
of bird. [Tylar of Lochmere, 04/2002,
A-Atlantia]
Herons are close by default, so the posture need not be blazoned.
[Herons Reach, Shire of, 08/2002,
A-An Tir]
There is a CD between a correctly drawn turkey cock and an
ostrich. The turkey has a much shorter neck and legs and has a
distinctive fan-shaped tail. [William Crome, 09/2002,
A-Calontir]
There is a second CD for the type difference between a falcon and
a wren.
We have no reason to believe the two charges would not have been
considered distinct in period. They are certainly different types
of bird (the falcon is a raptor and a wren is a small perching
bird), and real-world heraldry generally distinguishes between
these types of bird, at least in blazon. Falcons and wrens are
certainly quite visually distinct. A wren has a thin pointed
beak, and horizontal body posture with its tail pointing straight
up. A falcon has a hooked raptor's beak, and vertical body
posture with its tail pointing downwards. The falcon in this
device is further identified as a falcon or hawk by its prominent
bells and jesses. [Kateline Hicch, 09/2002,
A-East]
The demi-crane was originally blazoned as a crane
displayed. While this is a Far Eastern stylization of an
entire crane, from the Western perspective this crane lacks the
bottom of a bird displayed: no tail or legs are visible.
Therefore, this is, for purposes of SCA heraldry, a demi-crane.
[Ise no Kusunoki Kametsuru, 09/2002,
R-Calontir]
The bird was originally blazoned as a nightingale.
However, the drawing is not clearly a nightingale; it has a
significantly longer tail than a nightingale, and has some other
artistic details (such as wing bars) which are not present on a
nightingale. According to Peterson's A Field Guide to the
Birds of Britain and Europe, a nightingale in nature is a
brown bird with a buff underside and rusty tail. We have thus
blazoned this bird as a generic bird. [Arlindis o
Gordon, 02/2003,
A-An Tir]
[cock vs. secretary bird] This is clear of the Society for
Creative Anachronism's badge for the Privy Clerk to Morsulus
Herald, (Tinctureless) A secretary-bird sejant regardant.
[Sagittarius sepentarius]. There is one CD for
tincturelessness. A secretary bird is a thin African raptor, with
a shaggy crest, long tail and long legs. It is unique among hawks
for killing its prey by stamping with its powerful legs and
taloned feet. Because the secretary bird is a charge that was not
used in heraldry in period, difference from a period charge (such
as a cock) is determined on visual grounds by RfS X.4.e. The
secretary bird should thus have at least a CD from a cock.
[Sancha de Flores, 08/2003,
A-East]
[a winged owl's head cabossed] Some members of the College
did not find the owl's head as drawn here to be identifiable. We
note that this is a very stylized depiction of an owl's head,
without a clearly drawn beak or eyes.
Those members of the College who were able to identify the owl's
head all perceived this "winged owl's head cabossed" as a
depiction of an owl flying straight out of the shield towards the
viewer. While the SCA does register many winged objects, such as
winged swords, they generally cannot be perceived as anything
other than a winged object. When one adds wings to a bird's head
cabossed, one does not perceive a winged bird's head, but one
perceives an entire bird seen flying towards the viewer, which is
to say, a bird volant affronty. Previous precedent notes
that "The posture volant affronty has been ruled
unsuitable for use in heraldry on at least two occasions ... on
the grounds that it is "inherently unidentifiable"... in those
case[s] the returns involved birds... [This return was of a
demi-pegasus.]" (LoAR February 1998 p. 18). [Mora de
Buchanan, 08/2003,
R-Caid]
[(Fieldless) A rooster vert] This is also clear of
conflict with ... (Fieldless) A dodo close vert armed Or.
The dodo is not a bird used in period heraldry, and its
eligibility for RfS X.2 is thus determined on a case by case
basis. Because RfS X.2 is not required to clear these two pieces
of armory, we are declining to rule on the question of the dodo's
eligibility for RfS X.2. There is one CD for fieldlessness, and a
second CD under RfS X.4.e between a rooster and a dodo. While
both the rooster and the dodo are heavy-bodied short-legged
birds, the dodo lacks the distinctive tail, crest and wattles of
a rooster. [Carlo Gallucci, 03/2004,
A-Æthelmearc]
BIRD -- Owl
see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE
An owl affronty has been ruled to be equivalent
to an owl close (and thus therefore, also to an owl close and
contourny): "The 'blobbiness' of the owl's body, and the fact
that the owl is guardant in all cases, leads me to conclude that
there is no visual difference for turning the owl's body
affronty" (LoAR of October 1992). Therefore there is no
meaningful posture difference for turning the charges in chief
(which are contourny) to this owl affronty, as the owl affronty
is equivalent to an owl contourny. [Ambra Biancospina,
04/2002,
R-Middle]
[a brown owl] The owl in the device was originally
blazoned as a horned owl, but this overspecifies the type
of owl. This sort of detail should be specified as an artist's
note, not as a blazon detail. In Europe, the eagle owl is a large
owl found over most of Europe which is brown in tincture (with
darker brown spots.) Three other sorts of owl (the short-eared,
Scops, and long-eared owls) are predominantly brown. It therefore
seems reasonable that an owl proper could be depicted as brown.
Per the Cover Letter of the October 1995 LoAR, "animals which are
frequently found as brown but also commonly appear in other
tinctures in the natural world may be registered as a brown {X}
proper (e.g., brown hound proper, brown horse proper)."
[Leofwynn Kyndheir, 05/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
... there is another CD for changing the type of bird from an owl
close to a falcon close. [Falco de Jablonec, 06/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
The owl was blazoned as affronty on the Letter of Intent
but the overall posture of the owl is mostly a side view, with
only the head facing forward. This close guardant posture
is the default for an owl and need not be blazoned.
Please advise the submitter to make some changes to the artwork.
The submitter should be careful to draw the owl's body entirely
in profile, rather than having the chest portion tilted slightly
towards the viewer. An owl in a truly three-quarter view (also
known as "trian aspect") would have had to be returned for a
nonperiod heraldic posture. [Alfgeirr skytja, 03/2003,
A-Calontir]
[an owl argent] The owl was originally blazoned as a
snowy owl. As noted in the LoAR of January 1993, "The owls
were blazoned on the LOI as snowy owls argent marked
sable, which is excessive precision in medieval blazon: the
black spots were so small as to be heraldically negligible, and
the exact type of owl here makes no difference. [The owl was
registered with an argent tincture.]" We have thus
reblazoned this owl accordingly. We also note that, even if a
snowy owl could be blazoned, the distinguishing black
spots are not present in this emblazon. [Keja Tselebnika,
03/2003,
A-Ealdormere]
[an owl contourny] Conflict with Ayslynn MacGuraran,
Azure, a snowy owl affronty proper grasping in its dexter
talon three roses Or, slipped and leaved vert, and in its
sinister talon two of the same, within an orle Or. There is
one CD for changing the field. "There is not a CD between an owl
close guardant and an owl close affronty" (LoAR of
October 2000). The same applies to an owl close guardant
contourny (as in this submission) and an owl close affronty (as
in Ayslynn's device). There is no difference for removing the
small held charges. [Marko Evanovich Panfilov, 04/2003,
R-Outlands]
[a winged owl's head cabossed] Some members of the College
did not find the owl's head as drawn here to be identifiable. We
note that this is a very stylized depiction of an owl's head,
without a clearly drawn beak or eyes.
Those members of the College who were able to identify the owl's
head all perceived this "winged owl's head cabossed" as a
depiction of an owl flying straight out of the shield towards the
viewer. While the SCA does register many winged objects, such as
winged swords, they generally cannot be perceived as anything
other than a winged object. When one adds wings to a bird's head
cabossed, one does not perceive a winged bird's head, but one
perceives an entire bird seen flying towards the viewer, which is
to say, a bird volant affronty. Previous precedent notes
that "The posture volant affronty has been ruled
unsuitable for use in heraldry on at least two occasions ... on
the grounds that it is "inherently unidentifiable"... in those
case[s] the returns involved birds... [This return was of a
demi-pegasus.]" (LoAR February 1998 p. 18). [Mora de
Buchanan, 08/2003,
R-Caid]
[Azure, three owls within a bordure argent] This does not
conflict with Catalina of Tir Ysgithr, Azure, three quail and
a bordure argent. Per this month's Cover Letter discussion of
birds and substantial difference, owls are "regular-shaped" birds
and (European) quail are "poultry-shaped" birds. There is thus
substantial difference between "poultry-shaped" European quails
in a period posture (the default close posture) and
"regular-shaped" owls in a period posture (the default close
guardant posture).
The quails in Catalina's device are the new-world California or
Gambel's quails, with a comma-shaped feather topping their heads,
so their eligibility for substantial difference must be
determined on a case by case basis. Because the California quail
resembles a European quail very closely except for the
comma-shaped crest, it is as different from an owl as a European
quail would be - or even more so, since an owl does not have a
crest of this sort. Thus, it seems appropriate to give
substantial difference between California/Gambel's quails and
owls. These two pieces of armory are thus clear of conflict under
RfS X.2. [Megge de Northwode, 11/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[two owls addorsed] Some of the commentary noted the
precedent stating that there is no difference between an owl
turned to dexter and an owl affronty, and wondered if that meant
there was no difference between an owl turned to dexter and an
owl turned to sinister. The precedent in question, on the LoAR of
August 1992, states, "The owl's posture has slightly changed,
from statant close guardant to statant close
affronty (which is guardant by definition). The
'blobbiness' of the owl's body, and the fact that the owl is
guardant in all cases, leads me to conclude that there is no
visual difference for turning the owl's body affronty." Conflict
is not transitive: if A conflicts with B and B conflicts with C,
it is not required that A must conflict with C. In this case,
while there may not be a CD between an owl affronty and an owl
turned to dexter, and there may not be a CD between an owl
affronty and an owl turned to sinister, there is sufficient
visual difference to allow a CD between an owl turned to dexter
and an owl turned to sinister. One can thus meaningfully give a
posture CD between respectant owls and addorsed owls, ...
[Sigurd Grunewald, 11/2003,
A-Meridies]
BIRD -- Peacock
see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE
[(Fieldless) A peacock Or the tail marked
gules] The markings on the tail of the peacock are the "eyes"
of the tail feathers. However, we are hesitant to use the term
eyed in the blazon, as was done in the Letter of Intent.
The term eyed could be confused with the heraldic term
orbed, which refers to the bird's eyes. [Sunnifa
Eiríksdóttir, 10/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[Azure, a simurgh close argent] The simurgh has been
explicitly blazoned as close, since simurghs have no
default posture. The simurgh is not visually distinct enough from
a peacock to be worth difference. Since the simurgh is not a
charge found in period heraldry, difference is determined on
visual grounds only under RfS X.4.e. This therefore conflicts
with ... Azure, in pale a peacock passant close between two
roses, all argent. There is one CD for removing the roses.
This also conflicts with a badge of ... Sable a peacock close
maintaining in its beak a lotus with seedpod argent, slipped and
leaved vert. There is one CD for changing the field but
nothing for removing the very small maintained lotus. [Tavia
of Persia, 05/2002,
R-Outlands]
[an eagle enflamed] The bird was originally blazoned as a
firebird, which is an SCA-defined charge representing a
folk art design. The SCA firebird resembles a peacock. This
charge is an eagle enflamed (surrounded with small tufts of
flame). We have reblazoned it accordingly.
Conflict ... no difference ... for removing the small tufts of
flame. [Piera da Ferrara, 04/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[two peacocks respectant Or] Peacocks are close by
default, with their tails extending behind them, and closed up
(rather than being fanned out). The SCA has blazoned some
peacocks close as pavonated to base (indicating that the
tail points downwards), but the exact orientation of the tail of
a peacock close is an artistic choice rather than a heraldic
distinction. A peacock close could legitimately be drawn with the
tail pointing straight behind the peacock, to base, or even
somewhat towards the chief, as long as the tail is not fanned
out. The exact orientation of the tail of a peacock close thus
does not need to be explicitly blazoned and is not worth
difference. A peacock in his pride, which is affronty with
its tail fanned out and held up behind its body, must be
explicitly blazoned. There is a posture CD between a peacock
close and a peacock in his pride.
Because there is no difference between a default peacock and a
peacock pavonated to base, the device conflicts with ...
Gules, two peacocks pavonated to base respectant and a
pomegranate Or. There is only one CD for removing the
pomegranate.
The peacock tails in this emblazon are held so that they point
behind the peacocks and the end of each tail curves to chief.
This is a Byzantine and Eastern stylization of a peacock. Some
members of the College felt that the identifiability of the
peacocks had been diminished by the unusual tail depiction.
Although we feel that these peacocks are adequately recognizable
in a Western artistic context, please advise the submitter to be
careful to draw the peacocks so that they are clearly
identifiable in the context of Western heraldic art.
We also note that the submitter has drawn the peacocks' tails
with substantial amounts of detail in argent, vert, and sable.
Please advise the submitter to draw the tails of the Or peacocks
so that they are more predominantly Or. [A'ishah bint Rashid
al-Andalusi, 08/2003,
R-Caid]
[dunghill cock] This also conflicts with ... Azure, a
simurgh close Or. A simurgh is a monster which is effectively
identical to a peacock. Per this month's cover letter, both
dunghill cocks and peacocks are "poultry-shaped" birds, and
substantial difference cannot be given between them, which would
be necessary to clear this conflict under RfS X.2.
Both dunghill cocks and peacocks have details on their heads (a
crest for the peacock, a comb and wattles for the dunghill cock)
and both have prominent tails. Despite these vague similarities,
they are considered different in period, and consistently drawn
differently in period. They are thus significantly different, and
a CD is given between them. [Alienor of Iron Mountain,
11/2003,
R-Meridies]
BIRD --
Quail
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar
Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE
[a corbie contourny sable] This does not
conflict with a badge of Kathren of Sandesward, Argent, a
legless quail close to sinister reguardant sable. There is
... another [CD] for the difference between a corbie and a quail.
Quails are round birds, shaped much more like a hen than like a
corbie. Hens and corbies are distinct in period, so quails and
corbies should be distinct as well.
The European quail, like the quail in Kathren's badge, has a
round body. However, it is worth noting that the quail in
Kathren's badge is distinctly a California or Gambel's quail, New
World birds with a distinctive feather shaped like an inverted
comma atop their heads. Old World quails do not have this
distinctive crest. [Ansger von Hohenkrewe, 03/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
[Azure, three quail and a bordure argent] This does not
conflict with ... Azure, three swallows migrant within a
bordure argent. There is one CD for the change in posture
from close to migrant and a second CD for the difference in type
between quail and swallows. Both quail and swallows are found in
period armory. They appear to be considered distinct in period
and most certainly have significant visual difference. Quails are
round birds with short tails and swallows are lean birds with
long forked tails.
Please note that the comma-shaped head feathers drawn on the
quails in this emblazon are an attribute of certain species of
quail native to the southwest portion of North America. The
European quail does not have any sort of distinguishing crest.
The comma-shaped head feather, while not a bar to registration,
should not be considered a period heraldic identifier for a
quail. [Catalina of Tir Ysgithr, 10/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[loon vs. quail] Per the LoAR of March 2002, "Quails are
round birds, shaped much more like a hen than like a corbie...
The European quail, like the quail in Kathren's badge, has a
round body. However, it is worth noting that the quail in
Kathren's badge is distinctly a California or Gambel's quail, New
World birds with a distinctive feather shaped like an inverted
comma atop their heads. Old World quails do not have this
distinctive crest." Neither the loon nor the California or
Gambel's quail are found in period heraldry, and thus the
difference between them must be determined visually per RfS
X.4.e. There is certainly sufficient visual difference between
the loon and the New World quail to give a CD between them.
[Helga lómr, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
[Azure, three owls within a bordure argent] This does not
conflict with Catalina of Tir Ysgithr, Azure, three quail and
a bordure argent. Per this month's Cover Letter discussion of
birds and substantial difference, owls are "regular-shaped" birds
and (European) quail are "poultry-shaped" birds. There is thus
substantial difference between "poultry-shaped" European quails
in a period posture (the default close posture) and
"regular-shaped" owls in a period posture (the default close
guardant posture).
The quails in Catalina's device are the new-world California or
Gambel's quails, with a comma-shaped feather topping their heads,
so their eligibility for substantial difference must be
determined on a case by case basis. Because the California quail
resembles a European quail very closely except for the
comma-shaped crest, it is as different from an owl as a European
quail would be - or even more so, since an owl does not have a
crest of this sort. Thus, it seems appropriate to give
substantial difference between California/Gambel's quails and
owls. These two pieces of armory are thus clear of conflict under
RfS X.2. [Megge de Northwode, 11/2003,
A-Atlantia]
BIRD --
Raven
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar
Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE
There is no CD for type for ravens vs generic
birds ... [Robert of Gresewode, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
[a raven rising wings elevated and addorsed vs. a falcon
striking]. There is a CD for adding the laurel wreath, but no
difference for the posture of the bird. [Fiodnach Eoghan,
Shire of, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
These are correctly drawn ravens, even though they have smooth
feathers rather than hairy feathers. Please see the cover letter
for a discussion of the correct depiction and blazon of ravens.
[Lazarus von Kyrchberc, 01/2002,
A-Caid] [Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included below
under "From Wreath: Ravens and Similar
Birds"]
The submitter's raven is drawn as a smooth-feathered, and
otherwise recognizable, raven. For a discussion of the depiction
of ravens in period armory, see the cover letter. [Derbáil
ingen Chonchobair, 01/2002,
A-Meridies][Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included below
under "From Wreath: Ravens and Similar
Birds"]
... there is no difference between ravens and falcons.
[Muirenn Faulkner, 01/2002,
R-Ansteorra] [Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included
below under "From Wreath: Ravens and
Similar Birds"]
There is no difference between the falcon and the Cornish chough.
For more details on the reason why falcons have no difference
from either ravens or Cornish choughs, see the cover letter.
[Muirenn Faulkner, 01/2002,
R-Ansteorra] [Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included
below under "From Wreath: Ravens and
Similar Birds"]
The birds were originally blazoned as "ravens displayed". Ravens
are not found in the displayed posture in period heraldry. They
are close by default and almost always found in that posture. The
unusual posture makes them more closely resemble eagles, which
are usually found in the displayed posture. Because of the
difficulty of identifying these birds as any particular sort of
bird, they have been reblazoned as generic birds. See the cover
letter of January 2000 for a more complete discussion of the
interaction between bird type and bird posture.
... There is no type difference between these generic birds and
the double-headed eagles. [Brangwayn Snowden, 01/2002,
R-Middle]
[a bird displayed wings inverted] The bird was originally
blazoned as a raven. However, it is not in a posture used
by ravens in period. It has a very eagle-like stylization of the
wings and it lacks any other distinguishing features of a raven.
It therefore cannot be identified as a raven and must be blazoned
as a bird. [Thorfinn of Deodar, 02/2002,
A-Calontir]
[birds displayed] The birds on the chief were originally
blazoned as "ravens". They are are not identifiable as ravens:
they are not in a period posture for ravens, they do not have any
of the heraldic identifying characteristics of a raven and they
do not clearly resemble naturalistic ravens. They have thus been
reblazoned as birds. [Dietrich von Ravensburg, 02/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[a corbie contourny sable] This does not conflict with a
badge of Kathren of Sandesward, Argent, a legless quail close
to sinister reguardant sable. There is ... another [CD] for
the difference between a corbie and a quail. Quails are round
birds, shaped much more like a hen than like a corbie. Hens and
corbies are distinct in period, so quails and corbies should be
distinct as well. [Ansger von Hohenkrewe, 03/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
[a raven sable vs a vulture close sable] The pertinent
question is whether we should give a CD for type difference
between a vulture and a crow. Both birds are found in period
armory, although the vulture is found much less frequently than
the raven. One example is in Siebmacher, in the arms of Geyer von
Osterberg on fol. 34 (canting on German for vulture,
geier). The vulture in those arms is depicted so that it
is identical to an eagle rising wings displayed sable.
It does not seem surprising that European vultures would be
depicted similarly to other raptors. When one looks at European
vultures in bird guides, many of them have a closer resemblance
to hawks and eagles than do the commonly found North American
vultures (such as the turkey vulture): for example, some European
vultures have feathered heads. The term vulture may also
apply, in some cultures, to any bird of prey, not just a carrion
eater. A vulture close (said to be heraldic) is found on a coin
of Vladislav (Vlaieu) of Wallachia in 1364-1377 as noted in an
article at http://www.geocities.com/romaniancoins/coattar.html.
The article states that in Romanian, vultur refers to any
large bird of prey and the bird depicted on the coin is certainly
not distinct from an eagle.
The similar depictions of hawks and ravens in the close posture
has been noted at some length in the Cover Letter of January
2002. [Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included above
under "From Wreath: Ravens and Similar
Birds"] The vulture seems to fall into the same category,
as the period representations of vultures in heraldry (or
heraldic coins) noted are apparently indistinguishable from
eagles and hawks. The Cover Letter of January 2000 stated, "In
the future I will be more likely to grant difference between
different types of birds when they are (a) different in period,
(b) in a period posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is
some visual difference." Until such time as it can be
demonstrated that there is ¨some visual difference¨ between a
vulture and a raven when used in heraldry, no difference will be
given between these charges. [Brand Björnsson, 11/2002,
R-Meridies]
[a bird displayed] The bird was originally blazoned as a
raven, but it is neither in the raven's default posture
nor is it otherwise clearly identifiable as a raven. We have thus
blazoned it as a generic bird. [Bronwyn Mewer,
02/2003,
A-An Tir]
[A hawk striking maintaining in its talons a compass star
sable] Conflict with ... Argent, a raven rising regardant
wings disclosed proper, maintaining in the dexter claw a sword
gules. There is a CD for changing the field. There is no
difference between a hawk and a raven (see the discussion in the
January 2002 cover letter). There is no difference in posture
between these birds except for the head position, which is
insufficient for posture difference by RfS X.4.h. There is no
difference for changing the maintained charge.
This is also a visual conflict by RfS X.5 with ... (Fieldless)
A raven striking sustaining a spur rowel of eight points
sable. The only obvious visual difference between these two
pieces of armory is the angle of the bird's wings (which is never
worth difference) and the piercing of the spur rowel. Only on
close comparison is it clear that in Jared's case the spur rowel
is co-primary while in Ricart's case the compass star is a
maintained charge. The visual similarities of two designs are so
close as to give an unavoidable visual conflict. [Ricart
Berenguer Falcón, 03/2003,
R-Meridies]
The College generally felt that this bird, drawn in some sort of
early period artistic stylization, was not recognizable as a
raven. However, this charge is clearly identifiable as a bird
close, albeit a stylized one. We have therefore reblazoned it as
a bird. [Brenna of Storvik and Gauss Magnússon,
04/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[a raven displayed vs. a double-headed eagle displayed]
There is no type difference given between a raven displayed and a
double-headed eagle displayed: "[a raven displayed vs. an
eagle displayed] Even though ravens and eagles were different
birds in period, only eagles were ever displayed.
Therefore there is not a CD for type" (LoAR November 1999; see
also the extensive discussion in the Cover Letter for the January
2000 LoAR). There is also no difference for the number of heads:
"...(not too dissimilarly to not granting a CVD for the
difference between an eagle and a double-headed eagle)" (LoAR
October 1990 p.14). [Njall Randvesson, 04/2003,
R-East]
[loon vs. raven] No evidence has been presented or found
indicating that a loon is a charge found in period heraldry.
Thus, per RfS X.4.e, we must determine the type difference
between a raven and a loon on visual grounds. A loon is similar
to a duck, except that it has a thin pointed bill rather than a
duck-bill. The visual difference between the loon and the raven
merits significant difference ... [Helga lómr, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
[(Fieldless) A rooster vert] This badge is clear of ...
(Fieldless) A raven vert. Per the Cover Letter to the
November 2003 LoAR, there is substantial difference between a
rooster (a "poultry-shaped" bird) and a raven (a "regular-shaped"
bird) when both birds are in period postures and drawn correctly.
The two badges are clear of conflict by RfS X.2. [Carlo
Gallucci, 03/2004,
A-Aethelmearc]
BIRD -- Ravens and
Similar Birds
see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE
From Wreath: Ravens and Similar
Birds
Three submissions this month (Muirenn Faulkner in Ansteorra,
Lazarus von Kyrchberc in Caid, and Derbáil ingen Chonchobair in
Meridies) raised questions about the correct depictions of ravens
in armory, and how much difference ravens should be given from
other birds.
A raven is a crow is a rook is a daw is (almost) a Cornish
chough
It is important to remember that, for the medieval herald, no
difference is made in depicting ravens, crows, rooks, or
jackdaws. Cornish choughs are only distinguished in heraldic art
from these birds by the chough's gules beak and feet. This
information can be found in various heraldic treatises, including
Parker, Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry, and Woodward,
A Treatise on Heraldry, British and Foreign. Even the word
corbie in English, from which derives the canting arms of
Corbet, refers both to the raven and to the carrion crow,
according to the Oxford English Dictionary. The ensuing
discussion will use the term "corbie" to refer to all these
birds, for convenience.
Must corbies be depicted with hairy feathers to be good period
style?
Just as one attribute of the boar is its bristles, one attribute
of the corbie is its hairy feathers. A nice depiction of a
"hairy" raven is in the Gr�nenberg Armorial, reproduced in fig.
474 of Fox-Davies, A Complete Guide to Heraldry. It is
important to realize that corbies are drawn with hairy feathers
in period heraldic art just as often as boars are drawn with
clearly visible bristles, which is to say, infrequently. It is
therefore acceptable to draw a corbie with smooth feathers and
blazon it as a raven, crow, or whatever sort of corbie it is
meant to be, as long as it is identifiable as a corbie in the
emblazon. It is not necessary to reblazon a smooth-feathered and
identifiable corbie as a generic bird.
In the Cover Letter to the January 2000 LoAR, Laurel ruled in
pertinent part that "... in the future I will be stricter about
requiring that a bird be drawn with its defining attributes
(i.e., a dove should have a tuft). Without the defining
attributes, the bird may just be blazoned as 'a bird.'" Since the
majority of the period depictions of corbies are
smooth-feathered, it is clear that the corbie's hairy feathers
are merely an attribute of the corbie, not a defining
attribute. It is unclear whether a corbie has a true defining
attribute. Corbies in period heraldry are overwhelmingly both
tinctured sable and postured close, but other birds share these
attributes. The question of whether the corbie has a defining
attribute for purposes of the January 2000 ruling must be left
for further research.
In England, smooth-feathered corbies are found in depictions of
the canting arms of Corbet throughout our period. These arms all
feature some number of corbies in sable on an Or field. These
depictions range from the Herald's Roll c. 1280 (as seen in
Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones, Heraldry, p. 8), through the
15th C Fenwick Roll (Gwynn-Jones, The Art of Heraldry, p.
26) through the early 17th C Segar Roll (The Oxford Guide to
Heraldry, plate 12). In addition to the canting corbies in
the arms of Corbet, the Fenwick roll gives us the canting rooks
in the arms of Rokesdon (Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones, p. 61) and
the canting crows in the arms of Crowmer (ibid., p. 109). They
are drawn virtually identically.
Outside of England, we also find many smooth-feathered corbies.
Siebmacher, in his 1605 Wappenbuch, draws his corbies
indistinctly from some of the other birds close, and without
hairy feathers. Some of the corbies in Siebmacher hold a coin or
ring in their mouths, as period heralds also recognized the
corbie's acquisitive nature and love for shiny objects. However,
most of Siebmacher's corbies are drawn in their default close
posture without other accoutrements. Two of the numerous examples
from Siebmacher are the canting arms of die Raeblinger (f. 129)
from the Rhineland, Or, a raven sable maintaining in its beak
a ring argent, and the canting arms of die Krhomair (f. 63)
from Silesia, Or a crow sable atop a trimount vert. The
author of Gelre (a late 14th/early 15th C armorial)
depicts the Spanish arms of Don Loys Cornel, Or, five crows
sable, but the only way to know these are meant to be crows
(keeping in mind the French for crow, corneille), is to
recognize the cant, or to read the blazon provided by the editors
of this volume. The birds are drawn indistinguishably from
martlets. In Italy, the arms of Alfonso Sadoleto da Modeno (who
held office in the Bargello from 1521-1524) are found in bas
relief in the courtyard of the Bargello, Bendy embattled ...
on a chief ... a raven (Stemmi (nel museo nazionale del
Bargello), p. 126). This bird is blazoned as a raven by the
author of Stemmi and is a rather naturalistic raven or
crow. It has the outlines of a smooth-feathered bird, although
the bas relief shows some shaggy feathering as internal
detail.
How much difference should be given between corbies and other
birds?
As noted in reference to Gelre and Siebmacher's
Wappenbuch, some period heraldic art draws corbies
interchangeably from other sorts of birds which are in the same
close posture. In these cases, only obvious cant, or well
researched blazon, can help the viewer know what sort of bird was
intended. Both the author of Gelre and Siebmacher draw
their corbies indistinguishably from martlets, although other
heraldic art may be found (such as the Fenwick roll) which is
careful to distinguish between the footless martlet (drawn either
with erased leg stumps, or couped leg stumps) and birds which
have feet. It is interesting to note one coat in Gelre,
the arms of Jan von Raligen (f. 75), Argent a cross and in
canton a martlet sable, for a crest on a cap of maintenance
argent turned up sable, a martlet sable between two wings
argent. The martlet on the shield is drawn with the expected
couped legs, but the martlet on the crest is shown with full legs
and standard bird feet. So in Gelre, not only does it
appear that other compact-outlined birds are drawn like martlets,
but on some occasions, martlets are drawn more like other birds.
The heraldic art in both Siebmacher and Gelre is generally
of good quality, so these depictions are not a result of sloppy
heraldic art.
The specific question raised this month was that of the
difference between corbies and falcons, when they are both in the
close posture. It is easier to find artwork depicting corbies
close in period heraldry than it is to find artwork depicting
falcons close, as a larger proportion of the falcons in period
armory are depicted in a rising posture, either with wings
addorsed or displayed (see, for example, Elizabeth I's badge,
Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones, p. 118, or the arms of die Falcken
on f. 189 in Siebmacher, Or a falcon rising wings displayed
proper ... as a crest a falcon rising wings displayed between two
bundles of sticks proper).
When it comes to the question of the difference of a close falcon
and a close corbie, it appears that a falcon close could be drawn
in period so that it was not distinguishable from a corbie close.
See for example v. Falckenstein, f. 193 of Siebmacher, Azure
three falcons argent ... as a crest, a falcon rising wings
displayed argent. In the Cover Letter of the January 2000
LoAR, Laurel ruled in pertinent part, "In the future I expect
that I will be more likely to grant difference between different
types of birds when (a) they are (a) different in period, (b) in
a period posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is
some visual difference (i.e., there is really no visual
difference between a popinjay and a hawk).". It appears that, at
least in the case of falcons close versus corbies close, there
are cases where there is no visual difference, even though they
are in a period posture and in well-drawn works of heraldic art.
Therefore, falcons close are not entitled to difference from
corbies close. Similarly, martlets close and corbies close should
not be given difference. [01/2002,
CL]
BIRD --
Sparrow
see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE
[brown sparrows proper] It is only
acceptable to blazon an animal as a brown animal proper
when that animal is frequently found in a brown color in nature,
as per the Cover Letter of October 1995, which states in
pertinent part in part "... animals which are normally brown may
be registered simply as an {X} proper (e.g., boar
proper, hare proper). Animals which are frequently
found as brown but also commonly appear in other tinctures in the
natural world may be registered as a brown {X} proper
(e.g., brown hound proper, brown horse proper)"
Period Western European sparrows are not brown birds, but
distinctly marked birds. The male is about one-third brown with
the remainder marked in black and white. The less distinctive
female is half brown and half off-white. One typical species is
Passer domesticus, which is called the house
sparrow in both Europe and the United States. It is thus
appropriate to inquire as to how a bird with such natural
markings would be depicted in period heraldry when proper.
Documentation was neither provided nor found for sparrows proper
in period armory, so we have to draw conclusions based on other
similarly marked proper birds.
There is evidence that birds that are black and white in nature
are depicted as black and white birds when proper, even if their
markings in the heraldic depictions are not quite correct for the
species. The black and white stork with red legs and beak in the
arms of Die Dobrzinsky on f. 73 of Siebmacher (from Silesia) is
depicted very much like a European stork. There are two types of
European stork, the White Stork and the Black Stork. Both are
black and white birds with red beak and legs. Siebmacher's
depiction is closer to a White Stork. Rietstap's blazon for this
family indicates that the bird there depicted is intended to be a
stork proper (beaked and membered gules, although this would, as
stated, also be proper for a stork). Siebmacher also gives us the
arms of von Atzelndorf (from Meissen) on f. 156 using a black and
white bird. Atzel is the German word for magpie, and a
magpie is a black and white bird, so it seems logical to conclude
that the bird in these arms is meant to be a magpie. The
Siebmacher rendition does not do a good job of duplicating a
magpie's natural markings, but its proportions and general black
and white coloration are correct for a magpie. A more accurately
marked magpie proper may be found in the 15th C Milanese
Stemmaria Trivulziano, p. 67, in the arms of de Bertis.
The magpie there is black and white and the markings mostly
follow the natural markings of a magpie. The editors inform us
that the word berta means magpie (although it is not the
most common Italian word for that bird) and de Bertis thus has
canting arms.
Because birds that are black and white in nature appear to be
drawn black and white when proper in period heraldry, it is not
reasonable to assume that the partially brown and partially black
and white sparrow would be solid brown in period heraldry. The
female sparrow is a closer match, but is still not an "all brown
bird". Also, as a general rule, it is the more colorful member of
a species that is used to determine the proper coloration of a
species in heraldry, the peacock being the prime example of this
practice. Thus, unless evidence is provided for brown sparrows
proper in period armory, they may not be registered in the
SCA.
Note that some New World birds that are called "sparrows" in
modern terminology are mostly brown in their coloration, unlike
the Old World species. It does not seem appropriate to consider
species outside of Western Europe when considering the proper
tincture of an animal, unless the animal being considered is a
distinctly non-European animal, such as the turkey (which is
found in its proper coloration as the crest of Robert Cooke in
1556). [Líadan Arundel, 09/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[sparrows proper] This submission violates some of the
provisions of RfS VIII.4.c. That rule states: "Proper is
allowed for natural flora and fauna when there is a widely
understood default coloration for the charge so specified. It is
not allowed if many people would have to look up the correct
coloration, or if the Linnaean genus and species (or some other
elaborate description) would be required to get it right. An
elephant, a brown bear, or a tree could each be proper; a female
American kestrel, a garden rose, or an Arctic fox in winter
phase, could not."
The College felt strongly that there was no "widely understood
default coloration" for sparrows. The members of the College
"would have to look up the correct coloration" in order to draw
the sparrow correctly. European sparrows all have complicated
markings that cannot be blazoned without "Linnaean genus and
species (or some other elaborate description)." Most male
European sparrows (the House, Tree, Italian, and Spanish
Sparrows) have white chests, black bibs, brown wings, back and
top of head, and brown or grey tails (with slight difference
between them in the particulars of the markings). The only male
European sparrow that don't match this general description is the
Rock Sparrow, which is white with grey streaks below and buff and
brown streaks above. The female sparrows are less elaborate in
their coloration but are still complicated to describe.
The sparrows as drawn in this submission are also not a correct
proper color for period European sparrows. The birds drawn in
this emblazon have dark grey breasts and rumps, which does not
match any of the European sparrow species described above.
[Líadan Arundel, 11/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
BIRD --
Swan
[a swan rousant vs. a stork passant, wings
elevated and addorsed] There is one CD ... and another for
the change of type of bird between a swan and a stork. While both
birds do have long necks, they appear to have been considered
distinct types of bird in period. Moreover, the stork is visually
distinct from the swan, both in general and in ... emblazon. The
stork has much longer legs and a spearlike beak. [William
Lindsay, 11/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[A swan contourny] Conflict with ... Per bend Or and
sable, a goose counter-statant, wings elevated, head lowered,
argent. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There is no
difference between the postures of the birds, which only differ
in how high the head is held. There is no difference between a
goose and a swan. [Katerina von Halberstadt, 11/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
While swans are rousant by default, their barnyard cousins,
geese, are close by default. Note, for example, the canting arms
of Die Gansen on fol. 150 of Siebmacher's 1605 Wappenbuch,
and von Ganse on fol. 182 of the same volume. Each of these
canting coats uses a goose close as the sole charge on the
armory. [Effie Little, 03/2003,
A-An Tir]
BIRD --
Vulture
see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar
Birds and BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE
[a penguin statant affronty, head to dexter
vs. a vulture close affronty] Penguins are arguably in their
most identifiable posture when in this posture (statant affronty,
head to dexter.) The most identifying portions of the vulture
(the head and neck ruff) and penguin (flipper wings) are easily
visible. Since penguins are not birds found in period heraldry,
the difference between the penguin and vulture must be determined
on visual grounds. A second CD is available for changing the type
of bird. [Tylar of Lochmere, 04/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[Ermine, a hawk striking wings displayed sable tailed and in
chief three triquetras gules] Conflict with Malutka sep
Srebnitska, Ermine, a turkey vulture [Cathartes aura]
displayed, dexter wing erect, sinister wing inverted, proper.
There is one CD for adding the triquetras.
There is no type difference between a turkey vulture and a hawk.
The turkey vulture is a New World bird, which is not a period
heraldic charge. Per RfS X.4.e, when determining difference from
a non-period charge, difference is determined by a visual
comparison. A visual comparison shows that there is insufficient
difference between a turkey vulture and a hawk to give difference
on solely visual grounds.
There is no difference between the visually similar postures of
displayed dexter wing erect and striking wings displayed. There
is no difference for changing tincture, as less than half the
charge has changed in tincture. Malutka's turkey vulture is black
with a red head, and Morgan's hawk is black with a red tail. The
head and the tail combined make up less than half the tincture of
these birds. [Morgan mac Máeláin, 09/2002,
R-Caid]
[a raven sable vs a vulture close sable] The pertinent
question is whether we should give a CD for type difference
between a vulture and a crow. Both birds are found in period
armory, although the vulture is found much less frequently than
the raven. One example is in Siebmacher, in the arms of Geyer von
Osterberg on fol. 34 (canting on German for vulture,
geier). The vulture in those arms is depicted so that it
is identical to an eagle rising wings displayed sable.
It does not seem surprising that European vultures would be
depicted similarly to other raptors. When one looks at European
vultures in bird guides, many of them have a closer resemblance
to hawks and eagles than do the commonly found North American
vultures (such as the turkey vulture): for example, some European
vultures have feathered heads. The term vulture may also
apply, in some cultures, to any bird of prey, not just a carrion
eater. A vulture close (said to be heraldic) is found on a coin
of Vladislav (Vlaieu) of Wallachia in 1364-1377 as noted in an
article at http://www.geocities.com/romaniancoins/coattar.html.
The article states that in Romanian, vultur refers to any
large bird of prey and the bird depicted on the coin is certainly
not distinct from an eagle.
The similar depictions of hawks and ravens in the close posture
has been noted at some length in the Cover Letter of January
2002. [Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included above
under "From Wreath: Ravens and Similar
Birds"] The vulture seems to fall into the same category,
as the period representations of vultures in heraldry (or
heraldic coins) noted are apparently indistinguishable from
eagles and hawks. The Cover Letter of January 2000 stated, "In
the future I will be more likely to grant difference between
different types of birds when they are (a) different in period,
(b) in a period posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is
some visual difference." Until such time as it can be
demonstrated that there is ¨some visual difference¨ between a
vulture and a raven when used in heraldry, no difference will be
given between these charges. [Brand Björnsson, 11/2002,
R-Meridies]
BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE
From Wreath: Birds and Substantial
Difference
This month we were called upon to make a number of rulings
concerning difference between very different types of birds.
After much thought, and discussion with Evan Wreath-designate, we
have formulated the following policy.
Policies concerning birds and substantial difference need to be
built upon previous policies concerning birds and significant
difference. An important ruling on the topic is found in the
Cover Letter for the January 2000 LoAR. That ruling was entitled
On Owls and Eagles, but it also spoke more generally
concerning difference for birds. The pertinent summary portions
of that ruling read as follows:
The conflict rules make a rigid distinction between the type of
a charge and its posture. This works well most of the time, but
less so for birds, where the type and the posture are often
closely connected. In particular, with vanishingly rare
exceptions the eagle is the only bird found displayed in period
heraldry. Therefore any other bird displayed will arguably be
visually similar to an eagle...
The new solution to the problem is to sacrifice some of the
theoretical purity of separation of type and posture. Because
only eagles among birds are attested as displayed in period,
any other bird in a displayed posture will be compared to any
bird in a displayed posture usuing [sic] the visual test
of rule X.4.e for non-period charges. Thus there will not be a
CD between an owl displayed and an eagle displayed, because
they are too visually similar, but there will be a CD between
an owl displayed and a penguin displayed, because there is
still significant visual difference. Additionally any bird
other than an eagle in a displayed posture will be considered a
"weirdness" [step from standard period practice].
In the future I expect that I will be more likely to grant
difference between different types of birds when (a)
[sic] they are (a) different in period, (b) in a period
posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is some
visual difference (i.e., there is really no visual difference
between a popinjay and a hawk).
In some cases, it is appropriate for very different
types of bird to be given substantial difference from each other.
This parallels the SCA's precedents for other kinds of
similarly-formed, but nonetheless very different, animate
charges: bulls and lions were ruled substantially different in
the LoAR of July 2001, dragons and griffins were ruled
substantially different in the same LoAR, zebras and stags were
ruled substantially different in the LoAR of May 2001, unicorns
and wolves were ruled substantially different in the LoAR of
March 1994, and ferrets and hedgehogs were ruled substantially
different in the LoAR of September 1991.
In order for two birds to be considered substantially different
from each other, it is necessary for the following conditions to
apply, analogous to the criteria listed in the January 2000 Cover
Letter for significant difference between birds:
1. The change from one type of bird to the other type of bird
must "not usually [have been] used to indicate any form of
cadency" in period (RfS X.2). The two types of bird must of
course also have been considered different in period, or they
would not even be significantly different (RfS X.4.e).
2. Each bird, in both the new and the old submissions, must be
in a posture which was period for that type of bird.
3. Each bird, in both the new and the old submissions, must be
drawn correctly.
4. The two types of bird must have been drawn in fashions that
were consistently very different from each other throughout
period heraldry.
Concerning criterion 2, remember that a bird may be
in a period posture without being in a default posture. Ravens
are sometimes found in the rising posture in period,
although their default posture is close. Swans are found
in the close posture in period, although their default
posture is rousant (synonymous with rising).
It is vanishingly rare to find birds other than eagles in the
displayed posture, while vast multitudes of eagles are
found in the displayed posture. We thus re-affirm the January
2000 Cover Letter precedent (above). All birds (other than
eagles) in the displayed posture are considered a "weirdness" and
are not eligible for substantial difference - unless
documentation is provided showing that the particular type of
(non-eagle) bird is frequently found in the displayed
posture in period.
Here are a few generalizations concerning bird posture to be used
in conjunction with criterion 2 above. In addition, see the
attachment to this LoAR titled "Some birds and the postures in
which they are found in period English heraldry." [Ed:
Included as Appendix A]
- Barring evidence to the contrary for a particular type of
bird, it may be assumed that any type of bird is in a period
posture when it is close.
- If a bird is found in a rising posture in period, it
is reasonable to assume that both rising wings addorsed
and rising wings displayed are standard variants of that
posture.
- Period birds that are reguardant are considered a
standard posture variant of period birds that are not
reguardant. So, if a bird is found in the rising posture
in period, it is reasonable to assume that rising
reguardant is also a period posture. One cannot make
the same assumption about guardant.
- Turning any type of bird to sinister is considered a
standard posture variant for all period heraldic postures, due
to long-standing SCA practice. So, if a bird is found in the
naiant posture in period, then for purposes of SCA
heraldic rulings we will also consider the naiant to
sinister posture to be period.
On examining the types of birds found in period armory, and
how they were used, certain categories of bird type become
apparent. These categories are:
- Swan-shaped birds, including swans, geese, and
ducks: waterfowl with long necks, rounded bills, long heavy
bodies, webbed feet.
- Crane-shaped birds, including cranes, herons, and
storks: tall thin birds with long necks, long pointed beaks,
medium-weight bodies, very long legs.
- Poultry-shaped birds, including chickens, quail,
partridge, and peacocks: compact rounded birds with short to
medium necks, short beaks, heavy rounded bodies, medium or
short legs, often with distinctive tails or head details
(combs, crests).
- "Regular-shaped" birds, including martlets, ravens
and other corbies, raptors (hawks, eagles, and owls), and
doves: birds with the classic "bird shape". Compact light- or
medium-weight birds with small necks and beaks, short to medium
legs, plain tails.
Not all period birds are found in the categories above. For
example, while many popinjays (parrots) are drawn as
"regular-shaped" birds in period (often indistinct from a green
crow with red legs and bill), some of the more naturalistic
drawings of popinjays have such pronounced tails that popinjays,
for the moment, been left out of any of these categories.
Substantial difference relates to these categories of birds as
follows:
- Birds within a category are not substantially different
from each other. They may be (but are not always) significantly
different from each other based on the criteria in RfS X.4.e.
Within the "regular-shaped birds" category, there is
significant difference between an owl (close guardant) and a
dove (close), but not substantial difference. However, in the
same category, there is no difference between a falcon rising
and an eagle rising.
- Birds in different categories are given substantial
difference from each other as long as they meet the general
requirements for substantial difference listed above. Thus, a
correctly drawn dunghill cock (close), in the "poultry-shaped"
bird category, is substantially different from a "crane-shaped"
heron (close), a "swan-shaped" swan close, or a
"regular-shaped" martlet (close). However, a "poultry-shaped"
dunghill cock volant is not substantially different from a
"regular-shaped" dove volant, because, while the dove is found
in the volant posture in period heraldry, the dunghill
cock is not.
- Birds that are not mentioned as part of the categories
above must have their eligibility for substantial difference
determined on a case by case basis. In particular,
SCA-compatible birds that are not found in period heraldry,
such as some New World birds, may be considered in a category
with very similar Old World birds, on a case by case
basis.
[11/2003,
CL]
BLAZON
see also POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Animate
Charges and POSTURE/ORIENTATION --
General and POSTURE/ORIENTATION --
Inanimate Charges
Since the July 1992 LoAR, the term
maintaining has been used for grasped or held items which
are too small to be worth difference. Sustaining and
supporting have been used for a grasped or held item which
is of comparable visual weight to the item holding it, and thus
worth difference. In cases where other blazon words are used for
the act of holding an item, the blazon is ambiguous about whether
the held item is significant or not. It is true that the term
maintaining literally derives from a Latin phrase for
holding in a hand, and thus is not ideal for blazoning an item
which is held in the mouth, or by the tail, of an animal.
However, it seems preferable to remove the blazon ambiguity and
use the word maintaining in these cases. [Godwin
Alfricson, 08/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[Tierced per chevron wavy throughout ...] ... the
stylistic problems are allowed under the Grandfather Clause. The
general form of her blazon, using the term tierced, has
been held over from her previous device as well. [Allison
Poinvillars de Tours, 09/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
[coward] The Letter of Intent blazoned this cat as
coward. The exact disposition of the tail of an animal is
a matter for artistic license in period, which would argue
against using the term coward in blazon. However, the term
is permissible if the submitter so requests, as long as the tail
position is drawn correctly and identifiably. Coward may
be blazoned when the tail is clearly tucked between the hind
legs. This is not the case in this emblazon. Also, the
submitter's original blazon did not use the term coward.
Therefore, the term was deleted. [Muirgel ingen Gilla
Comgaill, 09/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
The Pictorial Dictionary indicates that a pair of deer's horns
conjoined in this fashion may be blazoned as a deer's
attires or as a massacre. The former term is closer to
the submitted blazon. [Colin de Vire, 09/2001,
A-Calontir]
[Reblazon of device] The Administrative Handbook mandates
that an error in blazon which requires correction via a Letter of
Intent must also include an emblazon in the Letter of Intent. The
Letter of Intent did not provide such an emblazon in the Letter
of Intent, although a copy of the old form with the emblazon was
provided in the package to Wreath. This is therefore being
returned for lack of necessary paperwork. [Gilbert Rhys
MacLachlan, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
Reblazon. Azure, a black-footed ferret passant guardant Or
marked sable and argent, grasping in its dexter forepaw a rose
argent, barbed, seeded, slipped, and leaved proper. Her
original blazon was Azure, a black-footed ferret passant
guardant proper, grasping in its dexter forepaw a rose argent,
barbed, seeded, slipped, and leaved proper [Mustela
nigripes]. Members of the College were confused about what
tincture a black-footed ferret proper might be, citing various
references to support interpretations of either argent or Or.
Inspection of her form shows that the ferret is predominantly Or
with a black mask, forefeet, and tail, and white showing at the
very bottom of the belly. The blazon has been changed to reflect
the predominant Or tincture. The term black-footed has
been retained in the blazon. We would not currently specify a
species to this level of detail in blazon, but this term is
grandfathered to the submitter. The Linnaean species reference
has been omitted, as it was only necessary due to the use of
Linnaean proper. The term black-footed should specify the
type of ferret sufficiently. [Megan Glenleven, 10/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[a dragon rampant] Winged quadrupedal monsters have their
wings elevated and addorsed by default when rampant. For dragons
and griffins, both segreant and rampant will result
in the same emblazon. There is no reason to prefer one term over
the other in blazon, and thus I will preserve the submitted term
in blazon.
Recall that for many years, SCA blazon did not use
segreant at all, and it is a latecomer to real-world
blazon as well. Parker indicates that segreant is "applied
by most writers to the griffin instead of rampant",
but I believe Parker overstates the case for our period, even
though he may adequately represent 19th and 20th C English
preferences. Parker also does not extend his preference for
segreant outside of griffins. His discussion of dragons,
on p. 296 (inexplicably under the Griffin heading),
depicts the dragon rampant of Dauney exactly as we would
draw a dragon segreant. The SCA allows the term
segreant to be used for all winged quadrupeds.
Brault's Early Blazon (second edition) is a book which
thoroughly discusses 12th and 13th C blazon. The phrase grifon
rampant on p.218 is translated as "griffin rampant". The
illustration, in figure 222, is exactly what one would expect
from segreant. Brault gives one period blazon example,
taken from the Siege of Caerlaverock c. 1300, De inde au
grifoun rampant de or fin. This blazon, using other entries
in Early Blazon, translates to Azure a griffin rampant
Or. The term segreant is not found in Early
Blazon at all. It is interesting to note that Dennys, in
An Heraldic Imagination, refers to a coat of arms in the
Siege of Caerlaverock as Azure a Griffin segreant gold. I
believe that this is likely to be the same example as Brault
gives, and Dennys has used the later preference for
segreant when translating the blazon (as well as choosing
to translate or fin as literally gold, although
Brault does not indicate that this was a real 13th C blazon
implication for the term or fin.) However, since Brault
does not indicate the owner of the arms in question, this remains
a conjecture. [Feme inghean Donnabháin, 10/2001,
A-Trimaris]
The term springing is, in the SCA, a synonym for
salient used when blazoning deer and their close
relatives, and should not be used for other animals.
[Stierbach, Barony of, 11/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[a boar statant sable crined gules] The crining of
the boar refers to the ridge of bristles along its back.
[Rycharde de Northewode, 12/2001,
A-An Tir]
[in chief three lozenges] The original blazon read, in
latter part, ... and in chief three lozenges in fess Or.
Three items in chief will also be in fess by default. We do find
armory in the SCA with three items in chief, arranged one and
two, but this arrangement should always be blazoned. [John de
Lochabre, 12/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[A holly branch bendwise sinister inverted vert fructed gules
enfiling a mullet voided Or] The design of a charge enfiling
a voided mullet is a weirdness, but it is not in itself
sufficient reason for return. It is a weirdness because of the
cumulative effects of the unusual voided charge (the voided
mullet), the unusual action of enfiling, and the fact that the
overlap implicit in the act of enfiling reduces the
identifiability of both charges involved. Charges which in their
standard period depiction include a large central hole (such as
laurel wreaths, annulets, and mascles) are not considered a
weirdness when enfiled. Charges with small central holes (such as
spur rowels and rustres), and voided charges where the usual form
of the charge is not voided (mullets) will be considered a
weirdness when enfiled.
The question of which charge in the heraldic ring-toss is
"enfiled" is one of the great heraldic cocktail party discussion
topics. The SCA has a precedent on the topic which is being
followed in this blazon:
[An arrow argent enfiling a serpent involved] The definition of
the term enfile has changed over the years. Boutell (English
Heraldry, 1902) equates it with "pierce": a sword passing
through a crown would enfile the crown. Brooke-Little (An
Heraldic Alphabet 1975) equates it with "encircle": a sword
passing through a crown would be enfiled by the crown. The
confusion is sufficient reason to avoid the use of the term,
but sometimes (as with this submission) it's hard to avoid.
Friar (Dictionary of Heraldry, 1987, p.137) agrees with
Boutell's definition; and that definition does follow more
naturally from the etymology of the word (from French fil,
"thread": beads are threaded on a string, crowns are enfiled on
[by] a sword). That is the definition used here.
[Evelyn atte Holye, 12/2001,
A-Ealdormere]
This submission was originally blazoned using a lozenge
fesswise. Because lozenges could be drawn with various
proportions in period, including a square set on its corner
(which can be neither fesswise nor palewise), it does not make
sense to distinguish different proportions of lozenge in blazon.
[Cecily of Whitehaven, 02/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[wolf's heads erased ululant] This seems a good time to
remind the College that the blazon term ululant,
indicating that the animal has its head up and is howling, is not
a period blazon term: "While we allow wolves and foxes to be
ululant, the head posture is an SCA invention. It is
possible that had the head posture been introduced today we would
not allow it. Allowing ululant wolves is a step beyond period
practice; allowing anything but canines to use the position is
two steps beyond period practice and therefore grounds for
return" (LoAR December 2000). [Wülfer Drachenhand,
02/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Or, a mascle within a mascle throughout sable] This was
originally blazoned as Sable vêtu Or, a lozenge within a
mascle Or. The visual realities of the emblazon are such that
it is immediately perceived as a mascle within another, and we
have so reblazoned it. There were concerns about "op art"
stylization, but this is clearly visible and reproducible as a
mascle within another, so it does not have visual ambiguity.
While it is possible to blazon this in the fashion originally
presented in the Letter of Intent, blazon ambiguity is not the
same problem as visual ambiguity. [Marquet de Hyet,
02/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
Labels are throughout by default, so this need not be blazoned.
[Thomas de Lacy, 02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
The device was blazoned on the LoI using a lozenge ployé
throughout rather than the originally submitted vêtu
ployé. We have been asked whether one can reblazon using a
lozenge ployé throughout to avoid stylistic problems with
placing charges (in this submission, the estencely) on the
"vested" portions of a field (in this submission, the portions of
the field outside the "lozenge"). There is explicit precedent
stating that placing charges around a lozenge ployé
throughout (also known as a lozenge concave
throughout) is not allowable style:
Vêtu fields should not have charges in the "vested" portions of
the field --- and although this was blazoned on the LOI as a
lozenge concave throughout, the latter two adjectives
almost mandate this be considered a vêtu field. (LoAR December
1992, pg. 15)
Some commenters noted that we allow fields per
chevron throughout to be charged with three charges two and
one. Such fields could conceivably be blazoned as chapé with
charges on the "vested" portions of the field. Yet we do not
return these arms for using charged chapé. This is because a "per
chevron" design with three charges on it is relatively common in
period, and "per chevron throughout" is a period artistic variant
of "per chevron". Chapé with any charges on it is
extremely rare. The most likely interpretation of such a design
is per chevron, and thus that design is acceptable. The
design in this submission is one for which the most likely
interpretation is of a vêtu field, rather than some design
using a variant lozenge, and absent documentation to the
contrary, will be considered to be a vêtu ployé field.
We have had a few previous registrations of charged lozenges
ployé throughout between charges, but they were registered
without explanatory stylistic comment. One cannot draw any firm
conclusions about heraldic policy from registrations without
comment. [Brigitte MacFarlane Red, 02/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
The raven was originally blazoned with its dexter talon
raised. This detail has been ruled unblazonable in the past:
"A bird passant, that is to say, with one leg raised, is
considered an unblazoned variant of close" (LoAR February
1996, p. 1). Quite a few period birds close are drawn with one
leg raised to some degree, especially massive birds such as
cocks, hens and swans. Perhaps this is because the bird better
fills the space at the bottom of the shield when drawn with one
leg raised. [Branwen of Werchesvorde, 02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[a wolf passant regardant ravissant a man] The device
cannot be blazoned in a way which consistently reproduces the
emblazon. The man is almost large enough to be co-primary with
the wolf, so his exact posture and placement on the field must be
blazoned rather than left to artistic license. The man overlaps
the wolf in front, is somewhere between palewise and bendwise
sinister, and his posture is statant affronty with raised arms.
No one in the College or at the Wreath meeting was able to
provide a clear blazon for this man or his arrangement with the
wolf. [Sigmundr Hákonsson� 02/2002,
R-Drachenwald]
The LoI suggested that the blazon term ravissant be used.
This term is sometimes used for a wolf which is grasping its prey
by the neck and holding it over its back. However, it might also
be considered appropriate for other sorts of predator/prey
arrangements. Therefore, the term ravissant should not be
used without more explicit arrangement and posture description.
[Sigmundr Hákonsson, 02/2002,
R-Drachenwald]
[Argent, ... and a chief barry argent and gules] This was
blazoned on the Letter of Intent with three barrulets
enhanced rather than a chief barry. The College felt
that the proportions of the emblazon would be better preserved
with this blazon. [Ii Saburou Katsumari, 03/2002,
A-Atlantia]
Remember, enfiling is equivalent to threading (as
in threading a needle). [Randal Avery of the Mease,
04/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[Argent, a columbine and a bordure wavy purpure charged with
increscents argent] It is an odd but nonetheless valid nuance
of SCA blazon that the blazon above is equivalent to the blazon
Argent, a columbine flower purpure and a bordure wavy purpure
semy of increscents argent. Either blazon form is acceptable.
In this emblazon, the columbine is purpure, and the bordure is
purpure with argent increscents on it. However, the blazon
Argent, a columbine and a bordure wavy purpure semy of
increscents argent puts increscents on the columbine as well
as on the bordure. [Olivia MacKay, 04/2002,
A-Calontir]
[Gules, in dexter chief, sinister chief, and base a bear
rampant Or, and in chief, dexter base and sinister base a tree
argent] No documentation was presented, and none was found,
for this arrangement of two types of charge on a plain field. The
arrangement is very difficult to blazon, hence the laborious
blazon above. Some less explicit blazons were suggested, but none
of them would unambiguously recreate this emblazon. The
combination of the lack of documentation and difficulty of blazon
indicates that this design is too far from period style to be
accepted.
While we were unable to find this arrangement of two types of
charge on a plain field, it may be found on a field divided
party of six pieces. See, for example, a grant of arms
c.1558, Party of six azure and Or, three fountains and three
lion's heads erased gules (Gwynn-Jones, The Art of
Heraldry, p. 103). This blazon for the 1558 coat is patterned
on the blazon for Theodoric of Salt Keep, Party of six pieces
per fess nebuly gules and ermine, three anvils argent and three
falcons close sable. In these cases, the divided field causes
the charges to fall into the desired arrangement by default,
simplifying the blazon. [Sofia Chiudskaia Smolianina,
05/2002,
R-Middle]
[Per fess purpure and sable, a skull and in base an hourglass
fesswise argent] There were some questions about the charge
placement in this armory and the correct blazon for the armory.
The visual interpretation of this emblazon shows that the skull
is indeed a primary charge, the only primary in this design. This
can be seen by the fact that it is mostly centered on the field
and overlies the line of division. The hourglass is clearly
secondary because it is in base beneath a charge which is
clearly primary.
The primary nature of the skull and secondary nature of the
hourglass are apparent from the blazon as well as from the
emblazon. The fact that the hourglass is marked by the blazon as
in base after a charge which is not explicitly positioned
on the field makes it clearly a secondary charge, and the
previously named charge a primary charge.
If the blazon were simply Per fess purpure and sable, a skull
and an hourglass fesswise argent, then the two charges would
be co-primary, with the skull entirely on the top half of the
field and the hourglass entirely on the bottom half of the field.
If the two charges were both explicitly positioned in chief...
and in base..., they would also be co-primary charges and
again be placed with the first named charge entirely on the top
half of the field and the second named charge entirely on the
bottom half of the field. [Soshka Gregor'evich Vilanov,
07/2002,
A-Trimaris]
The bird in chief was originally blazoned as a dove.
However, the bird lacks the head tuft which is used to identify a
heraldic dove, and is not in the dove's standard close posture.
It has thus been reblazoned as a generic bird, per the
Cover Letter for the January 2000 LoAR: "In the future I will be
stricter about requiring that a bird be drawn with its defining
attributes (i.e., a dove should have a tuft). Without the
defining attributes, the bird may just be blazoned as 'a bird.'"
[Kyne Wynn the Kind, 08/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[in base three millrinds two and one] The millrinds'
arrangement was not originally explicitly blazoned on the LoI,
but it was blazoned on the form. On a shield shape three charges
in base will be two and one by default, but this is not
necessarily the case on other shapes, such as a rectangular
banner. Since the submitter explicitly blazoned the charges in
base as two and one, we have reinstated this term. If the
submitter would prefer to have this left as a matter of artist's
licence, she may request a reblazon. [Áine Sindradóttir,
10/2002,
A-Atlantia]
This submission adds an augmentation to her registered device.
The previous device blazoned the field as Per pale argent and
gules, goutty. We have reblazoned the field of her registered
device to Per pale argent and gules, all goutty to ensure
that both sides of the field are goutty. [Ysabella Celestina
Manrique de Palma, 10/2002,
A-Trimaris]
[a brown horse couchant proper blazed and stockinged
argent] The details of the tincture of the stockings and
blaze of the horse would not generally be blazoned but were
present in the submitter's previous blazon. Blazons can be
changed by Laurel at any time, so the Grandfather Clause does not
apply to blazons as it does to registration of armorial elements.
However, it seems appropriate to maintain the same blazon if that
blazon is not misleading. [Betha of Bedford, 11/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Quarterly argent and vert, two crosses potent in bend
sable] Some commenters suggested that it was unnecessary to
explicitly blazon the sable crosses in bend on this quarterly
argent and vert field. Because the black crosses could be
disposed in many different arrangements on the field, including
in pale and in fess, it is necessary to blazon
their arrangement explicitly. Had the field been quarterly
argent and sable, then the crosses would indeed be placed
in bend by default, since the black crosses could not
overlap the black portions of the field. [Arkell vom
Cophus, 11/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[in pale a thistle proper issuant from a tower] We have
used the blazon phrase in pale to indicate that the
thistle and tower are co-primary charges. The blazon A thistle
proper issuant from a tower sable implies that the thistle
would be a maintained charge. [Derek of Ildhafn, 01/2003,
A-Caid]
The lion was blazoned as a Saracenic lion, but we do not
blazon the national origin of charges unless such an adjective is
needed to distinguish between different types of charge. This
appears to be a reasonable artistic variant of a lion guardant
and we have so blazoned it. [Scheherazade al-Zahira,
01/2003,
R-East]
[Per bend argent and sable, a hound rampant and a hound
rampant contourny counterchanged] This does not conflict with
Matthew de Wolfe, Per bend sinister embattled argent and
sable, in bend two wolves rampant combattant counterchanged.
To understand why there is no conflict, it is helpful to remove
all blazon shortcuts and blazon each of these pieces of armory
explicitly. Note that there are two important common blazon
shortcuts which are found in both Matheus' and Matthew's current
blazons. The first blazon shortcut is that two charges on a
divided field are placed on opposite sides of a line of division
by default. The other blazon shortcut is the use of the word
counterchanged rather than using the tinctures
argent and sable.
Thus, when we remove blazon shortcuts, Matheus' arms may be
blazoned Per bend argent and sable, in sinister chief a hound
rampant sable and in dexter base a hound rampant to sinister
argent. Matthew's arms may be blazoned Per bend sinister
embattled argent and sable, in dexter chief a wolf rampant to
sinister sable and in sinister base a wolf rampant
argent.
Precedent has consistently held that "you cannot 'blazon your way
out of' a conflict" (stated succinctly in this quote from the
LoAR of February 2000, which upheld years of previous precedent).
Thus, we must compare these two pieces of armory using the
"explicit" blazons. There is one CD for changing the field. There
is no difference for changing the type of canine from wolf to
hound.
The charges may not lie on a portion of the field with which they
have no contrast. Matheus' charges could not be arranged like
Matthew's (with the sable charge in dexter chief and the
argent charge in sinister base) on a per bend argent
and sable field, because each charge would have no contrast
with half of the field on which it lies. The charges must change
their arrangement. Because this change in arrangement is "caused
by other changes to the design" (namely, the changes to the
field) it is not worth difference per RfS X.4.g for arrangement
changes. (This is often known as a "forced" arrangement change or
"forced" position change.)
The second CD comes from the change of posture. Each canine is
facing in the opposite direction from the corresponding canine in
the other coat. This posture change is a CD by RfS X.4.h.
By this analysis we are expressly overturning the precedent set
in January 1994 that stated in pertinent part:
[Per pale and per chevron argent and sable, in chief two
<charges> counterchanged vs. Huffam, Per bend sable and
argent, two <charges> counterchanged ] Because the
charges are counterchanged, they could legitimately be placed
anywhere on the field, even over the line(s) of division. As a
consequence, the change in position of the <charges>
cannot be considered to be "forced" by the field division
(though in Huffam they are in the expected position, one on
either side of the line of division), thus giving a CD for
position on the field
By this precedent, the use of the word
counterchanged would remove a conflict which would apply
if the tinctures of the charges were explicitly sable and
argent, which is contrary to long-standing SCA policy.
[Matheus of Coppertree, 02/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a chevron enarched within and conjoined at the point to a
chevron] The central conjunction of chevrons was blazoned on
the Letter of Intent as a chevron inarched. A standard SCA
chevron enarched has each arm embowed outwards (curved in
the opposite direction from the arms of a chevron ployé). The SCA
chevron enarched is an artistic variant of a standard
chevron deriving from attempts to show the curvature of a shield.
The combination of chevrons in this submission is found in Legh's
1591 Accedens of Armory, where the combination is blazoned
as a chevron enarched. Parker, in his Glossary of Terms
used in Heraldry, blazons this combination as a chevron
inarched. To avoid confusion with the already established SCA
definition of a chevron enarched we have blazoned this
device using standard SCA blazon terms. If there is any question
about what this conjunction of chevrons looks like, we direct the
reader to Parker's Glossary under chevron inarched.
The book may be found in libraries and there is an on-line
version at
http://www002.upp.so-net.ne.jp/saitou/parker/jpglossc.htm#Chevron.
[Hákon Þorgeirsson, 02/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
This submission has been reblazoned by Laurel many times since it
was originally registered. ... Some commenters questioned the
blazon of the chief as urdy, as it has somewhat rounded
lines. This chief has consistently been blazoned as urdy in her
long and varied reblazon history, and at this point we are happy
to grandfather this odd depiction of urdy to this submitter.
However, should this somewhat "onion-domed" depiction of urdy be
presented by anyone else, it must be accompanied by
documentation. [Neptha of Thebes, 02/2003,
A-Caid]
[Per chevron throughout argent and gules, two frogs tergiant
vert and an increscent argent] The field drawn here is an
acceptable per chevron throughout field.
SCA precedent has been consistent, if somewhat unclear, regarding
per chevron throughout fields (which may have charges in
each portion of the field without violating any style rules) and
chapé fields (which may only have charges in the lower
portion of the field).
Both per chevron throughout and chapé fields have
the top of the line touch the top of the escutcheon. However, the
proportions of the rest of the line of division can make a
difference in whether the armory is viewed as per chevron
throughout or chapé in the SCA. If the line of division provides
a roughly equal balance between the top and bottom halves of the
field, it is considered a reasonable depiction of per chevron
throughout. If the line of division leaves the bottom half of
the field much larger than the top half, then it is considered
chapé. It is not uncommon for the bottommost charge on a
per chevron throughout field to be larger than the chiefmost
charge(s), but the bottommost charge should not be so large as to
force the field division up to the fess line and therefore
contribute to the appearance of a chapé field (requiring its
return).
As a general rule, the sides of a charged per chevron
throughout field hit the sides of the escutcheon
significantly lower than the fess line, while in charged
chapé fields, the line of division hits the sides of the
escutcheon at the fess line or higher. This follows from the need
for per chevron throughout fields to balance the top and
bottom halves of the field. Note the following precedent from the
LoAR of June 2002 (quoting, in part, an earlier precedent from
January 2000). This precedent is also consistent with earlier
precedents on the topic (bolded emphasis added):
The submission was blazoned on the LoI as Per chevron in chief.
It is a clear drawing of modern chapé: it's throughout
and high on the field. Note the following precedent:
"Listed on the LoI as having a per chevron line of division,
the location of the line of the division and the relative
sizes of the charges makes this an example of chapé.
Therefore, it must be returned ... for charging its upper
portions" (LoAR January 2000).
These precedents specifically set SCA policy for SCA
stylistic rules concerning charged fields which are per
chevron throughout and chapé. Period armory almost
never uses any charges on a chapé field. In period armory
using uncharged chapé fields, the line of division often extends
down so that the field division could be interchangeable with
per chevron throughout. Thus, we will continue to allow
the use of the blazon term chapé for uncharged armory
which resembles the period armory described above. [Aemilia
Sabine, 02/2003,
A-Calontir]
There is no difference between a single chevronelle and a
chevron; at this time we would blazon any single central
"chevronelle" as a chevron regardless of how narrowly it was
drawn, to be in keeping with period armorial practices.
[Aclina of Wyvern Heyghts, 02/2003,
R-Caid]
[in pale three labels couped] The armory depicts all three
labels in the top two-thirds of the escutcheon. These labels are
therefore not in the in pale arrangement (which would
distribute them equally across the shield). However, the labels
cannot be blazoned in chief, because that would place the
labels considerably higher on the field. The blazon term
enhanced only applies when there is a standard position on
the field for the charge (from which the charge has been moved
towards chief). There is no standard position on the field for
three labels, so enhanced is not meaningful in this
context. Thus, this device is not blazonable as drawn. At this
time, it appears that the armory would be acceptable if the three
labels were correctly drawn in pale, as indicated in the
blazon.
There was a question about whether it is acceptable to have
multiple labels in a piece of armory. This is not a common period
design but al-Jamal provided a number of period or near-period
examples from various sources. [Valentino da Siena,
03/2003,
R-An Tir]
[Per chevron] Please note that the line of partition was
originally blazoned as enhanced. The line is moved
slightly to chief from the most standard central position, but
that is a natural consequence of only having one charge in base.
The term enhanced has thus been removed from the blazon as
unnecessary. [Jon the Tall, 04/2003,
A-Meridies]
[a chevron between three towers argent and a fleur-de-lys]
The three towers would default, given this blazon, to lie in
chief. However, they are arranged somewhere between in
chief and one and two. This arrangement is not
blazonable and thus is not acceptable by RfS VII.7.b.
[Julienne de La Rochelle, 04/2003,
R-East]
We have removed the Linnaean species name from the blazon given
in the Letter of Intent, as we have not specified types of flora
or fauna with Linnaean designations for some years. [Dananir
bint Zang al Tabib, 05/2003,
A-Ealdormere]
[an eagle Or] We have removed the explicit armed
sable from the blazon; this is too small a detail to mention
on an eagle, and is invisible from any distance. [Heinrich von
Melk, 05/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[Azure, a chevron argent charged with three roundels
azure] A number of comments were received about this blazon.
Blazons of the form On an [underlying charge] [a group of
tertiary charges] are equivalent to blazons of the form An
[underlying charge] charged with [a group of tertiary
charges]. The specifics of a particular piece of armory may
cause one form or the other to be more mellifluous, but there is
no generally applicable rule which indicates that one or the
other form of blazon is preferable. [Hildegardis filia
Vulframni, 07/2003,
A-Artemisia]
[a lion] The primary charge was originally blazoned as a
Chinese lion. We do not specify the artistic or ethnic
origin of a charge in blazon unless the modified blazon indicates
a significantly different type of charge from the unmodified
blazon. As an example where such an adjective indicates a
significantly different charge, an Oriental dragon is a sinuous
wingless monster, while the default dragon has wings and a much
more compact body.
Because of the wide range of depictions of lions in period, this
maned quadruped with clawed feet, fangs, and a long feathery tail
is sufficiently identifiable as a standard lion, and is therefore
blazoned as such. [Uggedei Mighan Nidun, 07/2003,
A-Artemisia]
From Wreath: Responses to Some Requests for Reblazon
In the last few months, we have received some requests for
systematic reblazon of certain types of blazon in the Ordinary
and Armorial. We thought we would set out Wreath and Laurel's
current philosophy regarding such requests for systematic
reblazon, and some of the specific requests.
There are two main reasons why armory is reblazoned. The first
reason is that the submitter requests the reblazon: these cases
are by their nature specific, and do not result in systematic
reblazons. The second reason is that some specific type of blazon
is so confusing that it will most likely not reproduce the
emblazon correctly. In this category we have the March 1997
reblazon of all the seahorses, natural seahorses,
or hippocampi to clearly indicate the type of charge, and
the January 2003 reblazon of all the trilliums to clearly
indicate the posture of the charge.
It is important to remember that while it is Laurel's right to
reblazon armory at any point, a person who already has many
scrolls on the walls using the original blazon may not wish to
have a reblazon. As a result, we have limited reblazons to cases
where the submitter has requested the reblazon or cases where the
original blazon is genuinely confusing. We tend not to initiate
systematic reblazons for less compelling reasons.
In some borderline cases, the issue of available time affects the
decision of whether to do the systematic reblazon. When we
reblazon armory, we always have to check in the files to ensure
that the reblazon is correct, even if the request only appears to
address a simple typographical error. (After all, just as when we
do visual comparisons, an examination of the file may find that
there is an error in the existing blazon that must be corrected,
which may have nothing to do with the original systematic
reblazon request). We are not blessed with much free time. We
note with thanks those persons who, when requesting a systematic
reblazon, are willing to do the (also time-consuming) preliminary
research to identify all the cases which may require reblazon,
rather than expecting Wreath and her staff to perform this work
as well.
It may be determined that, for reasons other than inaccurate
reproduction of emblazon, some particular blazon style is so
problematic that it requires a systematic reblazon. People
feeling strongly about any of the requests for systematic
reblazon listed below - or who have similar concerns that have
not yet been received - should write privately to Laurel and
Wreath.
In some cases, a member of the College requests a systematic
reblazon of some style of blazon which is not at all likely to
cause an error in the emblazon, although examples of the blazon
style in the Armorial and Ordinary may cause new heralds to
emulate the undesirable blazon style. For example, despite the
fact that (everyone, sing in unison!) "there is no 'e' in
contourny", the SCA has registered a number of blazons
using contourney. We have received one request to correct
all the "contourney" spellings. So far, we have not acceded to
this request, because contourney is interpreted correctly
by heralds and scribes and the submitters may not wish the blazon
to be corrected.
In some cases, a member of the College may request a systematic
reblazon of some blazon style to help with conflict checking. It
is (or should be!) generally understood that blazon is to some
extent a natural language as well as a technical language, and
the Armorial and Ordinary follows that language's accepted
variations. Thus, one finds SCA blazons that correctly represent
the same charge as, variously, a griffin rampant to
sinister, a gryphon segreant and sinister facing, or
a griffon contourny. One also finds heraldically identical
charges blazoned using terms that span the alphabet (and thus, a
section of the Ordinary), often due to the period practice of
canting. Thus, a picture of a particular type of stylized dog
might be blazoned as a brachet, a hound, or a
talbot.
It is important to remember that the Armorial and Ordinary's
primary purpose is to record names and blazons, not to provide a
data base for conflict checking. While some of our friends in
Library or Information Science dream of a controlled vocabulary
for SCA blazon, it is unlikely to happen in the Armorial and
Ordinary because so many people would have their blazons changed
without their request and so many cants would be removed. We may
someday, perhaps, see a "controlled vocabulary and normalized
style" blazon as an adjunct to the official blazon, used for
computer search purposes only. However, the magnitude of the
project, and the concerns about mistakenly introducing
discrepancies between the official blazon and the "controlled
vocabulary" blazon, have been prohibitive.
One request for reblazon has been made on the grounds that
similar armorial designs are not phrased similarly in their
blazons, which adds to difficulty in conflict checking. The
specific issue is the blazon of tertiary charges: the identical
designs (Fieldless) On a mullet gules a trefoil Or and
(Fieldless) A mullet gules charged with a trefoil Or do
not have identical blazons and will not be found next to each
other in the Ordinary. The request asked that all the "charged
with" blazons be changed to follow the "... on a ..." convention.
Because both blazon styles are clear, and because different legal
blazon choices routinely result in heraldically identical items
being phrased quite differently in blazon, we have chosen not to
implement this request.
One other request has been received from a few different people,
on the grounds that the blazon style may lead to incorrect
emblazons and that it is also difficult to conflict check. This
is the blazon style that reads Azure, a bend argent, three
estoiles in bend sinister counterchanged, rather than the
more usual Azure, on a bend between two estoiles argent an
estoile azure. Note that this blazon style may be misleading,
as it may lead a scribe to draw the estoiles so some part of an
estoile overlaps the edge of the bend (which is usually not the
case in the submitted emblazon). This blazon style is also
difficult to conflict check.
This request for systematic reblazon seems more compelling than
the other requests that have recently been received. We would
not, however, embark on such a significant reblazon without
getting the opinion of the College on whether it is necessary. It
is also important to note that it will be very time-consuming to
compile the list of items that may need to be re-blazoned in this
request. There is no handy keyword like "trillium" to use for a
search: it may be necessary to examine every piece of armory
using the word "counterchanged" to assemble the list of items
that might need reblazon. We also suspect there will be a large
number of items which need to be visually checked at the end of
the list compilation. It is important to note that in this
tenure, we do not expect that this project could be completed
unless the compilation of the initial list of items which may
need reblazon were performed by some volunteers other than Wreath
and her usual staff.
Reblazons of this blazon style may occur on a case by case basis
as they come through Wreath's office, as happened this month for
the submission of Christopher Jameson in the Midrealm section of
this LoAR, which came to the attention of the office for a
different reason. [08/2003,
CL]
[a badger rampant sable] The badger was originally
blazoned as sable marked argent, but it is predominantly
sable with only a few small argent details. We generally do not
blazon a charge as "marked" when the marking details are so
small. In addition, we might mistakenly give the impression that
large portions of the badger (such as its underside) are argent,
which might lead to emblazons that have inadequate contrast with
the argent field. [Gareth Craig, 08/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a tulip] The tulip was originally blazoned as a
Turkish tulip. However, this appears to be a reasonable
variant of the standard tulip and needs not be explicitly
blazoned. This particular stylization of a tulip is found in
period Middle Eastern art. [Kathy of Tir Ysgithr, 08/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[Argent crusilly formy] The SCA has been fairly consistent
about reblazoning a group of more than eight charges that evenly
covers a field or underlying charge as a group of strewn charges.
We have thus reblazoned this device from the original blazon of
ten crosses formy to crusilly formy. We note that
should this device be drawn on another shape for heraldic
display, such as a rectangular banner or a round shield, the
submitter will quite likely find that a different number of
charges will fill the space better. [Christgaen von Köln,
08/2003,
A-Caid]
The previous blazon ... misspelled the bretessed line of
division as betressed. Betressed is not an
acceptable spelling for this line of division. [Christopher
Jameson, 08/2003,
A-Middle]
[a fleur-de-lys] The fleur-de-lys was originally blazoned
as florency but the SCA does not blazon this sort of
artistic detail. Per the Cover Letter for the June 1993 LoAR
(dated July 1993):
Occasionally, the very diversity of the Society dictates that
some details shouldn't be blazoned. For instance, we don't
normally blazon the local drawing style: a fleur-de-lys is
blazoned a fleur-de-lys, whether drawn in the Italian style
(sometimes blazoned a fleur-de-lys florencée by modern heralds)
or the French style. In this way, we permit the broadest mix of
cultures; we don't micro-manage the scribes, but allow them the
fullest creativity and expression; and we make it possible for
someone to change persona without requiring a reblazon.
[Oriana Luisa della Francesca, 09/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
Seven charges on a stripe ordinary like a fess are too many to
explicitly enumerate, so the blazon has been changed from on a
fess ... seven compass stars to a fess ... semy of compass
stars. [Gabrielle von Strassburg, 09/2003,
A-Meridies]
[a bordure wavy] The blazon originally used the term
undy rather than wavy. We have reblazoned it to use
the more standard SCA term to avoid confusion. The term
undy is confusing for two reasons. One reason is that the
term undy sometimes represents a line of division (wavy)
and sometimes a field division (barry wavy). Brooke-Little's
An Heraldic Alphabet, p. 212, states: "Undy (also
Undé or Ondé) A synonym for wavy. It is not much
used today but in early blazon it was always employed, often
meaning barry wavy." The other reason that the term undy
is confusing is that it is prone to handwriting or typing errors,
and might easily be misinterpreted as the different field
division urdy. The SCA has previously chosen to avoid
error-prone terms. For example, it has chosen not to use the
error-prone term ermines (easily confused with
ermine), in favor of the less error-prone term
counter-ermine. [Ginevra Visconti, 09/2003,
A-Trimaris]
There have been a number of requests in the commentary to modify
the gender used in referring to (for example) a sun in its
splendor or a moon in her plenitude. We allow suns to be either
masculine or neuter, and we allow moons to be either feminine or
neuter, and we will retain the submitter's blazon when feasible.
[10/2003,
CL]
In the last months we have often received commentary suggesting
that some charge should be reblazoned from a specific sort of
bird to a generic bird (e.g., reblazoning a hawk as a
bird). We remind the College that we should only reblazon
a specific sort of bird as a generic bird when the specific bird
truly cannot be identified as such. We also remind the College
that the reblazon to a generic bird has unfortunate side effects
for conflict. As noted on the LoAR of April 1998, "Blazoned on
the LoI as [a specific type of bird], as drawn it is not clearly
any species of bird, so we have reblazoned it as a generic bird.
Unfortunately, generic birds conflict with all birds, so this
conflicts with ..." When one proposes to reblazon an
imperfectly-drawn "hawk" as a generic "bird", it would lose an
often-critical type CD from past or future submissions using
swans, herons, chickens, peacocks, ostriches, hummingbirds,
penguins, and so forth. Never forget that the suggestion to
reblazon a specific bird as a generic bird is also a proposal to
reward a poor artist with an unwontedly huge slice of armorial
space. When we reflect on the quality of much period heraldic
artwork, which is rarely precise in its depiction of birds or
other animals, I think we can all agree that birds should only be
reblazoned as "generic" birds when there is no other
alternative.
We have also continued to receive commentary indicating that
ravens that are not drawn as "hairy" birds should be reblazoned
as generic birds. This suggestion does not match period armorial
style, which often depicts ravens as smooth-feathered birds.
Please refer to the cover letter to the January 2002 LoAR, which
discusses this matter in detail, including citations in
commonly-available heraldry books showing specific examples of
smooth-feathered/non-hairy corbies in period heraldic art.
[10/2003,
CL]
[Gules, three bendlets abased argent each charged with a
bendlet azure] Her previous armory submission was very
similar to this but was blazoned as using bendlets abased
azure fimbriated argent. That submission was returned for
using fimbriated charges that were not in the center of the
design, which is forbidden by RfS VIII.3. The submission is
blazoned as using bendlets each charged with a bendlet, and is
proportioned acceptably for that blazon.
Per the LoAR of February 2000, "In this case the blazon can make
a difference: while you cannot 'blazon your way out of' a
conflict, you can 'blazon your way out of' a style problem." In
the colored-in full-sized emblazon, the bendlets are identifiable
as bendlets (rather than part of a complicated bendy field), and
are not debased so far as to be unregisterable. [Ann
Busshenell of Tylehurst, 10/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
The mermaids were originally blazoned as respectant. We
understand the temptation to use the term respectant:
mermaids were often drawn in period so that they are slightly in
trian aspect and they can thus face each other to a small extent,
as these mermaids do. The LoAR of July 2001, ruling on an earlier
submission of this device, stated, "The device originally
blazoned the mermaids as respectant, but that implies that their
bodies are in profile as well. There is no way to indicate in the
blazon that the tails are symmetrical; the direction of the tail
is normally artistic license and not blazoned." We agree with the
previous ruling and have removed the term respectant from
the blazon. [James of Riverhold, 10/2003,
A-Calontir]
[Or, two foxes counter-salient in saltire purpure] His
previous blazon, Or, two foxes countersalient purpure, did
not clearly indicate that the foxes were in saltire. Although the
most common illustrations of two animals counter-salient show
animals which are counter-salient in saltire, research indicates
that animals counter-salient must face in opposite directions,
but are not in saltire by default. In addition, all the other SCA
blazons using counter-salient for this arrangement blazon the
animals explicitly in saltire. [Alfred of Warwick,
10/2003,
A-Middle]
[a horse's head couped] Some commentary suggested that the
head be blazoned in some fashion other than the default couped
because it was "not couped in the usual horizontal manner." We
direct the College to the Cover Letter of the November 2001 LoAR,
which discusses period treatments of both couped and erased in
some detail. Regarding the form of couped found in this emblazon,
the cover letter states that one of the period depictions was "a
straight line... [which could be] parallel to the side of the
shield." Because Francesca's horse's head is a primary charge,
drawn to fill the space, the bottom of the horse's head and neck
is near the sinister base portion of the shield. The angle of the
side of the shield in sinister base is approximately bendwise
sinister, and the couping of the horse's head in this emblazon is
roughly parallel to that sinister base portion of the side of the
shield. Thus, this is a period form of couping, and it is not
necessary to describe it further in blazon. [Francesca
Testarossa de' Martini, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
[a tower argent] The tower was originally blazoned as
argent masoned sable. This depiction is acceptable
artistic license for a tower argent: as stated in the LoAR of
August 1992, "As with all charges of stonework, the masoning is
an artistic detail worth no difference." The submitter did not
blazon the masoning explicitly on the submission form, so we have
removed it from the blazon. [Gemma Meen, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
[A ram statant gules] The ram was tinctured on the Letter
of Intent as gules armed Or. The horns of the ram are a
large enough artistic detail so that their tincture could be
blazoned (unlike the tincture of the hooves of the ram, which the
SCA always leaves entirely to the artist). However, the tincture
of the horns of the ram is not so important that it must be
blazoned. The submitter did not blazon the horns as Or on the
form, so we suspect the submitter would like to leave the
tincture of the horns to artist's license, and we have omitted
the arming tincture from the blazon. [Aaron Graves and
Alessandra Gabrielli, 12/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
The dogs were originally blazoned as mastiff hounds but
they should simply be termed mastiffs. From a heraldic
perspective, a mastiff and a hound are different types of dogs,
and the phrase mastiff hound is as nonsensical as the
phrase talbot greyhound. [Grimbrand Hundeman,
12/2003,
R-Calontir]
The submitter asked that the tails of the dragon be blazoned as
nowed in an Ormand knot [sic]. The SCA usually uses the
term Wake knot for this knot, but the term Ormond
knot is found as a synonym for this knot in standard
real-world and SCA sources (Brooke-Little's An Heraldic
Alphabet and the Pictorial Dictionary). Since the
submitter wants to use this alternate name for the knot, we have
acceded to her request, although we have fixed the spelling of
the knot to the documented spelling Ormond Knot.
[Symmonne Deccarrette de Villette, 01/2004,
A-An Tir]
Please note that when blazoning items in saltire, the
bendwise charge is blazoned first and the bendwise sinister
charge is blazoned second. [Malise of Sundragon, 01/2004,
A-Atenveldt]
[a pithon] This was originally blazoned as a
sea-python. Firstly, the bat-winged snake monster found in
this submission is blazoned as a pithon, and the
natural snake is blazoned as a python. Secondly,
this charge does not have a fish's tail, as one would expect from
a sea-pithon. The small detail at the end of the tail is not
large enough to require reblazoning this as a sea-pithon.
[Setembrina Bramante, 01/2004,
A-Northshield]
[a wolf's head] The wolf's head was originally blazoned as
ululant, a term used in SCA heraldry for a wolf in some
posture with its head pointed to chief and howling. In this
emblazon, the muzzle of the head is tilted to dexter chief, which
is a reasonable artistic variant for a plain wolf's head. We do
not believe that it is necessary to blazon a charge consisting
only of a head in profile as ululant. [Caitilín inghean
Sheáin, 01/2004,
A-Outlands]
[a sheaf of swords inverted Or banded argent] Parker,
under banded, states that the term "is used when two or
more objects (e.g. a garb or branches of a tree) are bound
together with a band of different tincture." [James Irvin,
02/2004,
A-Æthelmearc]
[A landscape (in pale sky azure, snow-capped mountains argent,
hills vert, prairie proper, and a wheat field proper) and on a
chief argent a cross gules] This armory posed some difficult
questions regarding blazon:
We are fortunate to have benefited by the efficiency and
kindness of the Canadian Heraldic Authority. The Chief Herald of
Canada, Robert D. Watt, provided the following information:
The most definitive information we have here is found on page
209 of Conrad Swan's, (now Sir Conrad Swan) landmark study
entitled 'Canada: Symbols of Sovereignty' (University of
Toronto Press, 1977). In the chapter on Alberta, Sir Conrad
notes that the arms were assigned by Royal Warrant on 30 May
1907 and were blazoned as follows: 'Azure, in front of a range
of snowy mountains proper a range of hills Vert, in base a
wheat field surmounted by a prairie both also proper, on a
chief Argent a St. George's cross.' The reference he gives is
College of Arms 175.127. As he was York Herald at the time of
writing and had full access to the records of the College, I
believe it is fair to assume that this blazon can be considered
absolutely accurate.
The real-world official blazon of the province of
Alberta is not clearly comprehensible from the perspective of SCA
blazon. It uses the term surmounted in a different way
than we do. It also assumes that the reader is aware that a St.
George's cross is, by definition, a cross (throughout) gules. We
have elected to reblazon the armory for the SCA, as we generally
do with important real-world armory when it is necessary. We have
left in the ambiguous proper tinctures for the wheat field
and the prairie, as this ambiguity seems to be part of the
definition of the armory. By blazoning this armory, exclusive of
the chief, as a landscape, we hope to make it clear for
future researchers that this armory is distinct from most
heraldic treatments (aside from issues of purely visual
conflict). The landscape is not, for example, equivalent to a
variant of a barry field, or some combination of bars, but it is
an excellent example of an overly pictorial design per RfS
VIII.4.a, that could not be registered to a new SCA submitter.
[Alberta, 02/2004,
A-Society for Creative Anchronism]
The crescents were blazoned as crescents pendant on the
LoI but crescents inverted on the submission form. We have
restored the submitter's preferred form. Both terms are
acceptable for use in the S.C.A. [Iror of Crystal Mynes,
03/2004,
A-Calontir]
[on a bend vert four bear pawprints argent and overall a bear
statant sable] We were at a loss on how to blazon this armory
in a way which would clearly re-create the emblazon and would
also be compatible with period armorial style. As blazoned, and
based on our knowlege of overall charges in period armory, we
would expect the four pawprints to be evenly placed on the bend,
and thus, we would expect overall bear to obscure some of the
four pawprints on the bend. However, all four pawprints are
visible. It is not possible to blazon the bend with a larger
number of pawprints, because there is enough of the bend showing
in between the bear's limbs to show that there are no pawprints
under the bear. [Appolonia Notburgen, 03/2004,
R-Calontir]
BOOK
[Sable, three
open books Or] This submission raised the question of whether
we should give difference between open and closed books. Both are
found in period armory: the open book in the arms of Oxford in
1585 and the closed book in the arms of Cambridge in 1572. There
are few books found in period heraldry, so it is not easy to
generalize about period distinctions between open and closed
books, although there is a fair amount of evidence showing that
Oxford and Cambridge consistently use their books in the open and
closed forms respectively in the 17th C and beyond.
Without evidence of period practice, we must rely on visual
distinction, and open and closed books are visually distinct.
This is therefore clear of conflict with ... Sable, a closed
book palewise Or, with one CD for changing the number of
books and another for open versus closed books. It is similarly
clear of conflict with ... Vert, three closed books palewise,
spines to sinister Or, with one CD for changing the field and
another for open versus closed books. [Emma in draumspaka,
03/2002,
A-An Tir]
[Azure, an open book and in base a bee argent marked
sable] This does not conflict with Yale University (important
non-SCA armory), Azure, an open book argent charged with
Hebrew letters sable. There is one CD for adding the
secondary bee, and another CD for removing the tertiary letters
from the book. As seen on p. 241 of Neubecker's
Heraldry-Sources, Symbols and Meanings, the Hebrew letters
on the books in the arms of Yale University are few and large,
and function as tertiary charges. In general, open books may be
drawn with numerous small writing marks as artistic license, the
writing so small that it could not be read from any distance, but
such writing would not be blazoned. [Branwen filia Iohannis de
Monmouth, 04/2002,
A-East]
Please advise the submitter to draw the open book so it does not
appear to be tilted back into the shield. [Cormac Mór,
02/2003,
A-Caid]
[a merman maintaining an open book argent fimbriated
gules] ... the maintained book may not be fimbriated. RfS
VIII.3 states, in part, "Voiding and fimbriation may only be used
with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the
design." An open book is not a simple geometric charge and it is
not in the center of the field in this device. Note that the book
was blazoned on the Letter of Intent as an open book argent
bound gules, but that blazon would not necessarily recreate
the fact that the binding fimbriates the book around all of its
edges. [Jens Sveinsson, 05/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[(Fieldless) On a ribbon fesswise enarched gules the words
"verba volant scripta manet," overall an escallop Or] ... The
ribbon in this submission was originally blazoned as a
scroll. A scroll is not nearly as long and narrow
as a ribbon, and is proportioned more like a billet. Æthelmearc
has previously registered a badge using a scroll: Argent, on
an open scroll gules an "Æ" Or. The scroll in that submission
is drawn correctly and does not resemble this ribbon. Because
this charge is not the same charge as the previously registered
scroll, the grandfather clause does not apply to this
submission.
We note that there would be stylistic difficulties with armory
designed with a scroll... and overall an escallop. Due to
the shapes of these charges, any such design would have a large
amount of overlap between the scroll and the escallop, making the
escallop just "barely overall." By previous precedent, "Barely
overall charges have been ruled unacceptable for a long time and
for fieldless badges overall charges must have very little
overlap with the charge it surmounts" (LoAR of September 1999).
[Æthelmearc, Kingdom of, 08/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
BORDURE
The
bordure here is much too thin to be acceptable. Each side of a
bordure is usually as thick as one-eighth to one-tenth of the
shield width, and this bordure is less than one-twentieth of the
shield width. Part of the problem is that the bordure was drawn
with a very thick black outline compared to the outlines on the
dragon's head. This outline cut into the white part of the
bordure and also had somewhat of an appearance of fimbriation.
[Magy McTerlach, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
[Argent ... a bordure parted bordurewise indented argent and
sable] This sort of bordure has been registered in the arms
of Coileáin Olafsson (registered February 1991), Gules, a
sword inverted proper between a pair of lions' jambes couped Or
within a bordure parted bordurewise indented sable and Or. To
quote from the January 1990 LoAR (the return of Coileáin's
original device submission, which used an identical bordure),
"The bordure is a period usage, as noted by several commentors
who adduced a number of examples of bordures and other ordinaries
parted in this manner.".
The blazon for this unusual bordure treatment has been changed to
be consistent with Coileáin's registration. To quote that
acceptance: "The bordure was blazoned as 'indented-in-point' in
the LoI. The above blazon, though not quite as elegant, is
believed to be clearer.".
Please advise the submitter to draw the bordure so that the black
is all on the inside and the argent is all on the outside. In
Coileáin's bordure, each corner of the bordure is tinctured
entirely in the outside tincture. [Heinricus vom
Eichenhain, 12/2001,
A-Drachenwald]
[Per pale argent and sable, a human footprint sable and two
roundels in pale argent within a bordure vert] The device
raised questions about marshalling. RfS XI.3 states: "Armory that
appears to marshall independent arms is considered presumptuous."
Without the bordure, this would be returned for the appearance of
impalement, which is the display of two coats, side by side, to
show marital affiliation or tenure in an office.
Armory can avoid the appearance of marshalling by adding "charges
overall that were not used for marshalling in period heraldry"
(RfS XI.3.a). In late period, a bordure may be added to some
kinds of marshalled coats of arms as a mark of cadency: an
individual who bore quartered arms as his personal arms might
have a child who bore the quartered arms within a bordure. The
child's arms would still be marshalled. Thus, adding a bordure
will not remove the appearance of marshalling from quartered
arms.
However, impaled arms show marriage or tenure in an office. In
period, a second generation would not generally inherit the
impaled arms in that form. The component arms of two married
people might be inherited in a quartered form by a child, but
would not be inherited in an impaled form.
Bordures in impaled arms traditionally cut off at the line of
division. If one impaled the hypothetical arms Argent, a cross
fleury within a bordure gules and Gules, a lion within a
bordure argent, the resultant impaled armory would appear to
be Per pale argent and gules, a cross fleury and a lion within
a bordure counterchanged. As a result, armory using a per
pale line of division, a bordure, and different types of charges
on each side of the line of division will look like marshalled
arms if the bordure changes tincture at the line of division. It
may also look like marshalled armory if the bordure is a solid
tincture but has good contrast with both halves of the field. The
hypothetical arms Argent, a sword within a bordure sable
and Or, an eagle within a bordure sable would combine when
impaled to armory which would appear to be Per pale argent and
Or, a sword and an eagle within a bordure sable. Thus, the
only case in which a bordure may remove the appearance of
impalement from armory which would otherwise appear to be impaled
is if the bordure is a solid tincture and if it has poor contrast
with one half of the field. That is the case with this device.
[Pegge Leg the Merchant, 03/2002,
A-An Tir]
Bordures may be counterchanged over a gyronny field. We have many
period examples of bordures compony, which are almost the same in
appearance as bordures gyronny. Because the bordure
counterchanged has large enough pieces to maintain its
identifiability, and it looks like a common multiply divided
period bordure, it may be accepted without explicit documentation
of a bordure counterchanged on a gyronny field. [Wulfgar
Neumann, 03/2002,
P-Outlands]
[a bordure indented] This bordure differs somewhat from
the standard SCA bordure indented. This bordure indented is drawn
with the indentations extending all the way to the edge of the
shield, so that the indentations appear to be a series of
conjoined triangles issuing from the side of the shield. (Or,
alternately, drawn so that the bordure indented looks like the
outside portion of a bordure parted bordurewise indented.)
This bordure also has rather numerous small indentations (15 up
one side), but (unlike most cases which are returned for "too
many too small" indentations), the indentations are not too small
to be identifiable. The indentations in this emblazon are very
prominent and clearly visible. No explicit documentation was
provided by the College for this form of bordure, and a number of
commenters asked whether this was acceptable for SCA use.
Precedent has noted that period chiefs could be drawn with the
indentations "inwards" reaching all the way to the chief line:
The device was blazoned as having three triangles issuant
from chief. This style of indentation can be found in
period (for example Lowell of Balumbye (Lindsay of the Mount,
pl. 107)), but it was blazoned as either indented or
three piles. As current scholarship believes that such
chiefs were originally indented with deep indentations,
we decided to blazon it as indented and leave the depth
to artistic license (LoAR July 2000).
In addition, some period bordures indented
approached this depiction. The Milanese Stemmario
Trivulziano (second half of 15th C) has two coats of arms
using bordures indented where the indentations touch the outside
of the bordure: the arms of d[i] [L]uino de Barbati and the
second and third quarters of Dal Vermo. Each of these emblazons
has almost the same number of indentations up one side of the
escutcheon as in this emblazon. While we do not have a period
blazon for these arms, the modern blazon provided by the editor
of the text is indented.
Because the bordure in this emblazon has a clearly identifiable
indented line, and the artwork of the indentation is similar to
period indented chiefs and at least one period armorial's
depiction of an indented bordure, it is an acceptable variant of
a bordure indented. Please also advise the submitter that the
standard way to draw such a bordure through most times and places
in our period would have fewer and larger indentations and would
not have the indentations extend all the way to the outside of
the shield. If the submitter can find a blazon term to describe
this specific sort of bordure, and can show that it was
considered distinct from a standard bordure indented in period,
he may provide this documentation and make a request for
reblazon. [Ulf de Fribois, 10/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
Please note that the design of counterchanging a bordure over a
pile is considered "a weirdness" in the SCA - a single step from
period practice (per the LoAR of July 2001). One such step in
armory is acceptable, but more than one such step is considered
too far from period practice and reason for return. [Clef of
Cividale, 03/2003,
R-Calontir]
Please advise the submitter to draw the embattlements on the
bordure so that the height of the embattlements matches their
width. [Günther von Weißensee, 05/2003,
A-Meridies]
CANDELABRA
[a three-armed
candelabra vs. a nine-armed menorah] There is a CD between a
three-armed candelabra and a nine-armed candelabra. [Uilliam
of Bronzehelm, 11/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[a three-armed candelabra] This does not conflict with a
... (Fieldless) A trident Or. Both three-armed candelabra
and tridents are period heraldic charges. A candelabra much like
this one, where the outside arms form a U-shaped arc with the
center arm palewise, is found in the arms of von Krage on fol.
151 of Siebmacher. Tridents are found in the same book. A
similarly-outlined trident is found in the arms of von der Gabel
on fol. 149. A more angularly-outlined trident is found in the
arms of von Ebnet on fol. 114. Because the charges appear to be
distinct in period, and have some visual difference between them,
there is a CD between them. [Uilliam of Bronzehelm,
11/2002,
A-Artemisia]
CANTING
[(Fieldless)
A saltcellar shedding salt argent] ... given the period
canting badge of a daisy (also known as a marguerite) for someone
with the given name Marguerite, quite appropriate. (It makes
sense that canting badges, which are personal, might refer to the
given name, while canting arms, which apply to whole families of
people with different given names, apply to the surname.)
[Yseulte Trevelyn, 02/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[a four-leaved clover saltirewise slipped vert] We have
blazoned this quatrefoil as a clover to preserve the cant.
[Ærne Clover, 08/2002,
A-An Tir]
The sage leaves cant on the submitter's surname, Salviati.
We have therefore blazoned them as sage leaves to preserve the
cant. [Dianora Salviati , 08/2002,
A-East]
[(Fieldless) On an apple gules slipped and leaved vert a Roman
capital letter B Or] This is an example of a type of canting
badge called a rebus, where the name is phonetically
represented by the emblazon. It was especially popular in
medieval England: a beacon issuant from a tun was the rebus of
Thomas Beckynton in the 15th C. Rebuses often included letters,
as in Catherine's badge. A 16th C rebus for John Oxney showed an
eagle (the symbol of the evangelist John), an ox, and the letters
"ne". The rebus badge of Sir John Peeche was a peach charged with
the letter "e". (Examples taken from Parker's A Glossary of
Terms used in Heraldry under Rebus.) [Catherine
Anne Applebey, 07/2003,
A-Calontir]
CARD PIQUE
[card
pique vs. crabapple leaf] A crab apple leaf (as per this
emblazon, and for that matter, the local apple tree) is a
standard leaf shape (slim pointed oval) with a finely serrated
edge. A crab apple leaf appears to be a non-period charge and
thus, under RfS X.4.e, the difference from a card pique must be
determined on visual grounds. There is significant difference (a
CD) between this leaf shape and a card pique but not substantial
(RfS X.2) difference. [Quentin de Rougemont, 11/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[card pique vs. seeblatt] No evidence has been presented,
and none has been found, indicating that seeblatter and card
piques were interchangeable in period. Prior precedent holds that
a seeblatt and a card-pique-shaped leaf inverted are different
enough on visual grounds to merit a CD. Per the LoAR of June
2003: "Since an aspen leaf is not a period heraldic charge, the
difference between an aspen leaf inverted and a seeblatt must be
determined on visual grounds per RfS X.4.e. There is sufficient
visual difference between these two charges for a CD. A seeblatt
is a heart-shaped leaf with the tip of the leaf to the base of
the shield, and with some sort of notch (often, but not always,
trefoil-shaped) taken out of the part of the leaf which is to
chief. An aspen leaf inverted is also a leaf with the tip of the
leaf to the base of the shield, but it has a very distinct stem
issuant to chief rather than a notch removed from the leaf."
Barring further information, it seems appropriate to rule,
analogously, that there should be a CD between a seeblatt
inverted and a card pique. [Quentin de Rougemont, 11/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
CASTLE and
TOWER
There is no difference between a tower and a
lighthouse given the varying depictions of towers and similar
architecture in period [Dun an Chalaidh, Shire of,
08/2001,
R-An Tir]
[Sable, a chess rook argent] This is clear of conflict
with ... Sable, a tower argent. There is substantial
difference between a tower and a properly drawn chess rook, so
RfS X.2 applies.
In the LoAR of October 1996, it was stated that there was
"nothing for the difference between a tower and a chess-rook".
This precedent is hereby overturned: a tower and a chess rook
were considered different charges in period and have substantial
visual difference. The period heraldic chess rook is drawn
consistently in a form where the top is forked into two prominent
curled points. This was a standard depiction for the period chess
piece, as illustrated in Caxton's 1474 "Game and Playe of the
Chesse". The period heraldic chess rook does not resemble any
sort of fortification and cannot be mistaken for a tower. On
examining the collated commentary for the October 1996 ruling, it
appears that perhaps the commenters mistakenly believed that the
particular chess rook in the possible conflict was drawn as a
tower, rather than as a period chess rook. [William
fitzBubba, 12/2001,
A-East]
[a tower argent masoned sable] Architectural charges made
of stonework such as towers, castles and walls may be drawn
masoned as a matter of artist's license. Therefore, there is no
additional tincture difference for adding or removing masoning
for these types of charge. [Gemma Meen, 01/2002,
R-An Tir]
[Or, on a tower pean a hawk's head erased Or] Conflict
with ... Or, on a tower per pale gules and azure, a compass
star Or. There is one CD for changing the tincture of the
tower but nothing for changing the type only of tertiary charge
by RfS X.4.j.ii, because a charged tower will not qualify for
this rule. According to X.4.j.ii, "A charge is suitable for the
purposes of this rule if (a) it it simple enough in outline to be
voided, and (b) it is correctly drawn with an interior
substantial enough to display easily recognizable charges."
Towers are not simple enough in outline to be voided. [Hawk's
Rest, Shire of, 07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[a castle argent] The castle was originally blazoned as a
tollgate. The castle as drawn here is similar to most
two-towered castles except that it has a crossbar across the
portal. It is thus almost indistinguishable from a standard
castle, and may be considered an acceptable artistic variant of a
castle.
We might have been willing to blazon this castle as a
tollgate, as the submitter desired, had documentation been
provided supporting such a blazon. However, no such documentation
was provided to Laurel. Such documentation would need to indicate
that a period tollgate would have a form that is standard enough
to allow recreation of the emblazon from the blazon. The one
named example of a period tollgate mentioned in the LoI, the
Micklegate Bar in York, is not described as a tollgate by the
current City of York. A picture of the Bar and a discussion of
its history may be found at
http://www.york.gov.uk/walls/1214th/micklegate.html, which is a
portion of the Web page discussing the city from the 12th through
14th centuries. The defining crossbar in this emblazon's tollgate
is not discussed in this Web site either. It appears that access
through the Bar was controlled, as usual for gatehouses, by a
portcullis. [Ian Cradoc, 09/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[two walls couped with portals] We have reblazoned the
castles as walls, because a castle by default has a
tower at each end, and these charges do not have any towers.
According to the Pictorial Dictionary, walls are
throughout and embattled by default, so it is necessary to blazon
these walls as couped. It is also necessary to blazon the portals
explicitly. [Hans Schneckenburg, 09/2003,
A-Caid]
[a tower argent] The tower was originally blazoned as
argent masoned sable. This depiction is acceptable
artistic license for a tower argent: as stated in the LoAR of
August 1992, "As with all charges of stonework, the masoning is
an artistic detail worth no difference." The submitter did not
blazon the masoning explicitly on the submission form, so we have
removed it from the blazon. [Gemma Meen, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
CHARGE -- Maintained and
Sustained
Since the July 1992 LoAR, the term
maintaining has been used for grasped or held items which
are too small to be worth difference. Sustaining and
supporting have been used for a grasped or held item which
is of comparable visual weight to the item holding it, and thus
worth difference. In cases where other blazon words are used for
the act of holding an item, the blazon is ambiguous about whether
the held item is significant or not. It is true that the term
maintaining literally derives from a Latin phrase for
holding in a hand, and thus is not ideal for blazoning an item
which is held in the mouth, or by the tail, of an animal.
However, it seems preferable to remove the blazon ambiguity and
use the word maintaining in these cases. [Godwin
Alfricson, 08/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[A lion's jambe erased bendwise argent] A possible
conflict was called against the badge of Berhtrad Athalbrand von
Strassburg, (Fieldless) A lion's gambe bendwise erased argent,
sustaining by the blade a sword bendwise sinister sable. We
were asked to check the form to see that the sword was
sustained, rather than maintained (which is not
worth difference). Berhtrad's form shows that the sword is
correctly blazoned as sustained. Recall that the criterion
for a sustained charge, unchanged since the introduction of the
term sustained into SCA blazon, has been:
Either sustaining or supporting will be used when a "held"
charge is of comparable size to the beast holding it;
maintaining will continue to be used when the held charge is of
negligible heraldic difference. (Brayden Avenel Durrant, July,
1992, p. 6)
[Gala Cunningham, 09/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[a sea-lion sustaining a sword bendwise sinister] The
sword in this emblazon is as long as the sea-lion is tall. The
sea-lion has notably more visual weight than the sword because
the sea-lion is many times wider than the sword. This lead some
members of the College to question whether the sword should be
considered a maintained charge rather than a
sustained charge. However, there is precedent indicating
that the sword in this emblazon should be considered a sustained
charge:
[a bear rampant contourny sustaining a halberd]
Regarding the "significance" of the halberd, as Green Crown
noted, a charge consisting mostly of a long skinny handle will
always have difficulty matching the visual weight of other
charges, but here the sizes of the charges are about the same
as would be expected if they were in fess a bear and a
halberd. That seems to be a reasonable rule of thumb for
determining sustained (and qualifying for a CD), as opposed to
maintained (and not qualifying for a CD), charges. (LoAR
September 1994 p. 9)
In arms with a sea-lion and a sword in fess, the
sword would be as long as the sea-lion is tall. Therefore, this
sword should be considered a sustained charge. [Atlantia,
Kingdom of, 02/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[Azure, a camel rampant Or wearing a hat gules and maintaining
in its mouth a bottle fesswise reversed vert] The hat (which
functions as a maintained charge) and the maintained bottle both
have insufficient contrast with the field. This is acceptable for
maintained charges, which are not worth difference, as long as
the charge in question has some contrast with the field.
[Xenos the Butcher, 06/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[Purpure, a wyvern sejant maintaining a sword bendwise and in
chief two thistles argent] The sword is drawn in an
unrecognizable fashion. While the recognizability of maintained
charges is not expected to be as good as the recognizability of
primary or secondary charges, here the identifying hilt of the
sword lies entirely on the wyvern, which is the same tincture.
[William Cormac Britt, 07/2002,
R-Meridies]
[a sword proper supporting on its point a pair of scales]
Note that the LoAR of July 1992 gives both supporting and
sustaining as equivalent terms used to identify co-primary
charges: "Either sustaining or supporting will be
used when a "held" charge is of comparable size to the beast
holding it; maintaining will continue to be used when the
held charge is of negligible heraldic difference." [Conrad
Tolbert Regnault, 10/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[in pale a thistle proper issuant from a tower] We have
used the blazon phrase in pale to indicate that the
thistle and tower are co-primary charges. The blazon A thistle
proper issuant from a tower sable implies that the thistle
would be a maintained charge. [Derek of Ildhafn, 01/2003,
A-Caid]
[an arrow Or sustained by two stags combatant] The arrow
is much thinner than the stags, but it is as tall as the stags,
and the three charges could easily be blazoned as in fess. Prior
precedent indicates that because these charges are about the same
size as a group of charges in fess, the arrow is therefore a
sustained charge rather than a maintained charge:
[registering Azure, a bear rampant contourny sustaining a
halberd between, in chief, two mullets of eight points
argent.] Regarding the "significance" of the halberd, as
Green Crown noted, a charge consisting mostly of a long skinny
handle will always have difficulty matching the visual weight
of other charges, but here the sizes of the charges are about
the same as would be expected if they were in fess a bear and a
halberd. That seems to be a reasonable rule of thumb for
determining sustained (and qualifying for a CD), as opposed to
maintained (and not qualifying for a CD), charges. (LoAR
September 1994)
[Gearoid MacEgan, 08/2003,
A-Artemisia]
[Quarterly gules and azure, in bend sinister a Danish axe
sustained by a bear rampant contourny argent] This is clear
of conflict with the Barony of Bjornsborg, ...(Fieldless) A
bear statant erect reguardant contourny supporting a berdiche
blade to sinister argent. There is one CD for fieldlessness.
There is another CD for arrangement: the Bjornsborg bear and its
sustained axe are in the default arrangment for a statant erect
beast sustaining a polearm (in fess), while the charges in this
submission are in bend sinister. [Leifr Vagnsson, 09/2003,
A-Outlands]
This does not conflict with ... (Fieldless) A wyvern erect
supporting by its hub a wheel Or. There is one CD for
fieldlessness and a second CD for the supported charge. Per the
LoAR of July 1992, "Either sustaining or supporting
will be used when a 'held' charge is of comparable size to the
beast holding it; maintaining will continue to be used
when the held charge is of negligible heraldic difference."
[Godwin of Edington, 10/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[a talbot passant maintaining a cross of Calatrava] The
talbot was originally blazoned as sustaining the cross of
Calatrava. Per the Cover Letter to the LoAR of October 1996,
"Maintained charges are small and do not count for difference.
Sustained charges are large - large enough in fact that if they
were not being held that they would be considered a co-primary,
and do count for difference." In this case, while the cross of
Calatrava is not a miniscule charge, it is not large enough to be
considered a co-primary charge. It is smaller than the talbot
both vertically and horizontally and has notably less visual
weight than the talbot. Because the SCA's only choices for held
charges are to consider them to be sustained co-primary charges,
or to consider them maintained insignificant charges, and this
cross cannot be considered a co-primary charge, it must be
considered a maintained charge. [Susannah Griffon,
12/2003,
R-Calontir]
CHARGE --
Miscellaneous
The Pictorial Dictionary indicates that a
pair of deer's horns conjoined in this fashion may be blazoned as
a deer's attires or as a massacre. The former term
is closer to the submitted blazon. [Colin de Vire,
09/2001,
A-Calontir]
[Sable, three braziers Or enflamed proper] This submission
is clear of conflict with Seamus Gillemore, Sable, a brazier
argent flaming Or. There is one CD for changing the number of
the braziers. In both these armories the brazier pan is half the
charge. Therefore, three-fourths of the charge tincture has
changed: all of the brazier pan and half the tincture of the
flames. Changing half or more of the tincture of the charge group
is a second CD. [Sigmund Spelmann, 10/2001,
A-Lochac]
[tennis racket] There is a strong pattern of use of
constructed artifacts from all walks of life in period heraldry.
The type of tennis racket drawn here is late 16th C and, as the
defining example in the SCA, is now the default tennis racket.
[Bertrand du Beaumanoir, 11/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
The College could not find evidence for round artist's palettes
in period heraldry or as a period artifact. Without documentation
for a round palette, this charge may not be registered.
[Manuela Ponçe, 11/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[An open penannular brooch bendwise sinister Or] Conflict
with a badge of Brendan Mad, Vert, a round buckle Or.
There is one CD for the field. With the best will in the world we
could not give a CD between a round buckle and a penannular
brooch, when the outlines are so close to identical. Recall that
the direction of the pin of the buckle is artistic license.
[Bríd uí Chon na Mara, 11/2001,
R-Caid]
[an arm embowed and couped above the elbow] The arm as
drawn here blurs the distinction between a cubit arm and an arm
embowed. A cubit arm is couped just below the elbow, and an arm
embowed is couped just below the shoulder. This should be
resubmitted with a standard form of arm. [Anne Balfour of
Markinch, 12/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[a fanged tooth] As noted in the Pictorial
Dictionary, "In mundane heraldry, the tooth is normally
depicted as a human molar, with the roots extending to base
[736]; it is blazoned (somewhat confusingly) as a 'fanged
tooth'." [Owein Deykin, 01/2002,
A-Meridies]
[a pillar sable surmounted by a horse passant] While the
pillar and horse combination were universally found to be
evocative of a carousel horse, it does not appear to be so
obtrusively modern as to warrant return. Please note a very
similar design found in the period arms of v. König, Siebmacher
f. 146, Azure a pillar Or surmounted by a horse salient
argent. [Micaela Leslie, 02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[(Fieldless) A saltcellar shedding salt argent] ... given
the period canting badge of a daisy (also known as a marguerite)
for someone with the given name Marguerite, quite appropriate.
(It makes sense that canting badges, which are personal, might
refer to the given name, while canting arms, which apply to whole
families of people with different given names, apply to the
surname.)
According to the Pictorial Dictionary, when a saltcellar
is drawn shedding salt, the salt must be explicitly blazoned, and
so we have added that information into the blazon. We wish the
submitter better luck than we had in clearly enunciating the
phrase "Yseulte's saltcellar shedding salt by the seashore".
[Yseulte Trevelyn, 02/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[tripod pipkins] The charges in chief were blazoned as
pots on the LoI, and as pipkins by the submitter.
An SCA default pot lacks the prominent side handle and legs on
this charge. We have thus reblazoned them as tripod
pipkins. Tripod pipkins are small to medium sized pottery
vessels used for cooking from the 15th C. They are round vessels
with a horizontal handle and three legs in a tripod
configuration. The handle is to dexter by default.
For an easily available reference on pipkins, see The Medieval
Ceramic Industry of the Severn Valley, Alan Vince,
specifically chap. 7 (Pottery forms and Typology, subheading Food
Preparation Vessels, Pipkins). This unpublished thesis may be
found on-line at http://www.postex.demon.co.uk/thesis/thesis.htm.
Also according to this thesis, the same shaped vessel made of
metal (rather than of pottery) would be called a tripod
skillet by archeologists. A picture of a tripod skillet,
which is the same shape as these pipkins, may be found on p. 162
of The Medieval Household, Geoff Egan, Medieval Science
from Excavations in London: 6, to describe a vessel of this
shape. [Artemisia di Serena, 02/2002,
A-Caid]
[Gules, in pall inverted three feathers conjoined at the quill
argent] This is also clear of conflict with ... Gules, a
feather fan argent, handled Or. There is substantial
difference for purposes of RfS X.2 between a feather and a
feather fan. [Nakano Zenjirou Tadamasa, 02/2002,
A-Calontir]
After due consideration, the visual differences between tankards
and mortars and pestles are sufficient for a CD. [Elizabeth
Rea, 02/2002,
A-Meridies]
[a chaine shot] This depiction of the chaine shot is from
the 1611 edition of Guillim's A Display of Heraldrie,
which is within our grey area for documentation. The chaine shot
was found as a period item before 1600: the term
chaine-shot is found in the Compact Oxford English
Dictionary (new edition) dated 1581 under the heading
chain-shot. This emblazon matches Parker's depiction of
the same charge, showing that it became a standard depiction.
[Víkingr Járnhauss inn Hárlangi, 02/2002,
A-Merdies]
[a coffin] Coffins have only been registered twice in the
SCA, the last time in 1985. The coffins in this submission, as in
the previous submissions, are six-sided shapes following the
outline of the top of a hexagonal coffin palewise. Thus, the
basemost side ("foot") is narrower than the chiefmost side
("head") and the wide point separating the other four sides is at
shoulder height. A number of commenters asked whether this was a
period coffin shape and whether coffins were found in period
heraldry.
No evidence was presented, and none could be found, for coffins
as charges in period heraldry. Given the wide diversity of
constructed items found in period heraldry, a coffin should be an
acceptable charge as long as it is drawn so that it would be
recognizable to a period viewer as a coffin.
No evidence was presented, and none could be found, that the
shape in this submission was a period coffin shape. Some
documentation for coffins was found, consisting of pictures of
coffins in illuminated manuscripts showing funeral services,
pictures of existing funeral palls in embroidery references (used
for draping over a coffin), and a description of one existing
child's coffin c. 1400. These references all showed coffins with
four-sided tops. The tops were mostly rectangular, but some
coffins had trapezoidal tops, so that the "head" was wider than
the "foot". Without documentation for the shape of coffin in this
submission, it may not be registered.
The coffins in illustrations of funeral services were all shown
from the side (during the service, or carried by pallbearers).
The top-only view of the previous coffin registrations therefore
seems somewhat unlikely. Future attempts to register coffins
should not only address the shape of a period coffin, but should
address how a period coffin would be drawn so that a period
viewer would recognize it as a coffin (rather than another sort
of box or chest). [Constance MacLeod, 02/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[a pickaxe argent hafted ... proper] The pickaxe,
following the proper defined for axes in the Pictorial
Dictionary, has a haft of wood proper. [Óláfr Ljótarson af
Øy, 02/2002,
R-Meridies]
[an aeolipile argent and in base a flame proper] The
aeolipile is a primitive steam engine, described (and
possibly invented) by Hero of Alexandria in his
Pneumatica, written in approximately 150 B.C. This work
was translated into Italian by Aleotti in 1547, although the work
became best known through a Latin translation by F. Commandine in
1575. An English translation of this work is available at
http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/hero/index.html. Section
50 shows the steam engine and the translator's preface provides
useful information about the history of the manuscript.
The aeolipile has a small sphere on the top. The sphere rotates
due to jets of steam which issue from two bent tubes on opposite
sides of the sphere. The sphere rests on a large closed basin
which is heated to produce the steam. The basin is generally
drawn in a form resembling a covered footed cauldron. The basin
is apparently heated by a fire placed under the basin, between
its feet.
In all the illustrations provided in the documentation provided
with the submission, and in the excellent citations provided by
Eastern Crown, the basin is larger than the sphere. In this
submission, the basin is much smaller than the sphere (and would
probably not generate enough steam to rotate the sphere). The
basin in this emblazon is not only small, but it has an unusual
shape: it is shaped like a shallow, wide trapezoid, without any
supporting feet. The overall outline of the charge is therefore
substantially different from those in the illustrations of the
aeolipile, and it cannot be considered an acceptable emblazon of
an aeolipile.
The illustrations of aeolipiles in the documentation are
consistent enough that a correctly drawn aeolipile should be
acceptable for registration. The exact disposition of the steam
shooters on the sphere should be left to the artist rather than
explicitly blazoned. The flame under the basin is not an integral
part of the aeolipile charge: it is present in some illustrations
and omitted in others. If present in the armory it should be
explicitly blazoned, as was done in this submission. [Ann of
Banningham, 04/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Sable, a flint between four furisons in saltire steels to
center Or] The flint emits small tongues of flame, which are
part of the standard depiction of the flint. The exact nature and
disposition of the flames is artistic license. The easiest place
to find the combination of furisons and flints in period heraldry
is in items of Burgundian origin, because the furison and flint
combination is a Burgundian badge. See, for example, the picture
of a Burgundian Standard from 1476-1477 (although painted in
1616) in Colin Campbell's Medieval Flags, p. 17, where the
flint and steel are shown around the picture of S. Thomas at the
hoist and incorporated elsewhere on the standard. In that
example, as with this armory, the flames emitting from the flint
are strewn to quite some distance away from the flint itself. The
flint and furison also are used in the collar of the Order of the
Golden Fleece. The collar is of linked flints and furisons. Each
flint is between the steels of two respectant furisons. Due to
the limitations of the metal medium of the collar (which requires
that all the pieces be conjoined), the flames are only conjoined
to the flint in the livery collar instead of being strewn out to
a further distance. One nice portrait showing the collar of the
Order is that of Antoine the "Grand bâtard" of Burgundy by Rogier
van der Weyden in 1449, which is figure 250 of Lorne Campbell's
Renaissance Portraits. [Julianna Neuneker Hirsch von
Schutzhundheim, 05/2002,
A-Caid]
[a trebuchet at full release] ... please note that the
trebuchet drawn here is not the SCA default sort of catapult or
in its default posture. As noted in the Pictorial
Dictionary:
The type [of catapult] in most common use in medieval times was
called a "trebuchet" or "swepe": powered by gravity, it used a
long lever arm and a heavy counterweight. This is the most
common type in Society heraldry... All types of catapult are
depicted by default in their "rest" position, with the arm
neither cocked and ready, nor at full release.
The catapult here drawn here does appear to be of
the trebuchet variety, but it does not have a "long lever arm".
Other catapult research has shown that the Pictorial
Dictionary is correct in its statement that trebuchets have
long lever arms. The illustration in the Pictorial
Dictionary shows a lever arm that is roughly three times
longer from the pivot to the basket (for the projectile) than the
length from the pivot to the counterweight. The trebuchet in this
submission, in contrast, has a short lever arm. The length of the
arm from the pivot to the basket is less than than the length
from the pivot to the counterweight. This changes the overall
visual proportions of the charge (as well as, we strongly
suspect, its physics) so substantially that in order to register
this emblazon we would need documentation for this form of
catapult.
The posture of the catapult is also not the default "rest"
position (with the lever arm bendwise sinister, with the
counterweight in dexter base and the basket in sinister chief),
but at full release (with the lever arm palewise, with the
counterweight to base and the basket to chief). We have thus
blazoned the posture of the catapult explicitly. [An Tir,
Kingdom of, 05/2002,
R-An Tir]
A ribbon is not an acceptable heraldic charge. To quote the
summary of the September 1994 analysis: "There seems to be no
compelling reason to register the ribbon as an heraldic charge"
(LoAR 9/94, pp. 15-16). Please see that LoAR for more details
about the ribbon as a heraldic charge. [Ophelia Osborne,
05/2002,
R-Meridies]
The Pictorial Dictionary notes that a scourge has three
lashes and the handle to base by default. This scourge is drawn
with the lashes separated widely, so the three lashes and handle
form somewhat of a cross, although the tips of all three lashes
bend towards the chief. The usual depiction of a scourge (as in
the Pictorial Dictionary) shows the lashes closer
together, mostly pointing to chief. This seems like a reasonable
artistic variant of the default scourge, particularly given the
space this charge must fill. [Laura de Givet, 06/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[Sable, a valknut inverted argent] The Letter of Intent
asked us to rule on whether the valknut should continue to be
registered. As noted in the LoAR of September 1993, the valknut
is a period artistic motif which was not used in period heraldry.
It was incorporated into SCA heraldry and has been registered
infrequently but steadily thereafter. The September 1993 argument
in favor of the valknut's registration appears to continue to
hold true. It is identifiable when inverted, just as a triangle
is identifiable when inverted.
Would-be users of the valknut should take note of the fact that
its "thin-line" nature can make it difficult to identify. Poor
contrast, small size or overlying charges are all likely to
render it unidentifiable. Since this device uses the valknut as
the only charge on a high contrast field, it maintains its
identifiability splendidly. [Esteban de Quesada, 06/2002,
A-Lochac]
[bear's paw prints] There were some other concerns about
the artwork. Pawprints do not show this degree of disarticulation
in nature: generally the 'toes' may be separated from the 'pads'
but there is no separation between the joints of the toes in the
pawprint. This emblazon shows too many separate pieces of the
toes to be a pawprint. Charges should be drawn either in a period
heraldic stylization (where available) or in a recognizable
naturalistic style. Since pawprints are not found in period
heraldry, it is all the more important that they be drawn
recognizably. [Dagun Karababagai, 07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[a hawk's bell] The bell was originally blazoned as a
crotal bell. A crotal bell, according to the Oxford
English Dictionary, is a "small globular or pear-shaped bell or
rattle, the nature and use of which are obscure". The word
crotal dates from the 12th C. Because the term
crotal bell is not found in most common dictionaries of
the English language, and because it is not a standard heraldic
term, we have blazoned the bell as a hawk's bell, the
standard heraldic term for this charge. [Remus Fletcher,
08/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Or, a pair of eyeglass frames sable] The defining
eyeglasses in the SCA are in the armory for the Order of the Grey
Beard (originally registered in Meridies in August 1984, since
transferred to Trimaris): Per pale sable and azure, in saltire
a crutch Or and a sword inverted proper, in chief a pair of
eyeglasses argent, stringed Or. The eyeglasses in that
submission have solid argent lenses and Or strings for the
earpieces and nosepiece. This indicates that the default SCA
eyeglasses have solidly tinctured lenses, rather than transparent
lenses. This matches other SCA practices for glass charges, as
noted in the following precedent: "The lantern with its
transparent 'glass' is not done in a period manner. As was noted
in the commentary, the College has a long history of disallowing
transparent objects." (LoAR August 1991 p.22).
A pair of eyeglasses blazoned with a single tincture should thus
be emblazoned with the lenses and the frames in that single
tincture. It is also acceptable to have the frames of eyeglasses
in a different tincture than the lenses. A standard SCA blazon
for such a design would be (for an example with an Or frame and
vert lenses) A pair of eyeglasses Or lensed vert. Note
that research on period eyeglasses shows that early eyeglasses
invariably had frames: it does not appear that the eyeglasses in
the badge for the Order of the Grey Beard, without any frame to
rigidly hold the lenses in place, are a period sort of
eyeglasses. As a result, a pair of eyeglass frames is also
an acceptable charge. In such a charge, there would be no lenses
present, and the field would show through where the lenses would
ordinarily be.
This submission could either be blazoned as a pair of
eyeglasses sable lensed Or or a pair of eyeglass frames
sable. Since the submitter also has a fieldless badge using
black eyeglass frames and missing (or transparent) lenses, the
latter term has been used for both pieces of armory. [Edward
Glass, 08/2002,
A-East]
[on a chamfron azure a cross patonce argent] Please advise
the submitter to draw a more standard chamfron. Chamfrons in
heraldry generally have a more distinct "scoop" where the eyes
are. Chamfrons in heraldry generally have rounded bottoms to
follow the outline of the horse's nose, rather than squared
bottoms as in this emblazon.
Most chamfrons in period heraldry do not include pieces covering
the horse's ears. While the SCA accepts chamfrons with ear
pieces, the ear pieces hamper the identifiability of the charge
and should be drawn with care.
In this emblazon, both the chamfron and the charge on it maintain
their identifiability. Therefore, this submission may be
registered, even though in the past a particular piece of armory
was returned because the charge on the chamfron interfered with
the identifiability of the underlying chamfron. As a general
rule, adding a tertiary charge to an underlying charge should not
interfere with the identifiability of the underlying charge, and
any such interference may be a reason for return. [Constancia
Tattersall, 09/2002,
A-An Tir]
[a toy top Or charged with a bar embowed to base purpure]
This is the SCA's defining instance of a toy top. It is shaped,
roughly, like an inverted onion dome. This shape of top is shown
in the Brueghel painting of 1560, "Young Folk at Play (Children's
Games)", which can be seen at
http://www.ahs.uwaterloo.ca/~museum/Brueghel/tops.html.
The bar on the top was originally blazoned as a "stripe", with a
suggestion that it be an artistic detail. Because the stripe is
so prominent, much more prominent than the stripes on tigers or
other animals for which striping is an acceptable artistic
detail, the stripe functions as a tertiary charge and must be
blazoned accordingly. [Máire of Skye, 10/2002,
A-East]
[an hourglass] The College of Arms generally felt that the
hourglass would be more recognizable with vertical posts on the
sides of the frame. This hourglass is drawn with the standard top
and bottom plate, but without any vertical side posts holding the
top and bottom plates together. However, hourglasses without side
posts were noted to be a "standard Society depiction" of an
hourglass, so this depiction is acceptable: "...with the
hourglass drawn in one of its standard Society depictions (i.e.,
without the posts)" (LoAR 26 November 1989). We encourage the
submitter to draw future renditions of the hourglass with the
posts to enhance the identifiability of the charge. [Nathaniel
Grendel the Red, 11/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[an eye] The eye was drawn with an arc of dots hovering
over the top of the eye roughly where one would expect the lashes
to end. We know of no way to blazon these dots, but they were so
small that they are being treated as an unblazonable artist's
detail. [Nadira bint Rashid, 12/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[a two-man cross-cut saw] The saw in this submission is
not the default frame saw as shown in the Pictorial
Dictionary. This saw has a fesswise blade with teeth at the
bottom and a handle at each end extending up over the back of the
blade. This sort of saw is illustrated in Hans Sachs and Jost
Amman's 1568 Book of Trades for der Zimmerman (the
carpenter). In the 1973 Dover edition of this book, the
illustration is on p. 95. The Book of Trades does not name
this saw; other research suggests that it be termed a two-man
cross-cut saw and we have so blazoned it. [Tancred of
Tangewood, 12/2002,
A-Ealdomere]
The cloud is not drawn in a period manner and is not acceptable:
"Additionally, the cloud here is not drawn in a period manner,
but is the modern "cotton candy" form of cloud." (LoAR February
1994 p.18). [Mara Fae, 12/2002,
R-Outlands]
The nail was originally blazoned as a glazier's nail. The
standard SCA term, which matches the term used in the blazon of
the Worshipful Company of Glaziers, is closing nail.
[Alianor atte Red Swanne, 01/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[Sable, a lion's tail nowed in a Cavendish knot Or] The
College had significant concerns with the identifiability of the
lion's tail as drawn here. Lion's tails are mostly identifiable
due to the prominent tuft at the end of the tail. This nowed tail
does not have a prominent tuft at the end. There is some
"feathering" along the rest of the tail, but this is insufficient
to allow the charge to be identified as a lion's tail. This needs
to be redrawn with an identifiable lion's tail.
The Cavendish knot is a standard knot for a nowed tail, but the
exact type of knot is generally artist's license. Because in a
tail-only charge the type of knot has significant visual impact,
we have blazoned the type of knot explicitly.
This does not conflict with ... Pean, a lion's tail
queue-forchee erect Or. There is one CD for changing the
field. When the tails are charges by themselves (rather than
being attached to a lion), there is CD for the difference between
a tail nowed and a tail queue-forché that is not nowed. [Sadb
ingen uí Cherbaill, 01/2003,
R-Calontir]
No documentation was presented for a piece of paper as a heraldic
charge. The charge drawn here is a four-sided charge at an angle
between palewise and bendwise sinister. The chiefmost and
basemost sides of the charge are slightly embowed-counterembowed,
and the other two sides are straight. This therefore cannot
easily be reblazoned as a lozenge, billet or other standard
heraldic charge. Without documentation for this charge, and
because of its intermediate orientation between the standard
heraldic orientations, it may not be accepted. [Jacobina of
White Moor, 01/2003,
R-East]
Baker's peels are wood-colored when proper. [Atlantia, Kingdom
of, 02/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[two brushes in saltire sable bristled "brown"] The
brushes in the Letter of Intent were blazoned as sable handled
proper. However, the brushes in the emblazon have sable
handles and brown bristles. There is no defined default tincture
for an artist's brush. Thus, this is not a reasonable depiction
of a proper brush. As the brush cannot otherwise be blazoned
accurately, it must be returned. [Dorothea Manuela Ponçe,
02/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[a candle fesswise] With the best will in the world, we
could not identify the charge in chief as a candle or as any
other heraldic charge. This is not acceptable by RfS VII.7.a. A
lit candle is much easier to identify, as the flame helps the
overall identifiability of the charge. It is possible to draw an
unlit candle in an identifiable fashion but this candle is drawn
unusually, with spiky shapes at the wick end (possibly meant as
wax drippings) that confuse the outline of the charge. Candles
are almost always depicted palewise, so the unusual orientation
of the charge may also contribute to the difficulty in
identifiability. [John Chandler, 02/2003,
R-Middle]
[beacons enflamed] The submitter has drawn the beacons
with the standard fire-basket on top and the standard supporting
poles. The beacons do not include a ladder from the base of the
charge to the basket.
The ladder is mentioned as part of the charge in all the period
real-world sources we have found that illustrate or describe a
beacon, and also in the Pictorial Dictionary. Please
advise the submitter to draw the beacons with a ladder.
The submitter has also drawn the beacons with a small flat piece
of ground under the legs of the beacon. We were not certain
whether this should be an acceptable variant of the charge. None
of the sources stated that a beacon should have ground beneath
the legs of the tripod. However, Fox-Davies' A Complete Guide
to Heraldry depicts the beacons with such a small piece of
ground beneath the legs. In addition, Guillim (second edition,
1632) depicts the beacon with a supporting cross-bar beneath the
legs. The piece of ground depicted here is not much larger than
the reinforcing cross-bar in the Guillim illustration. In SCA
registration history, beacons have been registered with the small
piece of ground under the legs, as in the arms of Gunnar
Eriksson.
While the piece of ground under the legs of the beacon is not
standard, and should not be encouraged, the SCA and real-world
examples imply that it is a registerable artistic variant of the
charge. [Wenyeva atte grene, 03/2003,
A-An Tir]
[on a Mongolian yurt argent an owl sable] Please also
advise the submitter to be careful when drawing the yurt. Yurts
generally have a visible door flap, and do not have such
pronounced vertical bar details (which presumably depict seams).
The combination of the bird and the depiction of the yurt led
some commenters to perceive this emblazon as an owl and a
birdcage, rather than an owl and a yurt. [Alfgeirr skytja,
03/2003,
A-Calontir]
The charge blazoned by the submitter as a Lombardic
griffin was taken from a 7th C shield ornament found in a
grave. The term Lombardic griffin was from a museum Web
site that described the shield ornament. The charge looks
somewhat like a bird close with its head down, its back humped,
and an unusually stylized face (more like a sheep's face than a
bird's face).
RfS VII.2 states that "Use of an element in period art does not
guarantee its acceptability for armory." The College felt
strongly that this artistic element from period is not compatible
with period heraldic design and is thus not acceptable for SCA
armory.
The College also felt that the "Lombardic griffin" charge
submitted here could not be considered an acceptable artistic
variant of a standard heraldic charge (such as a generic bird
close). It certainly is not an acceptable artistic variant of the
heraldic griffin, which is a winged quadruped with the back half
of a lion, the front half of an eagle (including eagle foreclaws)
and mammalian ears (generally, but not always, drawn as pointed
ears in period).
As this charge is not a variant of a period heraldic charge, and
is not an artistic motif which is compatible with heraldic style,
it may not be accepted. [Clef of Cividale, 03/2003,
R-Calontir]
[An armored leg erased at the calf argent in a stirrup with
leather Or] .... it was difficult to identify the stirrup.
Stirrups in heraldry are generally drawn as affronty charges
rather than charges in profile as this stirrup is drawn. The
stirrup, of course, is forced to be in a profile position because
the leg is through the stirrup, and the leg is in profile. Still,
please advise the Kingdom to take care to draw the stirrup so
that it is clearly identifiable.
Please also advise the Kingdom that the leather through the top
of the stirrup would be more identifiable if it were drawn with a
clearly visible buckle, or even if it were twisted to show the
strap face on rather than from the side. We have explicitly
blazoned the leather as, according to the Pictorial
Dictionary, the default stirrup in the SCA does not include
the leather. [Middle, Kingdom of the, 03/2003,
R-Middle]
[a hawk's hood facing to dexter] Some members of the
College had concerns about the identifiability of the hawk's
hood, and asked if it should be considered an acceptable charge.
As noted in the Pictorial Dictionary, "Though a period
artifact, the hawk's hood was evidently not used in period
armory. It doesn't seem to have a default posture: the
illustration. . . shows a hawk's hood facing to dexter." RfS
VII.3, "Period Artifacts", states: "Artifacts that were known in
the period and domain of the Society may be registered in armory,
provided they are depicted in their period forms." As a period
artifact, a hawk's hood is an acceptable charge, as long as it is
drawn in a period form. The hawk's hood as drawn in this
submission (which is very similar to the one in the Pictorial
Dictionary) is drawn in a period form, and was quite
identifiable to people at the meeting who had some knowledge of
falconry (which was a very popular sport of the nobility in
period).
The device does not conflict with ... Argent, six hawk's heads
erased azure armed Or. There is a CD for changing the number
of charges. RfS X.4.e states: "A charge not used in period armory
will be considered different in type if its shape in normal
depiction is significantly different." As a hawk's hood was not a
period charge, we must compare the normal depictions of a hawk's
head and a hawk's hood to determine the difference between them.
The shape of a hawk's head, with its prominent beak, is
significantly different than the shape of a hawk's hood, with no
protruding beak. There is thus a CD between a hawk's head and a
hawk's hood. [Edmund Wolfe, 07/2003,
A-Atlantia]
Please advise the submitter to draw the spear tips so that they
are clearly spearpoints, rather than lozenges. Spear tips are
drawn with a more pronounced attachment (ferrule) at the bottom
of the charge, and are more elongated than the charges drawn
here. [Celestine Albret de Morat, 08/2003,
A-Meridies]
The triangle inverted voided ployé fleury at the points
azure may have been considered a single charge in German
armory. However, this single charge is not heraldically distinct
from three fleurs-de-lys conjoined in pall azure. We do
not give difference between three charges and three conjoined
charges when both groups of charges are in in the same
orientation and arrangement. This is noted in the following
precedent, which specifically treats of charges in annulo: "There
is no difference between charges in annulo and charges in annulo
which are also conjoined, although the conjoining must be
blazoned when present" (LoAR January 2002).
As a result, this only has one CD from ... Or, three
fleurs-de-lys in pall bases to center azure. There is one CD
for fieldlessness but nothing for conjoining the fleurs-de-lys.
[Sonnet Manon, 08/2003,
R-An Tir]
[three tanner's bench ends] The SCA has not yet registered
a tanner's bench end, and thus if this were registered, it
would be the defining instance of this charge in the SCA. No
documentation was provided in the LoI for this charge. The
College was consistent in stating that it is necessary to
document a defining instance of a charge as noted in a number of
precedents, for example: "This is being returned for lack of
documentation. We can find no indication that a 'muffin cap' has
ever been registered before in the SCA. As a consequence, this
would be the defining instance of the charge. Previous Laurel
Sovereigns of Arms have held new charges to the same standard of
documentation and have return them for lacking it, c.f. a winch
(Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR 9/92, p. 42), a Mongol helm
(Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR 12/92, p. 15), a zalktis
(Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR 1/93, p. 28) and a Viking
tent arch (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR 5/94, p. 17)" (August 1997 LoAR,
p. 16).
Although the LoI did not provide documentation for this charge,
the submitter's form noted that the tanner's bench end is
described in Neubecker's Heraldry, Sources Symbols and
Meaning on p. 138. This page depicts two charges on
escutcheons, one appearing to be an inversion of the other. The
one on the sinister-most escutcheon is the same as the charge
submitted here as a tanner's bench end. The caption for
these illustrations states, "The heraldic documents which have
been handed down to us contain many a secret. Many everyday
objects remain unidentified. Often the profession or the name of
the bearer of the arms holds their explanation. Though obscure,
the two figures on these escutcheons are actually front ends of
the special benches on which the tanners stretch their hides to
clean them." Neubecker also provides a picture of a tanner's
bench.
Unfortunately, Neubecker does not provide a date for these
charges, for the illustrations of the charges, or for the
tanner's bench. As a result, we cannot use the documentation
provided by the submitter to demonstrate that tanner's bench ends
were used in period heraldry. Nor can we demonstrate that a
tanner's bench is a period artifact, and that the end of the
bench would be a reasonable separatable piece of the artifact to
use as a heraldic charge. Wreath and her staff did some further
research but were unable to document this charge outside of the
one citation from Neubecker mentioned above.
We thus do not have sufficient evidence to show that a tanner's
bench end is a charge that is compatible with period heraldry. It
is certainly quite unfortunate that the Letter of Intent omitted
the submitter's documentation from Neubecker, which may have
helped the College with its researches, but the College did
research this charge and did not find it. While it would not
surprise us to learn that this charge was period, without
adequate documentation for this charge, this device must be
returned. [Ormwyn of Aclei, 09/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[two teapots spouts to sinister] This submission would be
the defining instance of a teapot in the SCA. Precedent is
consistent in indicating that defining instances of charges need
to be documented as being appropriate for SCA use: "This is being
returned for lack of documentation. We can find no indication
that a 'muffin cap' has ever been registered before in the SCA.
As a consequence, this would be the defining instance of the
charge. Previous Laurel Sovereigns of Arms have held new charges
to the same standard of documentation and have return them for
lacking it, c.f. a winch (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR
9/92, p. 42), a Mongol helm (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR
12/92, p. 15), a zalktis (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR
1/93, p. 28) and a Viking tent arch (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR 5/94,
p. 17)" (LoAR August 1997, p. 16).
The provided documentation does not clearly document the "teapot"
vessel used in this submission as being appropriate for SCA
heraldry:
- The depiction of the vessel in the submission was not
documented as having been used in Western Europe in
period. The vessel depicted here resembles a common form
of modern teapot: it is a squat cylindrical vessel, with a
domed top (with a ball handle in the middle of the top), a
"[" shaped handle on the dexter side of the cylinder, a
curved spout coming up from the lower part of the sinister
side of the cylinder, and a short wide flared foot extending
down from the bottom of the cylinder. No documentation was
presented or found indicating that this form of vessel was
known in Western Europe in period, either under the name
"teapot" or under another name.
- No evidence was presented that a teapot would have
been known in Western Europe before 1600. The research on
the history of tea in the West (as provided by the submitter,
the College, and Wreath's staff) reached the general
consensus that tea arrived in Europe via the Portuguese
directly from China in the early or mid 17th C. Thus, unlike
coffee (which was present in the neighboring Middle East
during our period, and known to Western Europeans), it is
quite likely that the beverage now known as tea, and any
vessels used to brew it, would not have been known to Western
Europeans in our period.
Until documentation is provided showing that this
vessel is a vessel which was known to Western Europeans in
period, it may not be registered. The vessel may only be
registered under the name "teapot" if documentation is provided
showing that this form of vessel would have been identified as a
teapot by Western Europeans in period.
Note that we have blazoned the teapots in this submission
explicitly as spouts to sinister. Other vessels in period
or SCA heraldry (such as ewers or tankards) default to having
their handles to sinister and their pouring lip (when present) to
dexter. [Auguste of Ben Dunfirth, 09/2003,
R-Ealdormere]
[(Fieldless) A cross patonce azure] This does not conflict
with Morgana Elisabetta Rosatti, (Fieldless) A cross fleury
azure irradiated Or. Irradiated charges, when drawn
correctly, are a CD from non-irradiated charges. Brooke-Little's
An Heraldic Alphabet, defines irradiated as
"Surrounded by rays of light. An irradiated charge is usually
shown as if it were charged on a sun." The irradiated cross here
is drawn appropriately, with very pronounced irradiation. There
is thus one CD for fieldlessness, and a second CD for the
irradiation. [Brigit Gilbertstoune, 11/2003,
R-Atlantia]
There is substantial (RfS X.2) difference between arrows and
crampons. [Diethelm Waltorfer, 12/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
There is one difference for changing the field but none for
changing a double- to a single-horned anvil. [Daniel de
Blare, 12/2003,
R-West]
[a Thor's hammer inverted vs. a stone hammer] Both the
Thor's hammer inverted and the stone hammer have their heads to
chief and their handles to base, so there is no change in charge
orientation. A stone hammer has a head in the shape of a billet
fesswise. Because the Thor's hammer is not a period heraldic
charge, its difference from other types of charge must be
determined on visual grounds per RfS X.4.e, and there is not
sufficient visual difference between a stone hammer and a Thor's
hammer inverted to give a CD. [Corwyn de Wemyss, 01/2004,
R-An Tir]
[a plow] This is the defining instance of a plow in the
SCA. The plow is taken from a depiction in Neubecker's
Heraldry: Sources, Symbols and Meaning, p. 139, which
illustrates an armorially decorated table of the Tanner's Guild
of Solothurn (dated to 1594). Note that the upright handle
portion of the plow is palewise and to sinister. The remainder of
the plow dips a bit (as is sensible for an item designed to dig
into the earth) so its bottom edge is not quite fesswise but is
slightly bendwise sinister. Presumably the handle is the charge's
reference point, not the digging blades. [Alan the Strong,
03/2004,
A-Æthelmearc]
CHARGE --
Overall
[a fret surmounted by a badger statant] An
overall charge should lie mostly on the field. Here the badger
lies almost entirely on the fret. This is not stylistically
acceptable by long-standing precedent. [Muirgheal inghean
Raghailligh mhic Seachnasaigh, 08/2001,
R-Atenveldt]
[(Fieldless) A comet purpure overall a crescent azure] The
crescent has too high a proportion of overlap with the comet to
be acceptable. This must be returned as per the cover letter with
the November 1992 LoAR, which permitted overall charges in
fieldless badges only if the area of overlap is small and all
charges identifiable. [Shajar al-Yaasmeen, 09/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
[a pole-axe gules overall in pale a wolf statant contourny and
a stag trippant] This submission is comprised of a primary
charge of an axe with an overall charge group of a wolf statant
contourny and a stag trippant. This is not technically "slot
machine" heraldry as it does not have a single charge group with
more than two types of charge. However, there seem to be no
period examples of an overall charge group comprised of two
different animals. Since overall charge groups are relatively
rare in period, and most of them are ordinaries, this seems to be
beyond the bounds of period style. [Eric Martel, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
[a spiderweb argent overall a rose bendwise sinister
gules] The overall charge does not have the necessary good
contrast with the underlying field, and therefore this must be
returned for reasons of contrast. [Toghan Temur, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
Overall charges may not surmount peripheral charges such as
chiefs. "The orle overlying the point violates the rule
prohibiting overall charges over peripheral charges." (LoAR
October 1999, p. 22). [Miles de Colwell, 12/2001,
R-Lochac]
[Argent, two chevronels gules and overall an eagle displayed
sable] This does not conflict with ... Argent, two
chevronels gules, overall a dragon passant sable, gorged of a
crown embattled, dependent therefrom a chain Or. There is one
CD for changing the type of the overall charge and another for
changing its posture. There is no limit on cumulative differences
for changes to an overall charge group: both RfS X.4.e (type) and
X.4.h (posture) independently apply to "any group placed directly
on the field, including strewn charges or charges overall". While
there is no exact posture comparison that can be made between
dragons and eagles, these charges can both be affronty (such as
displayed), in dexter-facing postures (such as close or passant)
and in sinister facing postures (such as rising to sinister or
rampant to sinister). There is meaningful difference between an
affronty posture and a dexter-facing posture:
[Purpure, a bend sinister between two falcons rising wings
addorsed Or] This is clear of ... Purpure, a bend
sinister between two glaive heads addorsed Or; there is a
CD for the type of secondaries, as well as a CD for
orientation. (This CD is granted because both charges have the
ability to be addorsed, and the falcons are not.) (LoAR 9/00)
[Ivo Blackhawk, 01/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[Argent, two chevronels gules and overall an eagle displayed
sable] ... clear of conflict with Manfred, King of Sicily
(important non-SCA arms), Argent, an eagle displayed
sable. This possible conflict was mentioned by some
commenters for a variety of reasons.
Which is the primary charge group in this device? In
current SCA policy, overall charges are not primary charges.
Their addition is considered a CD by RfS X.4.c, based on a period
pattern of adding overall charges to a coat of arms to indicate
cadency. Therefore, this device is clear of Manfred by adding the
(underlying) primary charge group by RfS X.1. Should the two
chevrons be considered equivalent to a chevronelly field? No
evidence was presented, and none could be found, that two
chevronels were an artistic variant of chevronelly in period. The
two designs seem visually distinct as well. Therefore, the
difference in the previous paragraph still applies.
Chevronelly argent and gules, an eagle displayed sable
would have been in conflict with Manfred.
Is this in visual conflict with Manfred? It is true that
this design uses the opposite of the common period method of
using overall charges. This design uses a complicated charge to
surmount simple ordinaries. The usual period method uses a simple
ordinary (often a variant of a bend or bend sinister) to surmount
a base coat using more complicated charges. However, this
departure from expectation does not obscure the visual realities
of this emblazon. The eagle clearly overlies the chevronels,
rather than the other way around. [Ivo Blackhawk, 01/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[a fret gules surmounted by a badger statant sable] The
fret was difficult to identify under the badger, but was
sufficiently identifiable to people at the meeting (including
non-heralds) to permit registration. It should be noted that in
any case where a complex-outlined charge overlies a fret, there
is danger of the fret or the overlying charge becoming
unidentifiable. [Muirgheal inghean Raghailligh mhic
Seachnasaigh, 03/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[Per pale Or and gules, a roundel counterchanged] Conflict
with Vincenzo di Palermo, Per pale Or and gules, a sword
bendwise sinister surmounted by a roundel both per pale gules and
Or. Because the sword and the roundel are the same tinctures,
the only way to tell which charge surmounts the other is to look
at the fine internal detail lines. Vincenzo's arms are thus
heraldically equivalent to Per pale Or and gules a roundel
surmounted by a sword both per pale gules and Or. This armory
therefore only has one CD from Vincenzo's for removing the sword,
by RfS X.4.c. [Yehuda ben Maimon, 04/2002,
R-Middle]
[Sable, a stag's massacre surmounted by a sword inverted
argent] Because the tincture of the massacre and the sword on
Morgan's device are the same, neither charge is obviously either
the surmounting, or surmounted, charge. Morgan's device could
equivalently be blazoned as Sable, a sword inverted surmounted
by a stag's massacre argent. [Morgan Owain of
Staghold, 08/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Sable, a bend sinister gules fimbriated Or and overall a
scorpion argent] By previous precedent, "Ermine fimbriation
is disallowed (LoAR of 3 Aug 86, p.17), as are overall charges
surmounting fimbriated ordinaries (9 March 86, p.12)". This
armory uses a fimbriated ordinary surmounted by an overall
charge, and thus is not acceptable. [Sophie Davenport,
02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[(Fieldless) An anchor fouled of its cable argent enfiling a
coronet bendwise sinister Or pearled argent] There is a high
degree of overlap between the coronet and the anchor and its
cable. This is not acceptable style for overall charges on a
fieldless badge for reasons of identifiability and non-period
style. The same stylistic constraints which apply to charges
surmounted by overall charges also apply to charges enfiled by
other charges.
The orientation of the coronet is neither clearly bendwise
sinister nor clearly palewise. This is not blazonable and
therefore a reason for return under RfS VII.7.b. There are also
contrast problems with this emblazon. The argent pearls on the
coronet overlap the argent anchor, giving no contrast at those
points. [William the Mariner, 04/2003,
R-An Tir]
[(Fieldless) An annulet sable overall a dragon segreant
argent] The dragon has a high degree of overlap with the
underlying annulet, which is not acceptable style for fieldless
badges. Moreover, an overall charge should extend significantly
past the outlines of the underlying charge, which is not the case
in this armory. [Alden Drake, 04/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[Vert, two arrows inverted in saltire Or surmounted by a tower
argent] Conflict with ... Vert, two swords in saltire Or
surmounted by a stone tower, the top enflamed, proper. Both
pieces of armory are effectively a single group (a sheaf) of
three charges. The only change to the group of three charges is
the change to two-thirds of the type of the charge group (swords
to arrows), which is one CD by RfS X.4.e. As an alternate
interpretation, if we consider the arrows and swords to be
respective primary charge groups, and the overall towers to be
respective overall charge groups, armory using an overall charge
is not eligible for RfS X.2 because it is not simple: "For
purposes of [RfS X.2], simple armory is defined as armory that
has no more than two types of charge directly on the field and
has no overall charges". Thus, there is one CD for changing the
type of primary charges (from arrows to swords) but no further
difference. [Nikolai of Trakai, 06/2003,
R-Middle]
[(Fieldless) On a ribbon fesswise enarched gules the words
"verba volant scripta manet," overall an escallop Or] ... The
ribbon in this submission was originally blazoned as a
scroll. A scroll is not nearly as long and narrow
as a ribbon, and is proportioned more like a billet. Æthelmearc
has previously registered a badge using a scroll: Argent, on
an open scroll gules an "Æ" Or. The scroll in that submission
is drawn correctly and does not resemble this ribbon. Because
this charge is not the same charge as the previously registered
scroll, the grandfather clause does not apply to this
submission.
We note that there would be stylistic difficulties with armory
designed with a scroll... and overall an escallop. Due to
the shapes of these charges, any such design would have a large
amount of overlap between the scroll and the escallop, making the
escallop just "barely overall." By previous precedent, "Barely
overall charges have been ruled unacceptable for a long time and
for fieldless badges overall charges must have very little
overlap with the charge it surmounts" (LoAR of September 1999).
[Æthelmearc, Kingdom of, 08/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Purpure, a chevron couched from dexter interlaced with a
chevron couched from sinister Or and overall three arrows
inverted in fess argent] Some commenters were concerned about
blazoning the arrows as an overall charge group, since only the
center arrow actually surmounts the chevrons. An entire charge
group may be blazoned as overall without requiring that
each one of the charges surmounts the primary charge group. The
three identical arrows in a standard arrangement (in fess)
are clearly a single charge group. [Ásta Þorvaldsdóttir,
07/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[(Fieldless) A spoon overall four needles conjoined in saltire
points to center argent threaded sable] The group of needles
has lost its identifiability. The points of the needles are
obscured because they surmount a charge with which they have no
contrast. In addition, the needles are drawn with very little
taper, so that these appear to be some sort of batons rather than
needles. This must be returned under RfS VIII.3, which states
"Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by ...
marginal contrast, ...or by being obscured by other elements of
the design."
Some commenters noted that each individual needle only "barely
surmounted" the spoon, as each needle lies mostly on the field
and only extends partially onto the spoon. We do note that, while
each individual needle is only barely surmounting the spoon, the
entire group of four needles conjoined at the points does
acceptably surmount the spoon: the group extends over the spoon
and onto the field in all directions. Such a design is acceptable
as long as identifiability of both the underlying and overlying
charges is preserved, which is not the case in this emblazon.
[Helene Gabrielle du Lac, 08/2003,
R-Middle]
[Argent, a fret and a bordure azure] Conflict with ...
Argent, fretty azure, a triple-towered castle sable within a
bordure azure. ... the castle functions as an overall charge,
as noted in the September 1992 Cover Letter: "The main reason
that Gules fretty Or, overall a lion argent conflicts with
Gules fretty Or lies not in how we consider fretty,
but in how we consider overall charges. So long as overall
charges, by definition, can never be primary charges, such
conflicts will continue to exist." There is thus one CD for
removing the overall castle per RfS X.4.c, but no additional
difference. [Ellen of York, 10/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[two swords inverted in saltire surmounted by a bear's head
cabossed] This emblazon is drawn with a very small overall
bear's head. As a result, there is a very high degree of overlap
between the swords and the bear's head. Because the swords and
the small overall bear's head are the same tincture, the high
degree of overlap causes the small overall charge to be
insufficiently identifiable per RfS VIII.3, which states in
pertinent part, "Identifiable elements may be rendered
unidentifiable by significant reduction in size, marginal
contrast, ... or by being obscured by other elements of the
design."
In general, it is acceptable to have a (round) bear's head
cabossed surmounting (long thin) swords in saltire of the same
tincture, as long as the bear's head is drawn large enough to
maintain its identifiability. [Gerardus Christopherus de
Burgondia, 11/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[on a bend vert four bear pawprints argent and overall a bear
statant sable] We were at a loss on how to blazon this armory
in a way which would clearly re-create the emblazon and would
also be compatible with period armorial style. As blazoned, and
based on our knowlege of overall charges in period armory, we
would expect the four pawprints to be evenly placed on the bend,
and thus, we would expect overall bear to obscure some of the
four pawprints on the bend. However, all four pawprints are
visible. It is not possible to blazon the bend with a larger
number of pawprints, because there is enough of the bend showing
in between the bear's limbs to show that there are no pawprints
under the bear. [Appolonia Notburgen, 03/2004,
R-Calontir]
CHARGE
-- Peripheral
see also individual peripheral ordinaries: BASE, BORDURE, CHIEF, and TIERCE and
FLAUNCH.
see also MOUNT and
MOUNTAIN
[Purpure, a chevron between three grape leaves
inverted within an orle Or] It is standard SCA practice for
an ordinary within an orle or double tressure to stop at the
inside of the surrounding charge, as per the reblazon of Rouland
Carre's arms in January 1991:
Rouland Carre. Device. Argent, on a bend cotised azure within
an orle gules, in chief a Latin cross argent.
The LoAR blazoned this as "cotised couped", which would
not have the bend throughout within the orle.
In the real world, both the "throughout" and the
"within and conjoined to" combinations of ordinaries and
orles/double tressures may be found, without a clear default.
David Lindsay of the Mount's 1542 roll of arms gives five
examples of ordinaries combined with double tressures flory
counterflory. There is support for both designs in this book:
with the ordinary throughout, and with the ordinary within and
conjoined to the double tressure flory counterflory. Both designs
are specifically found with chevrons. [Inigo Missaglia,
08/2001,
A-Caid] [Ed.: The emblazon has the chevron terminated at the
orle]
[Argent, a tierce gules] This device is in conflict with
... Argent, a mountain of three peaks issuant from base
gules. The SCA currently considers a mountain to be a variant
of a mount, which is a peripheral ordinary, as per the following
precedents:
Mountains, as variants of mounts, should be emblazoned to
occupy no more than the lower portion of the field. (Barony of
Blackstone Mountain, September, 1993, pg. 10)
[a wolf statant gules atop a mount vert] The wolf appears to be
neither on nor atop the mount; a blazon which more accurately
reproduces the emblazon is Argent, a mount vert, overall a wolf
statant gules. However, we do not register charges that overlap
peripheral ordinaries. [Bastian Wolfhart, 11/99, R-Middle]
A tierce is also a peripheral ordinary. Rule X.2
does not apply between these devices, as neither device has a
primary charge. Therefore, there is only one CD for difference of
type of charge group on the field. We encourage the College to
research whether, under some circumstances, mountains and mounts
may be considered a primary charge in their own right. After all,
unlike a bordure, chief or base, a mount and its variants may be
couped and centrally placed on the field. [Charles le
Grey, 09/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
Overall charges may not surmount peripheral charges such as
chiefs. "The orle overlying the point violates the rule
prohibiting overall charges over peripheral charges." (LoAR
October 1999, p. 22). [Miles de Colwell, 12/2001,
R-Lochac]
There is no period evidence for the artwork blazoned here as a
double tressure wavy braced. The College was unable to
find a blazon which would consistently reproduce this emblazon,
which is a reason for return. The charge also strongly resembles
an orle of chain, which is a reserved charge. Such a resemblance
also is a reason for return.
The double tressure wavy braced is not a parallel situation to a
double tressure dancetty braced, which was ruled to be
acceptable:
There was a strong feeling in the College that the double
tressure dancetty braced was non-period style, and at first
I was inclined to agree. On reflection, however, I found I
couldn't put a name to exactly why I felt so. Visually, this is
not so different from an orle masculy, or saltorels
couped and conjoined in orle, either of which would have
raised far less objection. (LoAR 1/93)
The double tressure dancetty braced was ruled to be
acceptable because it looked very similar to a group of standard
heraldic charges in orle and conjoined: mascles or saltorels
couped. This charge resembles a group of conjoined misshapen
voided ovals with pointed ends, which cannot be alternately
described as a group of conjoined heraldic charges. It also
resembles a simple form of Celtic knotwork, which has considered
non-heraldic style for many years. One can find references to a
"long-standing ban on knotwork" in November 1994, and the
policies on knotwork have not changed since then. [Eithne
Rannach na an tEilan Dubh, 03/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Per pale pean and vert, in sinister a bear rampant all within
an orle Or] Impaled armory using an orle often cuts off the
orle at the line of division, just as impaled armory using a
bordure cuts off the bordure at the line of division. One famous
example is in the arms of Balliol College, Oxford. The College
was founded by Dervorguilla of Galloway, Lady of Balliol. The
arms currently used by the College are the arms which she used to
seal the Statutes of the College in 1282. These arms shown on her
seal are impaled arms, impaling the Galloway arms of Azure, a
lion rampant argent and the Balliol arms of Gules, an orle
argent. This information is from the Oxford University web
site at
http://web.balliol.ox.ac.uk/official/history/crest/index.asp. The
same coat is discussed in J.P. Brooke-Little's An Heraldic
Alphabet under impale.
Therefore, just as the addition of a bordure would not remove the
appearance of impaled armory (c.f. the LoAR of February 1994),
neither does the addition of an orle. The orle, rather than
looking like a charge added overall, merely creates the
appearance of impaling two devices, each with an orle. This
appears to be Pean, an orle Or impaling Vert, a bear
rampant within an orle Or, and as such must be returned per
RfS XI.3.b [Sáerlaith Beirre, 08/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[... a chief vert and for augmentation, on a canton Or a tower
and overall a sword sable] This emblazon does not appear to
depict a correct way of combining a canton with a chief. The
canton as drawn in this emblazon takes up a bit less than the
dexter third of the chief in its horizontal extent and extends
exactly to the bottom of the chief in its vertical extent. This
seems neither the correct way to charge a chief with a canton,
nor the correct way to place a canton so that it surmounts the
entire device.
Parker, in A Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry, states
that a canton, when combined with a chief, will overlie the
chief. This implies that the canton will extend onto the field.
In this armory, since the canton and the field are of the same
tincture, this might result in problems with our rules for
contrast (RfS VIII.2). Franklyn and Tanner, An Encyclopaedic
Dictionary of Heraldry, p. 59, indicate that a canton can be
charged on a chief but they also state that "A canton on a chief
ought to be slightly smaller than the chief's width in order not
to appear like a chief party per 'side'."
We suggest that, if the submitter resubmits, she include
documentation that the form of augmentation that she plans to use
is found in period armory. Note that if she attempts to resubmit
with the canton lying entirely on the chief, or to otherwise
submit with a charged charge on the chief, she should
specifically address how such a violation of the "layer limit"
(RfS VIII.1.c.ii) would be compatible with period styles of
augmentation. [Rachel Wallace, 09/2002,
R-Atlantia]
Some commenters asked whether it was necessary to blazon the
saltire as "within and conjoined to" the orle. "It is standard
SCA practice for an ordinary within an orle or double tressure to
stop at the inside of the surrounding charge" (LoAR August 2001).
See that LoAR for further details of period practices for orles
combined with ordinaries. [Roesia de Blakehall, 11/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[a chevron abased] The chevron abased here is too far to
base to be acceptable without documentation for such a design in
period. Overly enhanced ordinaries have been a reason for return
for many years as non-period style: "These bendlets are enhanced
so much to chief that the style becomes unacceptably modern"
(LoAR January 1992). Overly abased ordinaries suffer from the
same problem.
In the particular case of this chevron, this design could also be
interpreted as a voided point pointed. Points pointed may not be
voided per RfS VIII.3, which states that "Voiding and fimbriation
may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the
center of the design." [Muirgius mac Con Mara hui S�gdai,
11/2002,
R-Trimaris]
[three points] Previous precedent has held:
Although all three 'points' are mentioned in heraldic tracts,
in practice only the base one appears to have been used; and
even in the tracts, the dexter and sinister points are
described as abatements of honor, to be used separately, and
not in conjunction." (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR 4/92, p. 19) No
documentation was presented to contradict this precedent. As a
consequence, the precedent disallowing the use of dexter and/or
sinister points remains in place (LoAR December 1993).
We also have not been provided with documentation to
support this design as period style and thus continue to uphold
the previous precedents. [Shirin al-Adawiya, 12/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Argent, a tierce gules] Conflict with ... Argent, a
quarter gules. RfS X.4.a.i and X.4.a.ii lists the quarter as
a peripheral charge for purposes of those rules. Peripheral
charges may not be considered primary charges, so there is one CD
for changing the type of peripheral charge, but not sufficient
difference under RfS X.2.
Note that the only listing of peripheral charges in the Rules for
Submission is in RfS X.4.a. Previous precedents have used these
definitions in a wider sense than for that specific rule. So,
even though we are here considering the question of what is a
peripheral charge (and therefore not primary) for purposes of RfS
X.2 rather than RfS X.4.a, it seems appropriate to be guided by
the listing of peripheral charges in RfS X.4.a. [Charles the
Grey of Mooneschadowe, 06/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[on a pale ... within a triple tressure] The pale is
within and conjoined to the inside of the triple tressure. This
is the SCA default for an ordinary within an orle or tressure...
[Caroline Marie de Fontenailles, 08/2003,
A-Caid]
[(Fieldless) A double tressure triskely argent] RfS VIII.5
states "Since there is no field in such a [fieldless] design, it
may not use charges that rely on the edges of the field to define
their shape, such as bordures and orles." Because a double
tressure, like both the bordure and the orle, relies on the edges
of the field to define its shape, it may not be used on a
fieldless badge.
The blazon originally used the term tressure, which we
have replaced with the term double tressure, although with
some trepidation because of confusing artwork in the emblazon.
The double tressure in this submission is not drawn with
sufficent space between the two strands of the charge: the two
appear to be stuck together, and thus, this charge is equivalent
to an orle drawn with a line down the middle. If the intent of
this armory is to depict a single strand, the confusing line down
the middle of the strand should be removed, and the charge should
be blazoned as an orle. The term orle should always
be used for the single strand, and multiple strands should be
blazoned as an explicitly enumerated tressure: double
tressure or triple tressure. Take, for example, the
ruling concerning the rather similar charge which was returned in
the LoAR of June 1988:
The original blazon of the surrounding charge was a "tressure
triskele" and it was stated that this was to refer to the
submittor's [sic] services to Trimaris in the heraldic sphere
since there is an award for heralds in that Kingdom called the
Tressure Triskele. It was noted by more than one individual
that we do not use single diminutives and so this has to be an
orle and also that it is not possible to figure out what this
is from the blazon 'triskele' (one person suggested that this
could be an orle semy of triskeles). Neither the name nor any
armoury for the award alluded to has ever been registered by
the College and thus it cannot be considered to be
'grandfathered.'"
The charge in question was eventually registered by
this submitter in October 1991 with the blazon an orle
surmounted by an orle of triskeles argent. However that
blazon could not be used to describe the charge in this
submission. In the 1991 registration, the triskeles surmount the
orle, while in this emblazon, the triskeles are under the
orle/double tressure.
The College had concerns about the identifiability of the
triskeles. Some felt that the identifiability of the triskeles
was objectionably obscured by the overlap with the same-tinctured
double tressure. As a visual note, though it's a matter of
internal details, the orle surmounted by an orle of
triskeles had better identifiability than the charge in this
submission. The College also noted that the double tressure
flory-counterflory (a period charge) did not have the same
intrinsic identifiability difficulty as this double tressure
triskely. Fleurs-de-lys by their nature are easily split into two
identifiable halves, which are then placed on opposite sides of
the double tressure. Triskeles do not easily split into two
identifiable halves. At this time, we decline to rule on the
identifiability issues concerning this submission, as the
required redrawing to clarify the question of whether an orle or
a double tressure is intended will change the artwork
substantially. However, we advise the Trimarian College to be
aware of this issue on their resubmission.
The College also had some questions about whether it was
reasonable to construct a "double tressure triskely." We note
that in the LoAR of July 2001, an orle issuing eight acorns (and
their leaves) from the outer edge was considered to be non-period
style and a reason for return: "The submitter justified the
unusual treatment of the orle by citing examples in Spain of
crosses terminating in acorns plus an example in Germany of a
bend issuing flower. Crosses, however, traditionally have a far
greater number of unusual treatments than any other type of
charge, and the acorns only issue from the ends of the cross, not
from the entire cross. Furthermore, none of the examples cited
included the much more complex example of having acorns plus
leaves issuing from a charge. Barring additional evidence, we
feel that this treatment is not consistent with period style." At
this time, we decline to rule on whether a double tressure
triskely is too far from period style to be registered, or
whether it should be considered a single step from period
practice (also known as a "weirdness"), which can be registered
if there is only one such single step from period style in the
armory, or whether it should be considered compatible with period
armorial style. We might have pended this submission for
consideration of this issue, but could not do so due to the other
reasons for return. We advise the Trimarian College to provide
some documentation in support of this design on resubmission.
[Trimaris, Kingdom of, 09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
CHARGE --
Restricted or Reserved
[Argent, a cat sejant erect
guardant azure between two rose branches in chevron inverted
conjoined in base sable] This submission was listed in the
Letter of Intent as a device and augmentation. However, this is a
simple new device registration. The original blazon referred to a
wreath of roses around this cat, but a wreath of roses is
circular (or nearly so.) The emblazon here shows rose branches,
and we have therefore so blazoned them.
The design of two rose branches in a "V" shape is close to many
SCA depictions of a rose wreath. Thus the only persons who may
use such a design without presumption are those who are entitled
to bear a rose wreath. The submitter is a countess and Lady of
the Rose and is thus entitled to such a wreath. [Judith
Maryse, 10/2001,
A-Trimaris]
There is no period evidence for the artwork blazoned here as a
double tressure wavy braced. The College was unable to
find a blazon which would consistently reproduce this emblazon,
which is a reason for return. The charge also strongly resembles
an orle of chain, which is a reserved charge. Such a resemblance
also is a reason for return. [Eithne Rannach na an tEilan
Dubh, 03/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
Please inform the submitter that the caduceus and rod of
Aesculapius may be registered by the general populace and are no
longer reserved to chirurgeons. [Meredith Stafford, 03/2002,
R-Drachenwald]
[a coronet of trefoils and pearls] The commentary from the
College showed a strong consensus that this form of coronet
visually appeared to use strawberry leaves. By the May 1999
precedent on quadruple mounts, it must therefore be treated as a
ducal coronet, and reserved for the use of dukes and duchesses.
[Ghislaine d'Auxerre, 04/2002,
R-Caid] [Ed.: There was an extensive discussion of this
decision. It can be found under CORONET.]
[six annulets interlaced in annulo] The submitter is a
knight and thus entitled to use a closed loop of chain. These
annulets interlaced in annulo resemble a chain closely enough
that they could only be registered to someone able to register
the reserved charge of a closed loop of chain. [Ibrahim
al-Dimashqi, 03/2003,
A-Artemisia]
[Principal herald's seal. (Tinctureless) On a fess wavy
between in chief two straight trumpets in saltire and triskeles
sans nombre a crown of four points] The Glossary of Terms
allows crowns to be used in "Kingdom/Principality armory;
personal armory of Society Royal peers." The Glossary does not
state that the crown may only be used in some pieces of armory
belonging to the kingdom. While most kingdom armory using crowns
does belong to the sovereign or the consort, various kingdoms
have registered other sorts of armory using crowns, including two
Principal Herald's seals, a flag, and various badges
(undesignated, designated for a kingdom officer, and designated
for an order).
As has been noted before, in real-world armory, the use of a
crown on a coat of arms is not linked to the rank of the holder,
so any policies restricting the use of crowns in SCA heraldry
must be determined from SCA heraldic history and policies. Given
the statement in the Glossary of Terms and the registration
history, it certainly seems acceptable for Principal Herald's
seals to use crowns, since the Principal Herald's seal is
registered to a kingdom. We thus explicitly overrule the
precedent set in the LoAR of September 1986 (although arguably
the wording in the Glossary has already overruled this
precedent), which stated that "[A Kingdom badge registration
designated for use of a guild] The crown is reserved to the arms
of Kingdoms, Principalities and Royal Peers and may not be used,
even with royal permission, by other individuals or groups".
It is clear from the SCA registration history that SCA Principal
Heralds' seals have not generally followed the rules for
fieldless armory. For example, most SCA heralds' seals contain
unconjoined charges, and many contain charges which are defined
by or end at the edge of the field, such as ordinaries throughout
or bordures. SCA herald's seals appear to have the same style
restrictions as tinctured armory, not fieldless armory. Thus the
design of this seal is acceptable, even though it uses a number
of design elements that would not ordinarily be allowed in
fieldless armory. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, 03/2003,
A-Trimaris]
[Per pale Or and gules, two dragons combattant
counterchanged] This is clear under RfS X.2 from both ...
Per pale Or and gules, two winged stags combattant
counterchanged and ... Per pale Or and Gules, two
hippogriffs combatant counterchanged. Per the LoAR of July
2001, "There is a substantial difference between a dragon and a
griffin." Dragons are at least as different from winged stags and
hippogriffs as they are from griffins. [Murienne Duquette,
01/2004,
A-East]
CHARGE
GROUP
see also DIFFERENCE --
Groups
It may interest the College to know that examples
of a chief charged with a group of charges of dissimilar tincture
and type are known from the Tudor period in England. Thomas
(Cardinal) Wolsey's arms were Sable on a cross engrailed
argent a lion passant guardant gules between three (lion's) faces
(azure or sable?) on a chief Or a rose gules between two cocks
sable (per p. 80 of Gwynn-Jones and Bedingfield's
Heraldry). Another example of a chief using a tertiary
group with mixed types and tinctures is on p. 96 of the same
book, from Wriothesley's tenure as Garter Principal King of Arms.
Designs where a chief or other ordinary was charged with two
different types of tertiary (an A between two Bs
all in the same tincture) are rather common in Wriothesley's
designs. [Liuete Liana da Luna, 08/2001,
A-Caid]
[Azure, a cross of four mascles argent within and conjoined to
a mascle Or] This armory uses the same type of charge as both
a primary and secondary charge. Some commenters felt that this
was therefore not acceptable per the following precedent:
[returning a mullet of four points throughout ... between four
mullets of four points ...] This is being returned for
violating the long-standing precedent of using two different
sizes of the same charge on the field. (LoAR 3/98 p. 15)
However, in the cited precedent, there was a
reasonable ambiguity as to which mullets were primary charges and
which were secondary charges, as the emblazon could appear to be
an idiosyncratic rendering of five mullets of four points in
saltire. In Francesca's arms, this is not a problem. The
surrounding mascle is clearly in a separate charge group from the
mascles which constitute a cross. Consider the analogous case of,
on a lozenge shaped shield, Azure, a cross of four mascles
argent within and conjoined to an orle Or. The orle would
have a resemblance to a mascle, but there would be no difficulty
in distinguishing the orle from the primary mascle group.
[Francesca la Curiosa, 10/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[Argent goutty de sang, a laurel wreath vert] The device
is clear of conflict with the Barony of Coeur d'Ennui, Argent,
a laurel wreath vert within eight boars' heads couped in annulo
gules. There is one CD for the type of secondary charges and
another for arrangement. This is clearly a group of strewn
charges rather than charges in annulo, as can be seen from the
gouttes in the middle of the laurel wreath. [Campofiamme,
Stronghold of, 10/2001,
A-Drachenwald]
It is certainly possible to have more than one secondary charge
group on the field. In the hypothetical arms Argent, a bend
cotised between a mullet and a crescent all within a bordure
gules, the primary charge group is the bend, the cotises are
one secondary charge group, the mullet and crescent are,
together, a second secondary charge group, and the bordure is a
third secondary charge group (of the type often termed
peripheral). Changing or removing any one of these charge
groups would be a separate CD. Thus, this hypothetical coat of
arms has two CDs from Argent, a bend cotised between two
mullets and a chief gules. There is one CD for changing the
type of half of the secondary group surrounding the cotised bend
(a mullet and a crescent to two mullets) and a second CD for
changing the type of the peripheral secondary group (bordure to
chief). [Admiranda le Daye, 10/2001,
A-Meridies]
[... on a pale azure a salmon haurient embowed contourny in
chief a compass star argent ...] It is not period style to
have two different tertiary groups on the same underlying charge.
The difference in scale between the salmon and the compass star
makes the compass star appear to be in a subsidiary charge group
to the salmon. There is precedent pertaining to this matter:
[returning A mullet Or charged with a fleur-de-lys florency
between five daggers points outwards sable] None of the
commenters could find a similar motif: a primary charged with a
tertiary X and a group of five tertiary Y's. Barring
documentation of such an arrangement of tertiary charges, we
believe that the motif is not a period one and therefore
unregistrable. [The submission was returned for this reason and
for conflict.] (Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 10/95 p. 15)
[Uma, Shire of, 10/2001,
R-Drachenwald]
[a pole-axe gules overall in pale a wolf statant contourny and
a stag trippant] This submission is comprised of a primary
charge of an axe with an overall charge group of a wolf statant
contourny and a stag trippant. This is not technically "slot
machine" heraldry as it does not have a single charge group with
more than two types of charge. However, there seem to be no
period examples of an overall charge group comprised of two
different animals. Since overall charge groups are relatively
rare in period, and most of them are ordinaries, this seems to be
beyond the bounds of period style. [Eric Martel, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
[Per bend sinister azure and purpure semy of mullets argent, a
bend sinister and in canton a mullet argent] Because strewn
charges are not always disposed with geometric precision on the
field, this design is confusingly close to Per bend sinister
azure mullety argent and purpure mullety argent, a bend sinister
argent. As a result of this ambiguity, this submission is
being returned under the prior precedents against using two
different sizes of the same type of charge on the field:
[returning a mullet of four points throughout ... between
four mullets of four points ... ] This is being returned
for violating the long-standing precedent of using two
different sizes of the same charge on the field. (LoAR 3/98 p.
15)
[Catherine Abernathy, 10/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[Gules, in dexter chief a fret couped argent] This also
does not conflict with ... Per saltire gules and pean, a fret
argent. There is one CD for the change to the field and
another for the unforced move of the primary charge to dexter
chief. This also does not conflict with John Thorn, Gules, a
chief embattled argent. The fret here is a primary charge in
a non-central position on the field. John's armory has no primary
charge. Addition of a primary charge is sufficient difference by
X.1. [Ané{zv}ka z Ro{zv}mitála, 11/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[Per fess sable mullety Or and azure, a dance and in base a
sun Or] The device does not conflict with ... Per fess
gules mullety Or, and vert, a dance and in base a terrestrial
sphere Or. There is one CD for the change to the field. There
is another CD for the change in type of the charge group in base,
which is a different charge group from the semy group in chief.
By current precedent, the semy charges must be in a separate
group from all other charges (LoAR 7/2001, Giraude Benet).
[Wolfgang Dracke, 11/2001,
A-Artemisia]
[Per bend sable bezanty and vert, in base a hare rampant
reguardant Or] This does not conflict with Cornwall, Sable
bezanty (important non-SCA arms). There is one CD for the
changing the field. There is a second CD for adding the rabbit,
because the rabbit is not in the same charge group as the
bezants. By current precedent, the semy charges must be in a
separate group from all other charges (LoAR 7/2001, Giraude
Benet). [Rilint Neufang, 11/2001,
A-West]
[a dragon's head and a donkey's head couped addorsed] If
drawn correctly, a charge group consisting of a dragon's head and
a donkey's head would be acceptable in the SCA without comment.
However, as drawn here, at first they appear to be the same type
of charge, and it then takes some time to distinguish what types
of charge these might be. There are some internal details that
are visible on the black and white mini emblazon which might help
somewhat with the identifiability, but they are entirely lost in
the colored emblazon. This is not identifiable as drawn and must
be returned. [Dubhgall mac Réamoinn, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[A holly branch bendwise sinister inverted vert fructed gules
enfiling a mullet voided Or] The design of a charge enfiling
a voided mullet is a weirdness, but it is not in itself
sufficient reason for return. It is a weirdness because of the
cumulative effects of the unusual voided charge (the voided
mullet), the unusual action of enfiling, and the fact that the
overlap implicit in the act of enfiling reduces the
identifiability of both charges involved. Charges which in their
standard period depiction include a large central hole (such as
laurel wreaths, annulets, and mascles) are not considered a
weirdness when enfiled. Charges with small central holes (such as
spur rowels and rustres), and voided charges where the usual form
of the charge is not voided (mullets) will be considered a
weirdness when enfiled.
The question of which charge in the heraldic ring-toss is
"enfiled" is one of the great heraldic cocktail party discussion
topics. The SCA has a precedent on the topic which is being
followed in this blazon:
[An arrow argent enfiling a serpent involved] The definition of
the term enfile has changed over the years. Boutell (English
Heraldry, 1902) equates it with "pierce": a sword passing
through a crown would enfile the crown. Brooke-Little (An
Heraldic Alphabet 1975) equates it with "encircle": a sword
passing through a crown would be enfiled by the crown. The
confusion is sufficient reason to avoid the use of the term,
but sometimes (as with this submission) it's hard to avoid.
Friar (Dictionary of Heraldry, 1987, p.137) agrees with
Boutell's definition; and that definition does follow more
naturally from the etymology of the word (from French fil,
"thread": beads are threaded on a string, crowns are enfiled on
[by] a sword). That is the definition used here.
[Evelyn atte Holye, 12/2001,
A-Ealdormere]
[Or, on a billet gules a double cross between six roundels Or
and on a chief gules three estoiles of eight rays Or] "It is
not period style to have two different tertiary groups on the
same underlying charge." (LoAR of October 2001, citing the LoAR
of October 1995, p. 15). Here the double cross appears to be a
"primary" tertiary charge, with the roundels functioning as
"secondary" tertiary charges. [Alexandre Afonso de
Almeida, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
[in saltire a rose branch vert flowered in chief azure and a
branch proper] This armory uses two different types of branch
in a single charge group. No evidence has been presented, and
none has been found, for two different types of branch in a
single charge group in period armory. Just as we have previously
disallowed two types of swords, or two types of fish, in the same
charge group because it obscures the identifiability of each
charge and is not period style, this also may not be accepted
without supporting documentation. [Malcolm Aikman,
03/2002,
R-Caid]
[Per chevron purpure fretty Or and Or, in base a bunch of
grapes purpure leaved within a laurel wreath vert] This
device uses three primary charges of three different types in a
single charge group: the grapes, the wreath, and the fretty
(which is equivalent to a fret). This is not allowable style by
RfS VIII.1.a. [Bordescros, Shire of, 03/2002,
R-Lochac]
[(Fieldless) A reremouse displayed sable conjoined in chief to
a compass star pierced Or] The reremouse is not
conjoined to the compass star but overlaps the bottom five
points of the star to a greater or lesser degree. This is in
itself a reason for return because it cannot clearly be recreated
from the blazon. [Argus Caradoc, 03/2002,
R-Meridies]
Remember, enfiling is equivalent to threading (as
in threading a needle). [Randal Avery of the Mease,
04/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[Per fess purpure and sable, a skull and in base an hourglass
fesswise argent] There were some questions about the charge
placement in this armory and the correct blazon for the armory.
The visual interpretation of this emblazon shows that the skull
is indeed a primary charge, the only primary in this design. This
can be seen by the fact that it is mostly centered on the field
and overlies the line of division. The hourglass is clearly
secondary because it is in base beneath a charge which is
clearly primary.
The primary nature of the skull and secondary nature of the
hourglass are apparent from the blazon as well as from the
emblazon. The fact that the hourglass is marked by the blazon as
in base after a charge which is not explicitly positioned
on the field makes it clearly a secondary charge, and the
previously named charge a primary charge.
If the blazon were simply Per fess purpure and sable, a skull
and an hourglass fesswise argent, then the two charges would
be co-primary, with the skull entirely on the top half of the
field and the hourglass entirely on the bottom half of the field.
If the two charges were both explicitly positioned in chief...
and in base..., they would also be co-primary charges and
again be placed with the first named charge entirely on the top
half of the field and the second named charge entirely on the
bottom half of the field. [Soshka Gregor'evich Vilanov,
07/2002,
A-Trimaris]
[Argent, two double-bitted battleaxes and a phoenix azure]
We have reblazoned the device to show that it consists of a group
of equally-sized primary charges arranged two and one. There were
some questions in the commentary about the way in which the
charges were arranged. Because all three charges are longer
vertically than horizontally, it is a reasonable artistic choice
to draw them so that the bottom part of the chiefmost charges is
alongside the top part of the basemost charge. [Simon von
Beckum, 01/2003,
A-East]
[Sable, in fess a roundel between two ravens respectant all
between two bars couped Or] The College generally felt that
this armory appeared to use a single primary charge group
consisting of three types of charges. While the two bars
surrounding the central charges would certainly be considered a
separate secondary group if they were throughout, the fact that
they are couped removes that secondary appearance. [Helgi
hrafnfæðir, 01/2003,
R-Caid]
[in pale a thistle proper issuant from a tower] We have
used the blazon phrase in pale to indicate that the
thistle and tower are co-primary charges. The blazon A thistle
proper issuant from a tower sable implies that the thistle
would be a maintained charge. [Derek of Ildhafn, 01/2003,
A-Caid]
[a sun ... and on a chief Or three compass stars] It is
acceptable for charges on charges to be a close variant of
charges on the field. This sort of design does not run afoul of
the design strictures colloquially known as the "sword and
dagger" problem:
[...on a chevron between three hearts argent three hearts
sable] There is no problem with having the same type of charge
as both secondaries and tertiaries. Submissions are only
returned if the same type of charge is used as primary and
secondary charges. (LoAR September 1999.)
[Geneviève de Saint-Cirq-Lapopie, 02/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[on a chief triangular Or in cross a full drop spindle and a
needle fesswise sable] The small tertiary charges, which
overlap each other and share the same tincture, lose their
identifiability. This is reason for return by RfS VIII.3. We also
advise the submitter that, as a general rule, a full drop spindle
has somewhat less yarn on it and the yarn makes more of a cone
shape. On resubmission, she may wish to resubmit with a more
standard drop spindle in order to enhance the identifiability of
the charge. [Kathleen O'Deay, 03/2003,
R-Middle]
[a bezant conjoined to in pale a sinister wing and a sinister
wing inverted argent all surmounting two lightning bolts crossed
in saltire] This armory consists of a single group of charges
(effectively, a sheaf of charges) consisting of three
separate types of charge: roundel, wings, and lightning bolts.
This is thus overcomplex by RfS VIII.1.a.
The odd arrangement of the wings and the bezant was commented on
by a number of College members. Usually a winged object is winged
with two displayed wings. Here the rotary nature of the wings'
arrangement is unusual, and required a somewhat convoluted blazon
as a result. We advise the submitter to consider designing the
winged roundel in a more conventional fashion on his
resubmission. [Jovinus Meridius, 04/2003,
R-Meridies]
Some members of the College of Arms asked if it was acceptable to
have a the mullet and the sun in the same charge group, or
whether this was a "sword and dagger" problem. A mullet of five
points is a heraldically distinct charge from a sun. The two are
not possible artistic variants of each other (unlike a sword and
a dagger, or a dragon and a wyvern). As a result, there is no
problem having a charge group which incorporates both a sun and a
mullet of five points. [Elinor Larke le Dauncer, 04/2003,
R-Middle]
[On a rose argent barbed vert a cat sejant affronty sable]
This does not conflict with the badge of Martin Luther,
(Fieldless) A rose argent seeded of a heart gules charged with
a Latin cross sable. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There
is a second CD for changing the type and tincture of tertiary
charge (from a black cat to a red heart). There is no additional
difference for removal of the quaternary charge (the black cross
on the red heart), as we do not give difference for addition,
removal, or changes to quaternary charges. [Laurin of
Rosewood, 06/2003,
R-An Tir]
Quoting from the LoAR of June 2001, "A sheaf is considered a
single charge, therefore there is [... a] CD for changing the
type of the secondary charges." Here, we have changed the type
but not the number of secondary charges: we have changed two open
books to an arrow-sheaf and a tulip-sheaf. [Bjorn Krom
Hakenberg, 07/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[on a chief azure in saltire a sword argent and an artist's
brush inverted Or] Some commenters raised concerns about
whether the sword and brush on the chief lost their
identifiability. The concern was due to the fact that tertiary
charges are smaller than primary charges and that, in this
emblazon, the group of tertiary charges is of two types of
charge, rather than the more common group of identical charges.
In this submission, the full-sized emblazon showed no
identifiability problems whatsoever. One cannot make any sort of
general statement concerning the identifiability of a group of
two similar but not identical types of tertiary charges: the
identifiability must be determined on a case by case basis.
[Gwenhwyfar ferch Dafydd, 11/2003,
A-Caid]
[Argent, a scorpion fesswise contourny gules and a chief
double enarched and on a point pointed sable a sheaf of arrows
inverted Or] Combinations of chiefs and bases of any sort are
rare in period. The combination of the non-period chief doubly
enarched and the vanishingly rare charged point pointed leads to
issues of field-ground reversal. It is difficult to determine if
the scorpion is placed on some oddly-shaped central argent charge
on a sable field, or if the armory consists of a red scorpion on
an argent field between an unlikely combination of sable
peripheral charges.
The combination of tinctures and types of charge in this device
add to eight. RfS VIII.1.a states "As a rule of thumb, the total
of the number of tinctures plus the number of types of charges in
a design should not exceed eight [or the armory will be
considered overly complex]." The College felt strongly that in
this armory, the combination of the complexity and the
aforementioned style issues pushed the armory past the limits of
registerable style. [Geoffroi FitzGeorge, 01/2004,
R-An Tir]
[on a bend sinister ... two hearts palewise alternating with
two lozenges palewise] It is not uncommon to find a group of
three charges on a stripe ordinary such as a bend, where the
centermost of the group is of a different type (and sometimes of
a different tincture) than the outer two. This design, using four
charges of two alternating types, appears to be one step from
period practice (also known as "a weirdness") but is not so far
from period practice to require return. [Marie Thérèse
Normand, 02/2004,
A-Atlantia]
[Sable, a chevron cotised argent between three oak leaves
Or] This does not conflict with ... Sable, a chevron
argent cotised between three compass stars elongated to base
Or. There is one CD for changing the tincture of one of the
secondary charge groups (the cotises) and a second CD for
changing the type of the other secondary charge group (from
compass stars to oak leaves.) The cotises are a separate set of
secondary charges by a number of precedents:
It is certainly possible to have more than one secondary charge
group on the field. In the hypothetical arms Argent, a bend
cotised between a mullet and a crescent all within a bordure
gules, the primary charge group is the bend, the cotises
are one secondary charge group, the mullet and crescent are,
together, a second secondary charge group, and the bordure is a
third secondary charge group (of the type often termed
peripheral). (LoAR of October 2001)
[Argent, on a fess cotised embattled on the outer edges
between three leopard's faces sable three crescents argent]
This is clear of the flag of Meridies, Argent, on a fess
sable, a crown of three points between two mullets argent,
with one CD for the removal of the cotises and a second for the
removal of the leopard's faces as they are two different charge
groups (LoAR of March 2001)
The cotises are clearly a second group of secondary charges so
that an additional point of difference can be obtained from
adding them (LoAR of 27 November 1988, p.12)
[Melisant Saint-Clair, 02/2004,
A-Atlantia]
CHESS
PIECE
... and another CD for the change from a horse's
head to the default double-headed chess knight. As Palimpsest
notes,
... the reason for the conflict of the single-headed chess
knight and a horse's head is visual. The double-headed chess
knight is a period charge (found in Siebmacher in the arms of
Hertzheim) so the visual standard does not apply. Even were it
to apply it would clear the conflict, but the applicable
standard is whether the charges were considered equivalent by
period heralds. There is no reason to believe that this was the
case for double-headed chess knights and horse's heads, so this
submission is clear.
[Joseph Angus Wilson, 09/2001,
A-Calontir]
[Sable, a chess rook argent] This is clear of conflict
with ... Sable, a tower argent. There is substantial
difference between a tower and a properly drawn chess rook, so
RfS X.2 applies.
In the LoAR of October 1996, it was stated that there was
"nothing for the difference between a tower and a chess-rook".
This precedent is hereby overturned: a tower and a chess rook
were considered different charges in period and have substantial
visual difference. The period heraldic chess rook is drawn
consistently in a form where the top is forked into two prominent
curled points. This was a standard depiction for the period chess
piece, as illustrated in Caxton's 1474 "Game and Playe of the
Chesse". The period heraldic chess rook does not resemble any
sort of fortification and cannot be mistaken for a tower. On
examining the collated commentary for the October 1996 ruling, it
appears that perhaps the commenters mistakenly believed that the
particular chess rook in the possible conflict was drawn as a
tower, rather than as a period chess rook. [William
fitzBubba, 12/2001,
A-East]
[a chess bishop] This is the defining case of a chess
bishop. It is taken from Publicus' Ars Oratoria from the
15th C, cited from H. J. R. Murray's A History of Chess.
The top of the chess piece resembles the top parts of a
decrescent and an increscent (or the top portion of a mitre) and
issues from a relatively standard chess piece column.
[Godefroy Lévêque, 03/2002,
A-Atlnatia]
[a horse's head contourny erased Or collared gules] This
is clear of conflict with ... Sable, a single headed chess
knight contourny Or. There is a CD for changing the field and
a second CD for adding the collar. "When considering a full beast
or monster gorged, the gorging is usually treated as an artistic
detail, worth no difference. When consider the same creature's
head gorged, however, the gorging is much more prominent in
proportion --- and treated as a tertiary charge." (LoAR 9/93 p.5)
[Ceinwen ferch Rhys ap Gawain, 03/2002,
A-Caid]
CHEVRON and CHEVRON
INVERTED
[Purpure, a chevron between three grape leaves
inverted within an orle Or] It is standard SCA practice for
an ordinary within an orle or double tressure to stop at the
inside of the surrounding charge, as per the reblazon of Rouland
Carre's arms in January 1991:
Rouland Carre. Device. Argent, on a bend cotised azure within
an orle gules, in chief a Latin cross argent.
The LoAR blazoned this as "cotised couped", which would
not have the bend throughout within the orle.
In the real world, both the "throughout" and the
"within and conjoined to" combinations of ordinaries and
orles/double tressures may be found, without a clear default.
David Lindsay of the Mount's 1542 roll of arms gives five
examples of ordinaries combined with double tressures flory
counterflory. There is support for both designs in this book:
with the ordinary throughout, and with the ordinary within and
conjoined to the double tressure flory counterflory. Both designs
are specifically found with chevrons. [Inigo Missaglia,
08/2001,
A-Caid] [Ed.: the emblazon has the chevron terminated at the
orle]
[Per chevron inverted] Please advise the submitter to draw
the per chevron inverted line deeper, so that it extends farther
to base. This is uncomfortably close to an odd sort of chief.
However, this cannot be mistaken for a chief triangular or any of
the other similar triangular charges or divisions, since it
clearly issues from the side of the field rather than the top
corners or top of the field. [Elspeth of Glendinning,
10/2001,
A-An Tir]
[Chevronelly Or and gules] Conflict with Clare, Earl of
Gloucester, Or three chevrons gules (Important non-SCA
armory). There is no difference between chevronelly and multiple
chevronels. [Ed.: See the11/2001LoAR
for an extended discussion on why there is no difference.]
[Torfin de Carric, 11/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[Per chevron azure and vert, a chevron and in base a cross
clechy argent] Conflict with ... Per chevron enhanced
azure and vert, a chevronel enhanced and in base a hart statant
to sinister at gaze argent. There is one CD for changing the
type of the secondary charge in base. However, there is no other
difference between the enhanced central chevronel and a chevron
in its default central position on the field: this small change
in placement on the field is considered an artistic detail.
[Áine inghean uú Ghríobhtha, 01/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[a chevron embattled vs. a chevron raguly] There is a
second CD for the difference between a chevron raguly (which is
raguly both on the top and the bottom by default) and a chevron
embattled (on the top edge only, by default.) [Mikhail
Dam'ianovich, 02/2002,
A-Caid]
[a fess cotised between two chevronels inverted] The
cotises are too thin to be acceptable. There are also problems
with the placement of the chiefmost chevronel inverted. The
chiefmost chevronel inverted should issue from the sides of the
shield or, at the highest, from the chiefmost corners of the
shield. In this emblazon, the chiefmost chevronel inverted issues
entirely from the chief of the shield. The cumulative problems
with the art require that it be returned for redrawing. (Note
that the placement of the bottommost chevronel inverted is
acceptable. It issues from the functional equivalent of the
"chiefmost corners" of its part of the shield, namely the
intersection between the bottom of the bottommost cotise and the
sides of the shield.)
We suggest that, when redrawing, the submitter make the fess
somewhat thinner, so that the chevronels inverted and the fess
are of roughly equal widths. Drawing the fess thinner will leave
more room for the cotises and chevronels inverted, and will be
more likely to recreate period heraldic style. We note that in
the period examples we have seen of the combination of a fess
between two chevronels, the fess and chevronels are of about
equal width. (See Bedingfeld and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry for
some examples, one from c. 1280 on p. 8 and one on the back cover
from the 15th C). [Ludwig W�rzsteiner, 10/2002,
R-Meridies]
[on a chevron ... the phrase "Non Sibi Sed Todo"] Some
commenters noted that no documentation had been presented for
words on a chevron. Phrases on bordures, including Latin phrases,
are rare but not unknown in Spanish and Italian heraldry. Phrases
in Arabic are not at all uncommon in Islamic heraldry,
particularly on fesses. As a result, putting a Latin phrase on a
chevron seems to be at most one step from period practice, and is
certainly consistent with SCA armorial practices. [Quintin
Wynn, 01/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a chevron enarched within and conjoined at the point to a
chevron] The central conjunction of chevrons was blazoned on
the Letter of Intent as a chevron inarched. A standard SCA
chevron enarched has each arm embowed outwards (curved in
the opposite direction from the arms of a chevron ployé). The SCA
chevron enarched is an artistic variant of a standard
chevron deriving from attempts to show the curvature of a shield.
The combination of chevrons in this submission is found in Legh's
1591 Accedens of Armory, where the combination is blazoned
as a chevron enarched. Parker, in his Glossary of Terms
used in Heraldry, blazons this combination as a chevron
inarched. To avoid confusion with the already established SCA
definition of a chevron enarched we have blazoned this
device using standard SCA blazon terms. If there is any question
about what this conjunction of chevrons looks like, we direct the
reader to Parker's Glossary under chevron inarched.
The book may be found in libraries and there is an on-line
version at
http://www002.upp.so-net.ne.jp/saitou/parker/jpglossc.htm#Chevron.
[Hákon Þorgeirsson, 02/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
There is no difference between a single chevronelle and a
chevron; at this time we would blazon any single central
"chevronelle" as a chevron regardless of how narrowly it was
drawn, to be in keeping with period armorial practices.
[Aclina of Wyvern Heyghts, 02/2003,
R-Caid]
Because chevrons and fesses embattled (with a complex line
of partition on the top of the charge and a plain line on the
bottom) and embattled counter-embattled (with a complex
line of partition on both sides of the charge) are found as
distinct treatments in period heraldry, there is a type CD
between them. [Robert Blackhawk, 04/2003,
A-Outlands]
The chevron inverted issues from the top corners of the shield
and only extends about halfway down the field, so that it lies
almost entirely in the top half of the field. This is not an
acceptable depiction of a chevron inverted. As a general rule,
chevrons inverted issue from the sides of the shield. One might
posit that it could be acceptable for a chevron inverted to issue
from the chief corners of the field, because in some displays of
armory using chevrons in period on a square form of display (a
banner or a square quarter), the chevron issues from the bottom
corners of the field. However, the chevrons in those period
examples still effectively bisect the field. The chevron inverted
in this submission is too high on the field to bisect the field.
This is therefore not an acceptable depiction of a chevron
inverted. [Erika Bjornsdottir, 04/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[issuant from base three chevronels braced gules sable and
azure] The group of chevronels in three different tinctures
is considered a step from period practice (also known as a
"weirdness"):
Questions were raised regarding having ... three roundels in
three different tinctures. While we were unable, in a quick
look, to find an example of the same charge in three different
tinctures, the Dictionary of British Armory, 2 shows the arms
of Milo Fitzwalter of Glouster as Gules, two bends the upper Or
and lower argent., making the use of the same charge in three
different tinctures only one weirdness. (LoAR February 1998)
Because this armory is only one step from period
practice, it may be registered. [Timur al-Badawi, 07/2003,
A-Artemisia]
Armorial designs of the form A chevron... and in base a
[charge] are often drawn with the chevron higher on the field
than normal, to best fill the space: "[Per chevron gules and
vert, a chevron and in base a Latin cross parted and fretted Or]
Though, as a number of commenters noted, the field division and
chevron were drawn higher on the field than normal, in a design
like this the chevron will normally be enhanced. It is not
necessary to blazon the fact" (LoAR of December 1994). Even given
this period tendency, please advise the submitter to draw the
chevron lower on the field: it is drawn quite high on the field
in this emblazon, even for this sort of armorial design. [Otto
von Aken, 01/2004,
A-Outlands]
There is no difference between a plain chevron and a chevron
ployé... [Isabeau Lia Rossedal, 01/2004,
R-Artemisia]
[Argent, three chevronels azure and overall a fleur-de-lys
gules] In this emblazon, the three chevronels are crunched
together in the center of the shield. We would not expect to find
three chevronels so close together in period armory unless the
chevronels were forced close together due to the presence of
secondary charges (as one might find in the hypothetical armory
Argent, three chevronels azure between three fleurs-de-lys
gules). In this emblazon, the three chevronels were drawn so
close together that this armory could almost be reblazoned as
Argent, on a chevron azure two chevronels argent and overall a
fleur-de-lys gules. As a general rule, three chevronels will
be drawn to fill the field, and are in fact considered
interchangeable with the chevronelly field division (see the LoAR
of November 2001 for more details about this).
Period armory does admit the possibility of two small diminutives
of an ordinary that are close together (rather than filling the
shield): a bar gemel (bar "twinned"). The bar gemel
is heraldically distinct from two bars: the bar gemel
consists of two very thin bars drawn close together, while two
bars will fill the space allotted to them. A bar gemel
is, in effect, a voided bar. A good period example of this
practice can be seen in the Herald's Roll circa 1280 on p. 8 of
Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry: a coat using two
bars is found in the center coat of the bottom row, whereas
armory using two bars gemel is found on the dexter coat of
the top row, and on the sinister coat of the middle row. No
evidence has been presented, and none has been found for a
"triplet" version of a bar gemel. The "gemel" treatment of other
ordinaries, such as chevronels, bendlets or pallets, is
vanishingly rare in period. Aside from a few examples of bendlets
gemel in the 15th C Italian Stemmario Trivulziano, no
evidence has been presented or found for gemel charges other than
bars. The idea of a triplet version of a chevronel is thus two
steps from period practice ("two weirdnesses") and not
registerable. Thus, it is not reasonable to interpret this
emblazon as using such a hypothetical "triplet chevronel."
Because this emblazon blurs the distinction between three
chevronels and a chevron charged with two chevronels, it may not
be registered per RfS VII.7.a, "Identification Requirement".
[Alessandra da Ferrara, 01/2004,
R-Meridies]
CHIEF
It may interest
the College to know that examples of a chief charged with a group
of charges of dissimilar tincture and type are known from the
Tudor period in England. Thomas (Cardinal) Wolsey's arms were
Sable on a cross engrailed argent a lion passant guardant
gules between three (lion's) faces (azure or sable?) on a chief
Or a rose gules between two cocks sable (per p. 80 of
Gwynn-Jones and Bedingfield's Heraldry). Another example
of a chief using a tertiary group with mixed types and tinctures
is on p. 96 of the same book, from Wriothesley's tenure as Garter
Principal King of Arms. Designs where a chief or other ordinary
was charged with two different types of tertiary (an A
between two Bs all in the same tincture) are rather common
in Wriothesley's designs. [Liuete Liana da Luna, 08/2001,
A-Caid]
Please advise the submitter to draw the chief thicker. The chief
should be roughly one-fifth to one-third the height of the
shield. [Ceara ingen uí Líadnáin, 10/2001,
A-Atlantia]
This is not a pile, because it issues from the top corners of the
shield. Nor is it chaussé, because it does not extend all the way
to base. Nor is it a chief triangular, because it is much too
deep. Nor is it a per chevron inverted field division, because it
does not issue from the sides of the field. As a result, this
must be returned. [Rickard of Gwyntarian, 10/2001,
R-Middle]
Chiefs may not be fimbriated. Voiding and fimbriation may only be
used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the
design, by RfS VIII.3. [Gerard du Quartier, 11/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
[Per chevron azure and vert, a chevron and in base a cross
clechy argent] This also conflicts with ... Per chevron
azure and vert, a chevron and a chief embattled argent. There
is one CD for changing the type of secondary charge to a cross
from a chief. RfS X.4.g only allows difference to be gotten for
changes to charge placement or arrangement if the change "is not
caused by other changes to the design". The placement change here
is caused by the change of type of secondary charge from a chief,
which has a mandatory placement. Therefore, there is not a second
CD for changing the arrangement. [Áine inghean uí
Ghríobhtha, 01/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Argent, ... and a chief barry argent and gules] This was
blazoned on the Letter of Intent with three barrulets
enhanced rather than a chief barry. The College felt
that the proportions of the emblazon would be better preserved
with this blazon. [Ii Saburou Katsumari, 03/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[a chief doubly enarched] Please advise the submitter to
draw the chief doubly enarched properly. The center point should
line up with the points where the chief meets the sides of the
shield, as if all three points were on the same horizontal line.
[Etain O'Fouhy, 04/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[a chief invected] The chief is drawn with four
invections, which is an acceptable number. However, the
invections are much too shallow to be acceptable. Good invections
are close to semicircles, about twice as wide as they are deep.
These are so shallow that the line of division is not
identifiable at any distance. [Jacomus Wyndswift, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[a chief enarched and invected] To quote from the LoAR of
June 1997, "While it is true that lines could be enarched and
also embattled, engrailed, et cetera, the enarching was basically
to show the curvature of the shield". Enarched lines are an
exception to the general practice of disallowing the combination
of two different complex lines of partition into one line of
partition, so this enarched and invected chief may be accepted.
[Justinian the Gentle, 05/2002,
A-Outlands]
[Per saltire gules and argent, a serpent nowed and a chief
sable] The sable chief does not have sufficient contrast with
the per saltire gules and argent field, because the sable chief
entirely adjoins a low-contrast gules portion of the field.
The problem [of lack of contrast] is not unique to this field
division: Per bend gules and Or is a neutral field, but Per
bend gules and Or, a chief sable still suffers a lack of
contrast. (LoAR June 1993)
[Þorfinna Grafeldr, 06/2002,
R-Ealdormere]
The emblazon blurs the distinction between a chief and a per fess
line of division. If this is a charged chief, the line marking
the bottom of the chief needs to be higher, and in particular,
the bottom points of the rayonny line should not extend as far
down as the fess point of the shield. The moon should also be
drawn larger as befits a primary charge.
If this is a per fess division, the rayonny line should extend
equally over and under the fess line of the shield. In a per fess
interpetation the equal visual weight of the lozenges and the
moon is appropriate.
As this cannot be accurately blazoned, it must be returned per
RfS VII.7. [Lyutsina Manova, 09/2002,
R-An Tir]
[Argent, three crosses of Cerdaña sable between a chief and a
base azure] This armory is visually equivalent to Azure, a
fess argent charged with three crosses of Cerdaña two and one
sable. It therefore conflicts with a number of pieces of
armory protected by the SCA, including the flag of Honduras
(important non-SCA flag), Azure, on a fess argent five mullets
in saltire azure, and ... Azure, upon a fess argent, a
mole's paw print sable. In each case there is only one CD for
the cumulative changes to the group of charges on the fess.
[Bianca Sereni, 09/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[... a chief vert and for augmentation, on a canton Or a tower
and overall a sword sable] This emblazon does not appear to
depict a correct way of combining a canton with a chief. The
canton as drawn in this emblazon takes up a bit less than the
dexter third of the chief in its horizontal extent and extends
exactly to the bottom of the chief in its vertical extent. This
seems neither the correct way to charge a chief with a canton,
nor the correct way to place a canton so that it surmounts the
entire device.
Parker, in A Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry, states
that a canton, when combined with a chief, will overlie the
chief. This implies that the canton will extend onto the field.
In this armory, since the canton and the field are of the same
tincture, this might result in problems with our rules for
contrast (RfS VIII.2). Franklyn and Tanner, An Encyclopaedic
Dictionary of Heraldry, p. 59, indicate that a canton can be
charged on a chief but they also state that "A canton on a chief
ought to be slightly smaller than the chief's width in order not
to appear like a chief party per 'side'."
We suggest that, if the submitter resubmits, she include
documentation that the form of augmentation that she plans to use
is found in period armory. Note that if she attempts to resubmit
with the canton lying entirely on the chief, or to otherwise
submit with a charged charge on the chief, she should
specifically address how such a violation of the "layer limit"
(RfS VIII.1.c.ii) would be compatible with period styles of
augmentation. [Rachel Wallace, 09/2002,
R-Atlantia]
[Per bend embattled ... and a chief indented] In addition,
the per bend line is not correctly drawn. The per bend line
should bisect the portion of the field which shows beneath the
chief. The chiefmost point on the per bend line should be where
the bottom of the chief meets the dexter side of the shield.
[Eleanor of Orkney, 09/2002,
R-Lochac]
[Gules ... on a chief Or a demi-sun issuant from the line of
division gules] The demi-sun, where it issues from the line
of division of the chief, extends over half way across the line.
Since the demi-sun is the same tincture as the field, this
obscures the identifiability both of the demi-sun and of the
chief. This must therefore be returned under RfS VIII.3. This is
an extension of a previous precedent which did not allow this
design with the demi-sun throughout on the chief:
A demi-sun throughout on a chief must have good contrast with
the charge upon which it lies (the chief). It will
automatically by definition have poor contrast with the field
which it adjoins (assuming that the field is not neutral). This
will be permissible so long as the demi-sun is not of the same
tincture as the field." (CL November 30 1990 p.1)
[Nimenefeld, Canton of, 11/2002,
R-Atlantia]
The chief indented as drawn here is compatible with period style
per the following precedent: "[A chief indented] The device was
blazoned as having three triangles issuant from chief. This style
of indentation can be found in period (for example Lowell of
Balumbye (Lindsay of the Mount, pl. 107)), but it was blazoned as
either indented or three piles. As current scholarship believes
that such chiefs were originally indented with deep indentations,
we decided to blazon it as indented and leave the depth to
artistic license" (LoAR of July 2000). [Celia the Fair,
09/2003,
A-Lochac]
[Azure, ... a chief vair] The chief in the full-sized
emblazon has two rows of identifiable vair bells, but the bottom
row of vair bells is azure against the azure field. When drawing
a vair chief, the bottom row of vair bells should not be of the
same tincture as the field, for contrast reasons. If the bottom
row of the vair bells is the same tincture as the field, it is
difficult or impossible to tell whether the chief has a plain
line of division or if it has a complex line of division (such as
wavy or urdy, depending on the depiction of the vair). In this
emblazon, an attempt was made to clarify the issue by demarking
the chief with a thick black line, but that does not materially
help the contrast problem, as the thick black line is almost
impossible to see between the blue bottom of the vair bells and
the blue field. The thick line also raises the possibility of
fimbriation: by long-standing SCA precedent, chiefs may not be
fimbriated. [Caitilín ni Killane, 09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[Per saltire sable and vert ... and on a chief Or] Please
advise the submitter to draw the per saltire line issuing from
the intersection of the bottom of the chief and the side of the
field, rather than issuing entirely from the chief. [Fiacc
MacDougal, 10/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
COLLAR
[a
horse's head contourny erased Or collared gules] This is
clear of conflict with ... Sable, a single headed chess knight
contourny Or. There is a CD for changing the field and a
second CD for adding the collar. "When considering a full beast
or monster gorged, the gorging is usually treated as an artistic
detail, worth no difference. When consider the same creature's
head gorged, however, the gorging is much more prominent in
proportion --- and treated as a tertiary charge." (LoAR 9/93 p.5)
[Ceinwen ferch Rhys ap Gawain, 03/2002,
A-Caid]
[stag's head erased gorged of a pearled coronet ...
argent] A beast's head gorged of a coronet or collar is
treated by the SCA as having a tertiary charge. "When
[considering a] creature's head gorged, however, the gorging is
much more prominent in proportion --- and treated as a tertiary
charge." (LoAR of September 1993). A tertiary charge needs to
have good contrast with the underlying charge. This coronet is
the same tincture as the underlying head, so it violates our
rules for contrast. On a full-sized beast, where a collar is
considered an artist's detail rather than a charge in its own
right, it would be acceptable to have a no-contrast detail of
this nature. [Chrestienne de Waterdene, 04/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
The College was generally in agreement that the addition or
deletion of a crown from the head of a (whole) animal should not
be worth difference. Some period evidence was presented
suggesting that, in armory using a crowned animal, the crown was
at times dropped from the emblazon. Such an easily deletable
artist's distinction should not be considered to be worth
difference.
The College was not able to find period evidence about whether
crowned animal's heads could have the crown added or deleted by
artistic license. Some commenters suggested that perhaps crowns
on animal's heads should be considered analogous to collars on
animal's heads. Current precedent gives a CD for collaring an
animal's head (as if the collar were a tertiary charge) but does
not give a CD for adding a collar to a whole animal. However,
these two designs are not truly analogous. A collar on an
animal's head does indeed function as a tertiary charge and thus
must have good contrast with the head on which it lies. This good
contrast enhances the collar's visual prominence. However, a
crown on an animal's head does not generally have such good
contrast. The crown generally either has poor contrast with the
field or with the animal's head. In addition, a crown may be
further obscured by some artistic details of the head on which it
lies, such as ruffled eagle's feathers or a lion's mane.
Without period evidence to the contrary, and because of the
contrast problems inherent in the design of a crown on an
animal's head, it does not seem appropriate to give difference
for adding a crown to a charge consisting only of an animal's
head. [12/2002,
CL]
[A domestic cat's head caboshed sable issuant from a collar
Or, dependent from the collar a fleur-de-lys azure] When an
animal's head is collared, the neck shows above and beneath the
collar, and the collar is treated as a tertiary charge. In this
armory, the cat's head rests atop a disproportionately wide and
deep collar. The cat's neck is not visible beneath the collar.
This does not appear to be a period way of depicting a collared
animal's head, and the size of the collar raises questions both
about period depiction and about charge groups; it is too large
to be a small maintained charge, but is too small to be
co-primary. Without documentation for this design, it cannot be
accepted.
If the submitter redraws this design with the cat's neck showing
beneath the collar, the collar will count as a tertiary charge.
[Cristal Fleur de la Mer, 02/2003,
R-Caid]
Conflict with Enawynne Olwen, Per bend vert and azure, a sword
proper surmounted by a horse's head couped argent gorged of a
collar Or, chased sable. ... The collar in Enawynne's armory
is sable with Or edges, and is at the very bottom of the horse's
neck, so that the bottom edge of the collar lies directly on the
field (unlike a usual collared head, where the collar lies
entirely on the neck, with neck showing above and below the
collar). In this emblazon, the gorging functions more like
fimbriation of the bottom edge of the horse's neck rather than a
tertiary charge on the neck. It also lacks visual significance.
This oddly placed collar is thus not worth difference for its
addition or removal. [Gareth Marcellus von Köln, 11/2003,
R-Caid]
COMET
Some commenters
felt that heading a comet of a roundel, rather than a mullet or
an estoile, might be an additional problem with this armory.
However, given the different period depictions of comets, a comet
headed of a roundel is a reasonable variant. [Dagun
Karababagai, 07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[a comet fesswise] The comet was originally blazoned as a
mullet of eight points elongated to sinister. Because the
elongated point is many times longer than the mullet itself, this
charge is not perceived as a mullet with an elongated point.
While this charge is not an acceptable depiction of a mullet with
an elongated point, it is an acceptable depiction of a comet.
Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme's article "Blazoning Comets and
Sparks" (1989 Caidan Heraldic Symposium Proceedings) provides a
number of different period depictions of comets. Each comet
consists of a small, compact head and a long trailing tail, but
the specifics of the different heads and tails are quite
different. One comet from c. 1301 has a round head charged with a
mullet of eight points, and the tail is a long straight point,
much like this charge's tail (except with slight fuzzy details).
Another comet from c. 1493 has a head consisting of a mullet of
eight points. Based on this evidence, this charge is a reasonable
variant of a period comet. [Timur al-Badawi, 07/2003,
A-Artemisia]
[a comet ... headed of a compass star] Period comets are
drawn with a wide variety of head shapes, as noted in Bruce
Draconarius of Mistholme's article "Blazoning Comets and Sparks"
(1989 Caidan Heraldic Symposium Proceedings). The submitting
barony's device has a compass star as its primary charge, so it
seemed appropriate to accede to their request to blazon the shape
of the head of the comet explicitly. [Highland Foorde, Barony
of, 09/2003,
A-Atlantia]
COMPASS STAR and
SUN
see also MULLET
[Argent, a sun
sable charged with a mullet of four points argent] This is in
conflict with ... (Fieldless) On a mullet of seven points
pommetty sable a sperm whale naiant argent. There is a CD for
fieldlessness, but nothing for changing the sun to a multipointed
mullet and nothing for type only of tertiary charge on a sun.
This badge also conflicts with ... Argent, scaly vert, on a
compass star nowed and elongated to base sable, a winged ram
salient argent. There is a CD for adding the field treatment,
but again, nothing for changing the type of primary charge from a
compass star nowy to a sun. A compass star nowy, with its central
disk, is even more like a sun than a standard compass star or
multipointed mullet. Again, there is no difference for change of
type only of tertiary charge on a sun. It also conflicts with ...
Potenty gules and argent, a sun sable eclipsed argent charged
with a mullet throughout sable. Here, there's one CD for the
change of the field, nothing for change of type only of tertiary
charge, and nothing for addition of the quaternary charge.
[Nathaniel Constantine of Saxony, 09/2001,
R-Atenveldt]
... please advise the submitter to resubmit with a more standard
drawing of a sun. Period suns are generally multipointed mullets
(sometimes with some wavy rays) which fit into a circle. In this
case, the "sun" has points elongated to chief, base, dexter, and
sinister. [Nathaniel Constantine of Saxony, 09/2001,
R-Atenveldt] [Ed.: Returned for conflict]
... estoiles are one CD from compass stars. [Letia
Thistelthueyt, 12/2001,
A-Atlantia]
... there is no difference between a compass star and a riven
star per the LoAR of April 2001. [Iamys of Loch Cairn,
01/2002,
R-Meridies]
[(Fieldless) On a mullet of five greater and five lesser
points Or a griffin passant contourny sable] "There's ...no
difference between suns and multi-pointed mullets --- which
includes compass stars" (LoAR June 1993 p.18). Therefore this
badge has multiple conflicts. In each case, there is one CD for
fieldlessness. In all the cases, there is nothing for change of
type only of tertiary charge on a sun or multipointed mullet, as
this shape is not simple for purposes of RfS X.4.j.ii. [Burke
Kyriell MacDonald, 02/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[a sun vs. a mullet of sevin points] By current precedent
there is not a CD between a multi-pointed mullet and sun...
[Máire MacPharthláin, 02/2002,
R-Calontir]
[(Fieldless) A reremouse displayed sable conjoined in chief to
a compass star pierced Or] The compass star was blazoned on
the Letter of Intent as pierced sable, but the piercing on
the colored emblazon is not black but white. A compass star Or
pierced argent would have inadequate contrast, as the piercing is
equivalent to a tertiary roundel. A compass star pierced Or
(which is to say, a compass star Or with an untinctured hole in
the center, through which the field shows) is not acceptable on a
fieldless badge per the LoAR of January 2000:
Current precedent is that we only allow the piercing of charges
on fieldless badges when those charges were found pierced in
period armory (thus disallowing omni-tinctured tertiary
charges). While a compass star is closely related to a mullet,
it is nevertheless a different charge, one not found in period
armory. Therefore we are not inclined to give it the benefit of
the doubt and allow it to be pierced as we would a mullet or
spur rowel.
[Argus Caradoc, 03/2002,
R-Meridies]
We give no type difference for the change between mullets of
eight points and compass stars. [Rixa Eriksdottir,
05/2002,
R-Meridies]
[Ermine, on a pile gules a demi-sun issuant from base Or]
A demi-sun is a semi-circular charge. If a demi-sun is drawn from
the bottom of a pile, it should subtend an arc of a circle. This
charge subtends an arc of some tall thin oval and is not clearly
recognizable as a demi-sun: it's too elongated. (It's so
difficult to describe an unusual shape in words. The best I can
do here is "an ice cream cone with some small sun rays issuant
from the top of the ice cream scoop".) The rays of the charge are
too short to allow this charge to be reblazoned as rays of the
sun issuant from base (as can be seen in Parker's A
Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry under Ray). Because
this charge cannot be blazoned, it must be returned for
redrawing. It is not clear whether a demi-sun can be correctly
drawn issuant from base on a charge as narrow at the base as a
pile. [Dmitrii Ivanovich Rostovskii, 07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Per pale Or and gules, a sun in splendor counterchanged]
Conflict under RfS X.5, "Visual Test", with Ajax Thermopylokles,
Per pale Or and gules, a Gorgon's head cabossed
counterchanged. The particular stylization of the gorgon's
head in Ajax' armory leads it to be visually very similar to a
sun in splendor. The snakes are evenly arrayed radially about the
gorgon's face, rather than just issuant from the top of the head
as one might expect of a gorgon with snakes for hair. The
gorgon's face is also very stylized, more like a mask than a
face. Thus the face resembles the disk of a sun more than one
might expect of a standard woman's face. Overall the visual
similarity is so overwhelming that we have no choice but to call
conflict under RfS X.5. In ordinary circumstances we would expect
there to be X.2 difference between a variant of a human head and
a sun. [Liudmila Vladimirova doch', 09/2002,
R-Caid]
... no difference between a demi-sun and a demi-compass star.
[Dominica Maquerelle, 09/2002,
R-Meridies]
The suns in this emblazon have faces and thus could be blazoned
as suns in their splendor. However, this term is not
required. The suns were blazoned by the submitter simply as
suns, so we have preserved the desired simpler blazon.
[Signy Halfdanardottir, 10/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
[Gules ... on a chief Or a demi-sun issuant from the line of
division gules] The demi-sun, where it issues from the line
of division of the chief, extends over half way across the line.
Since the demi-sun is the same tincture as the field, this
obscures the identifiability both of the demi-sun and of the
chief. This must therefore be returned under RfS VIII.3. This is
an extension of a previous precedent which did not allow this
design with the demi-sun throughout on the chief:
A demi-sun throughout on a chief must have good contrast with
the charge upon which it lies (the chief). It will
automatically by definition have poor contrast with the field
which it adjoins (assuming that the field is not neutral). This
will be permissible so long as the demi-sun is not of the same
tincture as the field." (CL November 30 1990 p.1)
[Nimenefeld, Canton of, 11/2002,
R-Atlantia]
[(Fieldless) A mullet of five greater and five lesser points
within and conjoined to an annulet argent] Conflict with ...
Azure, a compass rose argent. There's one CD for
fieldlessness. Precedent holds that a compass star within an
annulet has no difference from a compass rose: "There is no
difference given between a compass rose and a compass star within
an annulet" (LoAR June 2000). No difference is given between
mullets of six or more points, so this submission's mullet of
five greater and five lesser points within an annulet is
heraldically equivalent to a compass star within an annulet.
[Hans Dörrmast von der Wanderlust, 12/2002,
R-An Tir]
There is one CD for the difference between a sun and a demi-sun,
but there is not substantial difference for purposes of RfS X.2.
In addition, there are a number of other conflicting pieces of
armory consisting solely of a demi-compass star or demi-mullet of
eight or more points on a field. Demi-mullets of many points are
not given type difference from a demi-sun, and the submitter
should be careful to avoid these conflicts on resubmission.
[Atenveldt, Kingdom of, 12/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
... RfS X.4.j.ii does not apply to charges on suns because of the
complex outline of the sun. Thus, there is no difference for
changing the type only of tertiary charge. [Nimenefeld, Canton
of, 01/2003,
R-Atlantia]
There is no difference between a sun and a mullet of eight
points... [Nimenefeld, Canton of, 01/2003,
R-Atlantia]
We also advise the submitter that, while a compass star is
defined as a mullet of four greater and four lesser points, the
lesser points need to be drawn larger, perhaps about half the
length of the primary rays of the mullet. Here they are so small
that they are very hard to see. [Aclina of Wyvern Heyghts,
02/2003,
R-Caid] [Ed.: Returned for conflict.]
[a demi-sun eclipsed issuant from base counterchanged]
While the fact that the demi-sun is eclipsed does hamper its
identifiability, the overall identifiability of the charge
remains acceptable. [Jon the Tall, 04/2003,
A-Meridies]
Some members of the College of Arms asked if it was acceptable to
have a the mullet and the sun in the same charge group, or
whether this was a "sword and dagger" problem. A mullet of five
points is a heraldically distinct charge from a sun. The two are
not possible artistic variants of each other (unlike a sword and
a dagger, or a dragon and a wyvern). As a result, there is no
problem having a charge group which incorporates both a sun and a
mullet of five points. [Elinor Larke le Dauncer, 04/2003,
R-Middle]
[a mullet of four points elongated to base vs. a compass
star] There is no difference between a mullet of four points
and a compass star per the LoAR of January 2001: "As neither a
compass star nor a mullet of four points are period charges, and
they differ only by the addition of the lesser points, there is
not a CD between a mullet of four points and a compass star."
There is also no difference for the slight artistic variant in
elongating the bottom point of a mullet. [Catherine Diana de
Chambéry, 05/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[(Fieldless) A mullet of eight points gyronny purpure and
argent] This does not conflict with ... Ermine, a mullet
of four points gyronny argent and purpure. There is one CD
for fieldlessness. There is a second CD between a mullet of eight
points and a mullet of four points. Note that this is a different
case from the comparison of a compass star with a mullet of four
points. Because of the unusual, and non-period, design of the
compass star, with its four greater and four lesser points, a
compass star conflicts both with a mullet of four points and with
a mullet of eight points. [Alia Marie de Blois, 07/2003,
A-Outlands]
There is no type difference between the compass stars and the
mullets of six points. Because of the unusual (and non-period)
design of compass stars, with their four greater and four lesser
points, they are considered as variants of both mullets of four
points and mullets of eight points. There is no type difference
between mullets of six points and mullets of eight points and,
hence, no difference between mullets of six points and compass
stars. [Brian Sigfridsson von Niedersachsen, 07/2003,R-Atenveldt]
There is no difference between a sun and a mullet of eight points
per the following precedent: "There is ... nothing for the
difference between a sun and a multi-pointed mullet" (LoAR May
1998, p. 28). [Disa blat{o,}nn, 08/2003,
R-Caid]
There have been a number of requests in the commentary to modify
the gender used in referring to (for example) a sun in its
splendor or a moon in her plenitude. We allow suns to be either
masculine or neuter, and we allow moons to be either feminine or
neuter, and we will retain the submitter's blazon when feasible.
[10/2003,
CL]
[mullets vs. compass stars] ... a second CD between the
default mullets of five points and compass stars. RfS X.4.e
states that "A charge not used in period armory will be
considered different in type if its shape in normal depiction is
significantly different." Compass stars are not used in period
armory and thus must be compared with mullets of five points on
visual grounds. They have sufficient visual difference to be
given a CD. [Asad de Barcelona, 10/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
There is no difference for changing only the type of the tertiary
charge on a sun under either the new or old version of RfS
X.4.j.ii, since a sun is not a "suitable" charge under that rule.
[Fionnghuala inghen ui Chonchobhair, 12/2003,
R-Drachenwald]
Both Parker, in A Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry, and
Brooke-Little, in An Heraldic Alphabet, explain that a sun
in his glory is the same thing as a sun in his splendor. This
information is found under the header "sun". [Caerell mac
Domnaill, 02/2004,
A-Ansteorra]
COMPLEXITY
see also STYLE
[a pole-axe
gules overall in pale a wolf statant contourny and a stag
trippant] This submission is comprised of a primary charge of
an axe with an overall charge group of a wolf statant contourny
and a stag trippant. This is not technically "slot machine"
heraldry as it does not have a single charge group with more than
two types of charge. However, there seem to be no period examples
of an overall charge group comprised of two different animals.
Since overall charge groups are relatively rare in period, and
most of them are ordinaries, this seems to be beyond the bounds
of period style. [Eric Martel, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
[Per chevron purpure fretty Or and Or, in base a bunch of
grapes purpure leaved within a laurel wreath vert] This
device uses three primary charges of three different types in a
single charge group: the grapes, the wreath, and the fretty
(which is equivalent to a fret). This is not allowable style by
RfS VIII.1.a. [Bordescros, Shire of, 03/2002,
R-Lochac]
[adding coronets to a device] This submission exceeds the
rule of thumb for complexity in RfS VIII.1.a, as the number of
tinctures and the number of types of charge total nine. This rule
of thumb may be exceeded in cases where the armory adheres
strongly to period armorial design, but that is not the case in
this device.
It is important to note that the allowances for overcomplexity
when considering augmentations do not apply to simple device
changes. Device changes incorporating symbols of rank are not
augmentations. Augmentations are a special honor from the crown.
[Sara Charmaine of Falkensee, 01/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[a bezant conjoined to in pale a sinister wing and a sinister
wing inverted argent all surmounting two lightning bolts crossed
in saltire] This armory consists of a single group of charges
(effectively, a sheaf of charges) consisting of three
separate types of charge: roundel, wings, and lightning bolts.
This is thus overcomplex by RfS VIII.1.a.
The odd arrangement of the wings and the bezant was commented on
by a number of College members. Usually a winged object is winged
with two displayed wings. Here the rotary nature of the wings'
arrangement is unusual, and required a somewhat convoluted blazon
as a result. We advise the submitter to consider designing the
winged roundel in a more conventional fashion on his
resubmission. [Jovinus Meridius, 04/2003,
R-Meridies]
[in pale a stag at gaze argent and a bow bendwise sinister,
drawn and with arrow nocked Or] The armory is not overly
complex "slot machine" heraldry (using more than two types of
charge in a single charge group) because prior precedent
indicates that a bow and arrow in a standard position are treated
as if they were a single charge. A drawn bow and arrow are in a
standard position for a bow and arrow.
[considering a strung bow and arrow along with another
charge] The question was raised as to whether or not this is
considered slot machine since it has three dissimilar charges
in one group. While it is true that it has three charges, when
a bow and arrow are in their standard, expected position they
are considered one charge, just like a sword in a scabbard is
considered one charge. It is only when they are separated, or
put into non standard positions for their normal use, such as
being crossed in saltire, that they become two separate
charges. (LoAR April 1999)
[Rotheric Kynith, 06/2003,
A-Caid]
[Per chevron sable and Or, three fleurs-de-lis in chevron Or
and lying atop a single-horned anvil a smith's hammer sable]
RfS VIII.1.a states in part that "Three or more types of charges
should not be used in the same group." (Charge groups using three
or more types of charge are sometimes colloquially known in the
SCA as "slot-machine" heraldry.) Traditionally, maintained
charges are not considered when determining whether armory is too
complex to comply with this portion of RfS VIII.1.a. In this
submission, the smith's hammer is effectively a maintained charge
and thus can be disregarded for purposes of this portion of RfS
VIII.1.a, leaving only two types of charge in the group: the
fleurs-de-lis and the anvil. [Gilbert Valker, 07/2003,
A-Lochac]
[Per pale argent and vert, a thistle and a drawn bow reversed
and nocked with an arrow counterchanged, on a chief gules three
goblets Or] The Letter of Intent noted that this was a
complex device. It cited the precedent stating: "[considering a
strung bow and arrow along with another charge] The
question was raised as to whether or not this is considered slot
machine since it has three dissimilar charges in one group. While
it is true that it has three charges, when a bow and arrow are in
their standard, expected position they are considered one charge,
just like a sword in a scabbard is considered one charge. It is
only when they are separated, or put into non standard positions
for their normal use, such as being crossed in saltire, that they
become two separate charges" (April 1999 LoAR, p. 6).
The cited precedent addresses the part of RfS VIII.1, which
states "three or more types of charges should not be used in the
same group". In this submission, the primary charge group
consists of the thistle and the bow and arrow, and by the cited
precedent, this primary charge group is considered to have two
types of charge for purposes of the "number of types of charge in
one group" portion of RfS VIII.1: a thistle, and a "bow and
arrow" charge.
The cited precedent does not, however, address the portion of RfS
VIII.1, which states "In no case should the number of different
tinctures or types of charges be so great as to eliminate the
visual impact of any single design element. As a rule of thumb,
the total of the number of tinctures plus the number of types of
charges in a design should not exceed eight." The visual
complexity of this armory is extreme: the design is not visually
coherent, the visual impact of the various design elements is
minimized, and in general, the design does not appear to be
period style. The most complex armory generally found in period
was designed in Tudor England, but Tudor armory generally has
significantly more symmetry and coherence than this armory. One
could legitimately argue that the 1999 precedent cited above
about bows and arrows doesn't apply to RfS VIII.1 in general, but
just applies to the issue of multiple types of charge in a single
charge group. However, because the "complexity count" of types +
tinctures is a rule of thumb, rather than a hard and fast rule,
it doesn't strictly matter whether we decide that the number of
tinctures and charges in the design adds to nine (counting the
bow and the arrow separately) or eight (counting the bow and
arrow together as a "bow and arrow") charge. Inspection of this
armory shows that it has "crossed over the line" for allowable
complexity, and must be returned. [Brian McRay, 09/2003,
R-Caid]
CONTRAST
[Checky Or and argent, on a
fess sable ...] The use of Checky Or and argent is
grandfathered to the Kingdom of An Tir. [An Tir, Kingodm
of, 09/2001,
A-An Tir]
[Purpure ... a ford proper] Please advise the submitter to
draw the ford so that an argent stripe is against the purpure
field. This is still identifiable as a ford since it has enough
stripes, so this does not need to be returned for contrast
problems. [Sabine d'Angers, 10/2001,
A-An Tir]
[Argent, an angel argent winged and garbed gules crined and
cuirassed sable] The device blazon appears at first glance to
refer to an argent angel on an argent field. However, given the
tinctures of the hair, wings and garb of the angel, there is no
argent portion of the angel which rests directly on the field.
Thus this has no more of a contrast problem than there is in the
arms Argent, a cross argent fimbriated azure. [Sankt
Vladimir, College of, 10/2001,
A-Atenveldt]
[Gyronny sable and Or, a lozenge within a bordure azure]
The Letter of Intent asked whether an azure charge may be
identifiable on a partially sable gyronny field. RfS VIII.2.a.ii
indicates that this is a legal color combination as long as
identifiability is preserved. This emblazon maintains
identifiability due to the simple outline of the lozenge.
[Brigid of Kincarn, 01/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[Per pale azure and argent, in saltire a pickaxe argent hafted
and a sword inverted and in base a rose slipped and leaved all
proper all within a bordure Or] ... the contrast of the sword
may not be acceptable. Some of the argent blade lies on the
no-contrast argent part of the field, and the Or hilt, one of the
more identifiable parts of the sword, also lies on the
poor-contrast argent part of the field. [Óláfr Ljótarson af
Øy, 02/2002,
R-Meridies][Ed.: Returned for complexity]
[Quarterly azure and argent, in pale a raven perched atop a
decrescent sable] This submission has insufficient contrast.
Sable objects technically have good contrast on a quarterly azure
and argent field by RfS VIII.2.a.2: "Good contrast exists between
... ii. An element equally divided of a color and a metal, and
any other element as long as identifiability is maintained." In
this submission, identifiability is not maintained. All the
identifying portions of the close bird are on the low contrast
portion of the field, as are the more identifiable portions of
the decrescent. We were unable to identify either charge
accurately without close viewing of the form. This is therefore
not identifiable due to marginal contrast by RfS VIII.3, Armorial
Identifiability: "Elements must be used in a design so as to
preserve their individual identifiability. Identifiable elements
may be rendered unidentifiable by significant reduction in size,
marginal contrast, excessive counterchanging, voiding, or
fimbriation, or by being obscured by other elements of the
design." [Tristan Ravencrest, 03/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Azure, a heart gules winged argent] Many commenters
raised questions about contrast concerning this device. Some
asked if the charge could be considered to be neutral (an element
equally divided of a color and a metal): it might be so
considered because the wings are visually half the charge. RfS
VIII.2 states "Good contrast exists between: ... ii. An element
equally divided of a color and a metal, and any other element as
long as identifiability is maintained." However, the winged heart
does not have sufficient contrast with the field to maintain
identifiability, because the heart is the primary identifying
element of the charge, and the whole heart has poor contrast with
the field. These cases must be determined on a case by case
basis, and the consensus of the College was that the winged heart
was not sufficiently identifiable due to contrast. [Mariana de
Santiago, 03/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
Bordures may be counterchanged over a gyronny field. We have many
period examples of bordures compony, which are almost the same in
appearance as bordures gyronny. Because the bordure
counterchanged has large enough pieces to maintain its
identifiability, and it looks like a common multiply divided
period bordure, it may be accepted without explicit documentation
of a bordure counterchanged on a gyronny field. [Wulfgar
Neumann, 03/2002,
P-Outlands]
[stag's head erased gorged of a pearled coronet ...
argent] A beast's head gorged of a coronet or collar is
treated by the SCA as having a tertiary charge. "When
[considering a] creature's head gorged, however, the gorging is
much more prominent in proportion --- and treated as a tertiary
charge." (LoAR of September 1993). A tertiary charge needs to
have good contrast with the underlying charge. This coronet is
the same tincture as the underlying head, so it violates our
rules for contrast. On a full-sized beast, where a collar is
considered an artist's detail rather than a charge in its own
right, it would be acceptable to have a no-contrast detail of
this nature. [Chrestienne de Waterdene, 04/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Per fess engrailed azure and vert] The engrailed line of
division is drawn well with five engrailings of a reasonable
depth, and is not obscured by other elements of the armory. The
line is identifiable enough to accept even though azure and vert
have some of the poorest contrast of any two-color combination.
[Helga Iden dohtir, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[Per pale and per chevron inverted vert and azure] The
field has unacceptable contrast. By RfS VIII.2.b.iii and
VIII.2.b.iv, the only fields which are divided into four parts
and which are acceptable with two low-contrast tinctures are
quarterly and per saltire. [Eoin mac Neill mhic
Lochlainn, 04/2002,
R-East]
[Sable, a Catherine wheel argent charged with a capital letter
A gules] As drawn, the letter A lies almost completely on the
field because of the spaces between the spokes of the wheel. It
therefore needs to have good contrast with the field, and it does
not. [Katherine Linnet Holford, 04/2002,
R-Outlands]
[Azure, a camel rampant Or wearing a hat gules and maintaining
in its mouth a bottle fesswise reversed vert] The hat (which
functions as a maintained charge) and the maintained bottle both
have insufficient contrast with the field. This is acceptable for
maintained charges, which are not worth difference, as long as
the charge in question has some contrast with the field.
[Xenos the Butcher, 06/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[(Fieldless) A crossbow within and conjoined to an oak chaplet
Or] The oak chaplet is surmounted in base by a very small
rose, so small that it does not impact the outline of the charge.
The rose has no contrast with the chaplet and is not identifiable
at other than very close range. It appears to function as a
nonblazonable artistic detail rather than an actual heraldic
charge, and so we have removed it from the blazon. The
alternative was to return it for identifiability problems. On a
fieldless badge, it is not acceptable design to have an an
overall charge that is of the same tincture as, and virtually
completely overlapping, the underlying charge. [West, Kingdom
of the, 06/2002,
A-West]
[Per saltire gules and argent, a serpent nowed and a chief
sable] The sable chief does not have sufficient contrast with
the per saltire gules and argent field, because the sable chief
entirely adjoins a low-contrast gules portion of the field.
The problem [of lack of contrast] is not unique to this field
division: Per bend gules and Or is a neutral field, but Per
bend gules and Or, a chief sable still suffers a lack of
contrast. (LoAR June 1993)
[Þorfinna Grafeldr, 06/2002,
R-Ealdormere]
[Per bend gules and argent, two rapiers in saltire argent and
a caravel proper sailed Or] The ship, like most ships, has
sails which are roughly half the charge. The ship, therefore, is
equally divided of a color (the dark brown wood proper of the
hull) and a metal (the Or of the sails). RfS VIII.2.a.ii provides
that "Good contrast exists between ... an element equally divided
of a color and a metal, and any other element as long as
identifiability is maintained." The ship is acceptably
identifiable, and therefore, has good contrast with its
underlying field. [Damian of Ered Sûl, 07/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[Purpure, a wyvern sejant maintaining a sword bendwise and in
chief two thistles argent] The sword is drawn in an
unrecognizable fashion. While the recognizability of maintained
charges is not expected to be as good as the recognizability of
primary or secondary charges, here the identifying hilt of the
sword lies entirely on the wyvern, which is the same tincture.
[William Cormac Britt, 07/2002,
R-Meridies]
[Per fess dovetailed purpure and sable] Some commenters
asked whether a complex line of partition was ever acceptable
between sable and purpure, due to the particularly low contrast
of these tinctures. Complex lines between low contrast tinctures
are rare in period armory. However, a smattering of such designs
does occur, and such examples include a variety of low-contrast
tincture combinations. As a result, as long as the line of
partition remains identifiable and is not obscured by other
elements of the design, complex lines between low-contrast
tinctures may be allowed between any pair of low-contrast
tinctures. The line of partition in this emblazon is not obscured
by the tinctures of the field or by overlying charges, and it
will be acceptable if its placement is changed to clearly show a
per fess division. [Agneszka the Wanderer, 09/2002,
R-Meridies]
[Vair, a squirrel passant gules pierced by an arrow bendwise
sable] The black charge on the vair field, which lines up
with the azure panes of the vair field, is almost invisible and
certainly cannot be identified as an arrow. This must be redrawn
so that the arrow may be identified in order to be acceptable per
RfS VIII.3. As the arrow is currently drawn, it appears to be a
shadow on one diagonal row of the vair bells. [Mark of
Bergental, 10/2002,
R-East]
[natural rainbow proper] The SCA charge of a natural
rainbow proper is tinctured (from chief to base) in red, orange,
yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet. The tinctures are
reversed in this emblazon, with the violet on the top and the red
on the bottom. The reversal of the tinctures makes this an
unacceptable variant of the natural rainbow, and is a reason for
return.
The natural rainbow is drawn with argent clouds by default, and
this rainbow is also drawn with argent clouds. The clouds have no
contrast with the argent portion of the field on which the
rainbow lies. This may well be a reason for return. However, in
some cases it is allowable for a charge to have some small
no-contrast details as long as the overall identifiability of the
charge is maintained. At this time, we decline to rule on whether
it is acceptable to have a natural rainbow with its proper argent
clouds on an argent field, as there was no clear College
consensus about whether this should be acceptable. It is
allowable to have a natural rainbow proper clouded in some
specified tincture, and we encourage the submitter to avoid this
question by resubmitting with a rainbow where the clouds have
some contrast with the underlying field. [Phillida Parker,
12/2002,
R-Ealdormere]
[Azure, ... in chief a ducal coronet Or embellished with
strawberry leaves vert]The green strawberry leaves have
insufficient contrast with the underlying azure field. This is
not acceptable per RfS VIII.2. The strawberry leaves are not a
minor artistic detail of the coronet: they are a large part of
what makes the charge identifiable as a coronet of any sort, and
the only thing that allows it to be identifiable as a ducal
coronet. [Chrystofer Kensor, 01/2003,
R-Calontir]
[Per fess wavy vert and azure, a bucket Or] RfS VIII.3
notes that obscuring a complex low-contrast line of partition may
well be grounds for return for unidentifiability. We have such a
case here: the bucket covers most of the line of partition.
[Jorunn Eydisardottir, 01/2003,
R-Calontir]
[Per fess azure and per pale gules and sable] The field
has unacceptable contrast. The pertinent rules for submission
concerning contrast in divided fields or other armorial elements
are:
RfS VIII.2.b.iii: Elements evenly divided into two parts, per
saltire, or quarterly may use any two tinctures or furs.
RfS VIII.2.b.iv: Elements evenly divided into multiple parts of
two different tinctures must have good contrast between their
parts.
RfS VIII.2.b.v: Elements evenly divided in three tinctures must
have good contrast between two of their parts.
While the rules for contrast do not explicitly
discuss fields which are divided unequally into multiple
parts, the overriding principle of the rules for divided fields
is that fields must have good contrast between their parts unless
they are "evenly divided into two parts, per saltire, or
quarterly." Here no portion of the field has good contrast with
any other portion of the field, so the overriding principle of
the rules for contrast are not met. [Grifon fuiz
Guillaume, 02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Sable, a spear bendwise sinister argent hafted of wood and
enflamed proper] The spear is mostly a wood-brown charge.
This has inadequate contrast with the sable field. The enflaming
does not remove the requirement that the charge should have good
contrast with the field on which it lies. This is thus in
violation of RfS VIII.2.b.i. [Philip Bell, 02/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[Per chevron vert and per pale Or and gules, a chevron
dovetailed on the upper edge argent between three compass stars
Or and a fleur-de-lys florency per pale gules and Or] The
original blazon, Per chevron vert and per pale Or and gules, a
chevron dovetailed on the upper edge argent between in fess three
compass stars and a fleur-de-lys florency counterchanged, was
unclear about the tincture of the counterchanged charges on this
field, as there is no well-defined behavior for counterchanging
charges on a field per chevron and per pale. In particular, the
College was unable to ascertain the tincture of the compass
stars. This must therefore be pended for further conflict
research.
There were some questions about the contrast of this field. We
note that the Cover Letter for the LoAR of October 2000 gives
substantial discussion of "medium contrast" fields, defined as
fields "divided so that half was a solid color and half was
evenly divided between color and metal." Such fields are, given
the Cover Letter discussion, clearly acceptable as long as the
charges on them have acceptable contrast (which is the main topic
of discussion in the Cover Letter). By the guidelines in the
Cover Letter for the October 2000 LoAR, in this submission, both
the field and the charges upon it have acceptable contrast.
[Oriana Luisa della Francesca, 02/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[Azure, a pale lozengy argent and vert] Please advise the
submitter to draw the pale lozengy so that the parts of the pale
which lie against the azure field are the high-contrast argent
portions rather than the low-contrast vert portions. [Eíbhlïn
inghean Fhearghusa, 04/2003,
A-Meridies]
[(Fieldless) An anchor fouled of its cable argent enfiling a
coronet bendwise sinister Or pearled argent] There are also
contrast problems with this emblazon. The argent pearls on the
coronet overlap the argent anchor, giving no contrast at those
points. [William the Mariner, 04/2003,
R-An Tir]
[Argent, a pile inverted vert issuant from a ford proper]
The ford is drawn with the blue stripe to chief, lying entirely
against the vert pile inverted. This has insufficient contrast,
as the remainder of the ford does not have enough stripes to
clearly identify it as a ford. If the ford were drawn with two
more stripes, or if the pile issued from the center of the ford
(so that the top stripe on the ford laid partially against the
field), there would not be a problem with having the blue stripe
at the top of the ford.
The College had some questions about the way that the bottom of
the ford extends exactly across the bottom of the pile inverted.
As a general rule, we would expect a pile inverted to be somewhat
thinner and thus issue from the center of the ford, rather than
extend all the way across the ford. [Kateryne Segrave,
04/2003,
R-East]
[Per chevron ermine and sable, on a chevron gules fimbriated
... Or] The fimbriation on the top half of the chevron is
effectively invisible, since it is a very thin Or line against an
ermine field. This has inadequate contrast per RfS VIII.2. Note
that so far no evidence has been presented where, in period
armory, the fimbriation failed to have good contrast with both
the charge being fimbriated and the field on which the charge
lies. [Ysolt de la Mere, 05/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[... argent ... a fountain] It is acceptable to place a
fountain on a field or underlying charge that shares one of the
tinctures of the fountain as long as the fountain maintains its
identifiability as a roundel barry wavy argent and azure (or the
other way around.) As drawn in this emblazon, the identifiability
of the fountain is not preserved. Because the top and bottom
portions of the fountain are both argent, this appears almost as
if it were three bars wavy couped on the sail. [Ástríðr in
hárfagra, 07/2003,
R-Lochac]
[Per pale fleury-counterfleury vert and azure] ... there
was some question as to whether the fleury-counterfleury line of
division could ever be registerable between low-contrast
tinctures. The October 1998 LoAR, p. 12, discussed Continental
lines of division that terminate in leaves or similar plant
motifs:
The submitter has provided examples from Siedmacher's [sic]
1605 Wappenbuch of armory that could be blazoned Per
chevron ployé pointed with a linden leaf argent and gules.,
and Per bend Or and sable with trefoils counterposed and
issuant from the center of the line., thereby showing
period evidence for this motif. However, all exemplars provided
used difference tincture classes for each half of the
field.
This design motif is essentially a divided field with leaves as
counterchanged charges. Therefore, this submission violates the
Rule of Tincture. Barring period evidence of this motif using
two tinctures from the same class, it can only be used in the
SCA with tinctures from the different classes.
Fleury-counterfleury is similar in concept to the
lines discussed in this precedent. It could be considered
analogous to "a divided field with leaves [or, in this case,
demi-fleurs-de-lys] as counterchanged charges." If one follows
the logic of this precedent, one could decide that
fleury-counterfleury is not registerable between low-contrast
tinctures unless period documentation is provided for that
design. We decline to rule on this issue at this time; we might
have pended this submission for consideration of this issue,
except that it was necessary to return the submission for the
other reasons mentioned. We suggest that this question be
addressed in any resubmission that uses fleury-counterfleury
between low-contrast tinctures. [Ainbthen inghean Risdeig,
09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[Azure, ... a chief vair] The chief in the full-sized
emblazon has two rows of identifiable vair bells, but the bottom
row of vair bells is azure against the azure field. When drawing
a vair chief, the bottom row of vair bells should not be of the
same tincture as the field, for contrast reasons. If the bottom
row of the vair bells is the same tincture as the field, it is
difficult or impossible to tell whether the chief has a plain
line of division or if it has a complex line of division (such as
wavy or urdy, depending on the depiction of the vair). In this
emblazon, an attempt was made to clarify the issue by demarking
the chief with a thick black line, but that does not materially
help the contrast problem, as the thick black line is almost
impossible to see between the blue bottom of the vair bells and
the blue field. The thick line also raises the possibility of
fimbriation: by long-standing SCA precedent, chiefs may not be
fimbriated. [Caitilín ni Killane, 09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[Argent, a loon naiant contourny sable] The loon was
originally blazoned as sable marked argent, but it is
predominantly sable on the color emblazon. The depiction of this
loon on the mini-emblazon included details that closely resemble
the markings of the black and white bird that the Americans call
a Common Loon and the British call a Great Northern Diver, but
most of the details that would be white in a naturalistic
depiction of this species were tinctured sable in the color
emblazon. If we blazon this loon as sable marked argent,
it would likely be drawn by an artist as a naturalistic
loon/diver, and would then have too many argent markings against
the argent field to have acceptable contrast. We have thus
blazoned the loon as sable. Per the LoAR of March 2000,
concerning an orca proper (black and white) on an argent field,
"The argent portions of the orca cannot be placed on an argent
field." The same constraints apply to a Common Loon in its
natural colors. [Helga lómr, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
[Vair en pointe, a bend Or and overall riding on a horse
salient gules a nude woman argent crined Or] The woman was
blazoned on the LoI as proper, but she is argent.
There is insufficient contrast between the half-argent complex
field and either an argent complex-outlined charge (as
emblazoned), or a Caucasian proper complex-outlined charge (as
originally blazoned). [Svana mjóbeina, 11/2003,
R-Meridies]
[Per fess nebuly vert and sable] The line of division is
drawn with too many and too small repetitions to be registerable,
particularly on a low contrast field division. RfS VIII.3 states
"Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by
significant reduction in size, marginal contrast..." It is
acceptable to draw a nebuly line of partition between vert and
sable as long as the identifiability is not lost for other
reasons. [Raffe Ó Donnabháin, 01/2004,
R-An Tir]
[Argent, an arched wooden double door inset into a stone
archway proper] The Pictorial Dictionary states that
"The door... may be inset into an arch or wall." This submission
insets the door into a stone archway proper. Unfortunately the
grey of stone proper (as defined in the SCA Glossary of terms)
classes as a metal, and has insufficient contrast with the
underlying argent field.
Note that the stone surrounding the door is, as drawn in this
submission, an intermediate grey which has insufficient contrast
with either argent or sable. This adds additional problems to the
depiction, in that the stone proper is not drawn as a correct
depiction of stone proper (which would class as a metal) but is
not dark enough to be considered an artistic variant of sable.
[Sudentorre, Canton of, 03/2004,
R-Atlantia]
COPYRIGHT and
TRADEMARK
[three annulets interlaced one and two
Or] A question was raised about possible problems with use of
the Ballantine's Ale insignia. While we did not find the
corporate web site, we did find beer collectors' web sites
showing many beer labels of varying ages, and the Ballantine's
Ale logo uses the annulets two and one, not one and two. Because
this is a simple geometric logo, without any particular nuances
of artwork that make these rings an unmistakable allusion to the
Ballantine's logo, the inversion of the three rings design does
not infringe on the Ballantine's Ale insignia. [Roaring
Wastes, Barony of the, 11/2001,
R-Middle]
[a brown bear's head cabossed proper] RfS VIII.4.b. Modern
Insignia states: Allusions to modern insignia, trademarks, or
common designs may not be registered. This rule does not
refer to a particular artistic style, such as whether the
particular depiction is stylized (such as the Chicago Bulls logo)
or naturalistic (such as the Chicago Bears logo), nor does it
refer to technical conflict. The issue here is unmistakable
allusion to the modern insignia or trademark.
The bear's head here appears to be a photocopy of the Chicago
Bears logo as seen on their web site, but flipped on the vertical
axis, omitting some details, and colored in a different shade of
brown. Because this could reasonably be seen by many viewers as
just the same as the bear's head portion of the Bears
logo, this is too strong an allusion to a modern trademark to be
registered. [Erik the Bear, 11/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[(Fieldless) A penguin statant affronty, head to dexter,
proper] One commenter raised the question of whether there
was some problem due to the Penguin Books logo. That logo would
be blazoned in the same manner as this badge. This is not illegal
style under RfS VIII.4.b, a subsection of the rules on "Obtrusive
Modernity". This rule forbids "Overt illusions to modern
insignia, trademarks or common designs". This penguin is clearly
a different penguin than the one in the Penguin Books logo. The
Penguin Books penguin has a white crescent marking on its face,
much more white on its front, and is all black and white. The
submission under consideration has different proportions, no
crescent marking on its face, and a very prominent red beak and
feet.
As a guideline, there generally will not be an obtrusively modern
"overt" allusion to a logo when the logo uses a single charge,
unless the artwork of the submission matches the artwork of the
logo very closely, or unless the charge is in some way unique.
There might be an "overt" allusion to a logo without the artwork
matching if the charge is unique or if the logo used a very
unusual combination of charges. A girl holding an open parasol
and strewing salt behind her from a canister might seem
obtrusively modern due to the famous Morton Salt logo even if you
dressed the girl in a cotehardie. These cases of obtrusive
modernity must all be determined on a case by case basis.
As for the matter of conflict, the Administrative handbook says
that we protect Copyrighted Images, Trademarks, Military
Insignia, etc. "when covered by applicable laws and regulations
in the country from which the material derives." Penguin Books is
not listed in the US government's trademark database at
http://www.uspto.gov/, so the logo does not appear to be a
trademark. Even if it were a trademark or copyrighted image, we
are unaware of any applicable laws or regulations whereby
registration of a different-looking penguin in the SCA's Armorial
would in any way violate copyright law or infringe on the
business or brand recognition of Penguin Books. [Tylar of
Lochmere, 04/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[Checky sable and argent, a bull's head cabossed gules]
Some commenters inquired whether this armory conflicted with the
Chicago Bulls NBA logo, which features a red bull's head
cabossed. There are two possible problems which might arise due
to resemblance to a modern logo or trademark. One is conflict and
the other is obtrusive modernity.
On the matter of conflict, the Administrative Handbook says that
we protect Coyprighted Images, Trademarks, Military Insignia, et
cetera "when covered by applicable laws and regulations in the
country from which the material derives." We are not aware of any
pertinent laws by which registration of this badge would infringe
on the brand recognizability or business of the Chicago Bulls.
Checking the trademark data base at
http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm, the trademarked
versions of the Chicago Bulls insignia all have the text "Chicago
Bulls" written prominently between the horns of the bull. These
words are significant by our rules for difference. Under the SCA
Rules for Submission, there is no conflict between this badge and
the trademark. There is one CD for tincturelessness (of the Bulls
trademark) and another CD for removing the words "Chicago Bulls".
The words also seem to be integral to the trademark, as all the
active registered Chicago Bulls trademarks are of the type "(3)
DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS". This badge omits the
words and thus should not infringe on the trademarks. Moreover,
the stated uses for the Chicago Bulls trademarks concern very
modern goods and services, and do not resemble the uses to which
the SCA puts its armory.
The pertinent rule for possible Obtrusive Modernity due to
resemblance to a real-world trademark is RfS VIII.4.b. This rule
forbids "Overt allusions to modern insignia, trademarks or common
designs". As noted in the LoAR of April 2002, "As a guideline,
there generally will not be an obtrusively modern 'overt'
allusion to a logo when the logo uses a single charge, unless the
artwork of the submission matches the artwork of the logo very
closely, or unless the charge is in some way unique." In this
case, the bull's head in the emblazon does not strongly resemble
the artwork of the bull's head found in the Chicago Bulls logo.
Nor is a bull's head cabossed a unique charge. Therefore, this is
not an obtrusively modern use of a bull's head because of an
overt allusion to the Chicago Bulls logo. [Darius of
Jaxartes, 05/2002,
A-Outlands]
A possible conflict was called with the trademark of Maersk
Shipping, described by the commenter calling the conflict as
Bleu-celeste a mullet of seven points argent. In searching
the U.S. Patent and Trademark database under "Maersk" (at
http://www.uspto.gov/), it is not entirely clear whether the
argent mullet (on some field) is trademarked on its own, or only
when the artwork is in conjunction with the name of the firm. If
the argent seven-pointed mullet on a blue field is indeed
protected on its own (without the name of the firm), there will
be a conflict, with one CD for changing the field, no difference
for the change between a seven- and eight-pointed mullet, and no
difference (as with the Barony of Rivenstar) for moving the
mullet on the field because the change in location is forced.
[Starkhafn, Barony of, 06/2003,
R-Caid] [Ed.: Returned for conflict with Rivenstar]
[Azure, three triangles conjoined, one and two, Or] One
commenter noted that this symbol was frequently found as an item
of insignia in artwork associated with some Nintendo games,
including the Zelda series of games. However, the symbol
is not copyrighted in the USA, and we have received no
information that the symbol is copyrighted elsewhere. As a
result, it need not be protected against conflict. [Paul
O'Flaherty, 07/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[Quarterly azure and argent, a bordure sable semy of escallops
argent] Conflict with a trademark of the BMW corporation,
Quarterly azure and argent, on a bordure sable in chief the
letters B M W argent. There is only one CD for the cumulative
changes to the group of charges on the bordure per RfS X.4.j. The
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office shows that the blazon given here
describes all the colored BMW trademarks registered since 1945.
Administrative Handbook, III.B.4. states: "Copyrighted Images,
Trademarks, Military Insignia, etc. - Such items may be protected
when covered by applicable laws and regulations in the country
from which the material derives. Material such as military
insignia may be afforded protection on a case-by-case basis even
where this is not required by law." [Elspeth Forsythe,
11/2003,
R-Meridies]
CORONET and
CROWN
[a ducal coronet] Please advise the submitter
to draw the ducal coronet in the correct fashion, with sets of
strawberry leaves visible at the sides of the coronet as well as
in the center. [Alan Youngforest, 12/2001,
A-Artemisia]
[a coronet of trefoils and pearls] This submission was
pended on the September 2001 LoAR for discussion of whether this
sort of coronet should be reserved for any particular rank in the
SCA. As a general administrative policy decision concerning
reserved charges, the final decision on this matter is Laurel's,
not Wreath's. Wreath does support the decision. The submitter is
a baroness but is not a royal peer.
The idea that a coronet used in armory (as opposed to an external
portion of an achievement) indicates the rank of its owner owes
little or nothing to period practice. Woodward's discussion in
A Treatise on Heraldry British and Foreign pp. 379-380
mentions a number of families using crowns. While some of these
families use crowns in token of some royal association or
appointment, others use the crowns to cant, or have no clear
rationale for using crowns. There is no association between the
type of crown used and the family using the crown. Some of the
non-royal arms Woodward mentions as using crowns can be found in
period sources: the canting Landskron (from Cologne) in the late
14th C Armorial Bellenville, using an imperial coronet,
and Grant (from Scotland), in the 16th C roll of David Lindsay of
the Mount, using a crown of demi-fleurs-de-lys or pointed
trefoils (it is hard to tell in the artwork). Because our SCA
practice of reserved coronets in armory lacks period equivalents,
SCA customs and perceptions have more weight in this decision
than they would in most College of Arms decisions.
Research into coronets of rank from period sources is difficult
because there were no designated heraldic coronets of rank for
most of our period. Pastoureau states that crowns in an
achievement (atop the helmet and at the base of the crest) are
simple decorative elements, not insignia of rank, throughout the
Middle Ages. It is not until the 16th C that coronets begin to be
reserved for certain categories of people (Traité
d'Héraldique, p. 210). Baron Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme
has done further research in armorial manuscripts and period
funerary monuments specifically concerning ducal coronets. His
findings are consistent with Pastoureau's generalization,
although he notes that one can find funerary monuments for dukes
using what has become a ducal coronet in the latter part of the
15th C.
The Glossary of Terms section on reserved charges does not
address this issue well: it is somewhat behind the times (oops)
and states that a crown/coronet is reserved to
"Kingdom/Principality armory; personal armory of Society royal
peers". Use of coronets was extended in the LoAR of May 1999,
where Laurel stated that a "court baron/ess may use a coronet in
their arms, so long as it does not use the embattlements of
county rank, or the strawberry leaves of ducal rank". This
coronet clearly does not use the embattlements of county rank.
The question therefore is whether it uses the strawberry leaves
of ducal rank.
Neither precedent nor the Armorial and Ordinary are completely
clear about the reserved regalia for dukes and duchesses. Is the
regalia a coronet using exclusively strawberry leaves or a
coronet using any strawberry leaves? The regalia registered in
the Armorial and Ordinary for dukes and duchesses is,
(Tinctureless) A coronet with strawberry leaves. The
strict interpretation of both the May 1999 ruling on coronets for
barons and the regalia registration, and the consensus of the
College of Arms, is that any strawberry leaves on a coronet will
indicate ducal rank in SCA armory. There is some period support
for this interpretation as well. The 16th C roll of David Lindsay
of the Mount gives different types of coronets in the
achievements of royalty, dukes and earls, and the ducal coronets
alternate strawberry leaves with pearls on points.
This leaves the question of whether the trefoils on the coronet
in this submission should be considered equivalent to strawberry
leaves. Strawberry leaves found on ducal coronets in period did
not always resemble the natural, serrated-edged, strawberry leaf.
They were drawn in a variety of trefoil-like shapes, including a
trefoil with smooth-edged pointed foils.
The trefoils in this submission are not exactly the same as any
of those in the documented period ducal coronets. These trefoils
have smooth-edged round foils without points, like the club card
suit. Evidence was presented indicating that coronets with
similar round-foil trefoils were used in artwork as "generic"
crowns for during the time immediately predating the
establishment of coronets of rank. One can find 14th and early
15th C illuminations showing sovereigns, dukes, princes and
unspecified legendary nobility all wearing crowns with
round-foiled trefoils at the end of some of the points. It is not
clear whether such crowns continued to be "generic" in artwork of
our period after the idea of coronets of rank became
established.
However, when considering crowns, it is difficult to draw strong
conclusions about heraldic practices from period non-heraldic
artwork. Period practices for artwork, apparel and heraldry do
not parallel each other closely. In artwork, crowns are generally
used to illustrate high-ranking people and are mostly used to
illustrate royalty. In period clothing, crowns and coronets were
also worn by the lesser nobility and by wealthy commoners,
although sumptuary laws were then passed to keep the commoners
from wearing coronets (Lightbown, Medieval European
Jewellery, chapter 13). In heraldry, as noted above, crowns
could be found in the arms of a wide range of people, and types
of crown were not distinct in achievements until the 16th C.
Regardless of whether or not there was some distinction drawn in
the 16th C between ducal coronets with pointed-foil trefoils and
the previously "generic" coronet with round-foil trefoils, this
change is not visually sufficient to avoid the appearance of
ducal status in the SCA. We have precedent indicating that such
presumption is determined based on visual similarity to the
reserved charge:
The quadruple mount overwhelmingly resembles a crown, and the
submitter is not entitled to display one on her arms. (Laurel
had been inclined to allow the charge, but at the Laurel
meeting where it was viewed, my staff, who had not seen the
LoI, immediately started looking for evidence of her
entitlement to use a crown, since they all thought it was one
until the blazon was read. This served to change our mind.).
The submitter is correct in stating that it is a period charge.
However, that is not relevant in matters of presumption. (LoAR
5/99)
The commentary from the College showed a strong
consensus that this form of coronet visually appeared to use
strawberry leaves. By the May 1999 precedent on quadruple mounts,
it must therefore be treated as a ducal coronet, and reserved for
the use of dukes and duchesses. As the submitter does not hold
this rank, she may not register this form of coronet.
[Ghislaine d'Auxerre, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[Per pale gules and vert, three cat's heads cabossed Or]
Conflict with Dalmatia, Azure, three lions' heads cabossed
crowned Or. When a crown is added to the top of an animal's
head, the change is not as visually significant as when one
gorges the head with a high-contrast crown (which has been
considered addition of a tertiary charge, and worth a CD, since
the LoAR of September 1993). A crown on an animal's head
generally either has poor contrast with the field, which makes it
hard to see, or it has poor contrast with the head, making it
appear to be part of the head. In the particular case of crowned
lion's heads, a lion's head is often drawn with a jagged outline
at the top of the head due to the lion's mane. When the crown on
a lion's head is the same tincture as the lion's head, the crown
will be very difficult to distinguish visually. There is
therefore one CD for changing the field but nothing for removing
the near-invisible crowns. [Ástrídr Brandsdóttir, 06/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
The College was generally in agreement that the addition or
deletion of a crown from the head of a (whole) animal should not
be worth difference. Some period evidence was presented
suggesting that, in armory using a crowned animal, the crown was
at times dropped from the emblazon. Such an easily deletable
artist's distinction should not be considered to be worth
difference.
The College was not able to find period evidence about whether
crowned animal's heads could have the crown added or deleted by
artistic license. Some commenters suggested that perhaps crowns
on animal's heads should be considered analogous to collars on
animal's heads. Current precedent gives a CD for collaring an
animal's head (as if the collar were a tertiary charge) but does
not give a CD for adding a collar to a whole animal. However,
these two designs are not truly analogous. A collar on an
animal's head does indeed function as a tertiary charge and thus
must have good contrast with the head on which it lies. This good
contrast enhances the collar's visual prominence. However, a
crown on an animal's head does not generally have such good
contrast. The crown generally either has poor contrast with the
field or with the animal's head. In addition, a crown may be
further obscured by some artistic details of the head on which it
lies, such as ruffled eagle's feathers or a lion's mane.
Without period evidence to the contrary, and because of the
contrast problems inherent in the design of a crown on an
animal's head, it does not seem appropriate to give difference
for adding a crown to a charge consisting only of an animal's
head. [12/2002,
CL]
[Azure, ... in chief a ducal coronet Or embellished with
strawberry leaves vert]The green strawberry leaves have
insufficient contrast with the underlying azure field. This is
not acceptable per RfS VIII.2. The strawberry leaves are not a
minor artistic detail of the coronet: they are a large part of
what makes the charge identifiable as a coronet of any sort, and
the only thing that allows it to be identifiable as a ducal
coronet. [Chrystofer Kensor, 01/2003,
R-Calontir]
[Principal herald's seal. (Tinctureless) On a fess wavy
between in chief two straight trumpets in saltire and triskeles
sans nombre a crown of four points] The Glossary of Terms
allows crowns to be used in "Kingdom/Principality armory;
personal armory of Society Royal peers." The Glossary does not
state that the crown may only be used in some pieces of armory
belonging to the kingdom. While most kingdom armory using crowns
does belong to the sovereign or the consort, various kingdoms
have registered other sorts of armory using crowns, including two
Principal Herald's seals, a flag, and various badges
(undesignated, designated for a kingdom officer, and designated
for an order).
As has been noted before, in real-world armory, the use of a
crown on a coat of arms is not linked to the rank of the holder,
so any policies restricting the use of crowns in SCA heraldry
must be determined from SCA heraldic history and policies. Given
the statement in the Glossary of Terms and the registration
history, it certainly seems acceptable for Principal Herald's
seals to use crowns, since the Principal Herald's seal is
registered to a kingdom. We thus explicitly overrule the
precedent set in the LoAR of September 1986 (although arguably
the wording in the Glossary has already overruled this
precedent), which stated that "[A Kingdom badge registration
designated for use of a guild] The crown is reserved to the arms
of Kingdoms, Principalities and Royal Peers and may not be used,
even with royal permission, by other individuals or groups".
It is clear from the SCA registration history that SCA Principal
Heralds' seals have not generally followed the rules for
fieldless armory. For example, most SCA heralds' seals contain
unconjoined charges, and many contain charges which are defined
by or end at the edge of the field, such as ordinaries throughout
or bordures. SCA herald's seals appear to have the same style
restrictions as tinctured armory, not fieldless armory. Thus the
design of this seal is acceptable, even though it uses a number
of design elements that would not ordinarily be allowed in
fieldless armory. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, 03/2003,
A-Trimaris]
Questions were raised about the inclusion of a crown in this
armory. Kingdom armory of any sort may use a crown, as indicated
in the reserved charges portion of the Glossary of Terms. Many
kingdoms have registered secondary armory, such as badges, which
include a crown or coronet. Having such a crown or coronet in the
consort's arms, when one can be sure that the reigning consort is
entitled to bear a crown, seems perfectly reasonable.
[Atlantia, Kingdom of, 04/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[a bull's head cabossed gules, maintaining from the dexter
horn a coronet sable] Clarion summarized the issues with the
device submission rather well: "I have not seen any period
examples of a crown being placed on an animal head this way, and
given its unbalanced appearance am not willing to support it
without such documentation. Administratively, we do not allow
alternates to be considered in submissions, although the primary
reason for that restriction (to avoid having to do multiple
conflict checks) does not apply in this case."
The stylistic issue with the crown is sufficient reason for
return. It is not clearly period style. The crown hanging at an
odd angle from the horn is not blazonable (and thus, is not
registerable under RfS VII.7.b). [Darius Tigres
Jaxarticus, 02/2004,
R-Outlands]
COTISES
[Per
bend sinister purpure and vert, a bend sinister between a
butterfly and three bells one and two Or] This is clear of
conflict with Yusuf Ja'baral-Timbuktuwwi, Per bend sinister
purpure and vert, a bend sinister cotised between an elephant's
head couped close and a decrescent with a mullet suspended
between its horns Or. The cotises, in Yusuf's device, form a
distinct charge group apart from the group consisting of the
elephant's head and decrescent/mullet. "While cotises and other
charges on the field would be considered separate charge groups
on the same armory, they are still secondary charges and can be
compared to other secondary charges. (LoAR 6/98 p. 17)." In other
words, Yusuf's device has two secondary charge groups: the
cotises, and the other charges around the bend. Comparing Yusuf's
device with this submission, there are three CDs: one for the
removal of the cotise group and two for changing the type and
number of the other secondary group.
It is certainly possible to have more than one secondary charge
group on the field. In the hypothetical arms Argent, a bend
cotised between a mullet and a crescent all within a bordure
gules, the primary charge group is the bend, the cotises are
one secondary charge group, the mullet and crescent are,
together, a second secondary charge group, and the bordure is a
third secondary charge group (of the type often termed
peripheral). Changing or removing any one of these charge
groups would be a separate CD. Thus, this hypothetical coat of
arms has two CDs from Argent, a bend cotised between two
mullets and a chief gules. There is one CD for changing the
type of half of the secondary group surrounding the cotised bend
(a mullet and a crescent to two mullets) and a second CD for
changing the type of the peripheral secondary group (bordure to
chief). [Admiranda le Daye, 10/2001,
A-Meridies]
[a bend abased and cotised argent] No documentation was
presented for ordinaries which are both abased and cotised.
Abased ordinaries are so rare in period armory that this
treatment appears to be too far a departure from period heraldic
style to be acceptable without documentation. [Arabella
Mackinnon, 06/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[a fess cotised fleury on the outer edge] The submitter
documented a piece of armory from 1493, illustrated on p. 188 of
Neubecker's Heraldry: Sources, Symbols, and Meaning, which
shows a bend cotised on the outer edges with plain points
alternating with bottony points. Some members of the College
asked whether this single documented example of cotises with a
treatment on only the outer edge was sufficient documentation for
this design, which used a different complex treatment on the
outer edges of its cotises. We were able to find other
documentation for such a design in period. The Dictionary of
British Arms, vol. 2 (a book containing only period armory),
cites the arms of Kelke, Sable a bend cotised fleury on the
outer edge argent, and Bromflete, Sable a bend cotised
fleury on the outer edge Or, which documents the specific
sort of cotising found in this device.
In addition, we note that the SCA has for some time accepted
cotises that have complex lines on the outer edges. Cotises that
have a complex line on the outer edge (away from the ordinary
being cotised) and a plain line on the inner edge (near the
ordinary being cotised) are SCA-compatible for all the standard
complex lines of partition, and all the standard cotised
ordinaries. [Margaret Hepburn of Ardrossan, 08/2003,
A-Outlands]
[Sable, a chevron cotised argent between three oak leaves
Or] This does not conflict with ... Sable, a chevron
argent cotised between three compass stars elongated to base
Or. There is one CD for changing the tincture of one of the
secondary charge groups (the cotises) and a second CD for
changing the type of the other secondary charge group (from
compass stars to oak leaves.) The cotises are a separate set of
secondary charges by a number of precedents:
It is certainly possible to have more than one secondary charge
group on the field. In the hypothetical arms Argent, a bend
cotised between a mullet and a crescent all within a bordure
gules, the primary charge group is the bend, the cotises
are one secondary charge group, the mullet and crescent are,
together, a second secondary charge group, and the bordure is a
third secondary charge group (of the type often termed
peripheral). (LoAR of October 2001)
[Argent, on a fess cotised embattled on the outer edges
between three leopard's faces sable three crescents argent]
This is clear of the flag of Meridies, Argent, on a fess
sable, a crown of three points between two mullets argent,
with one CD for the removal of the cotises and a second for the
removal of the leopard's faces as they are two different charge
groups (LoAR of March 2001)
The cotises are clearly a second group of secondary charges so
that an additional point of difference can be obtained from
adding them (LoAR of 27 November 1988, p.12)
[Melisant Saint-Clair, 02/2004,
A-Atlantia]
COUNTERCHANGING
[Bendy sinister
vert and Or, a hawk striking contourny argent a bordure
counterchanged] The commentary from the College of Arms
overwhelmingly indicated that the combination of bendy sinister
and bordure is excessive counterchanging. In general, we would
like to see documentation for any charge counterchanged over a
multiply divided field, such as barry or gyronny. [Tvorimir
Danilov, 08/2001,
R-An Tir]
[Or, a bend sinister sable, overall on a delf ployé
counterchanged] Current precedent indicates:
The only time we permit a charge to be counterchanged over
another is when they are both ordinaries. (Shire of Crystal
Crags, 12/98 p. 13)
While a delf is simple, it is not an ordinary.
Moreover, a delf ploye is not a simple delf. As far as we can
tell it is only used as a period charge in Mameluk heraldry, and
is thus somewhat of a weirdness in general Western style. The
cumulative problems with the style of this submission are
sufficient to require its return. [Tarvin, Shire of,
08/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[Quarterly sable and argent, on a cross throughout between
four unicorns rampant five mullets of eight points all
counterchanged] This is excessively counterchanged. The
identifiability of the small mullets is hampered by the
counterchanging on this emblazon. The cumulative effect of the
counterchanging of the primary, secondary, and tertiary groups,
on a field divided of more than two parts, is overwhelming.
[Sándor Dósa, 08/2001,
R-Meridies]
[Gyronny vert and Or, a saltire counterchanged] The
combination of the gyronny field and the saltire is very visually
confusing. Each arm of the saltire is counterchanged along its
long axis, which generally hampers identifiability. Because each
piece of the counterchanged saltire is similar in size to the
pieces of the gyronny field which show between the arms of the
saltire, it is difficult to distinguish which parts of the
emblazon belong to the charge, and which belong to the field.
This design also does not appear to be period style. Absent
documentation for the design of a cross or saltire, as an
ordinary, counterchanged on a gyronny field in period, this must
be returned. [Wilhelm von Düsseldorf, 01/2002,
R-West]
[Per fess azure and argent, a compass star throughout and a
bordure counterchanged] This is clear of conflict with ...
Per bend sinister azure and argent a compass star within a
bordure counterchanged. There is one CD for changing the
field tincture, another CD for changing the tincture of the
primary charge (the compass star), and a third CD for changing
the tincture of the bordure. There is nothing in the Rules for
Submission which calls for considering conflict with a rotated
version of the entire armory. Nor is there visual confusion
between these two armories when they are displayed in their
correct orientations. [Garrett O'Doherty, 02/2002,
A-Caid]
[Quarterly azure and argent, five crosses crosslet in saltire
counterchanged] Please advise the submitter to draw the arms
of the crosses somewhat thicker, to help with the identifiablity
of the center cross. Because this armory clearly uses a group of
identical charges, and four of the five are very identifiable,
the problems with the identifiability of the center charge due to
the counterchanging is not sufficient to warrant return.
[Daniel of the Outlands, 02/2002,
A-Outlands]
[Paly sable and argent, a unicorn rampant counterchanged]
This is excessively counterchanged and non-period style. The
unicorn is not identifiable when counterchanged over this
multiply divided field. No documentation has been presented, nor
could any be found, for the counterchanging of a complex-outlined
charge over a multiply divided field. [Cynwrig Chwith,
02/2002,
R-Atlantia]
[Per bend sinister argent and azure, two cinquefoils
counterchanged] This is clear of conflict with Gerelt of
Lockeford, Per bend argent and azure, in bend two roses
counterchanged. There is one CD for the change to the field.
There is also a CD for changing the tincture of the roses. Each
rose in Gerelt's arms is half azure and half argent. Each of
these roses is a solid tincture. Therefore, half the tincture of
each rose has changed. [Katrein Adler, 02/2002,
R-Outlands]
[Per pale and per saltire gules and argent, on a roundel
counterchanged a spider inverted and a bordure sable] No
evidence was presented, and none was found, for counterchanging a
central roundel over this field, or the similar gyronny field, in
period armory. Such a design will not be acceptable without
documentation: "In general, we would like to see documentation
for any charge counterchanged over a multiply divided field, such
as barry or gyronny" (LoAR 8/2001). [Sabina le Sewester,
03/2002,
R-West]
[Per bend argent and sable, a hound rampant and a hound
rampant contourny counterchanged] This does not conflict with
Matthew de Wolfe, Per bend sinister embattled argent and
sable, in bend two wolves rampant combattant counterchanged.
To understand why there is no conflict, it is helpful to remove
all blazon shortcuts and blazon each of these pieces of armory
explicitly. Note that there are two important common blazon
shortcuts which are found in both Matheus' and Matthew's current
blazons. The first blazon shortcut is that two charges on a
divided field are placed on opposite sides of a line of division
by default. The other blazon shortcut is the use of the word
counterchanged rather than using the tinctures
argent and sable.
Thus, when we remove blazon shortcuts, Matheus' arms may be
blazoned Per bend argent and sable, in sinister chief a hound
rampant sable and in dexter base a hound rampant to sinister
argent. Matthew's arms may be blazoned Per bend sinister
embattled argent and sable, in dexter chief a wolf rampant to
sinister sable and in sinister base a wolf rampant
argent.
Precedent has consistently held that "you cannot 'blazon your way
out of' a conflict" (stated succinctly in this quote from the
LoAR of February 2000, which upheld years of previous precedent).
Thus, we must compare these two pieces of armory using the
"explicit" blazons. There is one CD for changing the field. There
is no difference for changing the type of canine from wolf to
hound.
The charges may not lie on a portion of the field with which they
have no contrast. Matheus' charges could not be arranged like
Matthew's (with the sable charge in dexter chief and the
argent charge in sinister base) on a per bend argent
and sable field, because each charge would have no contrast
with half of the field on which it lies. The charges must change
their arrangement. Because this change in arrangement is "caused
by other changes to the design" (namely, the changes to the
field) it is not worth difference per RfS X.4.g for arrangement
changes. (This is often known as a "forced" arrangement change or
"forced" position change.)
The second CD comes from the change of posture. Each canine is
facing in the opposite direction from the corresponding canine in
the other coat. This posture change is a CD by RfS X.4.h.
By this analysis we are expressly overturning the precedent set
in January 1994 that stated in pertinent part:
[Per pale and per chevron argent and sable, in chief two
<charges> counterchanged vs. Huffam, Per bend sable and
argent, two <charges> counterchanged ] Because the
charges are counterchanged, they could legitimately be placed
anywhere on the field, even over the line(s) of division. As a
consequence, the change in position of the <charges>
cannot be considered to be "forced" by the field division
(though in Huffam they are in the expected position, one on
either side of the line of division), thus giving a CD for
position on the field
By this precedent, the use of the word
counterchanged would remove a conflict which would apply
if the tinctures of the charges were explicitly sable and
argent, which is contrary to long-standing SCA policy.
[Matheus of Coppertree, 02/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Per chevron vert and per pale Or and gules, a chevron
dovetailed on the upper edge argent between three compass stars
Or and a fleur-de-lys florency per pale gules and Or] The
original blazon, Per chevron vert and per pale Or and gules, a
chevron dovetailed on the upper edge argent between in fess three
compass stars and a fleur-de-lys florency counterchanged, was
unclear about the tincture of the counterchanged charges on this
field, as there is no well-defined behavior for counterchanging
charges on a field per chevron and per pale. In particular, the
College was unable to ascertain the tincture of the compass
stars. This must therefore be pended for further conflict
research.
There were some questions about the contrast of this field. We
note that the Cover Letter for the LoAR of October 2000 gives
substantial discussion of "medium contrast" fields, defined as
fields "divided so that half was a solid color and half was
evenly divided between color and metal." Such fields are, given
the Cover Letter discussion, clearly acceptable as long as the
charges on them have acceptable contrast (which is the main topic
of discussion in the Cover Letter). By the guidelines in the
Cover Letter for the October 2000 LoAR, in this submission, both
the field and the charges upon it have acceptable contrast.
[Oriana Luisa della Francesca, 02/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
Please note that the design of counterchanging a bordure over a
pile is considered "a weirdness" in the SCA - a single step from
period practice (per the LoAR of July 2001). One such step in
armory is acceptable, but more than one such step is considered
too far from period practice and reason for return. [Clef of
Cividale, 03/2003,
R-Calontir]
[Paly of four argent and gules, three spur rowels
counterchanged sable and argent] This submission also appears
to be overly modern "op-art" (or "optical art") style. As noted
in RfS VIII.4.d, "Artistic techniques and styles developed after
1600 should not be used in Society armory. Charges may not be
used to create abstract or op-art designs." Per the on-line
Artcyclopedia (http://www.artcyclopedia.com/), "Optical Art is a
mathematically-oriented form of (usually) Abstract art, which
uses repetition of simple forms and colors to create vibrating
effects, moir� patterns, an exaggerated sense of depth,
foreground-background confusion, and other visual effects." This
design is reminiscent of op-art and includes visually vibrating
effects and foreground-background confusion: one viewer, at
first, saw the primary charge as three lozenges conjoined in pall
inverted bases to center, because she thought that the shape
between the three spur rowels was the primary charge. [Davis
de Rowell, 09/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[Paly of four sable and argent, three horses statant to
sinister counterchanged] Per the LoAR of August 2001, "In
general, we would like to see documentation for any charge
counterchanged over a multiply divided field, such as barry or
gyronny." No documentation was presented with this submission
showing a general practice of counterchanging multiple
complex-outlined charges (like horses) over a multiply divided
field (like paly). Such designs are intrinsically difficult to
identify, and do not appear to be period style. Without
documentation for this practice, it may not be registered.
[Glyn of Chesshire, 11/2003,
R-Meridies]
The lily of the valley plant is too tall and thin to be
counterchanged along its long axis. The slip, in particular,
loses its identifiability. Previous precedent has returned
similarly wide charges for similar reasons, for example, "[a mace
... counterchanged] There was discussion as to whether the mace
was wide enough to be counterchanged along its long axis.
Previous cases have decided that winged swords are not, and that
double-bitted axes and comets are. The issue is identifiability
such counterchanging was banned precisely because the charge
became unidentifiable. After examining the emblazon, we decided
that the charge was just barely too narrow to be counterchanged
like this" (LoAR of August 2000). [Clare Agatha MacLeod,
03/2004,
R-Northshield]
COUPED and ERASED
see also HEAD -- Beast
and HEAD -- Bird
The
issue of acceptable depictions of couped and erased (for beast
heads and other body parts) arose in this month's Wreath meeting
concerning the device of Laurenço Affonso. Wreath and staff
conducted a post-meeting review of period depictions of beast
heads from British and Continental sources. Some of the sources
reviewed include the online Zuricher Wappenrolle,
Siebmacher's 1605 Wappenbuch, A European Armorial (the
Armorial of the Toison d'Or), Armorial Gelre, Armorial
Bellenville, Libro de Armeria del Reino de Navarra,
the Scots Roll, Laing's facsimile of Sir David Lindsay of
the Mount's 1542 Roll of Arms, Stodart's Scottish Arms
facsimile, Legh's Accedence of Armory (1597), and
Mackenzie of Rosehaugh's Science of Herauldrie (1680),
together with modern works containing plates with period pictures
of armory.
The most significant difference between couped and erased is that
couped was almost universally treated as a smooth line, while
erased was marked by the presence of significant and prominent
jags. Virtually all heads found in period heraldic artwork
are distinctly either couped or erased, without intermediate
artistic forms. This is also true of other cases of partial
animals, such as jambes and demi-beasts.
The smooth line found on couped heads was found depicted in a
number of manners, none of which was so universal to be deemed
the only acceptable manner of couping a head. One of these
depictions was a straight line, like the traditional modern
heraldic understanding of couped. The straight line was generally
parallel to the chief (ref. 1), parallel to the side of the
shield or part of an underlying ordinary (ref. 2), or, in the
case of heads couped close, perpendicular to the chief (ref. 3).
Another form of couping showed a slight convexity, as if the head
had been cut from the body with a sharp knife, and a slight trian
aspect of the neck is seen (ref. 4). Another convex form
resembled a shallow T-shirt neck line (ref. 5). Another form of
couping showed a smooth shallow concavity (ref. 6). Sometimes
there was an extreme concavity, particularly in Continental
sources (ref. 7). This concavity appears to be anatomically based
on the shoulders of the beast. Any of these forms are acceptable
for depictions of couped heads.
The portions of the ruling on Ulvar MacVanis's device in the LoAR
of July 2000 which are inconsistent with this evidence are
overturned. That ruling said, in part, this particular
rendition [of couped] is too far from known period
practices...the line [of couping] was very carefully drawn to
follow the shoulder line; it is bendwise at the top and palewise
at the bottom. Based on the period evidence above, it is
acceptable for couping to show such a deep curve that it appears
to follow the shoulder of the animal. It is worth noting that the
emblazon in Ulvar's submission has a much deeper point in the
front neck edge than was found in even the most extreme examples
found in the Continental sources examined, so the return for
Natural Depiction in Ulvar's case is appropriate.
In some very rare cases of boar's heads couped close, one could
find depictions of couping which were not entirely smooth, and
appeared to attempt to depict bristles on the boar's head. This
deviation from standard practice for boars is not surprising when
one considers that a boar's bristles are one of his main heraldic
identifiers. This bristly depiction of a boar's head
couped resembles neither erasing nor an indented line. See, for
example, the Polish arms of Swinka or Scheinichen on p. 149 of
A European Armorial, which shows bristle needles sticking
out past the back of the couped line. This distinctive coat is
very similar to no-doubt related coats from Silesia on f. 61 of
Siebmacher, and it interesting to note that Siebmacher's couping
is much smoother but does show a bit of bristly detail.
Erased necks were marked by prominent jags. By far the most
common number of jags found in the sources, regardless of
national origin, was three. However, as many as eight jags were
found with some frequency by the end of period. It should be
noted that the number of jags does not appear to be the critical
factor, but rather the prominence of the jags. The jags generally
appear to be approximately one-sixth to one-third of the height
of the entire erased head, and the jags were consistently wavy
like the rays of an estoile or a rayonny line of division (refs.
8, 9, 10 and 11). In no cases did the erasing appear to resemble
an indented line, neither large scale nor in a smaller
pinking-shear depiction.
Therefore, for purposes of recreating period armorial style for
erasing, the erasing should (1) have between three and eight
jags; (2) have jags that are approximately one-sixth to one-third
the total height of the charge being erased; and (3) have jags
that are not straight but rather are wavy or curved. The
predominance of the three-jag erasing is such that it can be
recommended throughout our period and across Europe. For purposes
of recreating period armorial style for couping, the couping
should be a smooth line which is either straight, slightly
convex, a shallow concave, or a recognizable extreme concave. A
straight line or a shallow curve can be recommended throughout
our period and across Europe.
Submissions which contain couped or erased charges that diverge
significantly from the guidelines above risk being returned for
unidentifiability or non-period style unless they are accompanied
by documentation.
References: These examples are chosen from the more commonly
available heraldic sources for ease of reference.
Ref. 1: Neubecker's Heraldry: Sources, Symbols and
Meaning, p. 35, arms of Hungary, fourth quarter;
Gwynn-Jones's The Art of Heraldry p. 67, sinister chief
quarter.
Ref. 2: Pastoureau's Heraldry: An Introduction to a Noble
Tradition, p. 24, couped fish head on painted chest;
Neubecker, op. cit., p. 191; Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones's
Heraldry, back dust jacket, fourth row, second from
left.
Ref. 3: Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones, op. cit., p. 109, center of
top row of Fenwick Roll excerpt.
Ref. 4: Siebmacher's 1605 Wappenbuch, f. 153, v. Kotzaw
and v. Helldorf.
Ref. 5: Neubecker, op. cit., p. 153, third from left, Grunenberg
Armorial excerpt; Siebmacher, op. cit., f. 177, Die Schlegel.
Ref. 6: Pastoureau, op. cit., p. 12; on-line Manesse Codex
(http://www.tempora-nostra.de/manesse/img/060.jpg);
Pastoureau, op. cit., p. 60 (also on-line Manesse codex http://www.tempora-nostra.de/manesse/img/105.jpg).
Ref. 7: Neubecker, op. cit., p. 116, unicorn's heads: this is a
citation from the Zuricher Wappenrolle, which can be found
in an on-line version (http://ladyivanor.knownworldweb.com/zroaen0.htm)
on strip 2, front p. 9 (Helmsdorf).
Ref. 8: Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones, op. cit., p. 101 (Robert
Cooke arms); Gwynn-Jones, op. cit., p. 37 (Robert Cooke
arms).
Ref. 9: Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones, op. cit., p. 91.
Ref. 10: Ibid., p. 109, Fenwick Roll, top row, second from left,
and middle row, second from right.
Ref. 11: Siebmacher, op. cit., plate 96, die Teufel v.
Pirckensee.
[11/2001,
CL]
[An armored leg erased at the calf argent in a stirrup with
leather Or] The erasing of the armored leg is too small to be
acceptable - what is colloquially known as "pinking shear
erasing" in the SCA College of Arms. There is a long discussion
in the November 2001 cover letter about how couped and erased
charges were drawn in period. The pertinent summary for erased
charges states:
For purposes of recreating period armorial style for erasing,
the erasing should (1) have between three and eight jags; (2)
have jags that are approximately one-sixth to one-third the
total height of the charge being erased; and (3) have jags that
are not straight but rather are wavy or curved. The
predominance of the three-jag erasing is such that it can be
recommended throughout our period and across Europe...
Submissions which contain ... erased charges that diverge
significantly from the guidelines above risk being returned for
unidentifiability or non-period style unless they are
accompanied by documentation.
[Middle, Kingdom of the, 03/2003,
R-Middle]
[three bear's heads couped] Some members of the College
thought that the bear's heads were erased close rather
than couped. The full-sized emblazon clearly shows these
heads as couped (and couped under the head rather than
couped close.) The backs of the bear's heads are somewhat
fuzzy, as is appropriate for the charge, and that probably led to
the misinterpretation of erased close. [Ásbj{o,}rn
kolbrúnarskáld, 08/2003,
A-Calontir]
[a horse's head couped] Some commentary suggested that the
head be blazoned in some fashion other than the default couped
because it was "not couped in the usual horizontal manner." We
direct the College to the Cover Letter of the November 2001 LoAR,
which discusses period treatments of both couped and erased in
some detail. Regarding the form of couped found in this emblazon,
the cover letter states that one of the period depictions was "a
straight line... [which could be] parallel to the side of the
shield." Because Francesca's horse's head is a primary charge,
drawn to fill the space, the bottom of the horse's head and neck
is near the sinister base portion of the shield. The angle of the
side of the shield in sinister base is approximately bendwise
sinister, and the couping of the horse's head in this emblazon is
roughly parallel to that sinister base portion of the side of the
shield. Thus, this is a period form of couping, and it is not
necessary to describe it further in blazon. [Francesca
Testarossa de' Martini, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
COUPED and
THROUGHOUT
[Or semy of apples gules, a Celtic cross
vert] This device conflicts with Morgana Swansdottir, Or,
a Celtic cross equal armed, quarterly pierced and throughout
vert. There is one CD for adding the semy of apples. While we
give a CD for a standard cross throughout versus a cross couped,
for most crosses (such as crosses fleury) we do not give such
difference for couped versus throughout. The quarter piercing in
Morgana's cross is very small and the visual distinction it gives
is lost with the other piercings in the center of a Celtic cross.
Therefore, there is no difference for the type of cross.
[Muirgen of Applecross, 02/2002,
R-Calontir]
PRECEDENT: As a general rule, ordinaries couped will be given a
CD from ordinaries throughout. This general rule does not apply
to specific ordinaries for which evidence has been presented that
the ordinary and its couped variant were used interchangeably in
period. In accordance with RfS X.4.e, if a particular ordinary
throughout and its couped variant are both found in period
armory, but were not considered to be "separate [charges] in
period", no difference will be granted between them. If the
ordinary throughout, or its couped variant, were not found in
period armory, then it will only "be considered different in type
if its shape in normal depiction is significantly different" from
the period form of the ordinary. [06/2002,
CL]
PRECEDENT: Because of the period evidence presented concerning
pall variants and in light of RfS X.4.e, no difference will be
given between the following four pall variants: the pall
(throughout), the pall couped, the shakefork, and the pallium.
Any of these four charges will be given a CD from a pall with a
decidedly different end treatment, such as a pall fleury or a
pall potent. [06/2002,
CL]
[a label dovetailed throughout] A peculiarity of SCA
blazon is that the standard label is throughout by default, but
the dovetailed label is couped by default. The blazon in this
submission label is both dovetailed and throughout, and both
these details must be blazoned. [Kharra Unegen, 07/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[Sable, a saltire bretessed argent] This does not conflict
with a ... Sable, a saltire formy argent. Contrary to some
opinions espoused in the commentary, couping an ordinary is only
a significant change (worth a CD) rather than a substantial
change (clear by RfS X.2). We would only give a CD between a
saltire bretessed and a saltire bretessed and couped. However,
just as it seems appropriate to give X.2 (substantial) difference
between the very different period charges of a cross formy (which
is couped by default and has splayed ends) and a cross bretessed
(which is throughout by default and treated with an embattled
line), it is also appropriate to give X.2 difference between
similarly treated saltires. [Nikolai Toranovich, 01/2003,
A-An Tir]
[two walls couped with portals] We have reblazoned the
castles as walls, because a castle by default has a
tower at each end, and these charges do not have any towers.
According to the Pictorial Dictionary, walls are
throughout and embattled by default, so it is necessary to blazon
these walls as couped. It is also necessary to blazon the portals
explicitly. [Hans Schneckenburg, 09/2003,
A-Caid]
There is a CD between a default cross (throughout) and a cross
formy throughout. We routinely give difference between the couped
versions of these crosses (a cross couped versus a cross formy).
Nor has evidence been presented or found indicating that a cross
throughout would be interchangeable with a cross formy throughout
in period. [Jessimond of Greencrosse, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
CRESCENT
There
is ... no difference between an increscent and an increscent
moon. [Galiena of Lindisfarne, 08/2001,
R-Meridies]
The charges on the chief are much too shallow to be identifiable
as crescents. They are thus not acceptable by RfS VII.7.a.
[Rhiannon Basset, 05/2003,
R-East]
[Per bend sinister gules and azure, in fess a roundel between
an increscent and a decrescent argent] This device does not
conflict with ... Per fess engrailed sable and argent, a
roundel between a decrescent and an increscent argent There
is a CD for changing the field. There is also a CD for changing
the posture of two of the three charges: each of the crescents
has been reversed. (Alternately, you can see it as a change of
arrangement of the charges, by swapping the outermost two
charges.)
Some commenters mentioned that this arrangement of a roundel and
crescents is not typical of period armory, and we concur, but
this armorial design is registerable as long as the charges
maintain their identifiability: "While we will reluctantly
register the arrangement of an increscent, roundel and decrescent
if they aren't conjoined, the conjoining makes them
unidentifiable as well as non-period" (LoAR September 1997 p. 23)
[Elizabeth Karlsdotter, 12/2003,
A-Drachenwald]
The crescents were blazoned as crescents pendant on the
LoI but crescents inverted on the submission form. We have
restored the submitter's preferred form. Both terms are
acceptable for use in the S.C.A. [Iror of Crystal Mynes,
03/2004,
A-Calontir]
CROSS
[a cross
fleury vs. cross of Santiago] As of the March 2001 LoAR, "A
cross patonce and a cross of Santiago are both considered
artistic variants of a cross flory; therefore, there is no CD for
a cross patonce versus a cross of Santiago." A cross fleury is
even closer in depiction to a cross of Santiago than a cross
patonce. [Cristoval Gitano, 08/2001,
R-Lochac]
[a cross formy within the loop of an ankh Or] The charge
group in base was blazoned on the letter of intent as a Coptic
cross. However, it is not a Coptic cross as defined in the SCA.
It more closely resembles an ankh with a cross formy within the
loop on the top of the cross. However, that does not truly
describe the armory because the loop is disproportionately large
and round for an ankh. This emblazon cannot be reproduced
accurately from blazon with our current heraldic vocabulary.
Without documenting this design as a heraldic charge, or group of
charges, in period, it must be returned. [Damiana bint
al-Katib, 10/2001,
R-Outlands]
[two Latin crosses vs. two Latin crosses fitchy] ...
nothing for fitching the crosses. [Faílenn inghean Mheanmain
of Ulster, 11/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[Gules, six Latin crosses formy Or] This is clear of ...
Azure, crusily Celtic Or. There is one CD for changing the
field and another CD for the difference between a Latin cross
formy and a Celtic cross. The annulet portion of the Celtic cross
is prominent enough to merit a CD on visual grounds and we are
not aware of any period interchangeability of these charges. This
is also clear of ... Chequy purpure, crusilly Or and Or.
Crusilly is, by default, of crosses crosslet ... There is X.2
difference between Latin crosses formy and crosses crosslet.
[Christoff von Rotenburg, 12/2001,
A-Meridies]
[Or semy of apples gules, a Celtic cross vert] This device
conflicts with Morgana Swansdottir, Or, a Celtic cross equal
armed, quarterly pierced and throughout vert. There is one CD
for adding the semy of apples. While we give a CD for a standard
cross throughout versus a cross couped, for most crosses (such as
crosses fleury) we do not give such difference for couped versus
throughout. The quarter piercing in Morgana's cross is very small
and the visual distinction it gives is lost with the other
piercings in the center of a Celtic cross. Therefore, there is no
difference for the type of cross. [Muirgen of Applecross,
02/2002,
R-Calontir]
There is only one CD for changing the type of cross from bottony
to Santiago per existing precedent, when one considers that a
cross bottony is an earlier version of, and closely resembles, a
cross crosslet: "[three crosses of Santiago Or vs. three
crosses crosslet fitchy Or]... there is a CD for type of
cross" (LoAR April 2000) [Maridonna Benvenuti, 02/2002,
R-Meridies]
[Argent, within a cross moline disjointed vert nine roses in
cross gules seeded Or] Crosses moline disjointed have
unmistakably forked and curled ends, like the ends of a millrind
or a regular cross moline. These curled ends are not apparent on
this emblazon. This must be returned for redrawing of the cross
moline disjointed.
The SCA allows crosses of all sorts to be charged, and a cross
moline disjointed should be no exception. It should be noted that
when charges are put on a cross moline disjointed, they obscure
the identifiability of the cross somewhat; the tertiary charges
contribute to greater visual separation and disassociation of the
already separated parts of the cross. Special care should be
taken with the artwork to preserve identifiability of all
elements of the armory. [Arthur de Beaumont, 04/2002,
R-East]
[a cross engrailed argent overall a gurges Or] The model
for this armory submission is in Foster's The Dictionary of
Heraldry. It depicts the arms of Robert Giffard, from the
Dering Roll c. 1275. Foster's blazon is Argent, a cross
engrailed sable, over all a gorge azure, and it is drawn much
like this submission. The gurges is depicted as concentric
annulets, each annulet overlying the "cup" parts of the engrailed
cross. The outside annulets are cut off by the sides of the
shield so only the corners show.
... In general, it appears that concentric annulets, of which the
outermost are cut off by the edges of the shield, are an early
form of gurges. Thus, it seems appropriate to give this emblazon
the benefit of the doubt, and assume that this is an acceptable
period-style combination of a gurges and a cross engrailed.
[Gregory of Glencairn, 05/2002,
A-Æthelmearc] [Ed.: There was extensive discussion for this
decision. It can be found under GURGES.]
Some commenters asked whether the cross of Cerdaña should
continue to be allowed in SCA armory, because it is an
SCA-invented charge without a strong pattern of SCA use. The
cross of Cerdaña is listed in the Pictorial Dictionary as
an "SCA invention; it's essentially a square set on one corner,
with a semi-circular notch on each side." This description makes
the cross sound much less period than it appears. The cross of
Cerdaña is a minor artistic variant of a cross clechy,
which is a standard period cross. We therefore see no reason to
disallow the continued registration of this type of cross.
[Ana María de Cerdanya, 07/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[a bordure sable crusilly plain Or] Some commenters
suggested that the bordure be blazoned as sable crusilly
Or, but such a blazon would be incorrect. The default
crusilly is of crosses crosslet. It is therefore necessary
to specify that this bordure is crusilly couped or
crusilly plain. [Cathal MacLean, 08/2002,
A-Atlantia]
"There is not a CD between a cross crosslet fitchy and a cross
bottony" (LoAR December 1999).
Because crosses bottony and crosses crosslet were not separate
charges in period, and because crosses and crosses fitchy were
not separate charges in period, RfS X.4.e gives no type
difference between a cross bottony and a cross crosslet fitchy.
It is important to recall that the cross bottony and the cross
crosslet are both used to represent the same charge throughout
our period's heraldry. The bottony form is found predominantly in
earlier artwork, and the crosslet form predominantly in later
artwork. Good examples of this evolution can be seen in the
Beauchamp arms, Gules, a fess between six crosses crosslet
Or. It is also important to recall that there is a fair
amount of evidence showing that the fitching of crosses in period
heraldry may be done as artist's license, particularly when the
crosses are in a group of strewn ("semy") charges. [Sean of
the South, 08/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[cross barby vs cross formy] With crosses, as with
quadrupeds, it is sometimes possible to get "substantial"
difference between two distinct charge types; in other cases it
is only possible to get "significant" difference, and in others
yet, no heraldic difference is given at all. In most cases where
substantial difference is given, it is because the charges in
question are standard period charges which are definitely not
standard period variants of one another and are always visually
distinct. A cross barby does not appear to be a standard period
cross, and has a standard equal-armed shape like a cross formy.
It thus seems appropriate only to give one CD for the difference
of type between these charges. [Wulf de Langhemerc,
09/2002,
R-Atlantia]
There is one CD for ... for the difference between a cross formy
and a Maltese cross. Both crosses were found in period, and they
were considered distinct from each other. The shapes of these
crosses are too similar to allow substantial (RfS X.2) difference
to be given between them. [Hugo van Halle, 10/2002,
A-Atlantia]
The cross was originally blazoned as alisée formy. The
ends are so slightly rounded that this depiction is merely an
unblazonable artistic variant of a cross formy. Crosses alisée
formy in their correctly-drawn globular form have been returned
in the past as non-period style, under the blazon term "formy
convexed" (see the LoAR of December 1998 for more
information).
The device conflicts with Ivan the Astronomer, Per fess wavy
argent and gules, in canton a cross patty gules. There is one
CD for changing the field. The cross patty in Ivan's device is a
standard cross formy, so there is no difference for changing the
type of the cross. [Michael Silverhand, 10/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
There is no difference between a cross formy and a Latin cross
formy. [Michael Silverhand, 10/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
This armory does not violate the long-standing strictures against
registering a single abstract symbol. A tau cross is a standard
heraldic charge in its own right. [Timothy Brother,
11/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[Azure, a tau cross Or] The device does not conflict with
the flag of Sweden (important non-SCA flag), Azure, a cross
Or. The two pieces of armory are clear of conflict by RfS X.2
due to the substantial change to the type of the cross. Precedent
indicates that "... there is a substantial difference between a
patriarchal cross and a plain cross throughout" (LoAR of February
2000). In this precedent, adding a second crossbar to a standard
four-armed cross was considered substantial difference. This case
seems analogous, as the tau cross omits the visually important
chiefmost arm of a cross. While period crosses showed some
variety in the way that the bottommost arm was drawn (fitchy or
not, for example), this license did not extend to the other three
arms of the cross. It was never standard in period to remove any
arm of a cross, not even the basemost. Therefore it seems
reasonable to consider a tau cross to be substantially different
from a default plain cross throughout. [Timothy Brother,
11/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[a cross fleury vs. a cross of four ermine spots] There is
a CD ... for changing the type of cross. RfS X.4.e states "Types
of charges considered to be separate in period, for example a
lion and an heraldic tyger, will be considered different." Both
crosses fleury and crosses of ermine spots were considered to be
separate in period and were drawn so that they could be visually
distinguished from each other.
Some commenters noted the following precedent: "We could see no
more than a minor point of difference between the cross of
conjoined ermine spots and the cross fleury" (LoAR 21 May 89, p.
23). It is important to recall that the criteria of the current
Rules for Submissions are not the same as the criteria of the
rules which were in effect in May 1989. The current version of
the rules relies on historical and visual criteria for
difference, while previous versions of the rules relied mostly on
visual criteria. Thus, a precedent that a particular change was
worth either a major or a minor point of difference under the old
rules does not clearly translate into the presence or absence of
a CD. [Geffroi de Mosterol, 12/2002,
A-Ealdormere]
[Sable, a saltire bretessed argent] This does not conflict
with a ... Sable, a saltire formy argent. Contrary to some
opinions espoused in the commentary, couping an ordinary is only
a significant change (worth a CD) rather than a substantial
change (clear by RfS X.2). We would only give a CD between a
saltire bretessed and a saltire bretessed and couped. However,
just as it seems appropriate to give X.2 (substantial) difference
between the very different period charges of a cross formy (which
is couped by default and has splayed ends) and a cross bretessed
(which is throughout by default and treated with an embattled
line), it is also appropriate to give X.2 difference between
similarly treated saltires. [Nikolai Toranovich, 01/2003,
A-An Tir]
There is a CD ... for the type difference between a cross potent
and a cross crosslet. Both types of cross are found throughout
the heraldic period and appear to be considered distinct charges.
[Marmaduc de Thystelesworthe, 01/2003,
A-Atlantia]
A cross crescenty has each arm ending in a crescent with its
horns pointing outwards. "While a cross crescenty is not, to the
best of our knowledge, a period cross, it follows the pattern of
period crosses, and is, therefore, registerable" (LoAR November
1998) [Celestria of Celtenhomme, 01/2003,
A-Calontir]
Some commenters asked whether this submission might have "too
many weirdnesses" to be acceptable. A "weirdness", according to
the Glossary of Terms, is a "break with the usual period style
provided that it is not overly obtrusive". While the use of a
Celtic cross in heraldry may be an SCA innovation, it is not
considered a weirdness, as similarly constructed crosses are
found in period heraldry. It is a reasonable extension of
practices found in period heraldry rather than a "break with the
usual period style." [Aindrea Mac Parthaláin, 01/2003,
A-Outlands]
[a cross patonce vs. a cross bottony] A second CD must
come from the type difference between a cross bottony and a cross
patonce.
SCA precedent has so far consistently held that there is a CD
between crosses bottony/crosslet and crosses
fleury/flory/patonce. Kraken provided some citations from
Papworth's Ordinary of British Armorials, taken from the
beginning of the section on single crosses. In these examples, we
find armory using both crosses bottony/crosslet, and crosses
fleury/flory/patonce, belonging to people with the same surname.
He therefore rightly raised the question of whether we should
continue to consider these types of cross to have been distinct
in period (and thus worth a CD for the change in type), or
whether we should consider them to have been artistic variants of
each other in period (with no CD for the change in type).
In researching this question, we have used Kraken's examples, and
added further research from Papworth, as well as Brault's The
Rolls of Arms of Edward I ("Aspilogia III"), Cecil
Humphery-Smith's Anglo-Norman Armory II, and the
Dictionary of British Armorials (henceforth abbreviated
DBA). We realize that these sources provide an unfortunately
Anglocentric view of heraldry, but the sources at our disposal
which allow this sort of research are largely English - and the
research is being used to elaborate on some initial information
that is also English.
The first, and most important question to ask, is whether
changing the type of cross could ever be a change indicating
different branches of the family (cadency). A change which could
indicate cadency is a change which could be worth a CD. It
appears that at least in some cases, the change in the type of
cross indicates cadency. One good example is the family of Ward,
as seen in the various sources cited above, where different
branches of the family are specifically cited as using distinct
cross types. As a general rule, type changes are one of the more
common types of cadency change in period - much more common than
cadency changes in posture and arrangement. So it is unsurprising
that changing the type of a cross is, in some cases, a cadency
change.
Since changing a cross type may sometimes indicate cadency, we
must therefore determine whether the changes in cross type which
we have found are indicative of cadency, or if they are
indicative of artistic variation. Some ways of demonstrating that
two types of charge are artistic variants of each other are:
- Demonstrating a general pattern of interchangeability between
the two types of charge: most armory using one sort of charge
is also found using the other sort of charge, or there is a
temporal trend so that earlier versions of the charge are drawn
in one way and later forms are drawn in the other way.
- Demonstrating that the choice of how to draw the charge was
most likely due to the artist, because the artist of one roll
would draw the charge consistently in one fashion and the
artist of another roll would draw the charge consistently in
another fashion.
- Demonstrating that there are numerous cases in which a single
individual bore variations of the same sort of cross.
In all the cases above, the analysis should consider
the source material and remove any erroneous material.
We were unable to demonstrate a general pattern of
interchangeability between these two types of cross. It appeared
that most of the time, a family used exclusively either crosses
bottony/crosslet (henceforth abbreviated "bottony") or crosses
patonce/fleury/flory (henceforth abbreviated "patonce"). This was
particularly evident in the examination of the better-researched
sources; as a general rule, Papworth's research is considered to
be less authoritative than Brault's, Humphrey-Smith's, or that of
the compilers of the DBA. Note that the DBA does not extend
through the "cross" category yet, but DBA includes a fair number
of examples of armory using either "bottony" or "patonce" crosses
as secondary or tertiary charges in the company of bends,
cantons, and chevrons.
We were unable to demonstrate that the choice of how to draw the
cross was due to stylistic variations between artists. As Kraken
noted, Harleian MS 1407 shows the family of Goldisbrgh/Goldesbry
in both "patonce" and "bottony variants". The families of
Brerlegh and Aton both are shown as using "patonce" and "bottony"
variants in Glover's Ordinary.
We were unable to find any trend where a single individual was
noted as using both "bottony" and "patonce" types of cross. We
freely admit that we were not able to isolate many cases where we
could attribute armory to a specific individual, so our
researches in this area were not particularly compelling.
Lastly, it seemed apparent that Papworth's citations from
Glover's Ordinary were responsible for a disproportionate number
of the cases where one family appeared to use "bottony" and
"patonce" crosses. These examples include the families of Aton,
Brerlegh, Ward, and Taddington/Tuddington. If Papworth's
interpretation of Glover's Ordinary is viewed as suspect, we are
left with almost no reason to consider crosses "bottony" and
"patonce" to be artistic variants of each other.
Thus, until new evidence is presented, we affirm the following
precedent: "...there is still a CD between a cross flory
and a cross bottony" (LoAR August 1999). [Miryam æt
West Seaxe, 02/2003,
A-Caid]
[an ankh with its lower limb surmounted by four bars
couped] The submitter provided evidence that the ankh with
the four crossbars had a particular hieroglyphic meaning in
ancient Egypt. The submitter also provided evidence there was
some Egyptian artwork extant in our period which used this design
as the head of a staff in representations of the god Ptah. Thus,
this design might have been seen by medieval and Renaissance
viewers of the ancient Egyptian artwork.
No evidence was presented that hieroglyphs, as a class, are
appropriate for heraldic use. They cannot be considered as
acceptable charges analogous to letters or other abstract
symbols, as their text meaning was not known during the Middle
Ages and Renaissance. They may have been known as artistic
designs, but as noted in RfS VII.2, "Use of an element in period
art does not guarantee its acceptability for armory. Use of the
Greek key design, which was common in period decorative art,
never carried over into armory."
This charge combination must therefore be accepted, or not, on
its own merits as a heraldic design element. An ankh (or crux
ansata) is accepted for use in SCA heraldry, even though it is
not a period heraldic charge, as it is a straightforward variant
of a Latin cross. However, crossing the basemost leg of a crux
ansata four times changes the charge so much that it is no longer
an acceptable variant of a period cross. The charge is too far
from period practice to be accepted as a Compatible Armorial
Element under RfS VII.6, given the evidence known to the College
at this time. Without documentation showing such a charge used in
heraldry, it may not be accepted for registration. [Lucius
Alexandrinus, 02/2003,
R-Caid]
[a Latin cross formy floretty] The formy portion of this
cross is not a standard cross formy. The arms do not spread out
all the way to the ends of the cross arm. Instead, the arms
spread out through most of their length, but they end in a
straight portion of cross arm. The straight portion is set off by
a detail line, so it appears to be a 'cap' at the end of the arm.
This does not appear to be a standard variant of a cross
formy.
In addition, it is not clear that a cross formy floretty is
acceptable period style. A cross formy bottony was returned as
non-period style in August 2000. Without documentation for this
charge, or for similar constructions combining a cross formy with
another type of complex cross end, this may not be registered.
[Tófa Jóhansdóttir, 03/2003,
R-Drachenwald]
[(Fieldless) A cross of Jerusalem purpure] "The Cross of
Jerusalem is a defined single charge, though it consists of
discrete elements in the same way than an ermine spot does."
(LoAR July 1996). As a result, there is no problem having a cross
of Jerusalem on a fieldless badge, even though portions of this
defined single charge are not conjoined. [Hans Faust der
herlat, 04/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[two crosses of Jerusalem each with its center cross a cross
crosslet] The charges around the bend are not standard
crosses of Jerusalem. Standard crosses of Jerusalem consist of a
cross potent between four smaller crosses couped. In these
crosses, the center cross is crosslet, not potent. While we are
not aware of any standard variants of the cross of Jerusalem in
period, it is relatively standard SCA practice to vary the
treatment of the end of a simple type of cross (such as a Celtic
cross fleury). A cross of Jerusalem is not a simple type of
cross, but the variant shown here is visually straightforward and
recognizable. Therefore, this variant of a cross of Jerusalem is
one step from period practice (a "weirdness"). Armory using only
one "weirdness" is stylistically acceptable. [Caranwyn
Silveroak, 05/2003,
A-East]
Two commenters asked whether the cross gurgity was too close to a
swastika (or fylfot) to be registered without causing offense.
The cross gurgity in this submission is drawn as it is in the
Pictorial Dictionary: each arm curves smoothly to a hook
which ends in a point. A swastika is drawn with arms which make a
right angle and end bluntly. This seems to be sufficient visual
distinction to avoid offense, especially as the commentary on the
matter was more in the nature of a question about the charge -
neither commenter stated that he or she found it difficult to
distinguish this charge from a swastika, or that he or she took
offense at the charge. [Uther Schiemann der Hunt, 06/2003,
A-West]
... a second CD for the type difference between a cross of
lozenges and a cross of mascles. [Arabella Mackinnon,
06/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[Quarterly azure and argent, a cross moline throughout sable
between in bend a mullet and a bear's paw print argent] RfS
XI.3 states:
Divisions commonly used for marshalling, such as quarterly or
per pale, may only be used in contexts that ensure marshalling
is not suggested.
The rule continues in subsection (a):
a. Such fields may be used with identical charges over the
entire field, or with complex lines of partition or charges
overall that were not used for marshalling in period heraldry.
This piece of armory consists of a quarterly field
(a division commonly used for marshalling) which does not have
"identical charges over the entire field." This raises the
question of whether a cross moline throughout should be
considered a "charge overall that [was] not used for marshalling
in period heraldry." Precedent indicates that "crosses
throughout, crosses paty [sic: now called formy] throughout,
[and] crosses engrailed throughout were in marshalled arms [as
charges overlying the quarterly line of division]" (LoAR March
1994 p.10). Precedent also indicates that crosses couped (LoAR
March 1994 p.10) and crosses flory (not throughout) (LoAR June
2000) were not used in marshalled arms as charges overlying the
quarterly line of division.
The College generally felt that, based on the previous precedent
and the discussion of period marshalling in the commentary, the
following precedent should be set:
PRECEDENT: A cross throughout which overlies the line of
division on a quarterly field does not remove the appearance of
marshalling by quartering, even if the cross throughout is
treated with a complex line (such as engrailed) or has complex
ends (such as formy or moline.) A cross which is not
throughout, or which does not overlie the quarterly line of
division (such as a Tau cross), will remove the appearance of
marshalling unless evidence is presented that the cross under
discussion was used for marshalling in period heraldry.
Because the cross moline in this submission is
throughout and overlies the quarterly line of division, it does
not remove the appearance of marshalling by quartering in this
submission. [Dana the Quarrier, 06/2003,
R-Meridies]
[crosses of Santiago] A number of commenters were
concerned about the identifiability of the crosses of Santiago.
The cross of Santiago is one of the more variable forms of period
crosses, as can be seen by inspecting material pertaining to the
regalia of the Spanish or Portuguese Orders of Santiago [de la
Espada]. The bottom arm of the cross is always fitchy, but in a
way that more resembles a sword blade than the usual bottom arm
of a cross fitchy. The side arms are an often-flamboyant sort of
flory. The top arm ranges from a standard flory, to a subdued
form of flory, to a round- or card-pique-shaped "sword hilt"
shape. Comparing the crosses in this submission to the relatively
standard form in the Pictorial Dictionary, the top and
bottom arms of the crosses are almost identical. The side arms of
the crosses are, in each case, a flamboyant form of flory, but
the side arms in this submission are much flatter than usual.
Please advise the submitter to draw the side arms of the cross in
a more standard manner. [Gregorio Cristovalez de la Vega,
07/2003,
A-An Tir]
There is one CD between a cross throughout and a cross nowy.
[Elizabeth de Foxle, 07/2003,
A-Lochac]
[Per chevron azure and argent, a Norse sun cross argent]
Per previous precedent, this submission consists of a single
abstract symbol and thus may not be registered: "The Norse sun
cross is also the symbol for Earth, and by precedent symbols
cannot be registered as the sole charge. This ruling was applied
to Norse sun crosses in April 1994 (pg. 15, s.n. Barony of
Bonwicke)" (LoAR September 2000). [Curwinus Trevirensis,
07/2003,
R-Atlantia]
The crosses were originally blazoned as Crosses of Cleves,
which are Latin crosses flory. When the crosses are made fitchy,
the Latin nature of the cross becomes much less apparent, so we
have reblazoned these simply as crosses flory fitchy.
[Bróccín mac Gille Críst, 10/2003,
A-Meridies]
[for augmentation on a canton purpure a cross of Calatrava and
a bordure Or] The augmentation conflicts with ... Purpure,
a cross moline disjointed, a bordure Or. The augmentation in
this submission appears to be a display of the armory Purpure,
a cross of Calatrava and a bordure Or, which has one CD ...
for changing the type of cross, but does not have the substantial
difference required to qualify for RfS X.2. [Edward Cire of
Greymoor, 10/2003,
R-An Tir]
[Gules, on a cross quarter-pierced Or four eagles sable]
Conflict with ... Gules, on a cross Or five ladybugs gules
marked sable. Per the LoAR of February 2000, "you cannot
'blazon your way out of' a conflict." A cross quarter-pierced may
also be blazoned as a cross charged with a delf
throughout. As a result, one can blazon this submission as
Gules on a cross Or a delf throughout gules between four
eagles sable. RfS X.4.j.i states that "Generally ... changes
must affect the whole group of charges to be considered visually
significant, since the size of these elements and their visual
impact are considerably diminished." In this case, because the
change of tincture of four-fifths of the charges, and the change
of the type of all the charges is so significant, one CD is
allowed for the changes to the tertiary charge group under RfS
X.4.j.i. However, a second CD is required. [Orban von Ulm,
10/2003,
R-Meridies]
Per the LoAR of July 2003, "There is one CD between a cross
throughout and a cross nowy." The same CD applies between a cross
throughout and cross nowy quadrate. Note that no evidence has
been presented or found indicating that a cross nowy (or a cross
nowy quadrate) would be a period artistic variant of a cross
throughout. There is certainly unmistakable visual difference
between the two types of cross, whether the nowy is the default
circular nowy (per the July 2003 ruling) or whether it is the
square nowy quadrate. [Jessimond of Greencrosse, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
There is a CD between a default cross (throughout) and a cross
formy throughout. We routinely give difference between the couped
versions of these crosses (a cross couped versus a cross formy).
Nor has evidence been presented or found indicating that a cross
throughout would be interchangeable with a cross formy throughout
in period. [Jessimond of Greencrosse, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
... no difference given for the type of cross: "A cross patonce
and a cross of Santiago are both considered artistic variants of
a cross flory; therefore, there is no CD for a cross patonce
versus a cross of Santiago" (LoAR March 2001). [Brigit
Gilbertstoune, 11/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[(Fieldless) A cross patonce azure] This does not conflict
with Morgana Elisabetta Rosatti, (Fieldless) A cross fleury
azure irradiated Or. Irradiated charges, when drawn
correctly, are a CD from non-irradiated charges. Brooke-Little's
An Heraldic Alphabet, defines irradiated as
"Surrounded by rays of light. An irradiated charge is usually
shown as if it were charged on a sun." The irradiated cross here
is drawn appropriately, with very pronounced irradiation. There
is thus one CD for fieldlessness, and a second CD for the
irradiation. [Brigit Gilbertstoune, 11/2003,
R-Atlantia]
The cross formy floretty may be found in period armory, in the
arms of Roger de Swynnerton, Argent, a cross formy flory at
the ends sable, as cited (among other places) in The Rolls of
Arms of Edward I volume I p.500 by Gerard J. Brault, and cited
and illustrated in Foster's The Dictionary of Heraldry
p.188 (under the slightly different spelling Roger de
Swinnerton.) [Tófa Jóhansdóttir, 12/2003,
A-Drachenwald]
[a cross fourchy between the tines of each fork a roundel]
This was blazoned in the Letter of Intent (and by the submitter)
as a cross Osmorog. The submitter provided some
documentation which the submitting herald provided, at least in
part, to the College on-line. The Letter of Intent says that the
documentation has associated dates in period, but the on-line
versions of the documentation did not provide any dates or any
associated explanatory text. The provided documentation only
showed the emblazon and fringes of the surrounding text, which
were cut off when the documentation was originally reproduced or
scanned. No other documentation was provided to Wreath from the
submitting kingdom.
The College's research noted that the charges surrounding the
cross Osmorog (roundels in this emblazon) are not integral parts
of the cross Osmorog but need to be blazoned separately. The
College's research also resulted in significant doubt about
whether the cross in this submission is a correct depiction of a
period cross Osmorog. We have thus chosen to blazon this device
using standard Western terms.
We considered blazoning this either as a variant of a cross
moline or of a cross fourchy. Because the ends of a
cross moline are pointed and deeply curved, and the ends of this
cross are couped flat and only slightly curved, we have
reblazoned these as crosses fourchy. [Zygmunt Nadratowski,
01/2004,
A-Middle]
We would like to address one specific misconception which,
according to some commenters, derived from an overgeneralization
of a conflict table. One conflict table concerning crosses had a
category of "cross throughout" (with sub-categories for the
particular types of cross throughout, such as equal-armed
Celtic quarter-pierced.) As a result of the cursory scan of
this category, which generally gave a CD between the "throughout"
cross and the cross with which it was compared, more than one
College of Arms member incorrectly generalized that all
crosses throughout were a CD from all crosses which were
not throughout. The precedents listed in the LoAR table
explicitly denied that generalization, but one had to look at the
cited precedents to see that information. One example of a
precedent referenced by the conflict table that denied this
generalization:
[A Celtic cross vs. a Celtic cross equal-armed, quarterly
pierced and throughout] There is no heraldic difference for the
charge being throughout, or not. However, there's a CD ... for
the quarter-piercing, which is visually equivalent to adding a
tertiary delf. (Toirrdelbach Ua Mel Doraid, October, 1992, pg.
16)
A relatively recent LoAR also addressed this issue.
Clarifying comments have been inserted into the quote in square
brackets:
While we give a CD for a standard cross throughout [the
ordinary] versus a cross couped, for most crosses (such as
crosses fleury) we do not give such difference for couped
[not-throughout] versus throughout. (LoAR February 2002).
[03/2004,
CL]
[Vert, on a cross flory Or a rose proper] Conflict with
... (Fieldless) On four demi-fleurs conjoined in cross Or a
torteau. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There is no
difference between the four demi-fleurs conjoined in cross
charged with (a tertiary charge) and a cross flory charged with
(a tertiary charge): the tertiary charge obscures any significant
difference between these two designs.
There is also no difference for changing the type only of the
tertiary charge. A cross flory is not a "suitable charge" for RfS
X.4.j.ii, which states in pertinent part, "A charge is suitable
for the purposes of [RfS X.4.j.ii] if (a) it is simple enough in
outline to be voided..." Crosses fleury are analogous to crosses
moline for purposes of considering whether they are too
complicated to void or to fimbriate. The LoAR of July 1999
stated, "This is being returned for violating the precedent set
by Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme as Laurel (January 15, 1993,
cover letter) concerning which charges are suitable for
fimbriation. A cross moline is too complex to fimbriate."
In the cases of both crosses moline and crosses flory, some
period depictions of the cross have ends which are complicated
enough that the cross is arguably too complex to void by the
criteria of the Cover Letter dated January 15, 1993 (for the
November 1992 LoAR), although many other period depictions of
these crosses are simple enough to void by the same criteria.
While we are not certain whether we would rule, de novo,
that crosses moline are too complicated to void, insufficient
evidence has been presented to overturn the previous precedent
concerning the voidability of crosses moline. [Victoria
Anthoinette Sauvignon, 03/2004,
R-Calontir]
No documentation was presented, and none was found, for the
cross pattée concave in period armory. This cross has ends
that are straight throughout most of their length, and flare out
only at the very ends of the arm. As far as we are aware, period
crosses formy flare out along the entirety of their length.
The term concave, as found in a few previous SCA
registrations, appears to apply to a cross that is somewhat nowy
lozengy (or nowy of a lozenge). This cross is only slightly nowy
of a lozenge. Because the blazon term concave is not
well-defined in real-world or SCA armory, it should be avoided in
the future. [Gabriel de Morland, 03/2004,
R-Outlands]
CROSSBOW and
BOW
[in pale a stag at gaze argent and a bow bendwise
sinister, drawn and with arrow nocked Or] The armory is not
overly complex "slot machine" heraldry (using more than two types
of charge in a single charge group) because prior precedent
indicates that a bow and arrow in a standard position are treated
as if they were a single charge. A drawn bow and arrow are in a
standard position for a bow and arrow.
[considering a strung bow and arrow along with another
charge] The question was raised as to whether or not this is
considered slot machine since it has three dissimilar charges
in one group. While it is true that it has three charges, when
a bow and arrow are in their standard, expected position they
are considered one charge, just like a sword in a scabbard is
considered one charge. It is only when they are separated, or
put into non standard positions for their normal use, such as
being crossed in saltire, that they become two separate
charges. (LoAR April 1999)
[Rotheric Kynith, 06/2003,
A-Caid]
... they are as different in appearance from each other as a bow
and a crossbow (ruled substantially different in the LoAR of
November 1996) ... [Diethelm Waltorfer, 12/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
While we blazon the distinction between an uncocked crossbow and
a default (cocked) crossbow, we do not give difference between
them. [Siegfried Sebastian Faust, 03/2004,
R-Atlantia]
CUP and CHALICE
After due
consideration, the visual differences between tankards and
mortars and pestles are sufficient for a CD. [Elizabeth
Rea, 02/2002,
A-Meridies]
[(Fieldless) A covered cup argent] Conflict with Kathleen
Erin-go-Burne-the-Bragh, Vert, a chalice argent containing
flames Or. There is a CD for fieldlessness. There is no type
difference between a cup and a covered cup. The flame in
Kathleen's cup is a maintained charge, and its deletion is not
worth difference. [Ysoria de Brai, 08/2002,
R-Atlantia]
DEFAULTS
A Wake
knot, as per the PicDic, is fesswise by default. [Nottinghill
Coill, Barony of, 08/2001,
A-Atlantia]
A proper boar is brown by default according to the Glossary of
Terms, so this needn't be blazoned as a brown boar.
[Áedán of Windhaven, 08/2001,
A-Middle]
A lion's paw escallop is, effectively, a default escallop.
[Lyondemere, Barony of, 09/2001,
A-Caid]
[A loom weight pendant from a hank of yarn] This shape of
loom weight is easily recognized by weavers. The identifiability
is enhanced by the hank of yarn; loom weights without associated
yarn are unlikely to be identifiable as loom weights. Marta
Hoffman's The Warp-Weighted Loom indicates that loom
weights in period were found in a variety of shapes. This loom
weight is an oval disk with a small hole near the top. Other
varieties include pyramidal and annular. This form is now the
default loom weight for the SCA. Other loom weight shapes will
need to be specified in blazon. [Barbara atte Dragon,
10/2001,
A-Middle]
[a dragon rampant] Winged quadrupedal monsters have their
wings elevated and addorsed by default when rampant. [Feme
inghean Donnabháin, 10/2001,
A-Trimaris]
Regardless of the botanical propriety of a period orange carrot,
there is no one obvious color for a carrot to take in period, and
therefore there is no default tincture for a carrot proper.
[Randall Carrick, 10/2001,
R-Outlands]
[tennis racket] There is a strong pattern of use of
constructed artifacts from all walks of life in period heraldry.
The type of tennis racket drawn here is late 16th C and, as the
defining example in the SCA, is now the default tennis racket.
[Bertrand du Beaumanoir, 11/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
The lilies in Ella's device are in the default palewise posture.
[Ella de Lille, 12/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[in chief three lozenges] The original blazon read, in
latter part, ... and in chief three lozenges in fess Or.
Three items in chief will also be in fess by default. We do find
armory in the SCA with three items in chief, arranged one and
two, but this arrangement should always be blazoned. [John de
Lochabre, 12/2001,
A-Atlantia]
Crusilly is, by default, of crosses crosslet ... [Christoff
von Rotenburg, 12/2001,
A-Meridies]
The College of Arms should recall that lymphads, by default, have
the sails furled and the oars in action. If the sail is unfurled,
as here, it must be blazoned. The state of the oars (which are
omitted in this emblazon) is too small a detail to require
blazoning. [Daniel Tremayne, 01/2002,
A-An Tir]
... charges in annulo are clockwise by default... [Isabelle
d'Avallon� 02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
Labels are throughout by default, so this need not be blazoned.
[Thomas de Lacy, 02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
... there is no default proper tincture for a camel.. [Aminah
of Nithgaard, 03/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[an oak tree couped proper] Some commenters suggested that
this tree be blazoned simply as a tree, rather than the
oak tree provided in the submitter's blazon. The tree in
this submission has a round shape, but it is drawn without acorns
and without distinctly shaped leaves. It is not drawn with any
features which would identify it as some sort of tree other than
an oak (such as maple leaves, or fruit). The default round-shaped
tree is an oak tree. Therefore, this is an acceptable emblazon
for an oak tree, and it seems reasonable to keep the submitter's
preferred blazon term. [Bethoc of Ravenswood, 03/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a reremouse displayed head to dexter] The reremouse is
both displayed and guardant by default. Since this reremouse is
displayed but has its head turned to dexter, its posture has been
explicitly blazoned for clarity. [Mat of Forth Castle,
03/2002,
A-Meridies]
[Per bend Or and vert, an elephant argent] Conflict with
Andrew Castlebuilder, Per chevron purpure and Or, overall an
elephant [Elephas sp.] trumpeting passant proper, on its back a
carpet purpure, fimbriated Or, supporting a tower argent, masoned
sable. There is a CD for changing the field but no difference
for adding the tower. Towers are commonly found on the back of
elephants, and must be blazoned when present. However, such
towers are of much less visual weight than the elephant, and are
therefore equivalent to maintained charges. The tower in Andrew's
arms follows this pattern. [Dionello Cristoforo dei
Medici, 03/2002,
R-An Tir]
In the course of researching this submission it became apparent
that the SCA has had no consistent default arrangement for
charges on a pile. Based on Roger Pye's research (A Return to
First Principles: I - The Pile, Coat of Arms VII (49) pp. 4 -
6, January 1962), the default for charges on a pile should be
in pale. It was not until the reign of Henry VIII that we
find a group of charges on a pile arranged other than in pale:
specifically, a group of three charges on a pile arranged two and
one. [James of Nayland, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
This chimera is drawn as the one in Bossewell's 1572
Armorie. It has a lion's body, a lion's head, a goat's
head, and a dragon's head regardant. This is the default SCA
composition for a chimera. [Maximilian Gartenheit of
Heatherwyne, 04/2002,
A-Caid]
... squirrels are sejant erect by default and almost
always found in that posture in period armory. [Isabel
Fosson, 04/2002,
A-Middle]
The simurgh has been explicitly blazoned as close, since
simurghs have no default posture. [Tavia of Persia,
05/2002,
R-Outlands]
After reading the discussion provided by the College, it seems
appropriate to rule that the daffodil, like the lotus, has no
default posture. The posture of the flower should be blazoned
explicitly, such as affronty or bell to chief.
Daffodils addorsed are daffodils with the bells facing
away from each other.
Daffodils are not slipped and leaved by default. The flower
portion of the daffodil may be referred to either as a
daffodil or as a daffodil blossom. [06/2002,
CL]
We have blazoned the lightning bolt as palewise because
neither the Pictorial Dictionary nor the Glossary of Terms
gives a default for this SCA-invented charge. [Maddalena de
los Angeles, 06/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a label dovetailed throughout] A peculiarity of SCA
blazon is that the standard label is throughout by default, but
the dovetailed label is couped by default. The blazon in this
submission label is both dovetailed and throughout, and both
these details must be blazoned. [Kharra Unegen, 07/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
In the SCA, winged objects such as winged swords, and
(presumably) winged skulls, have the wings displayed by default.
[Delphina the Mad, 07/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[a drop spindle inverted] Our textile pals were able to
identify the drop spindle on first glance. They also note that
some styles of period drop spindle have the whorl to chief, so a
spindle with the whorl to chief would not have been intrinsically
unrecognizable in a period context. However, the default drop
spindle in the SCA has its whorl to base, so we have blazoned
these as inverted. [Siobhán NicDhuinnshléibhe,
07/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[Per pale vert and sable, six gouttes three two and one
argent] It is not clear whether the default for six objects
on a per pale field should be three two and one (as on a
plain field) or two two and two (so the charges are placed
on opposite sides of the line of division.) We have thus blazoned
the arrangement of the gouttes explicitly. [Malcolm
Makalestyr, 07/2002,
A-Outlands]
Herons are close by default, so the posture need not be blazoned.
[Herons Reach, Shire of, 08/2002,
A-An Tir]
Winged quadrupeds have their wings addorsed by default, so this
detail need not be specified in the blazon. [Andreu
Recheles, 09/2002,
A-An Tir]
Note that the SCA default for six objects on a plain field is
three two and one. This matches the default for six
objects on a plain field in most of the times and places in which
heraldry is found before 1600. [Edward of Hartwell,
09/2002,
A-Caid]
Angels are affronty by default and so contourny is not a well
defined term: the angel must be r[e]blazoned as statant
contourny. Because an angel is a humanoid monster, the term
statant is understood to mean "standing as a human does":
it is not necessary to blazon an angel as statant erect.
(And it is not period heraldic practice, nor is it respectful, to
emblazon an angel statant as an animal would be statant, down on
all fours.) [Rivenvale, Shire of, 10/2002,
R-Middle]
[Vert, a fern frond argent] The default SCA fern frond has
a long triangular shape with fine horizontal cuts. The stem of
the frond is at the center of the base of the triangle. The
charge therefore is very similar in outline to that of a standard
heraldic fir or pine tree. Because a fern frond has not been
demonstrated to be a period charge, its type difference from
other charges is determined, per RfS X.4.e, on solely visual
grounds. There is too strong a resemblance between a heraldic fir
tree and a fern frond to allow difference on solely visual
grounds. Therefore, this conflicts with ... Vert, a fir tree
eradicated ermine. There is only one difference, for changing
the tincture of the charge. [Mathias ap Morgan, 11/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[(Fieldless) A bee statant proper] In the SCA, a bee
statant has its wings addorsed by default, as in the
August 2002 registration of Robert Pine's device.
This badge does not conflict with Aideen the Audacious,
(Fieldless) A bumblebee fesswise proper. There is one CD
for fieldlessness. Aideen's bumblebee is in its default tergiant
posture, and then rotated fesswise. There is a CD between a bee
tergiant fesswise and a bee statant. Both postures show the bees
with fesswise bodies, but a bee tergiant fesswise has wings
visible on both sides of the bee's body, while a bee statant only
has wings visible on the chiefmost side of the body. This
difference is worth a CD, analogous to the difference between a
bird rising wings displayed and a bird rising wings addorsed.
[Catríona nic Theàrlaigh, 12/2002,
A-An Tir]
The default SCA tai-chi is per fess embowed counter-embowed
argent and sable, per the Pictorial Dictionary under roundel.
This tai-chi is per pale embowed counterembowed with the
sable part to dexter: as a result, this emblazon uses a
tai-chi fesswise reversed proper. [Geoffrey
Arkwright, 12/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
PRECEDENT: The default orientation for a trillium has one petal
to base, so the petals are in pall. A trillium inverted has one
petal to chief, so the petals are in pall inverted. [01/2003,
CL] [Ed.: See FLOWER --
Trillium for the complete discussion]
[Per bend sinister azure and sable, three crosses potent two
and one argent] The three crosses are blazoned explicitly as
two and one because, on a per bend sinister field, three charges
default to having two in the dexter chief portion of the field
and one in the sinister base portion. [Marmaduc de
Thystelesworthe, 01/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[A wild ginger flower] The wild ginger flower in Ginevra's
badge has the petals in pall inverted (with one petal to chief).
This is the default for wild ginger flowers, which is the
opposite of the default for the similarly three-petalled trillium
(see the cover letter of the January 2003 LoAR for more details).
[Ginevra Rodney, 02/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[two brushes in saltire sable bristled "brown"] The
brushes in the Letter of Intent were blazoned as sable handled
proper. However, the brushes in the emblazon have sable
handles and brown bristles. There is no defined default tincture
for an artist's brush. Thus, this is not a reasonable depiction
of a proper brush. As the brush cannot otherwise be blazoned
accurately, it must be returned. [Dorothea Manuela Ponçe,
02/2003,
R-Atlantia]
... the leaf in the emblazon is not the default leaf, and no
documentation was presented indicating what type of leaf it is. A
default leaf is oval-shaped, possibly with a pointed tip. This
leaf has five pointed lobes. We were unable to identify it as any
particular sort of leaf, and were thus unable to blazon it
correctly. Without the ability to blazon the leaf correctly, this
may not be accepted by RfS VII.7.b. [Emma Wolvyne,
02/2003,
R-Caid]
[a triple-peaked mountain issuant from base] We note that
a mountain is issuant from base by default but are keeping
the submitters' requested blazon of issuant from base, which
matches their previous badge's blazon. [Mountain
Confederation, 02/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
While swans are rousant by default, their barnyard cousins,
geese, are close by default. Note, for example, the canting arms
of Die Gansen on fol. 150 of Siebmacher's 1605 Wappenbuch,
and von Ganse on fol. 182 of the same volume. Each of these
canting coats uses a goose close as the sole charge on the
armory. [Effie Little, 03/2003,
A-An Tir]
A default leaf has an oval shape, possibly with a pointed tip
(the leaves in this case have pointed tips). The spiky holly leaf
has one CD from a default leaf. [Matilda in the Holis,
03/2003,
A-Middle]
Note that a shamrock, in the SCA, is defined as a trefoil with
heart-shaped foils. A shamrock with any number of foils other
than three must be blazoned explicitly. A default (three-foiled)
shamrock is slipped by default, like a trefoil. If there are more
than three foils on the shamrock, the charge is not slipped by
default (which is also the case with the similar n-foils).
[Ærne Clover, 07/2003,
A-An Tir]
[a panther sejant head to dexter argent] Table 3 of the
Glossary of Terms indicates that the panther (which is to say,
the default "English-style" heraldic panther) is guardant by
default. As a result we must explicitly state that this panther
has its head to dexter. Note that the Continental panther does
not have an SCA default posture.
Please note that the discussions of the panther's default posture
in the Pictorial Dictionary in the SCA have been
superceded by the listing in the Glossary, which has been
available for some years. [Katerina McGilledoroughe,
08/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
Most demi-quadrupeds (including winged demi-quadrupeds, such as
demi-griffins) are erect in period armory. Erect appears
to be the default posture for such charges in the real world.
Therefore, erect should be the default posture for
demi-quadrupeds in the SCA. [Thomas von Hessen, 08/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Argent chapé azure, three goblets two and one gules] It
is not clear what the default arrangement for three charges on a
chapé field should be. The usual default on a plain field (two
and one) doesn't fit well on a chapé field, and thus seems an
unlikely default for that field. We have thus blazoned the
arrangement explicitly. [Waldemar Stanislaw of White
Mountain, 09/2003,
A-Trimaris]
The charges in this device are the default SCA spur rowel, which
is a pierced mullet of six points (as noted in the Pictorial
Dictionary). [Davis de Rowell, 09/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[Quarterly gules and azure, in bend sinister a Danish axe
sustained by a bear rampant contourny argent] This is clear
of conflict with the Barony of Bjornsborg, ...(Fieldless) A
bear statant erect reguardant contourny supporting a berdiche
blade to sinister argent. There is one CD for fieldlessness.
There is another CD for arrangement: the Bjornsborg bear and its
sustained axe are in the default arrangment for a statant erect
beast sustaining a polearm (in fess), while the charges in this
submission are in bend sinister. [Leifr Vagnsson, 09/2003,
A-Outlands]
[Or, in pale two talbots courant contourny gules] In
period armory, one would usually expect two long horizontal
charges on a plain field to be in pale. However, the SCA does not
have a default arrangement for two charges on a plain field.
Armory using two charges on a plain field is so uncommon in both
SCA and real-world heraldry that it is best to blazon the
arrangement of such charges explicitly rather than define default
arrangements. We have therefore explicitly blazoned these talbots
as in pale. [Aster Peyton, 10/2003,
A-An Tir]
Please recall that the rising posture, according to a number of
sources, needs to have the wings explicitly blazoned as either
addorsed or displayed. The SCA has at times
registered birds rising wings addorsed simply as
rising, but this pattern has not yet been so clearly
established that we wish to define it as a default at this time.
[Erik von Winterthur, 10/2003,
A-An Tir]
[Per saltire sable and gules, a dragon segreant Or] ...
and another CD for the difference in posture between a dragon
segreant and a wyvern passant. The wyvern posture erect is
equivalent to the dragon posture segreant. [Godwin of
Edington, 10/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
...note that wyverns are statant by default... [Godwin of
Edington, 10/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
By examination of period armory, ducks and geese are close by
default - this is by far the most common posture for either of
these birds. Ducks and geese do not share the same default
posture as the larger and more aggressive swan, which is rousant
by default. [Svana ormstunga Vermundardottir, 11/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[three piles palewise wavy] Note that three piles are
in point by default, so it is necessary to explicitly
blazon the piles as palewise. According to the
Pictorial Dictionary, "this [in point] was the medieval
default for multiple piles, due to their derivation from pinched
pallets. If multiple piles are palewise, instead of in point,
this should be explicitly blazoned." [Skári Skey, 11/2003,
A-Caid]
Note that, in the SCA, the default sheep does not have horns...
[Boddi bjarki Bjarnarson, 11/2003,
A-East]
DELF
... a delf ploye
is not a simple delf. As far as we can tell it is only used as a
period charge in Mameluk heraldry, and is thus somewhat of a
weirdness in general Western style. [Tarvin, Shire of,
08/2001,
R-Atlantia] [Ed.: Returned for style problems]
[(Fieldless) On a delf gules a lozenge argent] To quote
Baron Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, as Laurel, on the subject
of fieldless badges:
Fieldless badges consisting only of forms of armorial display,
such as escutcheons, lozenges and delfs, are not acceptable
since in use the shield shape does not appear to be a
charge, but rather the field itself. This presents an entirely
different armory for view. (LoAR 9/93 p.25)
As Palimpsest notes, For any who question the
interpretation of a delf as a mode of armorial display, note that
in Carlisle Herald's visitation of London in 1530 are found
numerous references to defacing or removing 'Skochines, Squares,
and Losenges wrongfully eusid'. [Rycharde de Bruce the
Fowler, 11/2001,
R-Artemisia]
[(Fieldless) A delf azure] As noted in the April 2002
LoAR, "A 'shield shape' which is also a standard heraldic charge
will be acceptable as a fieldless badge in a plain tincture, as
long as the tincture is not one of the plain tinctures that is
protected armory in the SCA". Since Azure is not protected
armory in this SCA, a fieldless badge consisting of a delf
azure is acceptable, and does not appear to be an independent
display of arms. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, 06/2002,
A-Trimaris]
DICE
The device is
returned for redrawing. The dice in this emblazon are drawn with
an edge towards the viewer. "While dice were drawn in
perspective, the known period examples depicted them face
forward, rather than edge forward. This minimizes the effect of
perspective. Therefore, we must return this device for redrawing"
(LoAR April 2000). [Talorgen mac Brudi, 06/2003,
R-Meridies]
[three dice bendwise sinister] The dice are shown with one
face to the viewer (so that the front face is shaped like a delf)
but each die is oriented bendwise sinister (so that the front
face looks like a delf lozengewise.) Dice are found in this
orientation in period, as can be seen in the canting arms of
members of the Wurlf family (wurf is German for a die or
cube) on folios 24r and 24v of the late 14th/early 15th C
Botenbuch der Bruderschaft St. Christoph auf dem
Arlberg.
It is acceptable to show dice with some perspective, as long as
the perspective is not too deep and one face is oriented directly
towards the viewer so that it is shaped like a delf. (It is not
acceptable to draw dice with an edge towards the viewer, rather
than a face towards the viewer.) Please advise the submitter to
draw the perspective of the other sides of the dice more
shallowly - while period dice are often drawn with some
perspective, they are generally not drawn with such deep
perspective. [Anna Francesca Massone, 09/2003,
A-Trimaris]
The dice are each shown with one edge facing the viewer, which is
not period style. "While dice were shown in perspective, the
known period examples depicted them face forward, rather than
edge forward. This minimizes the effect of perspective.
Therefore, we must return this device for redrawing" (LoAR of
April 2000). [Alexander gagarr, 11/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
DIFFERENCE --
Substantial
This category lists only rulings where a substantial
difference is granted. In cases with extended discussion, the
complete ruling can be found in the indicated section.
see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE
Roses and fleurs-de-lys are substantially
different. [Katarina Kittmann, 08/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[a thistle vs. a rose] Thistles and shamrocks were ruled
to be substantially different in October 1999; these should be
just as distinct visually. No evidence has been produced that a
change from a rose to a trefoil [Ed: Should be thistle] as
a primary charge was used for period cadency, which also shows
that they are substantially different as per rule X.2.
[Muirenn inghean Chiaráin, 08/2001,
A-Meridies]
There is substantial difference between a cinquefoil and a
dandelion. [Emma Dandelion, 11/2001,
A-Ansteorra] [see FOIL or FLOWER -- Miscellaneous]
There is substantial difference between a tower and a properly
drawn chess rook ... [William fitzBubba, 12/2001,
A-East] [see CASTLE or CHESS PIECE]
There is X.2 difference between Latin crosses formy and crosses
crosslet. [Christoff von Rotenburg, 12/2001,
A-Meridies]
There is substantial difference for purposes of RfS X.2 between a
feather and a feather fan. [Nakano Zenjirou Tadamasa,
02/2002,
A-Calontir] [see FEATHER or CHARGE -- Miscellaneous]
Party of six pieces is substantially different from checky.
[Jeanne Marie Lacroix, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
There is substantial difference between a standard heraldic lily
(a trumpet shaped flower in profile) and a daisy (a multipetalled
disk shaped flower affronty). [Katherine Merivale,
09/2002,
A-Caid]
Therefore it seems reasonable to consider a tau cross to be
substantially different from a default plain cross throughout.
[Timothy Brother, 11/2002,
A-Artemisia] [see CROSS]
[a saltire bretessed vs. a saltire formy] However, just as
it seems appropriate to give X.2 (substantial) difference between
the very different period charges of a cross formy (which is
couped by default and has splayed ends) and a cross bretessed
(which is throughout by default and treated with an embattled
line), it is also appropriate to give X.2 difference between
similarly treated saltires. [Nikolai Toranovich, 01/2003,
A-An Tir] [see CHARGE --
Miscellaneous]
A correctly drawn goutte, with a long wavy tail, is substantially
different from a roundel. [Siobhan inghean ui Dhonnabhain,
01/2003,
A-East]
[a dandelion plant vert with three flowers, the centermost in
profile, the outer flowers affronty, Or slipped gules] This
does not conflict with ... Argent, a pimpernel gules, slipped
and leaved, within a bordure vert. A pimpernel is effectively
a cinquefoil and there is substantial (X.2) difference between a
cinquefoil slipped and leaved and a dandelion plant.
[Chardonne de Lyon, 01/2003,
R-East]
[a dandelion plant vert with three flowers, the centermost in
profile, the outer flowers affronty, Or slipped gules] This
does not conflict with ... Argent, a bulrush slipped and
leaved within a bordure vert. There is substantial (X.2)
difference between these two plants. A bulrush has long thin
spiky leaves and a cylindrical "cattail" head. A dandelion plant
has long wide serrated/spiky leaves and round flowers. The two
are very visually distinct. [Chardonne de Lyon, 01/2003,
R-East]
There is thus substantial difference between "poultry-shaped"
European quails in a period posture (the default close posture)
and "regular-shaped" owls in a period posture (the default close
guardant posture). [Megge de Northwode, 11/2003,
A-Atlantia] [see BIRD -- Owl or
BIRD -- Quail]
There is substantial (RfS X.2) difference between arrows and
crampons. [Diethelm Waltorfer, 12/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
DIFFERENCE --
Groups
see also CHARGE
GROUP
[Per bend sinister purpure and vert, a bend
sinister between a butterfly and three bells one and two Or]
This is clear of conflict with Yusuf Ja'baral-Timbuktuwwi, Per
bend sinister purpure and vert, a bend sinister cotised between
an elephant's head couped close and a decrescent with a mullet
suspended between its horns Or. The cotises, in Yusuf's
device, form a distinct charge group apart from the group
consisting of the elephant's head and decrescent/mullet. "While
cotises and other charges on the field would be considered
separate charge groups on the same armory, they are still
secondary charges and can be compared to other secondary charges.
(LoAR 6/98 p. 17)." In other words, Yusuf's device has two
secondary charge groups: the cotises, and the other charges
around the bend. Comparing Yusuf's device with this submission,
there are three CDs: one for the removal of the cotise group and
two for changing the type and number of the other secondary
group.
It is certainly possible to have more than one secondary charge
group on the field. In the hypothetical arms Argent, a bend
cotised between a mullet and a crescent all within a bordure
gules, the primary charge group is the bend, the cotises are
one secondary charge group, the mullet and crescent are,
together, a second secondary charge group, and the bordure is a
third secondary charge group (of the type often termed
peripheral). Changing or removing any one of these charge
groups would be a separate CD. Thus, this hypothetical coat of
arms has two CDs from Argent, a bend cotised between two
mullets and a chief gules. There is one CD for changing the
type of half of the secondary group surrounding the cotised bend
(a mullet and a crescent to two mullets) and a second CD for
changing the type of the peripheral secondary group (bordure to
chief). [Admiranda le Daye, 10/2001,
A-Meridies]
[Per fess sable mullety Or and azure, a dance and in base a
sun Or] The device does not conflict with ... Per fess
gules mullety Or, and vert, a dance and in base a terrestrial
sphere Or. There is one CD for the change to the field. There
is another CD for the change in type of the charge group in base,
which is a different charge group from the semy group in chief.
By current precedent, the semy charges must be in a separate
group from all other charges (LoAR 7/2001, Giraude Benet).
[Wolfgang Dracke, 11/2001,
A-Artemisia]
[Per bend sable bezanty and vert, in base a hare rampant
reguardant Or] This does not conflict with Cornwall, Sable
bezanty (important non-SCA arms). There is one CD for the
changing the field. There is a second CD for adding the rabbit,
because the rabbit is not in the same charge group as the
bezants. By current precedent, the semy charges must be in a
separate group from all other charges (LoAR 7/2001, Giraude
Benet). [Rilint Neufang, 11/2001,
A-West]
There is a second CD for changing the tincture of the charge in
base, as the basemost of a group of charges two and one is
considered to be half the group:
After much thought and discussion, it has been decided, for
purposes of X.4.d, e and h of the Rules for Submission, that
the bottommost of three charges, either on the field alone or
around an ordinary, is defined as one-half of the
group...multiple changes to the basemost of three charges under
this definition will be granted a maximum of one CVD. (CL
9/6/90 p.2)
[Letia Thistelthueyt, 12/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[Azure, three crescents one and two horns to center Or]
Conflict with ... Sable, three crescents one and two conjoined
at the horns Or. There is one CD for changing the field.
There is not a CD between a given group of charges conjoined and
another group of charges in the same arrangement which are not
conjoined. [Selim ibn Murad, 12/2001,
R-Atenveldt]
[Azure, a fess argent between a violin fesswise reversed Or
and a phoenix argent issuing from flames proper] Conflict
with ... Azure, a fess argent between two crosses gurgity
Or. There is a CD for changing the type of the secondary
group. However, over half the charge group is Or in Jacquelinne's
arms, since the violin is Or and one quarter of the phoenix is
also Or. By RfS X.4.d, "Changing the tinctures or division of any
group of charges placed directly on the field, including strewn
charges or charges overall, is one clear difference. Changing the
tincture of at least half of the charges in a group is one clear
difference". Therefore, since less than half of the tincture of
the secondary "group of charges placed directly on the field" has
changed, there is not a second CD for tincture changes.
[Jacquelinne Sauvageon, 02/2002, R-Meridies]
[Per bend azure and argent, a mullet argent and a tulip
bendwise azure, slipped and leaved vert] The device does not
conflict with ... Per bend azure and argent, a bear statant
and a mullet of six points counterchanged. The devices are
clear of conflict because (quoting RfS X.2) "the type of every
primary charge has substantially changed", and the armory has "no
more than two types of charge directly on the field". Note that
even though both charge groups use a mullet, the type of every
primary charge has substantially changed. By the following
precedent this is therefore clear by RfS X.2:
[Per chevron argent and sable, two towers and a horse rampant
counterchanged.] Clear of ... Argent, upon a pile inverted
throughout between two ravens sable a tower argent, because
the type of each charge in the group has been substantially
changed, even though each group contains a tower. RfS X.2.
states that: "Simple armory does not conflict with other simple
armory if the type of every primary charge is substantially
changed." Laurel takes this to mean that the type of each
charge must be substantially changed from its corresponding
charge in the armory being compared, not that the type of every
charge must be substantially changed from the type of every
charge in the other armory. (There is no CD for the field,
since we treat per chevron and a pile inverted as equivalent
for purposes of difference.) (LoAR December 1995)
The 1995 precedent stated above was upheld in an
analogous ruling in the LoAR of October 1998. [Tangwystl
Angharad verch Rhys, 08/2002,
A-Outlands]
[Two arrows in saltire surmounted by a double-bitted axe
Or] Conflict with the device of Michael of York, Gules, a
sheaf of three arrows bound by a serpent coiled to sinister
guardant, all Or. ... The arrangement of the charges has not
changed: a sheaf of three arrows consists of two arrows in
saltire surmounted by a third arrow. RfS X.4.e only gives a CD
for changing the type of a group of charges when at least half
the group has changed in type. Here only one-third of the group
has changed in type. The serpent binding the sheaf in Michael's
arms is effectively a maintained charge, and its addition or
deletion is not worth difference. [Conall of Twin Moons,
08/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Vert, three piles in point argent each charged in chief with
a flame azure] Conflict with ... Azure, three piles in
point argent each charged in chief with a key palewise wards to
base azure. There is a CD for changing the tincture of the
field. RfS X.4.j.ii.a states that "armory that has a group of
identical charges on an ordinary or other suitable charge alone
on the field is a simple case." No clause of RfS X.4.j.ii
considers armory using multiple charged primary charges to be a
simple case. Therefore there is no difference for changing the
type only of tertiary charge by X.4.j.ii.
The outer piles issue mostly from the chief, but slightly from
the sides of the shield as well. This is a standard period
depiction of three piles in point, and is acceptable. [Mary
Dedwydd verch Gwallter, 09/2002,
R-Caid]
[Per fess dovetailed azure and argent, three mullets argent
and a wolf's head erased sable] The device does not conflict
with a ... Per fess embattled azure and argent, two mullets of
four points and a comet fesswise, head to sinister,
counterchanged. There is one CD for changing the number of
the charges in the group. There is a second CD for changing the
type and tincture of the primary charge(s) on one side of the
line of division, even though that portion of the primary group
is only one quarter of the group, per the following precedent
from the November 1995 LoAR:
There is ... a CD for the change to the field and another for
changing the type and tincture of the primary charge group on
one side of the line of division, even though numerically this
is not "one half" of the primary charge group. For a fuller
discussion of this precedent granting a CD for two changes to
charges on one side of a line of division even when less than
half the charge group is affected, see the December 21, 1991
Cover Letter (with the November 1991 LoAR).
This situation arises very rarely aside from the
well-known situation concerning the bottommost of a group of
three charges two and one, which has its own different set of
controlling precedents. The cited precedent appears to have
remained in force; the registration history shows that this
precedent has neither been overruled nor passively ignored.
[Cassandra of Standing Stones, 01/2003,
A-Calontir]
[Per bend argent and sable, a hound rampant and a hound
rampant contourny counterchanged] This does not conflict with
Matthew de Wolfe, Per bend sinister embattled argent and
sable, in bend two wolves rampant combattant counterchanged.
To understand why there is no conflict, it is helpful to remove
all blazon shortcuts and blazon each of these pieces of armory
explicitly. Note that there are two important common blazon
shortcuts which are found in both Matheus' and Matthew's current
blazons. The first blazon shortcut is that two charges on a
divided field are placed on opposite sides of a line of division
by default. The other blazon shortcut is the use of the word
counterchanged rather than using the tinctures
argent and sable.
Thus, when we remove blazon shortcuts, Matheus' arms may be
blazoned Per bend argent and sable, in sinister chief a hound
rampant sable and in dexter base a hound rampant to sinister
argent. Matthew's arms may be blazoned Per bend sinister
embattled argent and sable, in dexter chief a wolf rampant to
sinister sable and in sinister base a wolf rampant
argent.
Precedent has consistently held that "you cannot 'blazon your way
out of' a conflict" (stated succinctly in this quote from the
LoAR of February 2000, which upheld years of previous precedent).
Thus, we must compare these two pieces of armory using the
"explicit" blazons. There is one CD for changing the field. There
is no difference for changing the type of canine from wolf to
hound.
The charges may not lie on a portion of the field with which they
have no contrast. Matheus' charges could not be arranged like
Matthew's (with the sable charge in dexter chief and the
argent charge in sinister base) on a per bend argent
and sable field, because each charge would have no contrast
with half of the field on which it lies. The charges must change
their arrangement. Because this change in arrangement is "caused
by other changes to the design" (namely, the changes to the
field) it is not worth difference per RfS X.4.g for arrangement
changes. (This is often known as a "forced" arrangement change or
"forced" position change.)
The second CD comes from the change of posture. Each canine is
facing in the opposite direction from the corresponding canine in
the other coat. This posture change is a CD by RfS X.4.h.
By this analysis we are expressly overturning the precedent set
in January 1994 that stated in pertinent part:
[Per pale and per chevron argent and sable, in chief two
<charges> counterchanged vs. Huffam, Per bend sable and
argent, two <charges> counterchanged ] Because the
charges are counterchanged, they could legitimately be placed
anywhere on the field, even over the line(s) of division. As a
consequence, the change in position of the <charges>
cannot be considered to be "forced" by the field division
(though in Huffam they are in the expected position, one on
either side of the line of division), thus giving a CD for
position on the field
By this precedent, the use of the word
counterchanged would remove a conflict which would apply
if the tinctures of the charges were explicitly sable and
argent, which is contrary to long-standing SCA policy.
[Matheus of Coppertree, 02/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Or, in pale a wyvern passant sable and another gules]
This is not in conflict with Drachenwald's Company of Archers,
Or, in pale a dragon passant coward sable and two arrows in
saltire gules. There is one CD for changing half the type of
the primary charge group. There are three charges in
Drachenwald's armory: one dragon and two arrows. Thus, there is a
second CD for changing the number of primary charges from three
to two. [Robert MacMahon, 04/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[On a rose argent barbed vert a cat sejant affronty sable]
This does not conflict with the badge of Martin Luther,
(Fieldless) A rose argent seeded of a heart gules charged with
a Latin cross sable. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There
is a second CD for changing the type and tincture of tertiary
charge (from a black cat to a red heart). There is no additional
difference for removal of the quaternary charge (the black cross
on the red heart), as we do not give difference for addition,
removal, or changes to quaternary charges. [Laurin of
Rosewood, 06/2003,
R-An Tir]
[Vert, two arrows inverted in saltire Or surmounted by a tower
argent] Conflict with ... Vert, two swords in saltire Or
surmounted by a stone tower, the top enflamed, proper. Both
pieces of armory are effectively a single group (a sheaf) of
three charges. The only change to the group of three charges is
the change to two-thirds of the type of the charge group (swords
to arrows), which is one CD by RfS X.4.e. As an alternate
interpretation, if we consider the arrows and swords to be
respective primary charge groups, and the overall towers to be
respective overall charge groups, armory using an overall charge
is not eligible for RfS X.2 because it is not simple: "For
purposes of [RfS X.2], simple armory is defined as armory that
has no more than two types of charge directly on the field and
has no overall charges". Thus, there is one CD for changing the
type of primary charges (from arrows to swords) but no further
difference. [Nikolai of Trakai, 06/2003,
R-Middle]
Quoting from the LoAR of June 2001, "A sheaf is considered a
single charge, therefore there is [... a] CD for changing the
type of the secondary charges." Here, we have changed the type
but not the number of secondary charges: we have changed two open
books to an arrow-sheaf and a tulip-sheaf. [Bjorn Krom
Hakenberg, 07/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[Per chevron inverted azure and sable, a cinquefoil Or and two
arrows inverted in chevron inverted argent] This is clear of
conflict with ... Per chevron inverted ployé throughout argent
and azure, a mullet of eight points and two arrows inverted in
pile counterchanged. There is no difference between two
arrows inverted in chevron inverted and two arrows
inverted in pile. Per the November 1995 LoAR, "There is ... a
CD for the change to the field and another for changing the type
and tincture of the primary charge group on one side of the line
of division, even though numerically this is not 'one half' of
the primary charge group. For a fuller discussion of this
precedent granting a CD for two changes to charges on one side of
a line of division even when less than half the charge group is
affected, see the December 21, 1991 Cover Letter (with the
November 1991 LoAR)." There is thus one CD for changing the
field, and a second CD for changing the type and tincture of the
portion of the primary group that lies on the chiefmost side of
the line of division (from a mullet of eight points azure to a
cinquefoil Or).
Note that the precedent quoted above refers to fields that are
split into two pieces by a single line of division. Thus, that
precedent pertains to this armorial comparison, where both fields
are split in two by a single, per chevron inverted, line of
division. However, the 1995 precedent does not apply to field
divisions that split the field into more than two pieces, such as
quarterly, per saltire, or per pall. The submitting kingdom
quoted a precedent in the Letter of Intent from September 1999.
Because the 1999 ruling addresses a per pall field, which is not
addressed by the 1995 precedent, the 1999 precedent neither
supports nor overturns the 1995 precedent cited above: "[Per pall
sable, vert and argent, in pale two swords crossed in saltire
argent and a cat's paw print counterchanged.] Conflict with ...
Per fess embattled vert and argent, in pale two swords in saltire
and a compass star counterchanged. There is one CD for the
changes to the field, but none for change in type and tincture
for only one of three of the primary charges (as they are not
arranged two and one)" (LoAR September 1999). [Adelheidis
Spätauf, 09/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Quarterly argent and azure, two lymphads sails unfurled
azure] Conflict with ... Quarterly argent and azure, four
dhows reversed counterchanged. As noted in the LoAR of July
2001, "There is ... nothing for the change in the type of ship,
[or] for reversing a ship." There is one CD for removing the two
argent ships, but no other difference may be obtained from this
change. One cannot argue, as was done on the Letter of Intent,
that "there is a CD for the number of charges, and a CD for
changing color of half the primary charges." That is equivalent
to saying that there is a CD for removing two of the charges, and
another CD for the changing the tincture of the charges that have
just been removed. The rules have been interpreted consistently
for years, and the following discussion from the LoAR of July
1992 still applies:
One cannot get a CD for adding charges, then another CD for
changing the charges just added. This has been an underlying
principle of the last three sets of Rules: see the LoAR of 25
Aug 85, p.14, for a full discussion. The difference obtained
for adding, say, a bordure engrailed ermine, is exactly the
same as for adding a bordure Or. (One does not get a CD for
adding the bordure, then a CD for changing its tincture, then
another CD for making it engrailed.....)
[Jan van Antwerpen, 10/2003,
R-East]
[Gules, on a cross quarter-pierced Or four eagles sable]
Conflict with ... Gules, on a cross Or five ladybugs gules
marked sable. Per the LoAR of February 2000, "you cannot
'blazon your way out of' a conflict." A cross quarter-pierced may
also be blazoned as a cross charged with a delf
throughout. As a result, one can blazon this submission as
Gules on a cross Or a delf throughout gules between four
eagles sable. RfS X.4.j.i states that "Generally ... changes
must affect the whole group of charges to be considered visually
significant, since the size of these elements and their visual
impact are considerably diminished." In this case, because the
change of tincture of four-fifths of the charges, and the change
of the type of all the charges is so significant, one CD is
allowed for the changes to the tertiary charge group under RfS
X.4.j.i. However, a second CD is required. [Orban von Ulm,
10/2003,
R-Meridies]
... no difference for changing the type or tincture of the
centermost of three co-primary charges in fess. [Zoe
Amaranta, 12/2003,
R-Artemisia]
[Azure, a bend argent cotised between a lion rampant and a
castle Or] The device submission is an appeal of the return
of the device also in the February 2003 LoAR, which explained:
The device conflicts with the important non-SCA arms of Bohun,
Earl of Hereford, Constable of England, Azure, a bend argent
cotised between six lions rampant Or. There is no
difference for changing the type of one of a group of six
lions, leaving only one CD for changing the number of secondary
charges.
The appeal of the device return is based on
interpretation of RfS X.4.e (types) and X.4.f (number) of
secondaries. The appeal incorrectly considered the secondaries
and changes to the make up of the charge groups. During the
commentary on this appeal, it became evident that some
misconceptions concerning how to determine secondary charge
groups and what changes to these groups apply.
The appeal did not consider the cotises in the discussion of the
secondary charge groups. There was confusion and disagreement in
the commentary regarding whether the cotises are a separate
charge group giving two secondary charge groups, or are included
with the lion and castle and thus a single group of secondary
charges. The cotises are a separate secondary group as is
explained well in the following precedent from October 2001:
[Per bend sinister purpure and vert, a bend sinister between
a butterfly and three bells one and two Or] This is clear
of conflict with Yusuf Ja'baral-Timbuktuwwi, Per bend
sinister purpure and vert, a bend sinister cotised between an
elephant's head couped close and a decrescent with a mullet
suspended between its horns Or. The cotises, in Yusuf's
device, form a distinct charge group apart from the group
consisting of the elephant's head and decrescent/mullet. "While
cotises and other charges on the field would be considered
separate charge groups on the same armory, they are still
secondary charges and can be compared to other secondary
charges. (LoAR 6/98 p. 17)." In other words, Yusuf's device has
two secondary charge groups: the cotises, and the other charges
around the bend. Comparing Yusuf's device with this submission,
there are three CDs: one for the removal of the cotise group
and two for changing the type and number of the other secondary
group.
It is certainly possible to have more than one
secondary charge group on the field. In the hypothetical arms
Argent, a bend cotised between a mullet and a crescent all
within a bordure gules, the primary charge group is the bend,
the cotises are one secondary charge group, the mullet and
crescent are, together, a second secondary charge group, and the
bordure is a third secondary charge group (of the type often
termed peripheral). Changing or removing any one of these
charge groups would be a separate CD. Thus, this hypothetical
coat of arms has two CDs from Argent, a bend cotised between
two mullets and a chief gules. There is one CD for changing
the type of half of the secondary group surrounding the cotised
bend (a mullet and a crescent to two mullets) and a second CD for
changing the type of the peripheral secondary group (bordure to
chief).
With the clarification on cotises we now compare the appeal with
the existing (already protected) armory: Bohun, Earl of Hereford,
Constable of England, Azure, a bend argent cotised between six
lions rampant Or, which is composed of a field azure and
three charge groups: primary (the bend argent), secondary group 1
(set of cotises Or), secondary group 2 (six lions rampant
Or).
The new armory under submission (Siridean): Azure, a bend
argent cotised between a lion rampant and a castle Or is
composed of a field azure and three charge groups: primary (the
bend argent), secondary group 1 (set of cotises Or), secondary
group 2 (a lion rampant and a castle Or).
The two devices have in common the field, the primary, and one of
the secondary charge groups (the cotises). The only change
between these two pieces of armory involves secondary group 2.
Siridean's device compared to the Bohun armory has changed from a
group of six lions rampant Or to a group of a lion
rampant and a castle Or. Therefore, the only differences
between the Bohun arms and Siridean's device is in the type and
number of charges in this secondary charge group.
The rules that apply to the changing of the type and number of
secondary charge group 2 are RfS X.4.e (type) and X.4.f (number).
X.4.e states "Type Changes - Significantly changing the type of
any group of charges placed directly on the field, including
strewn charges or charges overall, is one clear difference...
Changing the type of at least half of the charges in a group is
one clear difference." X.4.f provides "Significantly changing the
number of charges in any group placed directly on the field or
overall is one clear difference." This rule does not have any
restriction on "half" the group such as is found in X.4.e.
The SCA has always had difficulty dealing with the situation when
both the number and the type of a single charge group change. For
a classic example, consider the hypothetical arms Azure, a
lion Or and a unicorn argent combattant versus Azure, a
unicorn argent. In both cases, you have a blue field with a
white rampant unicorn. In the first, the unicorn is also
accompanied by a gold lion rampant to sinister. The traditional
SCA view is to give only one CD for removing the lion so that the
two arms are in conflict. However, occasionally, someone tries to
argue from a different perspective, namely, that we should give
one CD for changing the number of the group (from two to one
charge), another CD for changing the type of the group (from half
unicorn, half lion to all unicorn), a third CD for changing the
tincture of the group (from half Or, half argent, to all argent),
and a fourth for changing the posture of the group (from half
facing dexter and half facing sinister, to all facing dexter).
This, of course, would make the arms well clear of conflict. This
interpretation has been disallowed fairly consistently in
precedent, although the issue continues to be raised
occasionally. The most recent time this issue was addressed was
in the LoAR of October 2003, which stated:
Jan van Antwerpen. Device. Quarterly argent and azure, two
lymphads sails unfurled azure Conflict with Lee Sharpeyes,
Quarterly argent and azure, four dhows reversed
counterchanged. As noted in the LoAR of July 2001, "There
is ... nothing for the change in the type of ship, [or] for
reversing a ship." There is one CD for removing the two argent
ships, but no other difference may be obtained from this
change. One cannot argue, as was done on the Letter of Intent,
that "there is a CD for the number of charges, and a CD for
changing color of half the primary charges." That is equivalent
to saying that there is a CD for removing two of the charges,
and another CD for the changing the tincture of the charges
that have just been removed. The rules have been interpreted
consistently for years, and the following discussion from the
LoAR of July 1992 still applies:
One cannot get a CD for adding charges, then another CD for
changing the charges just added. This has been an underlying
principle of the last three sets of Rules: see the LoAR of 25
Aug 85, p.14, for a full discussion. The difference obtained
for adding, say, a bordure engrailed ermine, is exactly the
same as for adding a bordure Or. (One does not get a CD for
adding the bordure, then a CD for changing its tincture, then
another CD for making it engrailed.....)
In the 1985 LoAR cited in this return, Laurel noted:
We have held previously that the addition of a modified charge
(such as a roundel engrailed ermine) contributes no more
difference than adding an unmodified charge (e.g. a roundel
gules). This gets us away from absurdities such as the
following: to "Azure, a fleurdelys [sic] Or" we add two bars Or
and a bordure argent. We engrail the bordure, change the bars
from Or to argent, and then delete the bordure. Depending on
how creative you are at counting, you could get anywhere from
two to five points for the addition of a pair of silver
stripes. Not bad for a couple of minutes' work ...
In addition, it should be recalled that the SCA
protects REGISTERED armory. Because of this, the SCA
considers changes to have been made from the registered armory to
the armory currently under submission, and has interpreted the
Rules for Submission in the manner that gives the greatest
protection to the registered armory, and allows the fewest
possible differences for a change to armory. This implies a
certain lack of symmetry to the ruling, because the
interpretation of a change from "registered" to "considered" does
not necessarily match the change from "considered" to
"registered". The February 2003 ruling on Siridean's device
applied type first (no type difference) and then number (removing
four lions). If we were going from "considered" to "registered",
we could arguably give a CD for changing from a lion and a castle
to two lions (half the group has changed, and is entitled to a
CD) and then give a CD for adding four lions, giving two CDs. But
this is not the situation under consideration in this appeal.
In Siridean's case, the submitter is changing one of the lions
into a castle, which leaves us with a charge group consisting of
five lions and one castle. This change is to less than half of
the charges in that group, so there is no CD under RfS X.4.e.
After the change of the type (a lion into a castle), we apply the
change to the number by removing all but one of the lions and the
castle. Of six charges, we remove four of the lions, leaving a
total of two charges in the group, which is a change from six to
two. RfS X.4.f notes that two and six are signficantly different,
and therefore, entitled to a CD.
After applying the change of type and then the change in number,
the submitted armory has but a single CD from Bohun, Earl of
Hereford, Constable of England, Azure, a bend argent cotised
between six lions rampant Or. The device appeal is denied.
[Siridean MacLachlan, 12/2003,R-Calontir]
[Sable, a chevron cotised argent between three oak leaves
Or] This does not conflict with ... Sable, a chevron
argent cotised between three compass stars elongated to base
Or. There is one CD for changing the tincture of one of the
secondary charge groups (the cotises) and a second CD for
changing the type of the other secondary charge group (from
compass stars to oak leaves.) The cotises are a separate set of
secondary charges by a number of precedents:
It is certainly possible to have more than one secondary charge
group on the field. In the hypothetical arms Argent, a bend
cotised between a mullet and a crescent all within a bordure
gules, the primary charge group is the bend, the cotises
are one secondary charge group, the mullet and crescent are,
together, a second secondary charge group, and the bordure is a
third secondary charge group (of the type often termed
peripheral). (LoAR of October 2001)
[Argent, on a fess cotised embattled on the outer edges
between three leopard's faces sable three crescents argent]
This is clear of the flag of Meridies, Argent, on a fess
sable, a crown of three points between two mullets argent,
with one CD for the removal of the cotises and a second for the
removal of the leopard's faces as they are two different charge
groups (LoAR of March 2001)
The cotises are clearly a second group of secondary charges so
that an additional point of difference can be obtained from
adding them (LoAR of 27 November 1988, p.12)
[Melisant Saint-Clair, 02/2004,
A-Atlantia]
[Gules, in fess a tassel Or between a decrescent and an
increscent argent] Conflict with a badge of Conrad von
Regensburg, Gules semy of decrescents argent. In Conrad's
arms, there is a single group of primary charges consisting of
(six or more) evenly strewn argent decrescents. In Dyan's arms,
there is a single group of primary charges consisting of one
argent decrescent, an Or tassel, and an argent increscent. The
LoAR of December 2003 gave a lengthy analysis of the way to count
difference in a similar situation, where the charge group changed
from a registered group of charges on the field consisting of
six lions Or, to an in-submission charge group consisting
of a lion and a tower Or. That analysis summarized the
change as follows:
It should be recalled that the SCA protects REGISTERED armory.
Because of this, the SCA considers changes to have been made
from the registered armory to the armory currently under
submission, and has interpreted the Rules for Submission in the
manner that gives the greatest protection to the registered
armory, and allows the fewest possible differences for a change
to armory. This implies a certain lack of symmetry to the
ruling, because the interpretation of a change from
"registered" to "considered" does not necessarily match the
change from "considered" to "registered"...
In [this] case, the submitter is changing one of the lions into
a castle, which leaves us with a charge group consisting of
five lions and one castle. This change is to less than half of
the charges in that group, so there is no CD under RfS
X.4.e.
After the change of the type (a lion into a castle), we apply
the change to the number by removing all but one of the lions
and the castle. Of six charges, we remove four of the lions,
leaving a total of two charges in the group, which is a change
from six to two. RfS X.4.f notes that two and six are
signficantly different, and therefore, entitled to a CD.
In this case, we have changed the charge group on
the field from [semy of] decrescents argent to a
decrescent argent, an increscent argent, and a tassel Or. The
strewn ("semy") charges are considered to be equivalent to any
charge group with six or more charges for purposes of the rule
for difference in the number of charges on the field (RfS
X.4.f).
Thus, when changing Conrad's badge to Dyan's, we are changing one
of the (six or more) argent decrescents into an argent
increscent, and one of the (six or more) argent decrescents into
an Or tassel, and leaving (four or more) of the argent
decrescents as argent decrescents. The change in type of two of
six (or more) charges (the single tassel and the single
increscent) is a change to less than half of the charges in the
group, so there is no CD under RfS X.4.e. The change in tincture
to one in six (or more) charges (the tassel) is also a change to
less than half the charges in the group, so there is no CD under
RfS X.4.d.
After the changes to type and tincture (six or more decrescents
argent into four or more decrescents argent, one increscent
argent, and one tassel Or), we then remove (three or more) of the
decrescents, leaving a total of three charges, which is a change
from six (or more) charges to three charges. RfS X.4.f notes that
three and six are significantly different, and therefore entitled
to a CD.
As a result, there is only one CD between these two pieces of
armory, and they are therefore in conflict. [Dyan du Lac des
Calandres, 03/2004,
R-Ansteorra]
DOCUMENTATION
See individual charges for instances when Wreath required
additional documentation for defining instances of charges or
accepted such documentation.
The Laurel office requires
that each copy of a submission form have its own separate copy of
the documentation that goes with it. A form + its associated
documentation is an indivisible set. For a name, that's the
long-standing practice: the Laurel office receives one name form
and one set of documentation. An armory submission has two
colored copies of the submission form, so if it requires any
documentation, we will require two copies of the documentation as
well. ... In particular, in SCA branch submissions which require
petitions, please include one copy of the petition for each name
or armory form sent to Laurel. (So, for a branch name and device,
that's three copies of the petition). This ensures that there's a
form for each decision-making sovereign of arms, and for the
files, while being a simple rule to remember. [08/2001,
CL]
One must be careful about relying too heavily on Foster's redrawn
emblazons. A design found only in Foster's artwork will generally
not be considered sufficient documentation to be accepted in the
SCA, as noted in the return of Séamus Ó Cuileáin's device in the
LoAR of December 1998. [Gregory of Glencairn, 05/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
From Laurel: Laurel Does Not Know It All
We have all seen instances when a submission was returned that
was documented from a previously accepted submission - the old
standard phrase is "Past registration does not ensure future
registration." We are hopefully continuing to learn and this
moving target can sometimes cause a name or device to be returned
even just a month after a similar submission was accepted. A few
weeks ago there was a discussion concerning the reply to a "But
Laurel said ..." argument. The best summary of the situation
comes from Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn:
One should always read any decision by Laurel as being prefixed
by "Based on the available knowledge, research, and analysis
available to us at this time, it is our understanding that
..."
Many heralds (on all levels of the hierarchy) often forget this
and word statements of current knowledge as if they were
Absolute Truth, but there's still an onus on the listener as
well to insert the disclaimer.
We require your help to know "the truth". The
current knowledge is extended by the research of the College of
Arms, the College of Heralds, and the submitters. Any
documentation provided on a submission, whether it is from the
submitter, the Kingdom College of Heralds, or the College of Arms
commenters, goes a long way to helping us all learn. If you
provide "the truth" in your commentary and submissions work, that
leads to better recreation and we all benefit from the latest
best attempt at determining "the truth". [04/2003,
CL]
DOCUMENTED
EXCEPTION
[Azure, a cubit arm proper maintaining a
crescent argent issuant from a comital coronet Or jewelled gules,
all issuant from a trimount vert and all between two crescents
argent] This submission uses a vert trimount on an azure
field, which violates RfS VIII.2 on armorial contrast. The
submission was sent to Laurel under RfS VIII.6.a, the "Documented
Exceptions" subclause concerning "General Exceptions". See this
month's submission for Kathws Rusa, also in the Outlands, for
more discussion concerning the precedent and requirements for
such a documented exception to be acceptable. [Ed.: See next
entry] The summary paragraph of the pertinent ruling from the
cover letter of the first December 1993 LoAR is as follows:
In other words, any future submission requesting an exception
to any of the Rules for Submission must be documented (1) by
multiple period examples, (2) from a number of heraldic
jurisdictions, (3) in the exact form of the proposed armory,
(4) of comparable simplicity and style as the proposed armory,
(5) which apply only to that submission. We do not believe
these restrictions to be too onerous, and hope that, if
anything, they will stimulate our submitters to do some
research on their own.
As documentation for this submission, we have been
provided with an article "Materials in support of the case for
the trimount", assembled by Erasimierz Waspanieski as
documentation for the December 1993 submission.
The provided documentation supports some, but not all, of the
design elements present in this submission. On resubmission, if
the submitter wishes to continue to pursue the documented
exception, the submitter should be careful to preserve the
elements which are compatible with the poor-contrast trimount,
and should not introduce elements which are not compatible with
the poor-contrast trimount.
The general design of a vert trimount on an azure field is
acceptable as long as the rest of the armory is "of comparable
simplicity and style" as "multiple period examples" of armory
using a vert trimount on an azure field.
The general concept of an arm issuant from the trimount is
compatible with the presented designs. The majority of the
designs have some charge or charges issuant from the trimount,
and some examples explicitly use an arm as a charge. While we do
not have many examples of items issuing from crowns in the
examples provided in the documentation, more examples were
adduced by the College of Arms, and it appears to be a relatively
standard practice.
Some of the provided examples show arms holding an item in
conjunction with a crown issuant from the trimount, although the
examples so presented have a notably different design. The arm is
fesswise and embowed, so that its elbow issues from the crown. In
this submission, the base of the cubit arm issues from the crown.
The design in the period examples helps the identifiability of
the crown, as at least half the crown rests against the
(high-contrast) field. In the current design there is significant
overlap between the crown and the (low-contrast) arm. The College
was uncertain whether this design of a cubit arm, holding an
object, issuant from a crown, which was itself issuant from a
trimount, with contrast difficulties between the crown and the
arm as well as between the trimount and the field, was compatible
with period style. Documentation for this particular design
should be provided if it continues to be used in a
resubmission.
The College also had some concerns about the fact that the charge
grasped by the arm appeared to be in the same charge group as the
surrounding charges, as the grasped charge shares type, tincture
and size with the surrounding charges. No documentation was
provided for this design, so we also request that documentation
for this particular design should be provided if it continues to
be used in a resubmission. [Ileana Welgy, 11/2002,
R-Outlands]
[Azure, two arrows inverted in saltire argent between three
bezants one and two and a trimount vert] This submission uses
a vert trimount on an azure field, which violates RfS VIII.2 on
armorial contrast. The submission is sent up under RfS VIII.6.a,
the "Documented Exceptions" subclause concerning "General
Exceptions". The particular case of a vert trimount on an azure
field was considered in the first December 1993 LoAR (there were
two December meetings that year). The device, Azure, a
demi-wolf contourny argent, issuant from a trimount proper,
vorant a vol Or, was accepted. The Cover Letter to that LoAR
stated:
I believe the standards proposed by Master Bruce in his
thoughts on this submission are the ones to be applied to
submissions requesting an exception to any of our Rules in the
future.
The documentation must consist of multiple examples, not two
or three but at least a dozen, and not limited to a single
heraldic regime, but be from across Europe. The examples must
be of the exact form used in the submission: if the submitter
wants a green trimount on blue, that's what must be
documented -- and that documentation cannot then be used as
an argument for, say, a green fess on blue. The examples must
be of comparable simplicity and style as the submission. And
finally, even if the evidence is accepted, it only applies to
the item at hand.
In other words, any future submission requesting
an exception to any of the Rules for Submission must be
documented (1) by multiple period examples, (2) from a number
of heraldic jurisdictions, (3) in the exact form of the
proposed armory, (4) of comparable simplicity and style as the
proposed armory, (5) which apply only to that submission. We do
not believe these restrictions to be too onerous, and hope
that, if anything, they will stimulate our submitters to do
some research on their own.
As documentation for this submission, we have been
provided with an article "Materials in support of the case for
the trimount", assembled by Erasimierz Waspanieski as
documentation for the December 1993 submission.
The documentation presented adduces 47 possible examples of poor
contrast mounts or trimounts in period armory across Europe. The
poor contrast was either on the entire coat or on a separable
quarter or half of a marshalled coat. (There were 48 examples in
the article, but one was not on a poor contrast field: the field
was per pale argent and azure.)
The provided documentation does a good job of documenting the
specific practice of a green trimount on an azure field, so that
the exception is indeed "in the exact form of the proposed
armory". The particular color combination of green mount or
trimount on blue is found in almost half of the examples. Most of
those examples explicitly used trimounts.
However, the documentation does not demonstrate that this armory
is or "of comparable simplicity and style as the proposed
armory." In the 47 examples in the article, 42 of the examples
showed at least one of the charges on the armory issuing from or
resting atop the poor-contrast trimount. This is a very strong
stylistic trend. This trend may be due to the fact that such a
design helps lessen the visual problems of a poor-contrast
peripheral charge. Having one or more other charges resting atop
or issuant from the poor-contrast peripheral charge helps attract
attention to the fact that the peripheral charge is present on
the armory. The trend may also be due to the fact that the
documentation was originally assembled to support a submission
where the primary charge issued from a trimount. Unfortunately,
the Laurel office does not have the resources to research whether
the provided documentation is representative of all poor-contrast
trimounts, or if the documentation is skewed towards supporting
the original submission. While the Laurel office does as much
research as it can, the burden of providing demonstrating
supporting materials is primarily on the submitter.
Of the five examples in the documentation in which the charges on
the armory were all disconnected from the poor-contrast trimount,
four were not "of comparable simplicity and style as the proposed
armory." Two examples included a fess, and this submission does
not use an ordinary. Two examples used only a single primary
charge with the trimount, and this submission has a primary
charge group and a surrounding secondary charge group with the
trimount. There is explicit precedent stating that designs using
ordinaries may not be used as support for a documented exception
which does not use an ordinary, and that designs using a single
primary charge may not be used as support for a documented
exception which uses a primary charge surrounded by secondary
charges:
[Gules, a bear passant sable between three mullets of six
points Or] The submitter asked that this be registered
under RfS VIII.6, Documented Exceptions. She included numerous
examples of sable charges on gules from different areas of
Europe. While there was enough evidence given to support
Gules, a bear passant sable ... the only examples the
submitter presented of a low contrast charge between high
contrast secondaries the central charge was an ordinary. As
ordinaries have a different level of complexity from an animate
charge, we cannot consider their examples as sufficient. None
of the examples present showed the case Gules, <an
animate charge> sable between <charges> Or (or
argent). The Documented Exceptions rule is by nature very
conservative; one needs multiple examples of very similar
patterns to allow extrapolations. Therefore, we must return the
device. (LoAR of March 2000)
This left only one example which is arguably of
"comparable simplicity and style as the proposed armory", which
was the family of Bentivoglia (in Venice), Azure, an arrow
between two others in chevron all inverted argent, between in
chief a delf gules, and a trimount proper. This single
example is not sufficient to support the documented exception.
[Kathws Rusa, 11/2002,
R-Outlands]
[Azure, an equal-armed Celtic cross formy Or issuant from a
mount vert] This submission uses a vert mount on an azure
field, which violates RfS VIII.2 on armorial contrast. The
submission was sent to Laurel under RfS VIII.6.a, the "Documented
Exceptions" subclause concerning "General Exceptions". See the
November 2002 LoAR for Kathws Rusa and Ileana Welgy, both in the
Outlands returns section, for more discussion concerning
requirements for such a documented exception to be acceptable.
[Ed.: The returns are included above, in this
section.]
As documentation for this submission, we have been provided with
an article "Materials in support of the case for the trimount",
assembled by Erasimierz Waspanieski as documentation for a
December 1993 submission. The documentation does a good job of
documenting the specific practice of a green mount on an azure
field, so that the exception is indeed "in the exact form of the
proposed armory". The particular color combination of green mount
or trimount on blue is found in almost half of the examples.
While most of the examples are of trimounts, there are enough
mounts to demonstrate this exact form.
As for overall armorial design, this piece of armory follows a
general design of armory using a green mount or trimount on a
color field, with a single charge atop or issuing from the mount
or trimount, and no other charges in the armory. The
documentation does a good job of demonstrating that this design
is found throughout Europe in period. The article provides
thirteen examples with this design. The thirteen examples include
many types of charge atop/issuing from the trimount: animate
charges, constructed artifact charges (like a crown), and
abstract heraldic charges like crosses and mullets. Two examples
specifically use crosses. This is sufficient evidence to support
this submission's design as compatible with a documented
exception.
Some commenters asked whether this submission might have "too
many weirdnesses" to be acceptable. A "weirdness", according to
the Glossary of Terms, is a "break with the usual period style
provided that it is not overly obtrusive". While the use of a
Celtic cross in heraldry may be an SCA innovation, it is not
considered a weirdness, as similarly constructed crosses are
found in period heraldry. It is a reasonable extension of
practices found in period heraldry rather than a "break with the
usual period style." Any documented exception, by definition, is
a period practice, otherwise it could not have been documented.
Hence, this submission has no weirdnesses. [Aindrea Mac
Parthaláin, 01/2003,
A-Outlands]
[Per pale paly of four Or and sable, and Or, in sinister a
dragon gules] This has the appearance of marshalled armory,
impaling the coat Paly of four Or and sable and Or a
dragon gules. RfS XI.3 states, "Armory that appears to
marshall independent arms is considered presumptuous" (emphasis
added). The appearance of marshalling is so strong in this design
that it would be considered presumptuous, even if a few examples
of armory of this design were found that could clearly be
demonstrated not to be marshalled.
The submitter provided documentation showing some pieces of
German heraldry that the submitter felt showed analogous heraldic
designs without the implication of marshalling. However, three of
the six pieces of armory in the documentation used bars on the
upper or lower part of the field, rather than pallets on the
dexter or sinister side of the field. Marshalling by impalement
(with two coats of arms side by side) is not uncommon in period
heraldry, but marshalling by "imfessment" (with one coat of arms
over the other) is not common enough for the SCA to consider such
a design to give the appearance of marshalling. So the examples
using bars are not analogous to this submission, as they do not
give an appearance of marshalling by impalement. One of the six
examples showed a pale counterchanged in the center of the field
(overlying a per pale line of division) between two unlike
charges. This design also does not resemble two coats of arms set
side by side, and thus does not have a possible appearance of
marshalling by impalement.
The final two pieces of armory provided by the submitter are
analogous to this submission in their design. However, the
documentation did not demonstrate that these German coats were
not themselves marshalled arms. Some similarly designed armory in
Germany is known to depict marshalled arms. According to Jiri
Louda's European Civic Coats of Arms, the arms of the city
of Leipzig (unchanged since 1470), which have Or a lion
rampant sable to dexter and Or, two pallets azure to
sinister, "bear the Lion of Meissen and Landsberg pallets."
The arms of the city of Dresden, identical to those of Leipzig
except with sable pallets, are described in the same source as
follows: "The early 14th century arms show a black lion, the
armorial device of Meissen; the black pallets were originally
blue Landsberg pallets later altered to the colours of Saxony."
These civic arms show that in some cases of German arms with this
design, two coats of arms were indeed combined side by side to
make the resultant coat. [Ludwig Grün, 05/2003,
R-Meridies]
EMBLAZON
see also EMBLAZON -- Coloring
Problems
[concerning internal detailing] Over the
last months, we have seen an increasing number of submissions
where a complex charge (such as an animal) is drawn without any
internal details. The members of the College have been quick to
point out that this can lead to difficulties in identifying the
charge. They are, of course, correct, and it is probably for this
reason that most period depictions of complex charges have some
internal details. However, not all period heraldic art has
internal details, and such silhouette depictions are
acceptable in the SCA as long as identifiability is
preserved.
The most identifiable postures for animals are those which are
commonly used for the animal being depicted, and which show the
distinguishing aspects of the animal to their best advantage. A
rampant lion has the profile of the head, all four limbs, and the
tail all laying directly on the field. A displayed eagle has the
profile of the head, both wings, both legs, and the tail all
lying directly on the field. Because we are accustomed to seeing
rampant quadrupeds and displayed eagles, and because almost every
part of these animals is outlined against the field, these
animals can generally be identified with little or no internal
details.
Any posture that obscures some limbs (such as sejant), or which
does not show the profile of the head (such as guardant) should
generally be drawn with some internal details. So should any
charge in an uncommon or confusing posture, like a lion sejant
erect affronty, or an escallop fesswise. Any charge whose outline
identifiability is compromised by some other portion of the
design, such as a partially low-contrast field or an overall
charge, will benefit from some internal details.
While on this topic, I would also like to remind people that a
charge can also suffer from too many internal details. In
some cases, we receive artwork that is based on a
photo-enlargement of a heavily shaded or cross-hatched black and
white original. In these cases, the black details can almost
overpower the real tincture of the charge. In other cases, we
have a charge with a complicated tincture (such as ermine or
checky), or which is charged with a tertiary charge. In these
cases, the internal details can interfere with the
identifiability of the complicated tincture or tertiary, and
should be used with restraint. [08/2001,
CL]
[three mice dormant] This is a good example of
identifiable dormant, since the mouse heads with their
identifying ears are largely against the high contrast field,
rather than the low contrast mouse bodies. [Gwenddolynn ni
hAilleachaín, 10/2001,
A-Meridies]
... a correctly drawn gusset (as per the PicDic) issues from the
top corner of the shield (just under the chief). A properly drawn
gusset also does not extend all the way to the bottom of the
field. It should be possible to have a dexter and a sinister
gusset on one shield and see some field between them. [Cáemgen
mac Olcain, 08/2001,
A-West]
Please advise the submitter to draw the flaunches issuing from
the top corners of the shield rather than from the chief. We have
seen an increasing number of flaunches drawn as issuant from
chief in the last few years. Please help educate your submitters
and heralds on how to correctly draw flaunches�or educate your
always-learning Laurel staff by providing period examples of this
artistic variant of flaunches. [Gaspar del Hoyo, 09/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
[two pallets wavy] The wavy would be more classic and
easier to identify if it were drawn with deeper waves. However,
except in the beginning of the armorial period, wavy is a fairly
shallow line compared to all the others. A shallow wavy line is
much more acceptable than a shallow embattled, engrailed, or
indented line. [Keran Roslin, 09/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
On the forms, the dragon is clearly tinctured as erminois. This
was less obvious on the mini-emblazon on the letter of intent.
This is one case where fewer internal details in the dragon would
have been a wiser artistic choice, to avoid the possibility of
obscuring the ermine spots. [Armand Dragonetti, 09/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
Some commenters questioned the internal detail lines on these
mullets of eight points, which make them each look like a mullet
of four point saltirewise surmounted by a mullet of four points.
This is an acceptable artistic variant of a mullet of eight
points. [Colin de Vire, 09/2001,
A-Calontir]
... please advise the submitter to resubmit with a more standard
drawing of a sun. Period suns are generally multipointed mullets
(sometimes with some wavy rays) which fit into a circle. In this
case, the "sun" has points elongated to chief, base, dexter, and
sinister. [Nathaniel Constantine of Saxony, 09/2001,
R-Atenveldt] [Ed.: Returned for conflict]
[a bat-winged tyger sejant affronty head to dexter] This
tyger's identity is completely lost due to the uncommon posture
of the tyger, the particular rendition with the head obscured by
the wing, and the uncommon bat-winged charge variant. This
appears to be a dragon under any but the closest scrutiny. The
identifying nose tusk of the tyger is laid against the
no-contrast wing, the ears of the tyger are much like a dragon's,
and any other details of the body are obscured by the sejant
affronty position. This must be returned for unidentifiability.
In a different posture, with all the body parts clearly visible,
the bat-winged tyger should be identifiable. [Angus
Sturmisbroke, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
[Per chevron inverted azure and gules] The line of
division is too high up for a proper per chevron inverted line.
On a round form, one cannot say that a line of division issues
from the chief or from the sides of the escutcheon, as there are
no corners to distinguish these portions of the round form.
However, the proportions of this emblazon are such that the per
chevron inverted line would issue from the chief or from the top
corners of the shield if this were a standard heater shape. A per
chevron inverted line must issue from the sides of the
shield.
This artwork cannot represent any of the other myriad "inverted
triangle" armorial designs for various reasons: chiefs triangular
can't be overlain by an overall charge, piles extend much farther
to base and issue from the chief, and chaussé extends all the way
to base. Therefore this must be returned for redrawing. [Agnes
de Lanvallei, 09/2001,
R-Calontir]
[Gules, on a fess rayonny argent fimbriated sable ...] The
device form shows a fess rayonny argent fimbriated sable. While
varying degrees of outline thickness may be allowed due to
artistic license, this artwork cannot reasonably be interpreted
any other way, since the outlines of all the other charges are a
normal, much thinner, line. We do not allow charges argent
fimbriated sable on a gules field. This must be returned for
redrawing. [Roise inghean ui Ruaidhri 09/2001,
R-Calontir]
[Per chevron inverted] Please advise the submitter to draw
the per chevron inverted line deeper, so that it extends farther
to base. This is uncomfortably close to an odd sort of chief.
However, this cannot be mistaken for a chief triangular or any of
the other similar triangular charges or divisions, since it
clearly issues from the side of the field rather than the top
corners or top of the field. [Elspeth of Glendinning,
10/2001,
A-An Tir]
[Purpure ... a ford proper] Please advise the submitter to
draw the ford so that an argent stripe is against the purpure
field. This is still identifiable as a ford since it has enough
stripes, so this does not need to be returned for contrast
problems. [Sabine d'Angers, 10/2001,
A-An Tir] Please advise the submitter to draw the chief thicker.
The chief should be roughly one-fifth to one-third the height of
the shield. [Ceara ingen uí Líadnáin, 10/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[a griffin segreant Or winged argent maintaining an acorn
Or] Conflict with ... Sable, a griffin segreant within an
annulet Or. There is one CD for removing the annulet. There
is no difference for adding the small maintained acorn. Under
normal circumstances, the wings of a griffin are considered half
the charge for purposes of tincture changes. However, this
griffin is drawn with abnormally small wings. We register the
emblazon, not the blazon, so we cannot give a CD for changing the
tincture of wing color only unless the griffin is drawn with
normal proportions. In a winged quadruped monster such as a
griffin, a normal depiction has the wings one-third to one-half
of the visual weight of the charge. If the griffin were drawn
this way, neither this conflict, nor the other conflicts listed
here, would apply. ... [Alana Griffin , 10/2001,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Per saltire azure and sable, two curved swords addorsed
inverted argent overall a rose Or]The emblazon here is
confusing. It is impossible to tell whether these inverted swords
are palewise in fess or in saltire. This is a combination of the
fact that the center of the swords is obscured by the overall
rose, and the fact that the swords are curved. One also cannot
tell whether these are scimitars, seaxes, or possibly falchions.
Because of the identifiability problem, this must be returned.
[Hurrem bint Rashid, 10/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
[A bear passant bendwise sable] Conflict with the City of
Berlin, Argent, a bear rampant sable. There is one CD for
the change of field. Rampant animals often have a bendwise body
posture, so rampant may often look much like passant bendwise.
There seems to be no period pattern of use of passant bendwise
animals other than those animals which lay on a bend. Therefore
this bear cannot be given difference for posture from a bear
rampant. [Tirloch of Tallaght, 10/2001,
R-Atlantia]
The bordure here is much too thin to be acceptable. Each side of
a bordure is usually as thick as one-eighth to one-tenth of the
shield width, and this bordure is less than one-twentieth of the
shield width. Part of the problem is that the bordure was drawn
with a very thick black outline compared to the outlines on the
dragon's head. This outline cut into the white part of the
bordure and also had somewhat of an appearance of
fimbriation.
Please advise the submitter to be careful on future submissions
to avoid outlines so thick that they appear to be fimbriation. My
staff advises me that, in many cases, the problem with thick
outlines that appear to be fimbriation is due to use of the
computer program "Blazons". As a general rule, heraldic art from
that program is flawed, and we encourage the College to educate
their submitters not to use this program to generate the artwork
used on their forms. [Magy McTerlach, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
The submission must be returned because the pale is drawn so wide
that it is not period style. A redrawing would solve this
problem. To quote al-Jamal, "While an ordinary will normally
widen or narrow depending upon whether it is charged and/or
surrounded by charges, the width here seems a bit excessive,
covering more than half the field and thus being wider than even
the modern Canadian pale." [Maura McCrery, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
The seals are not in a recognizable posture. They are neither
erect nor sejant nor naiant and cannot accurately be blazoned.
Charges must be reproducible from the blazon in order to be
acceptable. [Séighín inghean Giolla Eáin, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
This is not a pile, because it issues from the top corners of the
shield. Nor is it chaussé, because it does not extend all the way
to base. Nor is it a chief triangular, because it is much too
deep. Nor is it a per chevron inverted field division, because it
does not issue from the sides of the field. As a result, this
must be returned. [Rickard of Gwyntarian, 10/2001,
R-Middle]
It is also important to note that the Crayola-marker orange used
to tincture this charge classes as a color rather than a metal.
It thus cannot be used as a charge on a purple chief. [Randall
Carrick, 10/2001,
R-Outlands]
[a base engrailed] The engrailing is too small and shallow
to be acceptable. There are ten cups in the engrailing, which
would be a fairly large number on a fess. Here the width across
the base is much smaller than the width of a fess. [Derdriu de
Duglas, 10/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[Manx cat rampant] The College could not identify this
animal as a cat, generally believing it appeared to be some sort
of dog, or perhaps a bear. While period heraldic art was by no
means always realistic, it had unmistakable cues to the identity
of the type of animal, especially in stylized artwork. Because
the Manx cat has no tail, one of these cues was lost, making it
all the more important that the remainder of the animal be drawn
recognizably as a cat. Since this drawing was not identifiable,
the armory must be returned. [Zachary Strangeman, 11/2001,
R-Meridies]
These are not lightning bolts, as they lack the arrowheads at the
end. They are neither bendlets bretessed nor
embattled-counterembattled and are not defined charges in
heraldry. This is a sufficient reason for return. [Calum
Nickeson, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[a ducal coronet] Please advise the submitter to draw the
ducal coronet in the correct fashion, with sets of strawberry
leaves visible at the sides of the coronet as well as in the
center. [Alan Youngforest, 12/2001,
A-Artemisia]
[Per chevron throughout purpure and argent, two estoiles
argent and a dragonfly vert] In this emblazon, the charge in
base is larger than the charges in chief. In period, a group of
charges two and one often had the basemost charge drawn larger
than the chiefmost charges, in order to best fill the space.
While that tendency is unusually exaggerated in this submission,
it does not require reblazon or reinterpretation. [Letia
Thistelthueyt, 12/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[on a fess embattled argent two wildcats salient respectant
guardant] These wildcats are as identifiable as any two
salient respectant animals can be in the limited vertical space
provided by a fess. They have distinctive cat's ears and a
wildcat's stubbed tail. Therefore, they are recognizable enough
to accept. [Ulrich von Retelsdorf, 01/2002,
A-Caid]
[a bend sinister ermine] ... if a bend ermine is drawn
with palewise spots, we will blazon it simply as ermine
and instruct the submitter to draw the fur in a more period
fashion. However, if a bend is charged with palewise charges,
they will continue to be explicitly blazoned as palewise.
[Artemisia da Quieto d'Arzenta, 01/2002,
A-Lochac] [Ed.: See under Fur for the
complete discussion.]
[in fess a horse's head couped close a horse's head caboshed
and a horse's head couped close contourny all conjoined] The
armory needs to be redrawn or redesigned. The central cabossed
head is not recognizable as a horse's head because it is much too
wide. The other horse's heads' identifiability is compromised by
the very close conjoining with the central head. [Philip of
Crescent Moon, 02/2002,
R-Calontir]
[Per chevron gules semy of compass stars argent and ermine, a
wolf and a bear combattant argent] Only one of the strewn
compass stars is clearly identifiable: the rest of the strewn
charges are obscured significantly by other elements of the
design. This is a reason for return under RfS VIII.3, Armorial
Identifiability: "Elements must be used in a design so as to
preserve their individual identifiability. Identifiable elements
may be rendered unidentifiable by significant reduction in size,
marginal contrast, excessive counterchanging, voiding, or
fimbriation, or by being obscured by other elements of the
design." [Sergei Bolotnikov, 03/2002,
R-Æthelmearc] [A cross of Santiago erminois] The ermine
spots are too numerous and small to be identified. There are over
40 full or partial spots on this thin-limbed cross. It is
difficult to imagine the spots being large enough to identify
unless there were fewer than half as many on the cross.
[William le Fendur, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
Remember, enfiling is equivalent to threading (as
in threading a needle). [Randal Avery of the Mease,
04/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[A dragon sejant contourny barry engrailed vert and Or]
There were some concerns in the College that the engrailing would
not be identifiable due to the complex outline of the charge and
the internal details. The full-sized colored emblazon shows that
the engrailing is very obvious. This barry engrailed monster is
at most one step from period practice, since animate charges in
multiply divided tinctures were found in period armory. One of
the most famous examples is that of the arms of Hesse, Azure,
a lion rampant queue-forchy barruly argent and gules crowned
Or. Siebmacher's 1605 Wappenbuch gives a number of
other examples, including Truchess von Wellerswalde, Azure, an
eagle displayed barry argent and gules (f. 161), Schirau,
Azure, a unicorn rampant bendy gules and argent (f. 69)
and Badendorf, Azure, a lion lozengy argent and gules crowned
Or (f. 179). [Killian M'Cahall, 04/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[a chief invected] The chief is drawn with four
invections, which is an acceptable number. However, the
invections are much too shallow to be acceptable. Good invections
are close to semicircles, about twice as wide as they are deep.
These are so shallow that the line of division is not
identifiable at any distance. [Jacomus Wyndswift, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[Argent, on a fess indented gules a wolf rampant contourny
between the halves of a broken chain issuant from the flanks
argent] The armory was originally blazoned as Gules, a
wolf rampant contourny between issuant from sinister and dexter
two broken chains fesswise, a chief indented and a base indented
argent. However, the visual realities clearly indicate that
this should be a fess indented. Very little period armory
combines both a chief and a base, so the visual interpretation of
the fess here is even more striking when considered against the
background of period heraldic design. [Gunnarr skáld
Þorvaldsson, 06/2002,
Ealdormere]
... in period, ermine spots on a bend generally tilt to follow
the bend. We would expect ermine spots on a bend sinister to
follow the bend sinister, instead of being drawn palewise as with
this submission. [Rhys Ravenscroft, 07/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[Or goutty de sang] The gouttes are too numerous and too
small to be identifiable. There was a significant discrepancy
between the emblazon on the forms and the mini-emblazon on the
Letter of Intent. There are approximately 130 gouttes on the
form, and approximately 40 gouttes on the mini-emblazon. Forty
charges is a large number to have on the field compared to the
standard period depiction of a group of strewn charges (which
often has as few as ten charges on the field). As long as the
charges in a group of strewn charges maintain their
identifiability, they are acceptable regardless of the exact
number of charges in the emblazon. [Steffan von Hessen,
07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
We would like to note that it is acceptable for a wyvern to have
two hind legs as drawn here. Some commenters thought that wyverns
had to be drawn with two forelegs rather than two hind legs. Both
sorts of emblazon may be found in period armory. For examples of
wyverns which appear to have hind legs (they are proportioned
more or less like a long-tailed bird), see Dennys' Heraldic
Imagination p.189, illustration of the attributed arms of
Uther Pendragon. See also the Grand Armorial Équestre de la
Toison d'Or (aka the European Armorial in the
Pinches/Wood edition), Holy Roman Empire section, families of
Mesze and Neidecker. For examples where the wyverns appear to
have forelegs (proportioned like a winged reptile without hind
legs) see Siebmacher's Wappenbuch, f. 144 Die Wormb and f.
130 Breidenstein. For wyverns whose two legs are not clearly
identifiable either as forelegs or hind legs, see Burgave de
Drachenfels found in Armorial Bellenville f. 18r and in
Gelre f. 28v. [William Cormac Britt, 07/2002,
R-Meridies]
Please advise the submitter to draw the barry with six or more
traits. [Antonia di Battista, 08/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
The bendy sinister field should also be redrawn. Presently all
sections of the field are drawn at a very shallow angle very
close to the horizontal lines of barry. Bendy sinister should be
at approximately 45 degrees from the horizontal. In addition,
when redrawing, the submitter should draw all the traits of the
field at the same angle, rather than the varying angles presently
used. [Gunnv{o,}r Vikarrsdóttir, 08/2002,
R-Artemisia]
The emblazon blurs the distinction between a chief and a per fess
line of division. If this is a charged chief, the line marking
the bottom of the chief needs to be higher, and in particular,
the bottom points of the rayonny line should not extend as far
down as the fess point of the shield. The moon should also be
drawn larger as befits a primary charge.
If this is a per fess division, the rayonny line should extend
equally over and under the fess line of the shield. In a per fess
interpetation the equal visual weight of the lozenges and the
moon is appropriate.
As this cannot be accurately blazoned, it must be returned per
RfS VII.7. [Lyutsina Manova, 09/2002,
R-An Tir]
[Per bend embattled vert and purpure, a compass star and a
chief indented argent] ... the per bend line is not correctly
drawn. The per bend line should bisect the portion of the field
which shows beneath the chief. The chiefmost point on the per
bend line should be where the bottom of the chief meets the
dexter side of the shield. [Eleanor of Orkney, 09/2002,
R-Lochac]
[Argent, two double-bitted battleaxes and a phoenix azure]
We have reblazoned the device to show that it consists of a group
of equally-sized primary charges arranged two and one. There were
some questions in the commentary about the way in which the
charges were arranged. Because all three charges are longer
vertically than horizontally, it is a reasonable artistic choice
to draw them so that the bottom part of the chiefmost charges is
alongside the top part of the basemost charge. [Simon von
Beckum, 01/2003,
A-East]
[a pegasus passant reguardant contourny] Please advise the
submitter to draw the pegasus so that the head does not overlap
the wing. [Geneviève Ravencrest, 02/2003,
Æthelmearc]
[a swan naiant affronty wings displayed head to sinister]
The swan was originally blazoned as displayed, which would
show the legs and tail of the swan and would show the breast of
the swan straight towards the viewer. This emblazon shows a swan
swimming in a posture halfway between affronty and to sinister.
As a result, it is in trian aspect and it is not acceptable,
because it cannot be blazoned accurately. [Alianor atte Red
Swanne, 02/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[a sea serpent erect] Please advise the submitters to draw
the serpent erect correctly. Its tail should be to base, rather
than twisting upwards and overlapping the serpent's body. The
current rendition obscures the identifiability of the serpent's
posture, although it does not obscure it so much that it may not
be registered. [Krakafjord, Shire of, 04/2003,
A-An Tir]
The charges on the chief are much too shallow to be identifiable
as crescents. They are thus not acceptable by RfS VII.7.a.
[Rhiannon Basset, 05/2003,
R-East]
[ermine field] The ermine spots in the full-sized emblazon
had identifiability problems. The spots were very numerous and
small, and many of the spots were hampered further in their
identifiability by being partially obscured by the chevron
engrailed and the Maltese crosses. This lack of identifiability
can be a reason for return under RfS VIII.3, which states in
pertinent part "Identifiable elements may be rendered
unidentifiable by significant reduction in size ... or by being
obscured by other elements of the design."
Unfortunately, because there was a significant discrepancy
between the artwork in the full-sized emblazon and the
mini-emblazon provided to the College of Arms in the Letter of
Intent, we were unable to get the College's input on this
armorial style problem. The mini-emblazon illustrated the ermine
field with 20 ermine spots, none of which were obscured by other
charges in the armory. The full-sized emblazon shows 60 full or
partially obscured ermine spots, each of which was much smaller
proportionally than the ermine spots on the mini-emblazon.
Usually we would rely heavily on the College's input to determine
whether the ermine spots were in fact too unidentifiable to be
registered under RfS VIII.3, or whether the submission's
identifiability was sufficient to enable it to be registered,
with an artistic note to the submitter to draw fewer, larger, and
less obscured ermine spots. [Genevieve de Calais, 06/2003,
R-West]
[Per chevron gules and argent, two thistles Or and a bear
rampant sable] Please advise the submitter to draw the per
chevron line somewhat lower on the field, allowing the thistles
and the bear to be more similar in size. While it is not uncommon
for the bottom charge of a group of three charges arranged two
and one to be larger than the top two charges, this bear (and the
space on which it lies) is disproportionately large. [Robert
Crosar, 07/2003,
A-Caid]
[a chief embattled ermine] On the first viewing of the
submission form, the Wreath meeting attendees had a lively
discussion about whether the ermine spots were too small to be
identified. While there were strong adherents to both sides of
this question, the consensus was that the ermine spots were
sufficiently identifiable, especially because, for the most part,
the ermine spots were neither obscuring, nor obscured by, other
elements of the design.
We were suprised at the lack of commentary on the identifiability
issue, and (on inspection of the Letter of Intent) found that
there was a notable discrepancy between the depiction of the
ermine chief in the full-sized emblazon and in the mini-emblazon.
The mini-emblazon drew the embattled chief with two rows of five
ermine spots each, with the lower line "offset" so that each
ermine spot is centered in the space between the two ermine spots
above it. However, the full-sized emblazon had twice as many rows
and almost twice as many ermine spots per row (except for the
bottom row, which had just as many spots, as it only had one spot
per embattlement). It was no surprise that the issue with the
identifiability of the ermine spots was not raised in the
commentary - the identifiability issue did not even begin to
arise on the mini-emblazon.
As a period artistic note, the depiction in the mini-emblazon is
very much in keeping with period armorial depictions both of
ermine chiefs and of the portion of an ermine field showing over
the top of a fess. The majority of depictions which Wreath staff
was able to find on a short research mission show two rows of
(offset) ermine spots with 4-7 spots per row. We were not able to
find (nor were we were presented with evidence for) a depiction
of a period ermine chief with more than three rows of ermine
spots on it. We will note that ermine spots are often packed more
densely on some other types of armorial elements, such as ermine
beasts and ermine fretty (where the complex outline of the beast
and the narrow lathes of the fretty encourage the depiction of
small and numerous ermine spots). [Jean de Leedes,
07/2003,
A-West]
[Azure semy of compass stars, on a flame Or a crescent
azure] Please advise the submitter to have less overlap
between the compass stars and the flames. In period armory,
primary charges do at times overlap the surrounding strewn
charges. However, because of the complex outline of this (period
style) flame, and the fact that it is tinctured identically to
the strewn charges which it overlaps, the overlap compromises the
identfiability of both charge groups. [Finbarr Mathgamain mac
Conchobair and Aífe Fael ingen Brénainn, 08/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[a chief embattled] The chief is drawn with the minimum
acceptable number of embattlements. There are three embattlements
pointing out from the chief, and the two outermost embattlements
touch the side of the shield, so there are three "down" and two
"up", and the outside edges of the two outside "down"
embattlements touch the sides of the shield. This would also be
acceptable if there were three "up" and two "down." Usually,
however, an embattled chief would be drawn with two more
embattlements (so, for example, three "down" and four "up").
[Éamonn mac Rioghbhardáin, 09/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[on a rose argent a sword inverted sable] As drawn in this
submission, the tertiary sword is barely visible on the argent
rose. The problem is with this particular rendition, not with the
general design of a rose argent charged with a sword sable. In
this depiction, the rose is drawn with such prominent and
complicated sable details that the sable sword is visually lost.
RfS VIII.3 states, in pertinent part, "Identifiable elements may
be rendered unidentifiable by ... being obscured by other
elements of the design." [Eóin Ó hEochaidh, 09/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[a wolf statant argent] The cumulative problems with the
artwork call for redrawing. The wolf is not clearly identifiable
as a wolf. It does not have a wolf's long bushy tail, nor does it
have a wolf's erect pointed ears. The head and neck are slightly
in trian aspect, which causes the neck to effectively disappear,
which also hampers the identifiability of the animal. Only about
half the people who commented on this submission or who viewed
this submission at the Wreath meeting were able to clearly
identify this charge as a canine, and few of them believed it to
be a wolf. [Randolf Garard, 10/2003,
R-Atlantia]
EMBLAZON --
Coloring Problems
From Wreath: Coloring
Problems
We remind the College that we rule on an emblazon's acceptability
based on the appearance of the emblazon on the form at the Wreath
meeting. This includes determining whether all the tinctures on
the form are acceptable heraldic tinctures. We have multiple
people at the meeting looking at the forms and helping to make
this decision. This policy is in accordance with previous
practices: We want to remind the College that we register what is
submitted, and not the blazon. We are getting more and more
submissions that were done using color copiers or color printers.
While we have nothing against using modern technology (Laurel has
been known to use it now and then), the colors must be
identifiable. If the copier/printer can not produce recognizable
tinctures, it shouldn't be used. If it is used, the submission
may be returned. (Cover Letter June 1997) We also note that
Laurel (at this time, via Wreath) may, at any time, be called on
to reblazon old armory based on the appearance of the old forms
in the file. Certain sorts of pigment tend to change or fade so
that they are very difficult to make out correctly in old forms.
If the pigments used in old forms have changed drastically from
their original state while sitting in the files, this may result
in an incorrect reblazon.
We have seen quite a few problems in the last year with a
particular color which is blazoned as purpure, but (when viewed
at the Wreath meeting) is instead some shade between purple,
fuchsia, and bright pink. The culprit for the particular problem
appears to be some standard variety of color printer ink, which
is very fugitive and may change its tincture within a few weeks
of printing. Computer printer inks also seem to be responsible
for a dark tincture which is somewhere between purpure and azure,
which seems to be generally meant as azure. It is not yet clear
to us whether this latter confused tincture is due to the inks
changing color after the forms were mailed, or whether the color
was always ambiguous.
We have no intention of mandating the particular techniques used
to color in the forms. However, it is certainly in the best
interest of each kingdom to discourage submitters from using
pigments that will be likely to result in a return at Laurel, or
an incorrect later reblazon. Discouraged coloring methods
include:
Color Computer Printers: the colors may change even in
the few months between the time the forms leave the kingdom and
when they are ruled on by Wreath. Computer printer colors
sometimes continue to change while the forms are in the
files.
Metallic Markers and Paints: These tend to oxidize over
time, so that what began as gold or silver ends up as dull
brown or dark grey. If the marker or paints are used to detail
an underlying dark charge, this oxidation may cause the details
to be almost invisible when the form is viewed in later
years.
Colored Pencils: The pale shades of color pencil cause
difficulties in identifying tinctures and charges on the forms.
Colored pencil is the only standard medium in which a 'light
grey' (and thus argent) tincture is often difficult to
distinguish from a 'black' (and thus sable) tincture. The pale
shades also make it hard to get good identifiability of charges
due to the low contrast between tinctures when viewing the
form. We try hard at the Wreath meetings to keep any emblazon's
medium from interfering with our decisions about
identifiability and visual difference, but it is best to choose
a pigment that avoids the problem.
Wax Crayons, Oil Paints, Oil Pastels, Other Sticky
Pigments: These pigments can cement paperwork together in
the files. It is hard to do a visual comparison with a form
which is stuck ineradicably to the paper in front of it, or has
had half its pigment peel off onto the paper in front of it.
We continue to support, without any commercial
incentive to do so, the humble yet effective Crayola(R) Classic
Colors Markers. While Crayola markers are not waterproof, they
have good intense heraldic colors that keep "true" as long as the
forms are in the files and out of direct sunlight. Note that
there are other types of Crayola marker than the "Classic Colors"
markers, and these are not recommended. ("Crayola" is a
registered trademark of Binney & Smith.) [09/2002,
CL]
The coronet and chain were blazoned as sable on the Letter
of Intent but they are argent. This sort of difficulty
derives from using colored pencils on the forms. On inspection
under strong light, the coronet and chain are metallic silver and
the tail and mane of the horse are black, but on a cursory
inspection in dim light they both look like "dark grey pencil",
hence (presumably) the confusion leading to the misblazon.
Because the addition or tincture change of a collar and chain on
an entire animal is not worth difference, it is not necessary to
pend this device for further conflict research due to the
misblazon. However, if this degree of confusion were present in
the tincture of a more significant charge, the armory may have
been returned for inability to determine the tinctures in the
armory. [Betha of Bedford, 11/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
The submission was originally blazoned with sable rather than
with argent. However, the coloring of the emblazon used the
palest of grey to depict the sable. Very pale grey is argent, not
sable. While we do give allowances for the fact that colored
pencil, the medium used to color this emblazon, is often a light
shade of the represented tincture, this emblazon is unacceptable
in any medium. The Cover Letter for the LoAR of June 1997 color
letter stated:
We want to remind the College that we register what is
submitted, and not the blazon... If the copier/printer [or
other medium] can not produce recognizable tinctures, it
shouldn't be used. If it is used, the submission may be
returned.
[Douglas Henry, 02/2003,
R-East]
ENFILE
[A holly
branch bendwise sinister inverted vert fructed gules enfiling a
mullet voided Or] The design of a charge enfiling a voided
mullet is a weirdness, but it is not in itself sufficient reason
for return. It is a weirdness because of the cumulative effects
of the unusual voided charge (the voided mullet), the unusual
action of enfiling, and the fact that the overlap implicit in the
act of enfiling reduces the identifiability of both charges
involved. Charges which in their standard period depiction
include a large central hole (such as laurel wreaths, annulets,
and mascles) are not considered a weirdness when enfiled. Charges
with small central holes (such as spur rowels and rustres), and
voided charges where the usual form of the charge is not voided
(mullets) will be considered a weirdness when enfiled.
The question of which charge in the heraldic ring-toss is
"enfiled" is one of the great heraldic cocktail party discussion
topics. The SCA has a precedent on the topic which is being
followed in this blazon:
[An arrow argent enfiling a serpent involved] The definition of
the term enfile has changed over the years. Boutell (English
Heraldry, 1902) equates it with "pierce": a sword passing
through a crown would enfile the crown. Brooke-Little (An
Heraldic Alphabet 1975) equates it with "encircle": a sword
passing through a crown would be enfiled by the crown. The
confusion is sufficient reason to avoid the use of the term,
but sometimes (as with this submission) it's hard to avoid.
Friar (Dictionary of Heraldry, 1987, p.137) agrees with
Boutell's definition; and that definition does follow more
naturally from the etymology of the word (from French fil,
"thread": beads are threaded on a string, crowns are enfiled on
[by] a sword). That is the definition used here.
[Evelyn atte Holye, 12/2001,
A-Ealdormere]
[(Fieldless) An anchor fouled of its cable argent enfiling a
coronet bendwise sinister Or pearled argent] There is a high
degree of overlap between the coronet and the anchor and its
cable. This is not acceptable style for overall charges on a
fieldless badge for reasons of identifiability and non-period
style. The same stylistic constraints which apply to charges
surmounted by overall charges also apply to charges enfiled by
other charges.
The orientation of the coronet is neither clearly bendwise
sinister nor clearly palewise. This is not blazonable and
therefore a reason for return under RfS VII.7.b. There are also
contrast problems with this emblazon. The argent pearls on the
coronet overlap the argent anchor, giving no contrast at those
points. [William the Mariner, 04/2003,
R-An Tir]
ERMINE
SPOT
see also FUR
[Per saltire azure
and sable, an escarbuncle within an orle of ermine spots
argent] The ermine spots are identifiable here as charges in
orle rather than an ermined field. Having a bit more field
showing between the escarbuncle and the spots would help avoid
the possible confusion between these designs. Because this is an
orle of ermine spots, rather than an unusual field, this is clear
of conflict with the badge ... Purpure, an escarbuncle
argent. There is one CD for the field and another for adding
the orle of ermine spots. [Aidan Macpherson, 08/2001,
A-Caid]
[Azure, four ermine spots in cross bases to center argent each
charged with a roundel azure] This does not conflict with
Darya Kazakova, (Fieldless) A cross of four ermine spots
conjoined argent. There is a CD for fieldlessness, and
another for the orientation of the ermine spots.
Crosses of ermine spots are drawn with the tops of the ermine
spots conjoined in the center, rather than the bases of the
ermine spots conjoined in the center. A question was raised in
commentary about whether it was reasonable to give an orientation
CD for inverting an ermine spot. The vast majority of ermine
spots, and all the ermine spots which use a three-roundel "clasp"
artistic motif (as with this submission), are not symmetrical
about the horizontal axis. (In many renditions of ermine spots,
the three roundels, or voided billet, at the top of the spot
represent a stylized clasp, as would have been used to hold an
ermine tail or skin to an underlying garment or less expensive
fur.) As a result, there is a CD for posture between an ermine
spot and an ermine spot inverted.
Another question was raised about whether the roundels at the
base of the ermine spots should be worth difference, as addition
of tertiaries, or should be considered artistic detailing. Given
the wide diversity in the shape of the bottom of ermine spots,
the small roundels seemed more like artistic details than genuine
addition of tertiary charges. [Constance de Montbard,
09/2001,
A-An Tir]
[Vert, a bend sinister argent ermined vert between three
ermine spots argent] When there are three or more ermine
spots on a stripe ordinary such as a bend or fess or chief, the
ordinary will be interpreted as ermined, as this is a standard
way of drawing an ermine stripe ordinary. It is also true that
small numbers of ermine spots on the field may be interpreted as
charges, rather than part of an ermined tincture. Three spots
around a bend sinister are so sparsely distributed that they can
only be interpreted as charges.
No documentation was presented, and none was found, for the
combination of ermine spots as distinct charges and ermine spots
as part of an ermined tincture in the same armory. Until
documentation for this combination is presented, this combination
will be considered a weirdness. [Edmund Sharpe, 02/2002,
A-Atlantia]
... in period, ermine spots on a bend generally tilt to follow
the bend. We would expect ermine spots on a bend sinister to
follow the bend sinister, instead of being drawn palewise as with
this submission. [Rhys Ravenscroft, 07/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
We have blazoned the ermine spots in base as a bar of ermine
spots, parallel to armory using arrangements of unnumbered
charges such as an orle of martlets. "Unnumbered" charges,
such as the charges in an orle of martlets, are too many to
explicitly enumerate: generally eight or more charges.
Orles of unnumbered charges are found in period armory, but no
documentation has been provided for barrulets abased of
unnumbered charges (or other ordinaries abased of unnumbered
charges). This arrangement is a step from period practice. The
fact that the unnumbered charges in question are ermine spots is
a second step from period practice. While ermine spots are
reasonable charges when taken in small numbers, unnumbered ermine
spots are indicative of an ermined fur rather than a group of
charges. This combination is too many steps from period practice
to be acceptable. This design could alternately be blazoned with
a counter-ermine bar on a sable field, but that would contravene
the rules of contrast, further indicating that this design is not
period style. [Iuliana inghean Domhnaill, 10/2002,
R-East]
Some commentary asked whether this depiction of an ermine bend,
which charges the bend with five bendwise ermine spots, should be
blazoned as A bend argent charged with five ermine spots
sable rather than a bend ermine. This is an excellent period
depiction of an ermine bend. As noted in the January 2002 LoAR:
There seem to be few ermine bends in period, but they may be
found throughout the heraldic period. Those which [Maister Iago
ab Adam] found are all depicted with the ermine spots tilted
bendwise on the bend.
Maister Iago has provided some additional detailed
information about English depictions of ermine bends throughout
our period:
Out of seven period examples of ermine bends studied, two had
two offset rows of spots (like footprints up the bend), one had
seven spots arranged 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, one was charged and had the
spots arranged to fit around the charges, and three were drawn
as in this submission, with a single row of five spots
(although it should be noted that these last three examples are
all mid-16th C. or later.)
[Catarina de Zaneto Rizo, 04/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
ESCARBUNCLE
[An escarbuncle argent
surmounted by a roundel purpure] Conflict with ...
Purpure, an escarbuncle argent. There is one CD for
fieldlessness. Escarbuncles have a small center circle as part of
their charge definition, reflecting their origin as a reinforced
shield boss. As a result, this does not appear to be an
escarbuncle with an overall charge, but an escarbuncle in which
part of the charge is tinctured differently than the rest. Since
less than half the tincture of the charge has changed, this does
not get a tincture CD from Cerelia's armory. [Méraud
d'Avignon, 05/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
Snowflakes are not period charges and have not been registerable
since the Cover Letter for the LoAR of August 1994. [Halla
bjarnylr, 07/2002,
R-Meridies]
Some commenters asked about the registerability of escarbuncles
with six arms. Per the LoAR of February 2001, "Escarbuncles of
six arms are found in period arms according to A Pictorial
Dictionary of Heraldry." [Kis Mária, 01/2004,
R-East]
ESTOILE
...
estoiles are one CD from compass stars. [Letia
Thistelthueyt, 12/2001,
A-Atlantia]
Mullets of five (straight) points and estoiles of six (wavy) rays
are both standard period charges, and the SCA gives a CD between
them, but an estoile of five (wavy) rays is not a period charge.
Per RfS X.4.e, armorial difference involving a non-period charge
must be determined based on whether "its shape in normal
depiction is significantly different" from the charge with which
it is being compared. Because the rays of estoiles are often
drawn with very shallow waves, it does not seem appropriate to
give a CD on purely visual grounds between a mullet of five
points and an estoile of five rays. [Ygraine de Bracy,
09/2002,
R-Atlantia]
[Counter-ermine, three estoiles Or] This does not conflict
with the Counts of Celje (important non-SCA arms), Azure,
three mullets of six points Or. There is one CD for changing
the field. The SCA has consistently held, since the Cover Letter
for the June 1991 LoAR, that mullets should be given a CD from
estoiles (in the estoile's standard depiction, with six wavy
rays). [Giovanni Basilio de Castronovo, 10/2002,
A-Lochac]
The estoile was blazoned on the Letter of Intent as
fesswise, which was presumably intended to describe the
fact that the estoile does not have a point to chief. It is not
necessary to blazon the exact orientation of either a mullet of
six points or an estoile (which by default has six rays). The
orientation of such charges appears to an artistic preference,
not a heraldically significant choice. For example, in Iberian
armory mullets of six points often do not have a point to chief,
but in French armory they often do have a point to chief.
[Stromgard, Barony of, 03/2004,
A-An Tir]
There is no difference for changing the type of tertiary charge
on an estoile per RfS X.4.j.ii, as an estoile is not a "suitable"
charge for purposes of this rule. [Eleanora von Ratzeburg,
03/2004,
R-Drachenwald]
FEATHER
[Per
chevron inverted azure and gules, a leaf bendwise sinister
argent] Both leaves and feathers are found in English
heraldry and do not seem to be considered variants of each other
in period. Thus, this is clear from the badge of Silver Quill
Pursuivant, (Tinctureless) A quill bendwise sinister within a
roundel. Even if the roundel is just an indication of a shape
for armorial display, rather than an actual charge, there is one
CD for fieldlessness and another for charge type. [Agnes de
Lanvallei, 09/2001,
R-Calontir] [Ed.: Returned for redraw of the line of
division]
[Per pale Or ermined purpure and purpure, a feather
argent] This was pended from the July 2001 LoAR for
consideration of a number of real-world badges, associated with
the English royal family or their close associates, which use a
single white feather as a major design element. The College of
Arms did not find a clear pattern suggesting that such a badge
design would be presumptuous, nor did the College find any
particular real-world white feather badge that appeared to be, in
its own right, important enough to be protected in the SCA.
Therefore, this may be registered. [Hrefna karlsefni,
11/2001,
A-Atenveldt]
[Gules, in pall inverted three feathers conjoined at the quill
argent] This is also clear of conflict with ... Gules, a
feather fan argent, handled Or. There is substantial
difference for purposes of RfS X.2 between a feather and a
feather fan. [Nakano Zenjirou Tadamasa, 02/2002,
A-Calontir]
The secondary charges were originally blazoned as quill
pens, but they lack the nib of a quill pen. They have been
reblazoned as feathers. [Dianaim ingen Eochada,
08/2002,
A-East]
The peacock feathers here are blazoned as proper.
According to the September 1993 LoAR, "A peacock feather proper
is mostly green, with an iridescent roundel near the end." The
feathers in this emblazon are sable with the eyes colored in
azure, vert, Or and purpure.
The "eyes" of the peacock feathers dwarf the rest of the feather.
Even though heraldic stylizations generally use a certain amount
of artistic exaggeration, the "eyes" of these feathers are too
disproportionate for these charges to be called peacock
feathers.
This submission must therefore be returned for redrawing. The
redrawing should rescale the feathers so that they are long
feathers with smaller eyes at the end, and the tincture of the
feathers should either be the previously defined proper for a
peacock feather or standard blazonable tincture(s). [Mary Rose
of Burgon, 10/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Device reblazon: Quarterly gules and purpure, a feather
bendwise Or] The previous blazon, Quarterly gules and
purpure, a peacock feather bendwise Or, did not accurately
describe the type of feather. Precedent makes it clear that we
distinguish between peacock feathers and regular feathers, to the
point of having given difference between them, "[A default
azure feather vs. a proper peacock plume] "There is one
CVD...for the change in type of feather. The peacock plume...is
quite distinct in shape, with a prominent 'eye'" (LoAR December
1990 p. 11). The feather in this submission is a normally shaped
feather. [Antoine de Breton, 12/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
The feather was blazoned on the LoI as a quill pen, but as
it has no nib, it is simply a feather. The slight
difference between these charges is artistic only, and no
difference is given between them. [Daimhín Cinncaidhe,
12/2003,
R-Trimaris]
FESS and BAR
[a
tower argent masoned sable] Architectural charges made of
stonework such as towers, castles and walls may be drawn masoned
as a matter of artist's license. Therefore, there is no
additional tincture difference for adding or removing masoning
for these types of charge. [Gemma Meen, 01/2002,
R-An Tir]
While redesigning, the submitter may also wish to consider that
the fess engrailed on the upper edge and invected on the lower is
not a period type of fess. Stylistically, the fess is at best a
weirdness. [Asbjørn Pedersen Marsvin, 01/2002,
R-Caid]
[Argent, on a fess indented gules a wolf rampant contourny
between the halves of a broken chain issuant from the flanks
argent] The armory was originally blazoned as Gules, a
wolf rampant contourny between issuant from sinister and dexter
two broken chains fesswise, a chief indented and a base indented
argent. However, the visual realities clearly indicate that
this should be a fess indented. Very little period armory
combines both a chief and a base, so the visual interpretation of
the fess here is even more striking when considered against the
background of period heraldic design.
Some commenters felt that a period fess indented may not look
like this, but must look like a fess lozengy or
fusilly. However, an indented ordinary may include a
center space, like the center space of an engrailed ordinary. The
arms of Pacanha in Godinho's early 16th C Portuguese Libro da
Nobreza are Argent, on a bend indented gules three
fleurs-de-lys argent. Pacanha's bend has approximately nine
distinct indentations on each side and a wide central area upon
which the fleurs-de-lys are placed. The fess here has similar
proportions, but with four indentations on each side of the
ordinary. [Gunnarr skáld Þorvaldsson, 06/2002,
Ealdormere]
[Argent, three crosses of Cerdaña sable between a chief and a
base azure] This armory is visually equivalent to Azure, a
fess argent charged with three crosses of Cerdaña two and one
sable. It therefore conflicts with a number of pieces of
armory protected by the SCA, including the flag of Honduras
(important non-SCA flag), Azure, on a fess argent five mullets
in saltire azure, and ... Azure, upon a fess argent, a
mole's paw print sable. In each case there is only one CD for
the cumulative changes to the group of charges on the fess.
[Bianca Sereni, 09/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
We have blazoned the ermine spots in base as a bar of ermine
spots, parallel to armory using arrangements of unnumbered
charges such as an orle of martlets. "Unnumbered" charges,
such as the charges in an orle of martlets, are too many to
explicitly enumerate: generally eight or more charges.
Orles of unnumbered charges are found in period armory, but no
documentation has been provided for barrulets abased of
unnumbered charges (or other ordinaries abased of unnumbered
charges). This arrangement is a step from period practice. The
fact that the unnumbered charges in question are ermine spots is
a second step from period practice. While ermine spots are
reasonable charges when taken in small numbers, unnumbered ermine
spots are indicative of an ermined fur rather than a group of
charges. This combination is too many steps from period practice
to be acceptable. This design could alternately be blazoned with
a counter-ermine bar on a sable field, but that would contravene
the rules of contrast, further indicating that this design is not
period style. [Iuliana inghean Domhnaill, 10/2002,
R-East]
[a fess cotised between two chevronels inverted] The
cotises are too thin to be acceptable. There are also problems
with the placement of the chiefmost chevronel inverted. The
chiefmost chevronel inverted should issue from the sides of the
shield or, at the highest, from the chiefmost corners of the
shield. In this emblazon, the chiefmost chevronel inverted issues
entirely from the chief of the shield. The cumulative problems
with the art require that it be returned for redrawing. (Note
that the placement of the bottommost chevronel inverted is
acceptable. It issues from the functional equivalent of the
"chiefmost corners" of its part of the shield, namely the
intersection between the bottom of the bottommost cotise and the
sides of the shield.)
We suggest that, when redrawing, the submitter make the fess
somewhat thinner, so that the chevronels inverted and the fess
are of roughly equal widths. Drawing the fess thinner will leave
more room for the cotises and chevronels inverted, and will be
more likely to recreate period heraldic style. We note that in
the period examples we have seen of the combination of a fess
between two chevronels, the fess and chevronels are of about
equal width. (See Bedingfeld and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry for
some examples, one from c. 1280 on p. 8 and one on the back cover
from the 15th C). [Ludwig W�rzsteiner, 10/2002,
R-Meridies]
[Argent, in chief three bars azure] This does not conflict
with the important non-SCA flags of both Monaco and Indonesia,
Per fess gules and argent. This submission could equally
well be blazoned Per fess barry argent and azure, and
argent. Viewing this piece of armory and the flags as
field-only armory, we have one change for changing the division
of the field, and another for changing the tincture of half the
field. [Ruarcc the Blind, 01/2003,
A-Calontir]
[Sable, in fess a roundel between two ravens respectant all
between two bars couped Or] The College generally felt that
this armory appeared to use a single primary charge group
consisting of three types of charges. While the two bars
surrounding the central charges would certainly be considered a
separate secondary group if they were throughout, the fact that
they are couped removes that secondary appearance. [Helgi
hrafnfæðir, 01/2003,
R-Caid]
Because chevrons and fesses embattled (with a complex line
of partition on the top of the charge and a plain line on the
bottom) and embattled counter-embattled (with a complex
line of partition on both sides of the charge) are found as
distinct treatments in period heraldry, there is a type CD
between them. [Robert Blackhawk, 04/2003,
A-Outlands]
[Per fess embattled Or and sable, a bear's head cabossed and
three bars wavy counterchanged] Conflict with ... Paly
gules and argent, a bear's head cabossed sable. This armory
is heraldically equivalent to Per fess embattled Or and wavy
sable and Or, a bear's head cabossed sable, as it is not
uncommon for barry fields to be drawn with either even or odd
numbers of traits. Therefore, there is one CD for changing the
field. There is not a second CD for moving the bear's head, as it
may only lie on the Or portion of the field for reasons of
contrast. RfS X.4.g states "Changing the relative positions of
charges in any group placed directly on the field or overall is
one clear difference, provided that change is not caused by other
changes to the design". Here, the change of the relative position
of the bear's head is caused by other changes to the design - the
tinctures of the field. [Bernard ben Moshe ha-Kohane,
04/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[a fess of three conjoined fusils] This does not conflict
with Vert, a dance Or between three daisies proper. There
is one CD for removing the secondary daisies. There is another CD
for the difference between a dance and a fess of fusils:
[a bend sinister fusilly vs. a bend sinister dancetty]
Evidence taken from the Dictionary of British Arms
strongly indicates that bends dancetty were not used
interchangeably with bends fusilly; in fact, they were
used by different people and in different ways. Thus there is a
CD for changing the line of division on the bend ... (LoAR
April 2001)
We have also researched the question in the
Dictionary of British Arms in the two bars section,
and also found that bars dancetty were used by different people
from bars lozengy. Unfortunately, the Dictionary of British
Arms is not yet published to the point where we could
research fesses, but the evidence so far found implies strongly
that what is true for bends and bars should also be true for
fesses.
We do note that there is some interchangeability in period
between the somewhat analogous lines
embattled-counterembattled and bretessed, which
also differ by putting the top and bottom lines 180 degrees out
of phase. As a consequence of the period interchangeability, we
do not give difference between embattled-counterembattled
and bretessed. However, the square and indented line
treatments are not exactly analogous, because there is no
"zig-zag" form of the square lines analogous to dancetty. The
"zig zag" form of embattled-counterembattled would look like the
shaft of the SCA charge of a lightning bolt (see the Pictorial
Dictionary for an illustration). There is no period treatment
of an ordinary which makes this sort of square "zig zag". Because
the two sides of a period ordinary
embattled-counterembattled or bretessed are always
separated by at least a thin amount of central ordinary, the two
treatments are much more visually similar, and this may have
contributed to the period confusion between them.
Some commentary on this submission addressed previous precedent
on this topic, which appears to need some clarification
(especially when only excerpts of the precedent were quoted).
Here is some discussion clarifying these past precedents. As
always, we encourage people quoting precedents to consider going
back to the original LoAR and reading the excerpts in context.
As a bend sinister of fusils is an artistic variant of
indented, there is not a CD between it and a bend
sinister indented (LoAR April 2001, p. 13)
This precedent only refers to the lack of difference
between an ordinary indented and an ordinary of fusils -
ordinaries dancetty are not discussed by this precedent at all.
Ordinaries indented and ordinaries of fusils were indeed
interchangeable artistic variants in period. In both an ordinary
indented and an ordinary of fusils, the top and bottom lines are
180 degrees out of phase, and the only difference is whether the
artist decides to touch the "inside" parts of the top and bottom
lines (creating an ordinary of fusils) or whether to leave some
space between them (leaving an ordinary indented).
...the distinction between 'dancetty' and 'indented' when
applied to ordinaries being not one of amplitude, as White Stag
suggests, but a distinction parallel to that between
counterembattled and bretassed (LoAR December 1988)
This precedent did not discuss the determination of
difference between ordinaries dancetty and indented, but solely
discussed the definitions of the two treatments. It makes the
very good point that there is no implication of an amplitude
difference between indented and dancetty (as indicated in some
very post-period treatises). As noted in the discussion above,
the difference between dancetty and indented is indeed "parallel"
to that between counterembattled and bretessed, but it is by no
means exactly the same. [Elena Bertholmeu, 05/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[two walls couped with portals] We have reblazoned the
castles as walls, because a castle by default has a
tower at each end, and these charges do not have any towers.
According to the Pictorial Dictionary, walls are
throughout and embattled by default, so it is necessary to blazon
these walls as couped. It is also necessary to blazon the portals
explicitly. [Hans Schneckenburg, 09/2003,
A-Caid]
[Barry rayonny Or and gules] Conflict with ... Or,
three bars wavy gules. Three bars wavy is heraldically
equivalent to barry wavy, so there is only one CD for the
change from wavy to rayonny. It also conflicts with ... Gules,
three bars Or. This is heraldically equivalent to
barry, so there is one CD for changing the line of the
barry from plain to rayonny, and no difference for swapping the
order of the tinctures on a multiply divided field like barry.
[Trimaris, Kingdom of, 12/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[Argent, three chevronels azure and overall a fleur-de-lys
gules] In this emblazon, the three chevronels are crunched
together in the center of the shield. We would not expect to find
three chevronels so close together in period armory unless the
chevronels were forced close together due to the presence of
secondary charges (as one might find in the hypothetical armory
Argent, three chevronels azure between three fleurs-de-lys
gules). In this emblazon, the three chevronels were drawn so
close together that this armory could almost be reblazoned as
Argent, on a chevron azure two chevronels argent and overall a
fleur-de-lys gules. As a general rule, three chevronels will
be drawn to fill the field, and are in fact considered
interchangeable with the chevronelly field division (see the LoAR
of November 2001 for more details about this).
Period armory does admit the possibility of two small diminutives
of an ordinary that are close together (rather than filling the
shield): a bar gemel (bar "twinned"). The bar gemel
is heraldically distinct from two bars: the bar gemel
consists of two very thin bars drawn close together, while two
bars will fill the space allotted to them. A bar gemel
is, in effect, a voided bar. A good period example of this
practice can be seen in the Herald's Roll circa 1280 on p. 8 of
Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry: a coat using two
bars is found in the center coat of the bottom row, whereas
armory using two bars gemel is found on the dexter coat of
the top row, and on the sinister coat of the middle row. No
evidence has been presented, and none has been found for a
"triplet" version of a bar gemel. The "gemel" treatment of other
ordinaries, such as chevronels, bendlets or pallets, is
vanishingly rare in period. Aside from a few examples of bendlets
gemel in the 15th C Italian Stemmario Trivulziano, no
evidence has been presented or found for gemel charges other than
bars. The idea of a triplet version of a chevronel is thus two
steps from period practice ("two weirdnesses") and not
registerable. Thus, it is not reasonable to interpret this
emblazon as using such a hypothetical "triplet chevronel."
Because this emblazon blurs the distinction between three
chevronels and a chevron charged with two chevronels, it may not
be registered per RfS VII.7.a, "Identification Requirement".
[Alessandra da Ferrara, 01/2004,
R-Meridies]
FIELD DIVISION --
Barry
Please advise the submitter to draw the barry with
six or more traits. [Antonia di Battista, 08/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Argent, in chief three bars azure] This does not conflict
with the important non-SCA flags of both Monaco and Indonesia,
Per fess gules and argent. This submission could equally
well be blazoned Per fess barry argent and azure, and
argent. Viewing this piece of armory and the flags as
field-only armory, we have one change for changing the division
of the field, and another for changing the tincture of half the
field. [Ruarcc the Blind, 01/2003,
A-Calontir]
[Per fess embattled Or and sable, a bear's head cabossed and
three bars wavy counterchanged] Conflict with ... Paly
gules and argent, a bear's head cabossed sable. This armory
is heraldically equivalent to Per fess embattled Or and wavy
sable and Or, a bear's head cabossed sable, as it is not
uncommon for barry fields to be drawn with either even or odd
numbers of traits. Therefore, there is one CD for changing the
field. There is not a second CD for moving the bear's head, as it
may only lie on the Or portion of the field for reasons of
contrast. RfS X.4.g states "Changing the relative positions of
charges in any group placed directly on the field or overall is
one clear difference, provided that change is not caused by other
changes to the design". Here, the change of the relative position
of the bear's head is caused by other changes to the design - the
tinctures of the field. [Bernard ben Moshe ha-Kohane,
04/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[Barry rayonny Or and gules] Conflict with ... Or,
three bars wavy gules. Three bars wavy is heraldically
equivalent to barry wavy, so there is only one CD for the
change from wavy to rayonny. It also conflicts with ... Gules,
three bars Or. This is heraldically equivalent to
barry, so there is one CD for changing the line of the
barry from plain to rayonny, and no difference for swapping the
order of the tinctures on a multiply divided field like barry.
[Trimaris, Kingdom of, 12/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[A landscape (in pale sky azure, snow-capped mountains argent,
hills vert, prairie proper, and a wheat field proper) and on a
chief argent a cross gules] This armory posed some difficult
questions regarding blazon:
We are fortunate to have benefited by the efficiency and
kindness of the Canadian Heraldic Authority. The Chief Herald of
Canada, Robert D. Watt, provided the following information:
The most definitive information we have here is found on page
209 of Conrad Swan's, (now Sir Conrad Swan) landmark study
entitled 'Canada: Symbols of Sovereignty' (University of
Toronto Press, 1977). In the chapter on Alberta, Sir Conrad
notes that the arms were assigned by Royal Warrant on 30 May
1907 and were blazoned as follows: 'Azure, in front of a range
of snowy mountains proper a range of hills Vert, in base a
wheat field surmounted by a prairie both also proper, on a
chief Argent a St. George's cross.' The reference he gives is
College of Arms 175.127. As he was York Herald at the time of
writing and had full access to the records of the College, I
believe it is fair to assume that this blazon can be considered
absolutely accurate.
The real-world official blazon of the province of
Alberta is not clearly comprehensible from the perspective of SCA
blazon. It uses the term surmounted in a different way
than we do. It also assumes that the reader is aware that a St.
George's cross is, by definition, a cross (throughout) gules. We
have elected to reblazon the armory for the SCA, as we generally
do with important real-world armory when it is necessary. We have
left in the ambiguous proper tinctures for the wheat field
and the prairie, as this ambiguity seems to be part of the
definition of the armory. By blazoning this armory, exclusive of
the chief, as a landscape, we hope to make it clear for
future researchers that this armory is distinct from most
heraldic treatments (aside from issues of purely visual
conflict). The landscape is not, for example, equivalent to a
variant of a barry field, or some combination of bars, but it is
an excellent example of an overly pictorial design per RfS
VIII.4.a, that could not be registered to a new SCA submitter.
[Alberta, 02/2004,
A-Society for Creative Anchronism]
FIELD DIVISION --
Bendy and Bendy Sinister
The bendy sinister field should
also be redrawn. Presently all sections of the field are drawn at
a very shallow angle very close to the horizontal lines of barry.
Bendy sinister should be at approximately 45 degrees from the
horizontal. In addition, when redrawing, the submitter should
draw all the traits of the field at the same angle, rather than
the varying angles presently used. [Gunnv{o,}r
Vikarrsdóttir, 08/2002,
R-Artemisia]
[Argent, three bendlets azure each charged with a mullet of
six points palewise Or] Conflict with ..., Per pale gules
and sable, three compass stars in bend sinister Or. Because
armory with three or more bendlets is equivalent to armory with a
bendy field, this armory needs to be considered as if it were
blazoned as Bendy argent and azure, in bend sinister three
mullets of six points Or. Under this interpretation, there is
one CD for changing the field. There is no type difference
between the compass stars and the mullets of six points. Because
of the unusual (and non-period) design of compass stars, with
their four greater and four lesser points, they are considered as
variants of both mullets of four points and mullets of eight
points. There is no type difference between mullets of six points
and mullets of eight points and, hence, no difference between
mullets of six points and compass stars. [Brian Sigfridsson
von Niedersachsen, 07/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[Bendy sinister vert and erminois] Conflict with ...
Bendy sinister of four vert, argent, purpure and argent.
There's no difference between bendy sinister of four and bendy
sinister of six. The two pieces of armory share a tincture, so
X.4.a.ii.b does not apply. This leaves one CD for changing the
tincture of the field, but that is all. [Cú Chonnacht Ó
Tighearnáin, 10/2003,
R-Middle]
[Quarterly gules and sable, three bendlets argent]
Conflict with Ysfael ap Briafael, Per bend bendy vert and
argent and vert. Ysfael's device could alternately be
blazoned as Vert, three bendlets enhanced argent, and was
originally submitted under that blazon. Ysfael's registration in
the LoAR of December 2000 stated, "Originally blazoned as
three bendlets enhanced, the blazon above more closely
describes the emblazon." When considering Ysfael's device under
the alternate blazon of Vert, three bendlets enhanced
argent, and comparing it to Tigernach's submission, there is
one CD for changing the field, but the second CD must come from
the change of location of the bendlets from enhanced.
Our original inclination was to give a second CD for enhancing
the bendlets under RfS X.4.g. However, evidence indicates that,
in period, armory using three bendlets enhanced was not distinct
from armory using three bendlets in their default location on the
field. We thus should not give difference between these
designs.
The Dictionary of British Arms (DBA) volume two gives very
few coats of arms using three bendlets enhanced (on p. 117). Most
of these coats are also found belonging to the same family but
with the three bendlets in their default position (on pp.
114-116): the arms of Byron, Argent, three bends [enhanced]
gules, Greeley, Gules, three bends [enhanced] Or, and
Mawnyse/Mauvesin, Gules, three bends [enhanced] argent.
For one of these families, there is scholarship which explicitly
states that the coat with the three bendlets enhanced is a
later version of the coat with three bendlets, rather than
a distinctly different, cadenced, coat. Woodward's A Treatise
on Heraldry British and Foreign discusses the arms of Byron
on p. 132, stating, "What appears to have been the original coat
of Biron viz., Argent, three bendlets gules, is now borne
with the bendlets enhanced (Fr. haussés) i.e. placed
higher in the shield, as in the arms of the poet, Lord
Byron."
The difference between three bendlets and three
bendlets enhanced is thus similar to the difference between
crosses bottony and crosses crosslet. We give no
difference between these crosses because, as discussed in the
LoAR of August 2002, "It is important to recall that the cross
bottony and the cross crosslet are both used to represent the
same charge throughout our period's heraldry. The bottony form is
found predominantly in earlier artwork, and the crosslet form
predominantly in later artwork." The evidence in DBA and Woodward
suggests that three bendlets and three bendlets
enhanced are both used to represent the same armory
throughout our period's heraldry. Just as the cross crosslet
became distinct from the cross bottony after our period, three
bendlets enhanced became distinct from three bendlets after our
period. [Tigernach Mag Samhradh�in, 11/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Or, three bendlets sinister vert] This submission is
heraldically equivalent to Bendy sinister Or and vert. It
thus conflicts with ... Bendy sinister of four vert, argent,
purpure and argent. There's no difference between bendy
sinister of four and bendy sinister of six. The two pieces of
armory share a tincture so X.4.a.ii.b does not apply. This leaves
one CD for changing the tincture of the field, but that is all.
[Gabriel Halte, 12/2003,
R-Drachenwald]
FIELD DIVISION --
Chapé
see also PILE and PILE
INVERTED
Some commenters thought that the field division
here might be chapé. Both the large- and small-sized emblazons
show this as a per chevron field rather than a chapé field, as
the line of division does not touch the top of the shield. Chapé
is always drawn touching the top of the shield. Thus there is no
problem with the unregisterable design of a chapé field charged
on the upper portion. [Hergeirr Þráinsson, 11/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[Per pale purpure and argent, a pile inverted throughout
counterchanged] Conflict with ... Per pale argent and
sable chapé ployé counterchanged. Finnguala's arms could as
easily be blazoned as Per pale argent and purpure chapé
counterchanged. Because "you cannot 'blazon your way out of'
a conflict" (LoAR of February 2000), these two pieces of armory
must both be compared as pile inverted throughout armory, and as
per pale and chapé (ployé) armory. As per pale and chapé armory
these conflict. There is one CD for changing the tincture of the
field, but not "complete change of tincture" by RfS X.4.a.ii.b,
since both fields share the tincture argent in common.
There is not a second CD for changing chapé ployé to
chapé. The family of Masbach/Muesbach is found at the end
of the 14th C in the Armorial Bellenville (see the Léon
Jéquier edition) and the armorial Gelre (see the Adam-Even
edition), using Per pale and chapé gules and argent or
Per pale and chapé argent and gules. In 1605 the same
family's arms are found in Siebmacher's Wappenbuch as
Per pale and chapé ployé gules and argent. General SCA
precedent has held that an enarched or ployé line is often an
artistic variant of a straight line in which the curvature of the
line is used to imply curvature of the shield. One recent
precedent regarding "chevron-like" objects or lines of partition
ployé did not give difference between straight and ployé:
[a chevron ployé vs. a chevron] Conflict ... there is
only a single CD for the type of the secondary charges.
[implying no CD for ployé vs. plain] (LoAR 4/00)
Based on the Masbach armory, it appears that chapé
ployéshould prove no exception to the general policy by which
ployé is given no difference from plain lines. We thus overturn
the following precedent:
[returning chapé ploye engrailed] While it is true that lines
[of division] could be enarched and also embattled, engrailed,
etc., the enarching was basically to show the curvature of the
shield. We do not believe that such is the case of a chapé
ployé. (LoAR 6/97 p. 12)
[Finnguala ingen uí Medra, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[Per pale sable and argent, a pile inverted throughout
counterchanged] Conflict with ... Per pale argent and
sable chapé ployé counterchanged. The armory in this
submission could also be blazoned as Per pale argent and sable
chapé counterchanged. Because "you cannot 'blazon your way
out of' a conflict" (LoAR February 2000), these must both be
compared as pile inverted throughout armory, and also as per pale
and chapé (ployé armory). In either interpretation, these have no
difference. Under the chapé ployé interpretation, there is no
difference between chapé ployé and chapé (see the LoAR of April
2002 for a more complete discussion of this issue.) There is no
other difference between the two coats of arms. Under the pile
inverted interpretation, there is also no difference between the
two coats of arms. Per the October 2001 LoAR, there is no
difference between a pile and a pile ployé, and piles inverted
would appear to act similarly. [Michael vomme Harze,
05/2002,
R-Caid]
[Argent chapé gules, a bear rampant sable and in chief two
thistles Or] This armory must be returned for using a chapé
field in which the upper portions are charged. The original
blazon for this armory described the field as per chevron
throughout, but the proportions of the emblazon clearly show
that the field is chapé and that the charges on the upper
portions of the field are therefore reasons for return. Note the
following precedent:
Listed on the LoI as having a per chevron line of
division, the location of the line of the division and the
relative sizes of the charges makes this an example of
chapé. Therefore, it must be returned ... for charging
its upper portions. (LoAR January 2000).
[Cellach mac Ualraig, 09/2002,
R-Caid]
[Per chevron throughout argent and gules, two frogs tergiant
vert and an increscent argent] The field drawn here is an
acceptable per chevron throughout field.
SCA precedent has been consistent, if somewhat unclear, regarding
per chevron throughout fields (which may have charges in
each portion of the field without violating any style rules) and
chapé fields (which may only have charges in the lower
portion of the field).
Both per chevron throughout and chapé fields have
the top of the line touch the top of the escutcheon. However, the
proportions of the rest of the line of division can make a
difference in whether the armory is viewed as per chevron
throughout or chapé in the SCA. If the line of division provides
a roughly equal balance between the top and bottom halves of the
field, it is considered a reasonable depiction of per chevron
throughout. If the line of division leaves the bottom half of
the field much larger than the top half, then it is considered
chapé. It is not uncommon for the bottommost charge on a
per chevron throughout field to be larger than the chiefmost
charge(s), but the bottommost charge should not be so large as to
force the field division up to the fess line and therefore
contribute to the appearance of a chapé field (requiring its
return).
As a general rule, the sides of a charged per chevron
throughout field hit the sides of the escutcheon
significantly lower than the fess line, while in charged
chapé fields, the line of division hits the sides of the
escutcheon at the fess line or higher. This follows from the need
for per chevron throughout fields to balance the top and
bottom halves of the field. Note the following precedent from the
LoAR of June 2002 (quoting, in part, an earlier precedent from
January 2000). This precedent is also consistent with earlier
precedents on the topic (bolded emphasis added):
The submission was blazoned on the LoI as Per chevron in chief.
It is a clear drawing of modern chapé: it's throughout
and high on the field. Note the following precedent:
"Listed on the LoI as having a per chevron line of division,
the location of the line of the division and the relative
sizes of the charges makes this an example of chapé.
Therefore, it must be returned ... for charging its upper
portions" (LoAR January 2000).
These precedents specifically set SCA policy for SCA
stylistic rules concerning charged fields which are per
chevron throughout and chapé. Period armory almost
never uses any charges on a chapé field. In period armory
using uncharged chapé fields, the line of division often extends
down so that the field division could be interchangeable with
per chevron throughout. Thus, we will continue to allow
the use of the blazon term chapé for uncharged armory
which resembles the period armory described above. [Aemilia
Sabine, 02/2003,
A-Calontir]
[Argent chapé azure, three goblets two and one gules] It
is not clear what the default arrangement for three charges on a
chapé field should be. The usual default on a plain field (two
and one) doesn't fit well on a chapé field, and thus seems an
unlikely default for that field. We have thus blazoned the
arrangement explicitly. [Waldemar Stanislaw of White
Mountain, 09/2003,
A-Trimaris]
FIELD DIVISION --
Checky and Party of Six
[Checky Or and argent, on a
fess sable ...] The use of Checky Or and argent is
grandfathered to the Kingdom of An Tir. [An Tir, Kingodm
of, 09/2001,
A-An Tir]
Party of six pieces is substantially different from checky.
[Jeanne Marie Lacroix, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
[Party of six vert and Or] Conflict with ... Per fess
Or and sable, a pale counterchanged. "You cannot 'blazon your
way out of a conflict'" (LoAR of February 2000). Thus we must
compare these arms both as party of six field-primary armory and
as counterchanged pales. When considered as party of six
field-primary armory, these conflict. By RfS X.4.ii.b, "If the
fields of two field-primary armory have no tinctures in common,
they are considered completely different and do not conflict,
irrespective of any other similarities between them." In the LoAR
of November 2000, Per saltire gules and azure was held to
conflict with Per saltire Or and gules, because "While
each portion of the field has changed tincture, one cannot say
that they do not have a tincture in common." This case is
similar: the two pieces of armory have a tincture in common, even
though each portion of the field has changed tincture. It is also
worth noting that RfS X.4.a does not give difference for swapping
the order of two tinctures on a party of six field: "There is a
clear difference for reversing the tinctures of a field evenly
divided into two parts, per saltire, or quarterly,
but not for reversing the tinctures of a field divided in any
other way". [Jeanne Marie Lacroix, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
[Party of six pieces vert bezanty and paly or and azure]
Conflict with Cornwall, Sable bezanty (important non-SCA
arms). There is one CD for changing the field. There is no
difference for changing the arrangement of the charges, since the
bezants cannot reasonably be expected to fall on the very thin
portions of azure in the paly portions of the field, and they
certainly may not fall on the same-tincture Or portions of the
paly portions of the field.
Some commenters inquired whether the party of six pieces
field division was ever used for marshalling and, if so, whether
the armory in this submission would thus appear to be marshalled
arms. Note that RfS XI.3 is only concerned with divisions
"commonly used for marshalling", not divisions "which may rarely
have been used for marshalling." We have only found a few 16th C
English coats (and a few more post-period coats) with marshalling
in six pieces. Each such example uses a different coat in each of
the six pieces (such as the arms of Jane Seymour on p. 87 of
Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry, painted c. 1536).
No evidence has yet been presented that party of six was
"commonly" used for marshalling. No evidence has yet been
presented for party of six being used to marshal only two
separate coats (which might give an appearance like the armory in
this submission). Without new evidence, there seems no compelling
reason to add party of six pieces to the fields which the SCA has
found to have been "commonly used for marshalling".
There were also some style questions raised about this armory. We
note that no evidence has yet been presented for armory using a
party of six field with more than one charge in each section of
the field. However, since the charged portions of the field
merely use multiples of a single type of charge, this is at worst
one step from period style ("a weirdness") and is not in itself a
bar to registration. [Crystine Thickpenny of Giggleswick,
09/2002,
R-Atlantia]
[Party of six pieces per fess nebuly azure and Or, three frets
Or and three crabs azure] Party of six pieces was found with
more than one type of charge on the field - albeit infrequently.
Gwynn-Jones' Art of Heraldry (p. 103) illustrates arms
from c. 1558 that can be blazoned as Party of six pieces azure
and Or, three roundels barry wavy two and one argent and vert and
three lion's heads erased one and two gules. Anthony Wagner's
Historic Heraldry of Britain gives the arms of Thomas
Cromwell (d. 1540) as Party of six pieces Or and gules, three
fleurs-de-lys azure and three pelicans Or.
No evidence has been either presented to, or found by, this
office for party of six pieces with a complex per fess line
(although we grant that we had limited research time, after our
last meeting in office). A similar field was registered ... in
October 1996 without comment, Party of six pieces per fess
nebuly gules and ermine, three anvils argent and three falcons
close sable. The practice also seems a reasonable extension
of the not-uncommon period design of quarterly with a complex per
fess line. Party of six pieces with a complex per fess line of
division seems, at worst, a single step from period practice (a
"weirdness"). [Petronella Underhill, 03/2004,
A-Drachenwald]
FIELD DIVISION --
Chevronelly
[Chevronelly Or and gules] Conflict
with Clare, Earl of Gloucester, Or three chevrons gules
(Important non-SCA armory). There is no difference between
chevronelly and multiple chevronels. [Ed.: See the 11/2001
LoAR for an extended discussion on why there is no
difference.] [Torfin de Carric, 11/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[Argent, two chevronels gules and overall an eagle displayed
sable] Should the two chevrons be considered equivalent to
a chevronelly field? No evidence was presented, and none
could be found, that two chevronels were an artistic variant of
chevronelly in period. The two designs seem visually distinct as
well. [Ivo Blackhawk, 01/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[Argent, three chevronels azure and overall a fleur-de-lys
gules] In this emblazon, the three chevronels are crunched
together in the center of the shield. We would not expect to find
three chevronels so close together in period armory unless the
chevronels were forced close together due to the presence of
secondary charges (as one might find in the hypothetical armory
Argent, three chevronels azure between three fleurs-de-lys
gules). In this emblazon, the three chevronels were drawn so
close together that this armory could almost be reblazoned as
Argent, on a chevron azure two chevronels argent and overall a
fleur-de-lys gules. As a general rule, three chevronels will
be drawn to fill the field, and are in fact considered
interchangeable with the chevronelly field division (see the LoAR
of November 2001 for more details about this).
Period armory does admit the possibility of two small diminutives
of an ordinary that are close together (rather than filling the
shield): a bar gemel (bar "twinned"). The bar gemel
is heraldically distinct from two bars: the bar gemel
consists of two very thin bars drawn close together, while two
bars will fill the space allotted to them. A bar gemel
is, in effect, a voided bar. A good period example of this
practice can be seen in the Herald's Roll circa 1280 on p. 8 of
Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry: a coat using two
bars is found in the center coat of the bottom row, whereas
armory using two bars gemel is found on the dexter coat of
the top row, and on the sinister coat of the middle row. No
evidence has been presented, and none has been found for a
"triplet" version of a bar gemel. The "gemel" treatment of other
ordinaries, such as chevronels, bendlets or pallets, is
vanishingly rare in period. Aside from a few examples of bendlets
gemel in the 15th C Italian Stemmario Trivulziano, no
evidence has been presented or found for gemel charges other than
bars. The idea of a triplet version of a chevronel is thus two
steps from period practice ("two weirdnesses") and not
registerable. Thus, it is not reasonable to interpret this
emblazon as using such a hypothetical "triplet chevronel."
Because this emblazon blurs the distinction between three
chevronels and a chevron charged with two chevronels, it may not
be registered per RfS VII.7.a, "Identification Requirement".
[Alessandra da Ferrara, 01/2004,
R-Meridies]
FIELD DIVISION
-- Gyronny
[Bendy sinister vert and Or, a hawk striking
contourny argent a bordure counterchanged] The commentary
from the College of Arms overwhelmingly indicated that the
combination of bendy sinister and bordure is excessive
counterchanging. In general, we would like to see documentation
for any charge counterchanged over a multiply divided field, such
as barry or gyronny. [Tvorimir Danilov, 08/2001,
R-An Tir]
[Gyronny sable and Or, a lozenge within a bordure azure]
The Letter of Intent asked whether an azure charge may be
identifiable on a partially sable gyronny field. RfS VIII.2.a.ii
indicates that this is a legal color combination as long as
identifiability is preserved. This emblazon maintains
identifiability due to the simple outline of the lozenge.
[Brigid of Kincarn, 01/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[Gyronny vert and Or, a saltire counterchanged] The
combination of the gyronny field and the saltire is very visually
confusing. Each arm of the saltire is counterchanged along its
long axis, which generally hampers identifiability. Because each
piece of the counterchanged saltire is similar in size to the
pieces of the gyronny field which show between the arms of the
saltire, it is difficult to distinguish which parts of the
emblazon belong to the charge, and which belong to the field.
This design also does not appear to be period style. Absent
documentation for the design of a cross or saltire, as an
ordinary, counterchanged on a gyronny field in period, this must
be returned. [Wilhelm von Düsseldorf, 01/2002,
R-West]
[Gyronny of sixteen argent and sable, a salamander statant
regardant gules enflamed Or and a bordure counterchanged sable
and Or] The submitter's previous submission, Gyronny of
sixteen sable and argent, a salamander statant reguardant gules
enflamed Or, was returned for conflict in January 2001. At
that time, Laurel cited precedent from June 1999 indicating that
gyronny of sixteen is only acceptable in "simple cases" unless
period evidence supports the submission in question. Concerning
Johannes' submission, Laurel ruled, "While the single charge on
the field is very complex, it is still only a single charge.
Therefore this use of gyronny is acceptable.".
The submitter has now resubmitted adding a counterchanged
bordure, which removes the previous conflict. In general, we
consider a single primary charge within a bordure to be a "simple
case" of armorial design. Adding a solid-tinctured bordure to the
submitter's previous armory would certainly appear to be a simple
case. However, the counterchanged bordure adds substantially to
the visual complexity of the device, which led the College to
question whether this submission should be considered a simple
case.
In this submission, all the charges maintain their
identifiability despite the visual complexity of the device.
While the salamander's identifiability is somewhat confused by
the field, it is no less identifiable than the salamander in
Johannes' previous submission, which Laurel ruled to be
stylistically acceptable. The counterchanged bordure is clearly
identifiable as well. This submission is therefore acceptable.
However, it is at the absolute limit of complexity for accepting
gyronny of sixteen without documentation showing that the overall
design of the armory is consistent with period practice.
[Johannes Vagus, 06/2002,
A-An Tir]
[Gyronny arrondy of six azure and argent] Conflict with
... Gyronny arrondy of six gules and argent, and ...
Gyronny arrondy Or and azure. There is no difference
between gyronny of eight and gyronny of six, and
since both devices share a tincture with Hallr's, there is only
one CD for changing the tincture of the field.
Gyronny should always be drawn with one of its constituent lines
fesswise. With straight lines, one can blazon a field like this
one as per pale and per saltire, but this is not possible
when the lines are arrondy. This design has been returned for
redrawing in the LoAR of September 1996:
[Gyronny arrondi of six argent and gules] This is being
returned for a redraw. As Master Bruce as Laurel said in his
3/93 cover letter "Parker, p.301, states that gyronny of six
should be symmetric around the horizontal axis, not the
vertical axis; and this is borne out by such period examples as
I've been able to uncover."
[Dofinn-Hallr Morrisson, 02/2003,
R-East]
[Gyronny of sixteen argent and sable, four annulets in cross
azure] Precedent (as stated below) indicates that gyronny of
sixteen may be charged if the armory is simple and if the charges
maintain their identifiability. This armory is simple (using a
single group of identical charges in a standard arrangement) and
the charges do maintain their identifiability on this field.
We will register Gyronny of sixteen in simple cases, but
nothing more, barring period evidence (LoAR June 1999).
[Gyronny of sixteen argent and sable, a salamander statant
regardant gules enflamed Or and a bordure counterchanged sable
and Or] In this submission, all the charges maintain their
identifiability despite the visual complexity of the device.
While the salamander's identifiability is somewhat confused by
the field, it is no less identifiable than the salamander in
Johannes' previous submission [the same but without the
bordure], which Laurel ruled to be stylistically acceptable.
The counterchanged bordure is clearly identifiable as well.
This submission is therefore acceptable. However, it is at the
absolute limit of complexity for accepting gyronny of sixteen
without documentation showing that the overall design of the
armory is consistent with period practice. (LoAR June 2002)
[Kevin of Sentinels' Keep, 08/2003,
A-Artemisia]
[Gyronny of sixteen argent and sable, a bordure
counterchanged] The badge conflicts with ... Gyronny sable
and argent, a bordure counterchanged. The SCA gives no
difference between gyronny of sixteen and the default gyronny of
eight, although we usually note the distinction between the two
types of gyronny in blazon. There is no difference for changing
the order of the tinctures in gyronny fields per RfS X.4.a and
the SCA has traditionally extended this lack of difference to
gyronny charges. There are thus no CDs between these two pieces
of armory. [Minamoto Genkurô Tanekagé, 08/2003,
R-Artemisia]
FIELD DIVISION --
Miscellaneous
[Per pale and per chevron gules, Or,
sable, and argent, three crosses of Jerusalem counterchanged
argent and sable] No documentation has been presented, and
none was found, for per pale and per chevron of four tinctures. A
prior ruling noted that "No evidence has been provided for simple
coats with fields quarterly of three tinctures in period" (LoAR
November 1989). This was not clearly the sole reason for return
of the armory engendering the ruling but it contributed to the
return. This field is even farther from standard period practice,
as per pale and per chevron is far less common in period than
quarterly. Without documentation for a similar field in period,
combined with charges, this may not be accepted. [Seraphina
Sacheverell, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[a sinister gore papellony Or and purpure] The gore was
originally blazoned as scaly. Scaly is defined in
the Pictorial Dictionary as "a field treatment, consisting
of many semi-circles or lunes, covering the field." The overall
effect of scaly is of thick lines on a background, as in the
field treatment masoned (but with the panes of a different
shape than in masoned.)
This gore is tinctured in a form of papellony, which is
also defined in the Pictorial Dictionary. Papellony has
two forms. One form looks much like scaly, functions as a field
treatment, and is blazoned as [background tincture] papellony
[treatment tincture]. The other form of papellony is a field
division and is blazoned as papellony [tincture x] and
[tincture y]. The second form is the form found in this
submission. It is drawn using solid panes of alternating
tinctures, as in the field lozengy, but with the panes shaped
like solid scales, rather than like the lozenges in
lozengy. See the Pictorial Dictionary for more
discussion. [Ailionóra inghean uí Mhurchadha, 08/2002,
A-Calontir]
No evidence was presented, and none was found, for schnecke (or
triply parted schnecke type fields) with a large charge overlying
the center of the field. Because such an overlying charge
obscures the already unusual underlying charge, unless
documentation is presented it will be considered, at best, a
weirdness. [Yang Mun, 04/2002,
R-Trimaris]
[Per fess azure and per pale gules and sable] The field
has unacceptable contrast. The pertinent rules for submission
concerning contrast in divided fields or other armorial elements
are:
RfS VIII.2.b.iii: Elements evenly divided into two parts, per
saltire, or quarterly may use any two tinctures or furs.
RfS VIII.2.b.iv: Elements evenly divided into multiple parts of
two different tinctures must have good contrast between their
parts.
RfS VIII.2.b.v: Elements evenly divided in three tinctures must
have good contrast between two of their parts.
While the rules for contrast do not explicitly
discuss fields which are divided unequally into multiple
parts, the overriding principle of the rules for divided fields
is that fields must have good contrast between their parts unless
they are "evenly divided into two parts, per saltire, or
quarterly." Here no portion of the field has good contrast with
any other portion of the field, so the overriding principle of
the rules for contrast are not met. [Grifon fuiz
Guillaume, 02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
... no difference is given between lozengy and lozengy bendwise
by prior precedent: "The field here [Lozengy azure and
argent] is functionally the same as Bavaria [Lozengy
bendwise azure and argent]" (LoAR December 1993 (b), p.10).
[Sybille la Chatte, 09/2003,
R-Lochac]
[Per saltire sable and vert ... and on a chief Or] Please
advise the submitter to draw the per saltire line issuing from
the intersection of the bottom of the chief and the side of the
field, rather than issuing entirely from the chief. [Fiacc
MacDougal, 10/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[A landscape (in pale sky azure, snow-capped mountains argent,
hills vert, prairie proper, and a wheat field proper) and on a
chief argent a cross gules] This armory posed some difficult
questions regarding blazon:
We are fortunate to have benefited by the efficiency and
kindness of the Canadian Heraldic Authority. The Chief Herald of
Canada, Robert D. Watt, provided the following information:
The most definitive information we have here is found on page
209 of Conrad Swan's, (now Sir Conrad Swan) landmark study
entitled 'Canada: Symbols of Sovereignty' (University of
Toronto Press, 1977). In the chapter on Alberta, Sir Conrad
notes that the arms were assigned by Royal Warrant on 30 May
1907 and were blazoned as follows: 'Azure, in front of a range
of snowy mountains proper a range of hills Vert, in base a
wheat field surmounted by a prairie both also proper, on a
chief Argent a St. George's cross.' The reference he gives is
College of Arms 175.127. As he was York Herald at the time of
writing and had full access to the records of the College, I
believe it is fair to assume that this blazon can be considered
absolutely accurate.
The real-world official blazon of the province of
Alberta is not clearly comprehensible from the perspective of SCA
blazon. It uses the term surmounted in a different way
than we do. It also assumes that the reader is aware that a St.
George's cross is, by definition, a cross (throughout) gules. We
have elected to reblazon the armory for the SCA, as we generally
do with important real-world armory when it is necessary. We have
left in the ambiguous proper tinctures for the wheat field
and the prairie, as this ambiguity seems to be part of the
definition of the armory. By blazoning this armory, exclusive of
the chief, as a landscape, we hope to make it clear for
future researchers that this armory is distinct from most
heraldic treatments (aside from issues of purely visual
conflict). The landscape is not, for example, equivalent to a
variant of a barry field, or some combination of bars, but it is
an excellent example of an overly pictorial design per RfS
VIII.4.a, that could not be registered to a new SCA submitter.
[Alberta, 02/2004,
A-Society for Creative Anchronism]
FIELD DIVISION --
Paly
[Paly sable and argent, a unicorn rampant
counterchanged] This is excessively counterchanged and
non-period style. The unicorn is not identifiable when
counterchanged over this multiply divided field. No documentation
has been presented, nor could any be found, for the
counterchanging of a complex-outlined charge over a multiply
divided field. [Cynwrig Chwith, 02/2002,
R-Atlantia]
[Paly sable and Or] Conflict with Aragon (important
non-SCA arms) Or, four palets gules. These arms are
equivalent to Paly gules and Or (as well as Paly Or and
gules). "It was not unusual for barry or paly fields in
period to be drawn with an odd number of traits (which we'd
blazon as bars or palets); see, for example, the arms of Mouton
(Multon, Moleton) found both as Barry argent and gules and
Argent, three bars gules. (Dictionary of British
Arms, Volume 1, pp 59, 88; Foster, p.145) and the arms of von
Rosenberg, whose Per fess field has in base either three bends or
bendy depending upon the artist's whim (Siebmacher, p. 8;
Neubecker and Rentzmann, p. 290). Even when the distinction is
worth blazoning, it's worth no difference" (LoAR December 1997
p.8). Therefore there is only one CD for changing the tincture of
half the field. [Aethelwine Aethelredson, 02/2002,
R-Calontir]
[Argent, two pallets gules overall a tree vert] This does
not conflict with the important non-SCA arms of O'Connor Don ...
Argent, a tree eradicated vert. Armory using three or more
pallets is interchangeable with paly on visual grounds and on
grounds of historical heraldic difference. Armory using two
pallets is visually distinct from paly, and evidence was neither
presented nor found that paly and two pallets should be
considered artistic variants of each other in period. This is
therefore clear of O'Connor Don by RfS X.1 for adding a primary
charge group (the pallets). [Floris van Montfort, 05/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
[Paly azure and argent] Unfortunately, this beautiful
armory conflicts with Rolf Jarsson, Per pale azure and argent,
a pale counterchanged. Rolf's armory is visually too similar
to Paly of four azure and argent to be considered
different from that armory. There is no difference between
paly of four and the default paly (of six).
[Snorri Hallsson, 10/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[Paly of four sable and argent, three horses statant to
sinister counterchanged] Per the LoAR of August 2001, "In
general, we would like to see documentation for any charge
counterchanged over a multiply divided field, such as barry or
gyronny." No documentation was presented with this submission
showing a general practice of counterchanging multiple
complex-outlined charges (like horses) over a multiply divided
field (like paly). Such designs are intrinsically difficult to
identify, and do not appear to be period style. Without
documentation for this practice, it may not be registered.
[Glyn of Chesshire, 11/2003,
R-Meridies]
[Pily bendy argent and sable, a sword inverted gules] This
device does not conflict with Pádraig Ó Riain, Or, a sword
inverted gules between two pallets dancetty vert. The
commenter raising this issue surmised that, perhaps, armory using
two pallets was interchangeable with a paly field - if so,
Pádraig's device would be heraldically interchangeable with
Paly dancetty Or and vert, a sword inverted gules.
However, this is not the case, since armory with only two pallets
is not interchangeable with a paly field:
Armory using three or more pallets is interchangeable with paly
on visual grounds and on grounds of historical heraldic
difference. Armory using two pallets is visually distinct from
paly, and evidence was neither presented nor found that paly
and two pallets should be considered artistic variants of each
other in period. (LoAR of May 2002)
The reader interested in the general
interchangeability of three or more diminutives of ordinaries
multiply divided fields should also reference the LoAR of
February 2002 (for the interchangeability of paly and
three or more pallets, and the interchangeability of
barry and three or more bars), and the LoAR of
November 2001 (for the interchangeability of chevronelly
and three or more chevronels).
Thus, when comparing this submission with Pádraig's, there is one
CD for changing the field (from Or to Pily bendy argent
and sable) and a second CD for removing the secondary charge
group of pallets dancetty vert. [Tairdelbach hua
Ruaircc, 01/2004,
A-East]
FIELD DIVISION -- Per
Bend and Per Bend Sinister
[Per bend embattled vert and
purpure, a compass star and a chief indented argent] RfS
VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability, states, "For instance, a
complex line of partition could be difficult to recognize between
two parts of the field that do not have good contrast if most of
the line is also covered by charges." We have such a case here:
the compass star covers much of the per bend embattled line.
In addition, the per bend line is not correctly drawn. The per
bend line should bisect the portion of the field which shows
beneath the chief. The chiefmost point on the per bend line
should be where the bottom of the chief meets the dexter side of
the shield. [Eleanor of Orkney, 09/2002,
R-Lochac]
In the SCA, the per fess and per bend engrailed lines of division
are drawn with the bottom of the "cups" to base (and the points
between the "cups" to chief), so this is an engrailed line of
division rather than an invected line of division as it was
originally blazoned. To quote from Master Bruce Draconarius of
Mistholme's A Grammar of Blazonry at
http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/bruce.html: "The engrailed
line of partition, when applied to the field, does not seem to
follow the mundane default; the references disagree on exactly
what that mundane default is. In SCA blazon, Per fess
engrailed has its points to chief... similar defaults hold
for Per bend engrailed, Per chevron engrailed, etc.
Invected lines have their points to base by SCA default."
[Krakafjord, Shire of, 04/2003,
A-An Tir]
[Per bend sinister enhanced azure and purpure, a bend sinister
enhanced between seven mullets one and six argent] Per the
LoAR of June 2000, "There is insufficient evidence for the period
use of per bend enhanced to register it." No further
documentation has been presented or found supporting the period
use of the per bend enhanced field division, or the per
bend sinister enhanced field division.
Even if documentation is found for the per bend [sinister]
enhanced field division, we would like to see documentation
for the specific design per bend [sinister] enhanced.... a
bend [sinister] enhanced between [charges] before registering
a design of this sort. The combination of the extremely rare bend
[sinister] enhanced design with the quite uncommon design of
per bend [sinister] ... a bend [sinister] between
[charges] is so unlikely to be found in period that we need
specific documentation before it can be registered.
Perhaps it is worth discussing how uncommon the design per
bend ... a bend between [charges] is in period, because the
design is so frequently found in SCA armory. Using English
heraldry as an example, the Dictionary of British Arms,
vol. 1 (a compilation of heraldry from throughout our period),
has 25 pages of "bend between charges" coats from period. Just
one coat is of the form Per bend ... a bend between
[charges]: Totesbery (Tittesbury, Titisborough), p. 373,
Per bend argent and sable, a bend lozengy Or between 6 lions
counterchanged. The infrequency of these designs in English
heraldry is not unique to English heraldry, but is representative
of most cultures and times. In general, designs with a bend
sinister are much rarer than similar designs with a
bend throughout Europe. [Catherine Abernathy,
09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
FIELD DIVISION -- Per
Chevron and Per Chevron Inverted
When comparing per
chevron armory with pile inverted armory, the two items must be
compared as if they both used a per chevron field, and also as if
they both used the charge of a pile inverted. [Dun an
Chalaidh, Shire of, 08/2001,
R-An Tir]
[Per chevron inverted azure and gules] The line of
division is too high up for a proper per chevron inverted line.
On a round form, one cannot say that a line of division issues
from the chief or from the sides of the escutcheon, as there are
no corners to distinguish these portions of the round form.
However, the proportions of this emblazon are such that the per
chevron inverted line would issue from the chief or from the top
corners of the shield if this were a standard heater shape. A per
chevron inverted line must issue from the sides of the
shield.
This artwork cannot represent any of the other myriad "inverted
triangle" armorial designs for various reasons: chiefs triangular
can't be overlain by an overall charge, piles extend much farther
to base and issue from the chief, and chaussé extends all the way
to base. Therefore this must be returned for redrawing. [Agnes
de Lanvallei, 09/2001,
R-Calontir]
This is not a pile, because it issues from the top corners of the
shield. Nor is it chaussé, because it does not extend all the way
to base. Nor is it a chief triangular, because it is much too
deep. Nor is it a per chevron inverted field division, because it
does not issue from the sides of the field. As a result, this
must be returned. [Rickard of Gwyntarian, 10/2001,
R-Middle]
Some commenters noted that we allow fields per chevron
throughout to be charged with three charges two and one. Such
fields could conceivably be blazoned as chapé with charges on the
"vested" portions of the field. Yet we do not return these arms
for using charged chapé. This is because a "per chevron" design
with three charges on it is relatively common in period, and "per
chevron throughout" is a period artistic variant of "per
chevron". Chapé with any charges on it is extremely rare.
The most likely interpretation of such a design is per
chevron, and thus that design is acceptable. [Brigitte
MacFarlane Red, 02/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Per chevron throughout argent and purpure, three dragons
segreant counterchanged] Some commenters suggested that this
be reblazoned using a charged pile inverted because the bottom
portion of the per chevron field is somewhat narrow. The width of
the bottom of a per chevron field varies significantly throughout
our period, as does the placement of the top of the line of
division (the "peak" of the per chevron line). In order to
maintain balance between the two tinctures of the field when the
top of the line of division is high on the shield, the bottom of
the line needs to be somewhat narrow. Otherwise, the basemost
tincture of the field division overwhelms the chiefmost. In a per
chevron throughout field, the peak is as high on the shield as it
can get, and therefore, one would expect to find a
correspondingly narrow bottom part of the field division.
In addition, the armorial design of Per chevron three [X]
counterchanged is overwhelmingly more likely in period than
the design of On a pile inverted between two [X] an [X].
The single pile inverted is vanishingly rare in period armory. As
a result, the most likely period interpretation of armory of this
sort would be as a per chevron field division. This
interpretation is strengthened by the fact that all three charges
[X] are the same type and posture, giving the perception
that they are a single charge group. [Cassandra Tantifer,
03/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
[Per chevron Or and azure, two tau crosses and a horse salient
counterchanged] Please advise the submitter to draw the per
chevron line lower on the field, and reproportion the charges
accordingly so that they fill the space. The per chevron line
should divide the field into roughly balanced halves, which is
generally accomplished by balancing the line around the center of
the shield. In this emblazon, the bottom of the line is at the
center of the shield, which results in a bottom half that
outbalances the top half. [Wilrich von Hessen, 06/2002,
A-An Tir]
[Per chevron gules and sable, in base a dragon passant Or]
This does not conflict with ... Per fess indented azure and
gules, a wyvern passant Or. There is one CD for changing the
field and a second for the unforced move of the dragon to base.
While it is true that the dragon, in order to fill the space,
extends slightly into the upper half of the shield, the fact that
the dragon is entirely below the per chevron line of division is
an unmistakable visual cue that the charge is, indeed, in base.
[Alex the Scribe, 09/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[Argent chapé gules, a bear rampant sable and in chief two
thistles Or] This armory must be returned for using a chapé
field in which the upper portions are charged. The original
blazon for this armory described the field as per chevron
throughout, but the proportions of the emblazon clearly show
that the field is chapé and that the charges on the upper
portions of the field are therefore reasons for return. Note the
following precedent:
Listed on the LoI as having a per chevron line of
division, the location of the line of the division and the
relative sizes of the charges makes this an example of
chapé. Therefore, it must be returned ... for charging
its upper portions. (LoAR January 2000).
[Cellach mac Ualraig, 09/2002,
R-Caid]
[Per chevron ployé argent and vert, three compass stars
counterchanged] Conflict with ... Per chevron argent and
vert, in base a mullet of four points argent. There is one CD
for changing the number of the primary charges. There is no
difference between a field per chevron and a field per chevron
ployé. There is no difference between a mullet of four points and
a compass star: "By prior precedent there is not a CD between a
compass star and a mullet of four points" (LoAR April 2001).
The submission was originally blazoned using a point pointed
rather than a per chevron field division. However, because the
three compass stars are of the same type and size, and because
heraldic designs of the form Per chevron three [charges]
counterchanged are much more common than designs using a
point pointed in any fashion, the overwhelming visual impression
is of armory using a per chevron line, with the line drawn
somewhat lower on the shield than usual. We have thus reblazoned
it accordingly. [Duncan Darroch, 01/2003,
R-An Tir]
[Per chevron throughout argent and gules, two frogs tergiant
vert and an increscent argent] The field drawn here is an
acceptable per chevron throughout field.
SCA precedent has been consistent, if somewhat unclear, regarding
per chevron throughout fields (which may have charges in
each portion of the field without violating any style rules) and
chapé fields (which may only have charges in the lower
portion of the field).
Both per chevron throughout and chapé fields have
the top of the line touch the top of the escutcheon. However, the
proportions of the rest of the line of division can make a
difference in whether the armory is viewed as per chevron
throughout or chapé in the SCA. If the line of division provides
a roughly equal balance between the top and bottom halves of the
field, it is considered a reasonable depiction of per chevron
throughout. If the line of division leaves the bottom half of
the field much larger than the top half, then it is considered
chapé. It is not uncommon for the bottommost charge on a
per chevron throughout field to be larger than the chiefmost
charge(s), but the bottommost charge should not be so large as to
force the field division up to the fess line and therefore
contribute to the appearance of a chapé field (requiring its
return).
As a general rule, the sides of a charged per chevron
throughout field hit the sides of the escutcheon
significantly lower than the fess line, while in charged
chapé fields, the line of division hits the sides of the
escutcheon at the fess line or higher. This follows from the need
for per chevron throughout fields to balance the top and
bottom halves of the field. Note the following precedent from the
LoAR of June 2002 (quoting, in part, an earlier precedent from
January 2000). This precedent is also consistent with earlier
precedents on the topic (bolded emphasis added):
The submission was blazoned on the LoI as Per chevron in chief.
It is a clear drawing of modern chapé: it's throughout
and high on the field. Note the following precedent:
"Listed on the LoI as having a per chevron line of division,
the location of the line of the division and the relative
sizes of the charges makes this an example of chapé.
Therefore, it must be returned ... for charging its upper
portions" (LoAR January 2000).
These precedents specifically set SCA policy for SCA
stylistic rules concerning charged fields which are per
chevron throughout and chapé. Period armory almost
never uses any charges on a chapé field. In period armory
using uncharged chapé fields, the line of division often extends
down so that the field division could be interchangeable with
per chevron throughout. Thus, we will continue to allow
the use of the blazon term chapé for uncharged armory
which resembles the period armory described above. [Aemilia
Sabine, 02/2003,
A-Calontir]
This emblazon does not clearly use a point pointed, nor does it
clearly use a per chevron division. This is reason for return by
RfS VII.7.a.
The top of the point pointed is slightly above the fess line in
the large sized emblazon. The mini-emblazon showed a standard
point pointed, which was notably shorter than the one in the
full-sized emblazon. Therefore, the difference between the
mini-emblazon and the full-sized emblazon did not allow the
College to comment properly on this submission. [Wilhelm von
Düsseldorf, 02/2003,
R-West]
[Per chevron argent and azure, in chief a rose slipped and
leaved fesswise and in base six gouttes three two and one,
counterchanged] The device does not clearly use a per chevron
line of division, nor does it use a point pointed. Because of
this ambiguity this must be returned under RfS VII.7.a.
Note that a per chevron line of division should appear to divide
the field into two equal pieces. This emblazon does not give that
appearance. One reason is that the per chevron line is drawn
somewhat low on the field - it appears to have been drawn by
using the form's guidelines for a per saltire division and
drawing the bottom section of that field. In addition, the fact
that the rose in chief is drawn as a small charge, with lots of
field around it, implies that it is not a charge filling its half
of an equally divided field. [Duvessa of Movilla, 03/2003,
R-Middle]
In the SCA, the per fess and per bend engrailed lines of division
are drawn with the bottom of the "cups" to base (and the points
between the "cups" to chief), so this is an engrailed line of
division rather than an invected line of division as it was
originally blazoned. To quote from Master Bruce Draconarius of
Mistholme's A Grammar of Blazonry at
http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/bruce.html: "The engrailed
line of partition, when applied to the field, does not seem to
follow the mundane default; the references disagree on exactly
what that mundane default is. In SCA blazon, Per fess
engrailed has its points to chief... similar defaults hold
for Per bend engrailed, Per chevron engrailed, etc.
Invected lines have their points to base by SCA default."
[Krakafjord, Shire of, 04/2003,
A-An Tir]
[Per chevron] Please note that the line of partition was
originally blazoned as enhanced. The line is moved
slightly to chief from the most standard central position, but
that is a natural consequence of only having one charge in base.
The term enhanced has thus been removed from the blazon as
unnecessary. [Jon the Tall, 04/2003,
A-Meridies]
[Per chevron throughout sable and vert, the line of division
"fimbriated", three laurel wreaths argent] This device has
identifiability problems. Because the three laurel wreaths are of
the same type and size, and because heraldic designs of the form
Per chevron [A] and [B], three [X] are overwhelmingly more
common in period than designs of the form [A], on a a pile
inverted [B] between two [X] an [X], the overwhelming visual
impression of this emblazon is of armory following the Per
chevron [A] and [B], three [X] design. However, the thin
white line in the middle of the field is not compatible with a
per chevron field interpretation. It is much too thin to be a
chevron between the laurel wreaths. It is too thick to be
considered simply an argent detail line dividing the field. It
cannot be fimbriation, because only charges may be fimbriated,
not field divisions. As a result of the identifiability issues,
this must be returned per RfS VII.7.a, which states in pertinent
part, "Any charge, line of partition, or field treatment used in
Society armory must be identifiable, in and of itself, without
labels or excessive explanation." [Druim Doineann, Shire
of, 05/2003,
R-An Tir]
[Per chevron gules and argent, two thistles Or and a bear
rampant sable] Please advise the submitter to draw the per
chevron line somewhat lower on the field, allowing the thistles
and the bear to be more similar in size. While it is not uncommon
for the bottom charge of a group of three charges arranged two
and one to be larger than the top two charges, this bear (and the
space on which it lies) is disproportionately large. [Robert
Crosar, 07/2003,
A-Caid]
[Per chevron inverted vert and argent] This device does
not conflict with ... Per fess indented crusilly vert and
argent. It is true that the field division Per chevron
inverted is not listed under RfS X.4.a.ii.a, "Substantial
Change of Partition", so that rule does not apply to this
armorial comparison. However, X.4.a.ii.c states:
In any case, independent changes to the tincture, direction of
partition lines, style of partition lines, or number of pieces
in the partition may be counted separately when comparing two
pieces of field-primary armory. There are two clear differences
between Per chevron argent and azure and Per pale
nebuly argent and azure.
There are thus two independent changes (and CDs) ...
one for the change in the line of division from per fess
to per chevron inverted and another for the change in the
partition style from indented crusilly to plain.
[Ségnat ingen Donnchada, 12/2003,
A-Outlands]
FIELD DIVISION --
Per Fess
[Party of six vert and Or] Conflict with
... Per fess Or and sable, a pale counterchanged. "You
cannot 'blazon your way out of a conflict'" (LoAR of February
2000). Thus we must compare these arms both as party of six
field-primary armory and as counterchanged pales. [Jeanne
Marie Lacroix, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
The emblazon blurs the distinction between a chief and a per fess
line of division. If this is a charged chief, the line marking
the bottom of the chief needs to be higher, and in particular,
the bottom points of the rayonny line should not extend as far
down as the fess point of the shield. The moon should also be
drawn larger as befits a primary charge.
If this is a per fess division, the rayonny line should extend
equally over and under the fess line of the shield. In a per fess
interpetation the equal visual weight of the lozenges and the
moon is appropriate.
As this cannot be accurately blazoned, it must be returned per
RfS VII.7. [Lyutsina Manova, 09/2002,
R-An Tir]
[Per fess azure and per pale gules and sable] The field
has unacceptable contrast. The pertinent rules for submission
concerning contrast in divided fields or other armorial elements
are:
RfS VIII.2.b.iii: Elements evenly divided into two parts, per
saltire, or quarterly may use any two tinctures or furs.
RfS VIII.2.b.iv: Elements evenly divided into multiple parts of
two different tinctures must have good contrast between their
parts.
RfS VIII.2.b.v: Elements evenly divided in three tinctures must
have good contrast between two of their parts.
While the rules for contrast do not explicitly
discuss fields which are divided unequally into multiple
parts, the overriding principle of the rules for divided fields
is that fields must have good contrast between their parts unless
they are "evenly divided into two parts, per saltire, or
quarterly." Here no portion of the field has good contrast with
any other portion of the field, so the overriding principle of
the rules for contrast are not met. [Grifon fuiz
Guillaume, 02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
In the SCA, the per fess and per bend engrailed lines of division
are drawn with the bottom of the "cups" to base (and the points
between the "cups" to chief), so this is an engrailed line of
division rather than an invected line of division as it was
originally blazoned. To quote from Master Bruce Draconarius of
Mistholme's A Grammar of Blazonry at
http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/bruce.html: "The engrailed
line of partition, when applied to the field, does not seem to
follow the mundane default; the references disagree on exactly
what that mundane default is. In SCA blazon, Per fess
engrailed has its points to chief... similar defaults hold
for Per bend engrailed, Per chevron engrailed, etc.
Invected lines have their points to base by SCA default."
[Krakafjord, Shire of, 04/2003,
A-An Tir]
FIELD DIVISION --
Per Pall and Per Pall Inverted
[Per pall indented sable
argent and azure] Conflict with ... Per pall arrondi sable
azure and argent. RfS X.4.a.ii.c on Field-Primary Armory says
"independent changes to the tincture, direction of partition
lines, style of partition lines, or number of pieces in the
partition may be counted separately when comparing two pieces of
field-primary armory." In this case, we have changed the style of
the partition line from arrondy to indented. However, RfS X.4.a
does not allow difference for the tincture change, even though
two-thirds of the field has changed tincture (by swapping the two
basemost portions of the field): "There is a clear difference for
reversing the tinctures of a field evenly divided into two parts,
per saltire, or quarterly, but not for reversing
the tinctures of a field divided in any other way." [Giotto di
Giovanni, 03/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[Per pall inverted arrondy azure, gules, and Or, an Oriental
dragon tergiant embowed counter-embowed argent] The field of
this device was blazoned on the LoI as per pall inverted
arrondi. A per pall inverted arrondy field shows a basic per
pall inverted field (which looks like an inverted Y) where each
arm of the Y is embowed. This field is a much tighter spiral of
three colors. No evidence was presented, and none was found, for
this design in period heraldry. We can find this design in Walter
Leonhard's Das Grosse Buch der Wappenkunst, which
describes both modern and period German heraldry. That book
blazons this design as dreifacher schneckenschnitt,
namely, schnecke cut into three pieces, but there is no date
provided for this design. The closest we can find to this design
in period heraldry is on f. 37 of Siebmacher, as the first and
fourth quarters of Fridesheim, but it is much less of a spiral.
Leonhard blazons Fridesheim's division differently than the
example in this submission: he calls it schneckendeichsel.
Without evidence for this design in period it may not be
registered.
No evidence was presented, and none was found, for schnecke (or
triply parted schnecke type fields) with a large charge overlying
the center of the field. Because such an overlying charge
obscures the already unusual underlying charge, unless
documentation is presented it will be considered, at best, a
weirdness. [Yang Mun, 04/2002,
R-Trimaris]
[Per pall inverted azure vert and Or] Conflict with ...
Per pall sable, vert and Or. RfS X.4.a.ii.a, Field Primary
Armory ... Substantial Change in Partition, does not give a
substantial change in partition between per pall and
per pall inverted. That rule gives a list of field
divisions for which substantial change in partition might apply,
and neither per pall nor per pall inverted are on the list. Thus,
there is one CD (but not substantial difference) for changing the
line of partition from per pall to per pall inverted.
There is not a second CD for changing field tincture by RfS
X.4.a, which states in part, "In general, if the tincture of at
least half the field is changed, the fields will be considered
different", and "There is a clear difference for reversing the
tinctures of a field evenly divided into two parts, per
saltire, or quarterly, but not for reversing the
tinctures of a field divided in any other way." Because less than
half of the field tincture has changed (aside from changing the
arrangement of those tinctures), and because there is no
difference for changing the arrangement of the tinctures on a per
pall (or per pall inverted) field by X.4.a, the second CD for
tincture is not obtainable. [Morgan Railey, 07/2002,
R-Outlands]
FIELD
DIVISION -- Quarterly
[Per pale and per chevron gules,
Or, sable, and argent, three crosses of Jerusalem counterchanged
argent and sable] No documentation has been presented, and
none was found, for per pale and per chevron of four tinctures. A
prior ruling noted that "No evidence has been provided for simple
coats with fields quarterly of three tinctures in period" (LoAR
November 1989). This was not clearly the sole reason for return
of the armory engendering the ruling but it contributed to the
return. This field is even farther from standard period practice,
as per pale and per chevron is far less common in period than
quarterly. Without documentation for a similar field in period,
combined with charges, this may not be accepted. [Seraphina
Sacheverell, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[Quarterly argent and vert, two crosses potent in bend
sable] Some commenters suggested that it was unnecessary to
explicitly blazon the sable crosses in bend on this quarterly
argent and vert field. Because the black crosses could be
disposed in many different arrangements on the field, including
in pale and in fess, it is necessary to blazon
their arrangement explicitly. Had the field been quarterly
argent and sable, then the crosses would indeed be placed
in bend by default, since the black crosses could not
overlap the black portions of the field. [Arkell vom
Cophus, 11/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[Quarterly Or and vert] This device does not conflict with
... Quarterly arrondi sable and Or. There is one CD for
changing the tincture of the field. Recent precedent has been
mixed about whether there is a CD for making a field division
arrondy. The weight of the recent precedent and the commentary is
in favor of giving a CD between these two lines. This is an SCA
choice (rather than one which can be based on period evidence).
The weight of precedent, and the fact that there is a visual
distinction between a straight and an arrondy line, indicates
that we should give a CD for this change. [Br{o,}ndólfr the
Stout, 03/2003,
A-Middle]
[Quarterly per pale indented azure and Or, a bordure
counterchanged] This does not conflict with Anne Tanzer,
Quarterly dancetty of five per fess and six per pale azure and
Or. There is one CD for adding the bordure. Anne's quarterly
line is indented in both the palewise and fesswise directions,
while Nathon's is only indented in the palewise direction. Period
armory appears to draw a consistent distinction between
quarterly and quarterly per fess indented. If
period people considered a plain quarterly division to be
distinct from on which is half plain and half indented, it seems
reasonable to surmise (without evidence to the contrary) that
they would similarly consider a division which is all indented to
be different from one which is half plain and half indented.
[Nathon of Arindale, 07/2003,
A-Atlantia]
FIELD DIVISION --
Vêtu
[Or, a mascle within a mascle throughout
sable] This was originally blazoned as Sable vêtu Or, a
lozenge within a mascle Or. The visual realities of the
emblazon are such that it is immediately perceived as a mascle
within another, and we have so reblazoned it. There were concerns
about "op art" stylization, but this is clearly visible and
reproducible as a mascle within another, so it does not have
visual ambiguity. While it is possible to blazon this in the
fashion originally presented in the Letter of Intent, blazon
ambiguity is not the same problem as visual ambiguity.
[Marquet de Hyet, 02/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
The device was blazoned on the LoI using a lozenge ployé
throughout rather than the originally submitted vêtu
ployé. We have been asked whether one can reblazon using a
lozenge ployé throughout to avoid stylistic problems with
placing charges (in this submission, the estencely) on the
"vested" portions of a field (in this submission, the portions of
the field outside the "lozenge"). There is explicit precedent
stating that placing charges around a lozenge ployé
throughout (also known as a lozenge concave
throughout) is not allowable style:
Vêtu fields should not have charges in the "vested" portions of
the field --- and although this was blazoned on the LOI as a
lozenge concave throughout, the latter two adjectives
almost mandate this be considered a vêtu field. (LoAR December
1992, pg. 15)
Some commenters noted that we allow fields per
chevron throughout to be charged with three charges two and
one. Such fields could conceivably be blazoned as chapé with
charges on the "vested" portions of the field. Yet we do not
return these arms for using charged chapé. This is because a "per
chevron" design with three charges on it is relatively common in
period, and "per chevron throughout" is a period artistic variant
of "per chevron". Chapé with any charges on it is
extremely rare. The most likely interpretation of such a design
is per chevron, and thus that design is acceptable. The
design in this submission is one for which the most likely
interpretation is of a vêtu field, rather than some design
using a variant lozenge, and absent documentation to the
contrary, will be considered to be a vêtu ployé field.
We have had a few previous registrations of charged lozenges
ployé throughout between charges, but they were registered
without explanatory stylistic comment. One cannot draw any firm
conclusions about heraldic policy from registrations without
comment. [Brigitte MacFarlane Red, 02/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Argent vêtu ployé quarterly sable and gules, a cat passant
guardant sable] This .... conflicts with Amber Lang, Vert,
on a lozenge argent, a cat sejant guardant sable. When
comparing armory using a vêtu field with armory using a lozenge,
the comparison must be made in two ways: as if both pieces of
armory used a vêtu field, and as if both pieces of armory used a
lozenge. If we consider Isabel's armory as the equivalent blazon
Quarterly sable and gules, on a lozenge ployé througout argent
a cat passant guardant sable, there is one CD from Amber's
armory for changing the field, but no difference by RfS X.4.j for
changing only the posture of the tertiary charge. There is no
difference between a lozenge and a lozenge ployé, nor is there
difference between a lozenge and a lozenge throughout. [Isabel
Margarita de Sotomayor y Pérez de Gerena, 11/2002,
R-Trimaris]
FIELD PRIMARY
ARMORY
[Per pall indented sable argent and azure]
Conflict with ... Per pall arrondi sable azure and argent.
RfS X.4.a.ii.c on Field-Primary Armory says "independent changes
to the tincture, direction of partition lines, style of partition
lines, or number of pieces in the partition may be counted
separately when comparing two pieces of field-primary armory." In
this case, we have changed the style of the partition line from
arrondy to indented. However, RfS X.4.a does not allow difference
for the tincture change, even though two-thirds of the field has
changed tincture (by swapping the two basemost portions of the
field): "There is a clear difference for reversing the tinctures
of a field evenly divided into two parts, per saltire, or
quarterly, but not for reversing the tinctures of a field
divided in any other way." [Giotto di Giovanni, 03/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
Party of six pieces is substantially different from checky.
[Jeanne Marie Lacroix, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
[Party of six vert and Or] Conflict with ... Per fess
Or and sable, a pale counterchanged. "You cannot 'blazon your
way out of a conflict'" (LoAR of February 2000). Thus we must
compare these arms both as party of six field-primary armory and
as counterchanged pales. When considered as party of six
field-primary armory, these conflict. By RfS X.4.ii.b, "If the
fields of two field-primary armory have no tinctures in common,
they are considered completely different and do not conflict,
irrespective of any other similarities between them." In the LoAR
of November 2000, Per saltire gules and azure was held to
conflict with Per saltire Or and gules, because "While
each portion of the field has changed tincture, one cannot say
that they do not have a tincture in common." This case is
similar: the two pieces of armory have a tincture in common, even
though each portion of the field has changed tincture. It is also
worth noting that RfS X.4.a does not give difference for swapping
the order of two tinctures on a party of six field: "There is a
clear difference for reversing the tinctures of a field evenly
divided into two parts, per saltire, or quarterly,
but not for reversing the tinctures of a field divided in any
other way". [Jeanne Marie Lacroix, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
[Per pale purpure and argent, a pile inverted throughout
counterchanged] Conflict with ... Per pale argent and
sable chapé ployé counterchanged. Finnguala's arms could as
easily be blazoned as Per pale argent and purpure chapé
counterchanged. Because "you cannot 'blazon your way out of'
a conflict" (LoAR of February 2000), these two pieces of armory
must both be compared as pile inverted throughout armory, and as
per pale and chapé (ployé) armory. As per pale and chapé armory
these conflict. There is one CD for changing the tincture of the
field, but not "complete change of tincture" by RfS X.4.a.ii.b,
since both fields share the tincture argent in common.
There is not a second CD for changing chapé ployé to
chapé. The family of Masbach/Muesbach is found at the end
of the 14th C in the Armorial Bellenville (see the Léon
Jéquier edition) and the armorial Gelre (see the Adam-Even
edition), using Per pale and chapé gules and argent or
Per pale and chapé argent and gules. In 1605 the same
family's arms are found in Siebmacher's Wappenbuch as
Per pale and chapé ployé gules and argent. General SCA
precedent has held that an enarched or ployé line is often an
artistic variant of a straight line in which the curvature of the
line is used to imply curvature of the shield. One recent
precedent regarding "chevron-like" objects or lines of partition
ployé did not give difference between straight and ployé:
[a chevron ployé vs. a chevron] Conflict ... there is
only a single CD for the type of the secondary charges.
[implying no CD for ployé vs. plain] (LoAR 4/00)
Based on the Masbach armory, it appears that chapé
ployéshould prove no exception to the general policy by which
ployé is given no difference from plain lines. We thus overturn
the following precedent:
[returning chapé ploye engrailed] While it is true that lines
[of division] could be enarched and also embattled, engrailed,
etc., the enarching was basically to show the curvature of the
shield. We do not believe that such is the case of a chapé
ployé. (LoAR 6/97 p. 12)
[Finnguala ingen uí Medra, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[Per bend sinister sable and vert] Conflict with ...
Per bend sinister sable and gyronny from the line of division
Or and vert. This is not clear by RfS X.4.a.ii(a),
Substantial Change of Partition, as both fields are divided per
bend sinister. This is analogous to the example in the rule which
states "Barry and per pale argent and vert... has only a clear
difference from Bendy and per pale argent and vert." [Dafydd
ap Iorwerth ap Rhodri de dena, 04/2002,
R-Lochac]
[Per chevron potent and gules] This does not conflict with
... Per chevron azure and Or. This is clear by RfS
X.4.a.ii.b., Complete Change of Tincture. Even though the fur
potent is composed of azure and argent, it is considered a
complete change of tincture from either azure or argent. This is
parallel to the case of ermine(d) furs. By RfS X.4.a.ii.b, "The
ermine furs and their variants are considered to be different
tinctures". [Tanczos Istvan, 05/2002,
A-East]
[Bendy sinister and per bend azure and ermine] This is
clear of conflict with Sigeric of Ravenstone, Per bend azure
and bendy sinister argent and azure. Pariselle's arms are
equivalent to Per bend bendy sinister azure and ermine, and
bendy sinister ermine and azure. RfS X.4.a.ii(c), "Other
Field-Primary Armory", states: "In any case, independent changes
to the tincture, direction of partition lines, style of partition
lines, or number of pieces in the partition may be counted
separately when comparing two pieces of field-primary armory."
Half of Pariselle's armory is ermine, and none of
Sigeric's is that tincture. By the general statements in RfS
X.4.a, changing half the tincture of the field is worth a CD. The
sinister chief portion of Sigeric's field is undivided, and the
sinister chief portion of Pariselle's armory field is bendy
sinister. This provides the second CD for change of partition
lines. [Pariselle Chouet,06/2002,
A-An Tir]
[Per pall inverted azure vert and Or] Conflict with ...
Per pall sable, vert and Or. RfS X.4.a.ii.a, Field Primary
Armory ... Substantial Change in Partition, does not give a
substantial change in partition between per pall and
per pall inverted. That rule gives a list of field
divisions for which substantial change in partition might apply,
and neither per pall nor per pall inverted are on the list. Thus,
there is one CD (but not substantial difference) for changing the
line of partition from per pall to per pall inverted.
There is not a second CD for changing field tincture by RfS
X.4.a, which states in part, "In general, if the tincture of at
least half the field is changed, the fields will be considered
different", and "There is a clear difference for reversing the
tinctures of a field evenly divided into two parts, per
saltire, or quarterly, but not for reversing the
tinctures of a field divided in any other way." Because less than
half of the field tincture has changed (aside from changing the
arrangement of those tinctures), and because there is no
difference for changing the arrangement of the tinctures on a per
pall (or per pall inverted) field by X.4.a, the second CD for
tincture is not obtainable. [Morgan Railey, 07/2002,
R-Outlands]
[Argent, in chief three bars azure] This does not conflict
with the important non-SCA flags of both Monaco and Indonesia,
Per fess gules and argent. This submission could equally
well be blazoned Per fess barry argent and azure, and
argent. Viewing this piece of armory and the flags as
field-only armory, we have one change for changing the division
of the field, and another for changing the tincture of half the
field. [Ruarcc the Blind, 01/2003,
A-Calontir]
[Quarterly Or and vert] This device does not conflict with
... Quarterly arrondi sable and Or. There is one CD for
changing the tincture of the field. Recent precedent has been
mixed about whether there is a CD for making a field division
arrondy. The weight of the recent precedent and the commentary is
in favor of giving a CD between these two lines. This is an SCA
choice (rather than one which can be based on period evidence).
The weight of precedent, and the fact that there is a visual
distinction between a straight and an arrondy line, indicates
that we should give a CD for this change. [Br{o,}ndólfr the
Stout, 03/2003,
A-Middle]
[Quarterly per fess indented argent and gules] This does
not conflict with ... Quarterly gules and argent. RfS
X.4.a, Field Difference, states "There is a clear difference for
reversing the tinctures of a field evenly divided into two parts,
per saltire, or quarterly." So, per RfS X.4.a.ii.c ("Other
Field-Primary Armory"), there's one CD for changing the order of
the tinctures of the quarterly field and a second CD for
indenting the per fess line. [Emma de Fetherstan, 06/2003,
A-Ansterroa]
[Paly azure and argent] Unfortunately, this beautiful
armory conflicts with Rolf Jarsson, Per pale azure and argent,
a pale counterchanged. Rolf's armory is visually too similar
to Paly of four azure and argent to be considered
different from that armory. There is no difference between
paly of four and the default paly (of six).
[Snorri Hallsson, 10/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[Bendy sinister vert and erminois] Conflict with ...
Bendy sinister of four vert, argent, purpure and argent.
There's no difference between bendy sinister of four and bendy
sinister of six. The two pieces of armory share a tincture, so
X.4.a.ii.b does not apply. This leaves one CD for changing the
tincture of the field, but that is all. [Cú Chonnacht Ó
Tighearnáin, 10/2003,
R-Middle]
[Quarterly gules and sable, three bendlets argent]
Conflict with Ysfael ap Briafael, Per bend bendy vert and
argent and vert. Ysfael's device could alternately be
blazoned as Vert, three bendlets enhanced argent, and was
originally submitted under that blazon. Ysfael's registration in
the LoAR of December 2000 stated, "Originally blazoned as
three bendlets enhanced, the blazon above more closely
describes the emblazon." When considering Ysfael's device under
the alternate blazon of Vert, three bendlets enhanced
argent, and comparing it to Tigernach's submission, there is
one CD for changing the field, but the second CD must come from
the change of location of the bendlets from enhanced.
Our original inclination was to give a second CD for enhancing
the bendlets under RfS X.4.g. However, evidence indicates that,
in period, armory using three bendlets enhanced was not distinct
from armory using three bendlets in their default location on the
field. We thus should not give difference between these
designs.
The Dictionary of British Arms (DBA) volume two gives very
few coats of arms using three bendlets enhanced (on p. 117). Most
of these coats are also found belonging to the same family but
with the three bendlets in their default position (on pp.
114-116): the arms of Byron, Argent, three bends [enhanced]
gules, Greeley, Gules, three bends [enhanced] Or, and
Mawnyse/Mauvesin, Gules, three bends [enhanced] argent.
For one of these families, there is scholarship which explicitly
states that the coat with the three bendlets enhanced is a
later version of the coat with three bendlets, rather than
a distinctly different, cadenced, coat. Woodward's A Treatise
on Heraldry British and Foreign discusses the arms of Byron
on p. 132, stating, "What appears to have been the original coat
of Biron viz., Argent, three bendlets gules, is now borne
with the bendlets enhanced (Fr. haussés) i.e. placed
higher in the shield, as in the arms of the poet, Lord
Byron."
The difference between three bendlets and three
bendlets enhanced is thus similar to the difference between
crosses bottony and crosses crosslet. We give no
difference between these crosses because, as discussed in the
LoAR of August 2002, "It is important to recall that the cross
bottony and the cross crosslet are both used to represent the
same charge throughout our period's heraldry. The bottony form is
found predominantly in earlier artwork, and the crosslet form
predominantly in later artwork." The evidence in DBA and Woodward
suggests that three bendlets and three bendlets
enhanced are both used to represent the same armory
throughout our period's heraldry. Just as the cross crosslet
became distinct from the cross bottony after our period, three
bendlets enhanced became distinct from three bendlets after our
period. [Tigernach Mag Samhradh�in, 11/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Per chevron inverted vert and argent] This device does
not conflict with ... Per fess indented crusilly vert and
argent. It is true that the field division Per chevron
inverted is not listed under RfS X.4.a.ii.a, "Substantial
Change of Partition", so that rule does not apply to this
armorial comparison. However, X.4.a.ii.c states:
In any case, independent changes to the tincture, direction of
partition lines, style of partition lines, or number of pieces
in the partition may be counted separately when comparing two
pieces of field-primary armory. There are two clear differences
between Per chevron argent and azure and Per pale
nebuly argent and azure.
There are thus two independent changes (and CDs) ...
one for the change in the line of division from per fess
to per chevron inverted and another for the change in the
partition style from indented crusilly to plain.
[Ségnat ingen Donnchada, 12/2003,
A-Outlands]
[Or, three bendlets sinister vert] This submission is
heraldically equivalent to Bendy sinister Or and vert. It
thus conflicts with ... Bendy sinister of four vert, argent,
purpure and argent. There's no difference between bendy
sinister of four and bendy sinister of six. The two pieces of
armory share a tincture so X.4.a.ii.b does not apply. This leaves
one CD for changing the tincture of the field, but that is all.
[Gabriel Halte, 12/2003,
R-Drachenwald]
[Barry rayonny Or and gules] Conflict with ... Or,
three bars wavy gules. Three bars wavy is heraldically
equivalent to barry wavy, so there is only one CD for the
change from wavy to rayonny. It also conflicts with ... Gules,
three bars Or. This is heraldically equivalent to
barry, so there is one CD for changing the line of the
barry from plain to rayonny, and no difference for swapping the
order of the tinctures on a multiply divided field like barry.
[Trimaris, Kingdom of, 12/2003,
R-Trimaris]
FIELD TREATMENT
-- Honeycomb
Honeycombed was defined as a weirdness in the
LoAR of June 1999. It is not a period field treatment, nor has it
become entrenched in SCA usage.
Remember that there are very few period field treatments.
Usually, when we invent a new armorial motif for use in our
heraldry, it is because the new motif is compatible with existing
period heraldry. For example, we would allow the registration of
a period weapon as a charge, because of the large variety of
weapons found in period heraldry. We do not have a similar period
pattern of a wide range of field treatments based on various
tessellations.
Hence, after the LoAR of April 2002, honeycombed will no longer
be registerable in the SCA. [Taliesin Brynderw, 09/2001,
A-Calontir]
[honeycombed] According to the September 2001 LoAR, "We do
not have a similar period pattern of a wide range of field
treatments based on various tessellations. Hence, after the LoAR
of April 2002, honeycombed will no longer be registerable in the
SCA." Therefore, this motif is no longer registerable.
[Gauvain Eisenbein, 05/2002,
R-Outlands]
FIELD TREATMENT --
Mailly and Other Field Treatments
From Wreath: Mailly
and Other Field Treatments
Field Treatments in General
The CoA Glossary of Terms currently defines the term "field
treatment" as follows:
A repeating pattern drawn in a tincture with good contrast over
the field or a charge. Field treatments leave more of the
underlying tincture showing than they cover, and are considered
a part of the field or charge tincture. Field treatments
include masoned, honeycombed, and so on. [Note: honeycombed is
an SCA invention that was ruled to be unregisterable in the
LoAR of September 2001]. Field treatments do not include the
ermined furs or strewn charges.
The term "field treatment" is not a standard
real-world heraldic description for a class of armorial designs.
There are very few period armorial designs that meet the SCA's
description of a "field treatment". The period armorial designs
closest to "field treatments" are fretty, masoned,
papellony/scaly, and the very uncommon element
diaspré. The term "field treatment" is not found in
Brooke-Little's An Heraldic Alphabet, Woodward's A
Treatise on Heraldry, British and Foreign, Fox-Davies' A
Complete Guide to Heraldry, Parker's A Glossary of Terms
used in Heraldry, Friar's A Dictionary of Heraldry,
Franklyn and Tanner's An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of
Heraldry or Boutell's Heraldry. Nor do these standard
heraldry books have a different term that clearly describes the
type of armorial designs that the SCA calls "field treatments".
These books appear to find the few armorial designs mentioned
above as difficult to classify as we find them to be: they are
period armorial designs that diverge significantly from standard
heraldic practices. Thus, while the term field treatment
continues to be useful to the SCA as a means of including these
oddities of armorial design in the Rules for Submission, it
should not be considered to represent a standard period armorial
class of designs.
To consider the period armorial designs which most closely
resemble the SCA's definition of field treatment:
Fretty was originally considered a field treatment by the
SCA, but it has been given further study and has been considered
a charge since the Cover Letter for the September 1992 LoAR.
Fretty therefore cannot be used as guidance for styles of period
field treatments: it falls into a different category, that of
charges.
Masoned is also a special case. In period armory it is
virtually always used to detail the stones in an architectural
charge, such as a tower or a wall, or to detail a portion of a
field or geometric charge that suggests an architectural charge.
As an example of this last, a masoned field under an embattled
chief visually suggests that the field (with its embattled top
and brickwork details) is a sort of very large architectural
element, even though the field is not strictly an architectural
charge. This special purpose design provides little or no general
guidance for determining what should be acceptable as a "field
treatment".
Papellony represents a geometric pattern of overlapping
scales which are variously described as the scales on a
butterfly's wing, or fish scales. It comes in two forms:
papellony [x] and [y], which is a division like
checky or lozengy, and [x] papellony [y],
where tincture [y] is used to form voided scales on a background
[x], and thus fits the SCA's definition of a "field treatment".
This last form of papellony is found with some frequency in
period armory, but is still uncommon. Scaly is the SCA's
version of the French blazon term ecaillée. Ecaillé is
used in real-world blazon to describe scales of a fish, but it is
also used to describe a geometric voided scale pattern that is
apparently interchangeable with [x] papellony [y], as noted on p.
726 of Woodward's A Treatise on Heraldry, British and
Foreign.
Diaspré has not yet been registered in the SCA and is met
with very infrequently in period heraldry. In some cases the
diaspré does appear to be a genuine high contrast armorial
design, rather than the purely artistic "diaper" treatment where
a single color is patterned in two shades to give the appearance
of a damask fabric, for artistic interest. Diaspré is
described in (among other places) Brault's Early Blazon,
which states in part that "in medieval heraldry, diapering
[sic; diaspré is clearly meant given the context] is
usually represented as a pattern of golden rings enclosing
alternately an eagle and a lion on a green or blue
background".
Thus, it can be seen that there are very few, perhaps only two,
period armorial designs which might fall into the SCA's
definition of "field treatment". Neither of them is a common
element, even in period. It is hardly possible to extrapolate
general period armorial practices from so small a set of
examples.
The rule allowing registration of undocumented, but compatible,
armorial elements is RfS VII.6:
Compatible Armorial Elements. - Any charge, line of
division, line of partition, field treatment, or other armorial
element that has been ruled compatible with period heraldic
style may be registered in armory.
The line of partition dovetailed and field treatments designed
to imitate chain mail and honeycombs are some examples of
undocumented armorial elements that have already been ruled
compatible with period heraldic style. [Note: it is of course
field treatments that are under discussion here.]
There are two traditional principles for ruling an
element compatible. It may be so popular as to make the increased
authenticity not worth the confusion and potential loss of good
will inherent in its abolition. This is most commonly true of
names, such as Rhiannon or Ceridwen, but a prominent example of a
charge that falls in this category is the compass star.
The second reason is that the element, while undocumented, is a
reasonable extrapolation from period practice. This is more
prominent in the name rules, where constructed and invented names
are explicit categories, but can apply to armorial elements as
well. Dovetailed is an example of this. There is a pattern of
various lines of division, including some late-period
innovations. Dovetailed is a plausible fit within this pattern.
Indeed, some period representations of embattled are very close
to dovetailed. The only novelty is giving it a special name.
Without knowlege that the concept of a "field treatment" is a
period armorial concept, and with so few examples of period
designs that might fall into the SCA's category of "field
treatment", it does not seem reasonable to extrapolate new "field
treatments" from these very few existing examples. Until such
time that documentation can be provided showing a substantial
period pattern of use of designs like "field treatments", and
reasonable ways in which these designs could be extrapolated to
develop other period-compatible "field treatments", we will
consider SCA-invented "field treatments" not to be "compatible
with period heraldic style", and thus unacceptable by RfS
VII.6.
Mailly
Mailly is a field treatment which covers the treated area
with a pattern of linked rings representing chain mail. It is a
modern invention. The SCA's original May 1982 registration stated
that mailly is "a new type of treatment of the field, so
we named it for SCA usage." A similar design was apparently
invented in England some time after 1954. J.P. Brooke-Little's
annotations on A. C. Fox-Davies' A Complete Guide to
Heraldry (1969 edition) p. 77, note 35, state that "Another
new and curious design is a field which is blazoned 'vert, a
network of annulets interlaced Or'.".
As a 20th C field treatment, mailly is not compatible with
period heraldic style per the general discussion of field
treatments above. Mailly has been registered infrequently since
its introduction, for a total of 13 registrations, the most
recent in 1998. This registration history is not large enough to
require that we continue to register it due to the design's
popularity.
One might consider whether mailly could be considered
something other than a field treatment, such as a charge or group
of charges. Chains are period armorial charges, and mailly
depicts a mesh of interlinked chain. Some period armory does use
chains which are interlinked at some points. The most famous, and
apparently most complicated, period example of such armory is the
arms of Navarre (important non-SCA armory): Gules, an
escarbuncle of chain within and conjoined to an orle of chain
Or. In the arms of Navarre, the chains maintain their
individual identifiability as chains. Such individual
identifiability is lost when the chains are interwoven into the
mailly design, just as knots (which are period charges)
lose their individual identifiability when woven together into
knotwork. Because mailly cannot reasonably be viewed as
anything other than a "field treatment", and because SCA-invented
"field treatments" are too far from period practice to be
acceptable, mailly will no longer be accepted after the
LoAR of April 2003. [09/2002,
CL]
FIELD TREATMENT
-- Masoned
[Or crusilly sable, a chevron gules] The
device is clear of conflict with ... Or masoned sable, a
chevron gules. There is one CD for changing the field by
removing the masoning, and another CD for adding the secondary
group of strewn charges. [Brienus Holebroc, 10/2001,
A-Meridies]
Note that the masoning is considered part of the field tincture
(like the ermine spots on an ermine field). [Cuilén Ó
Cinnéide, 02/2004,
R-Atlantia]
FIELD TREATMENT --
Miscellaneous
see also the discussion under FIELD TREATMENT -- Mailly and Other Field
Treatments
[argent vs argent, scaly vert] There
is a CD for adding the field treatment... [Nathaniel
Constantine of Saxony, 09/2001,
R-Atenveldt]
[Argent, a sun sable charged with a mullet of four points
argent] This badge also conflicts with ... Argent, scaly
vert, on a compass star nowed and elongated to base sable, a
winged ram salient argent. There is a CD for adding the field
treatment ... [Nathaniel Constantine of Saxony, 09/2001,
R-Atenveldt]
[a sinister gore papellony Or and purpure] The gore was
originally blazoned as scaly. Scaly is defined in
the Pictorial Dictionary as "a field treatment, consisting
of many semi-circles or lunes, covering the field." The overall
effect of scaly is of thick lines on a background, as in the
field treatment masoned (but with the panes of a different
shape than in masoned.)
This gore is tinctured in a form of papellony, which is
also defined in the Pictorial Dictionary. Papellony has
two forms. One form looks much like scaly, functions as a field
treatment, and is blazoned as [background tincture] papellony
[treatment tincture]. The other form of papellony is a field
division and is blazoned as papellony [tincture x] and
[tincture y]. The second form is the form found in this
submission. It is drawn using solid panes of alternating
tinctures, as in the field lozengy, but with the panes shaped
like solid scales, rather than like the lozenges in
lozengy. See the Pictorial Dictionary for more
discussion. [Ailionóra inghean uí Mhurchadha, 08/2002,
A-Calontir]
FIELDLESS
[(Fieldless) A phoenix
rising from an estoile of eight rays Or] Conflict with ...
Per chevron argent and vert, in base a phoenix Or. There's
one CD for the change to the field but nothing for position on
the field versus a fieldless badge. [Eiríkr Mjoksiglandi
Sigurðarson and Astridr Selr Leifsdóttir, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
[(Fieldless) On a delf gules a lozenge argent] To quote
Baron Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, as Laurel, on the subject
of fieldless badges:
Fieldless badges consisting only of forms of armorial display,
such as escutcheons, lozenges and delfs, are not acceptable
since in use the shield shape does not appear to be a
charge, but rather the field itself. This presents an entirely
different armory for view. (LoAR 9/93 p.25)
As Palimpsest notes, For any who question the
interpretation of a delf as a mode of armorial display, note that
in Carlisle Herald's visitation of London in 1530 are found
numerous references to defacing or removing 'Skochines, Squares,
and Losenges wrongfully eusid'. [Rycharde de Bruce the
Fowler, 11/2001,
R-Artemisia]
There is a CD for fieldlessness but nothing for placement on the
field, since no CD is granted for placement on the field versus a
fieldless badge. [Lecelina O'Brien of Mountshannon,
12/2001,
R-Artemisia]
[(Fieldless) A pile wavy couped argent] The pile was
blazoned on the LoI without the term couped. The submission form
clearly shows that the pile is couped. The pile does not
issue from the top of the badge form (as would a default pile);
it is cut off by a horizontal line in chief.
Due to the grandfather clause, the barony has the right to
register a fieldless badge using a pile which is not couped,
emulating its registered badge (Fieldless) A pile wavy Or
(for the Order of the Heart of the Sable Storm). In order to
register armory with such a blazon, the barony would need forms
which draw the pile issuant from the chief of the badge form,
like the form for the badge for the Order of the Heart of the
Sable Storm. Without using the grandfather clause, such a
registration would be illegal under RfS VIII.5: "Since there is
no field in such a [fieldless] design, it may not use charges
that rely on the edges of the field to define their shape, such
as bordures and orles, nor to cut off their ends, such as
ordinaries or charges throughout." [Namron, Barony of,
02/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[Per bend sinister Or and vert, a Lacy knot
counterchanged] Conflict with the protected badge of the Lacy
family (important non-SCA armory) (Tinctureless) A Lacy
knot. There is one CD for fieldlessness but no difference for
tincture of charge versus a tinctureless charge. [Bertrand de
Lacy, 02/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[(Fieldless) A dragon sable, crowned Or and sustaining a
banner quarterly sable and gules all semy of fraises Or]
"This fieldless badge appears to be a supporter maintaining a
flag with arms on it. As we do not register supporters, we cannot
register this" (LoAR of November 1999, p. 13). [Colin Tyndall
de ffrayser, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
[(Fieldless) A reremouse displayed sable conjoined in chief to
a compass star pierced Or] The compass star was blazoned on
the Letter of Intent as pierced sable, but the piercing on
the colored emblazon is not black but white. A compass star Or
pierced argent would have inadequate contrast, as the piercing is
equivalent to a tertiary roundel. A compass star pierced Or
(which is to say, a compass star Or with an untinctured hole in
the center, through which the field shows) is not acceptable on a
fieldless badge per the LoAR of January 2000:
Current precedent is that we only allow the piercing of charges
on fieldless badges when those charges were found pierced in
period armory (thus disallowing omni-tinctured tertiary
charges). While a compass star is closely related to a mullet,
it is nevertheless a different charge, one not found in period
armory. Therefore we are not inclined to give it the benefit of
the doubt and allow it to be pierced as we would a mullet or
spur rowel.
The reremouse is not conjoined to the compass
star but overlaps the bottom five points of the star to a greater
or lesser degree. This is in itself a reason for return because
it cannot clearly be recreated from the blazon. [Argus
Caradoc, 03/2002,
R-Meridies]
[(Fieldless) A demi-greyhound rampant couped contourny argent
collared gules sustaining a torteau charged with an escarbuncle
argent] There were some concerns that this armory might
appear to be a display of a supporter holding an independent coat
of arms. Supporters by nature stand or balance on lower
extremities (hind legs, or a tail) on the compartment ("ground")
under the achievement. A demi-animal cannot do this. No evidence
has been presented, and none was found, for supporters in period
armory consisting of demi-animals. Therefore, a demi-animal
cannot be mistaken for a supporter. [Æthelmearc, Kingdom
of, 04/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[(Fieldless) A lozenge Or] We do not register fieldless
badges which appear to be independent forms of armorial display.
Charges such as lozenges, billets, and roundels are all both
standard heraldic charges and "shield shapes" for armorial
display. The SCA has never protected armory consisting of plain
tinctures, except for two examples that are particularly famous:
the (important non-SCA) arms of Brittany, Ermine, and the
(important non-SCA) flag of Libya, Vert. If we do not
protect, and have never protected, the arms Or, we should
not be concerned about the possible appearance of a display of
Or by using a single lozenge Or as a fieldless
badge. This is parallel to our practices concerning inescutcheons
of pretense. To quote RfS XI.4, Arms of Pretense and
Augmentations of Honor, "Similarly, an augmentation of honor
often, though not necessarily, takes the form of an independent
coat placed on an escutcheon or canton. Generally, therefore, a
canton or a single escutcheon may only be used if it is both
uncharged and of a single tincture." This rule demonstrates that
an uncharged escutcheon shape in a single plain tincture does not
appear to be a display of an independent coat of arms.
Therefore, a "shield shape" which is also a standard heraldic
charge will be acceptable as as a fieldless badge in a plain
tincture, as long as the tincture is not one of the plain
tinctures that is protected armory in the SCA. This explicitly
overturns the precedent "We do not normally register fieldless
badges consisting only of forms of armorial display, such as
roundels, lozenges and delfs in plain tinctures, since in use the
shape does not appear to be a charge, but rather the field
itself" (LoAR January 1998).
Note that this does not change our long-standing policy about
such "shield shape" charges used in fieldless badges if the
tincture is not plain (thus, divided or with a field treatment),
or if the charge is itself charged. Such armory will continue to
be returned for the appearance of an independent form of armorial
display. [Solveig Throndardottir, 04/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[(Fieldless) A banner azure] This banner is drawn like the
illustration in the Pictorial Dictionary under "Flag".
Such a flag can be seen in the arms of W�rzburg in the
Conzilium zu Constanz in 1413 or in Siebmacher's 1605
Wappenbuch f. 220.
A blue flag is an acceptable fieldless badge. It is not a display
of the arms Azure, but is merely a blue charge. As noted
in the April 2002 LoAR, "A 'shield shape' which is also a
standard heraldic charge will be acceptable as a fieldless badge
in a plain tincture, as long as the tincture is not one of the
plain tinctures that is protected armory in the SCA". Since
Azure is not protected armory in this SCA, a fieldless
badge consisting of a banner azure does not appear to be
an independent display of arms and is acceptable.
Please advise the submitters that it would not be heraldically
correct to display this badge by making and carrying a blue flag.
Such a blue flag would appear to be a display of the arms
Azure. The correct way to display this badge on a flag or
standard would be to paint the badge of A banner azure on
a flag or standard made of some other color (or colors) of
material. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, 06/2002,
A-Trimaris]
[(Fieldless) A delf azure] As noted in the April 2002
LoAR, "A 'shield shape' which is also a standard heraldic charge
will be acceptable as a fieldless badge in a plain tincture, as
long as the tincture is not one of the plain tinctures that is
protected armory in the SCA". Since Azure is not protected
armory in this SCA, a fieldless badge consisting of a delf
azure is acceptable, and does not appear to be an independent
display of arms. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, 06/2002,
A-Trimaris]
[(Fieldless) A crossbow within and conjoined to an oak chaplet
Or] The oak chaplet is surmounted in base by a very small
rose, so small that it does not impact the outline of the charge.
The rose has no contrast with the chaplet and is not identifiable
at other than very close range. It appears to function as a
nonblazonable artistic detail rather than an actual heraldic
charge, and so we have removed it from the blazon. The
alternative was to return it for identifiability problems. On a
fieldless badge, it is not acceptable design to have an an
overall charge that is of the same tincture as, and virtually
completely overlapping, the underlying charge. [West, Kingdom
of the, 06/2002,
A-West]
[Principal herald's seal. (Tinctureless) On a fess wavy
between in chief two straight trumpets in saltire and triskeles
sans nombre a crown of four points] The Glossary of Terms
allows crowns to be used in "Kingdom/Principality armory;
personal armory of Society Royal peers." The Glossary does not
state that the crown may only be used in some pieces of armory
belonging to the kingdom. While most kingdom armory using crowns
does belong to the sovereign or the consort, various kingdoms
have registered other sorts of armory using crowns, including two
Principal Herald's seals, a flag, and various badges
(undesignated, designated for a kingdom officer, and designated
for an order).
As has been noted before, in real-world armory, the use of a
crown on a coat of arms is not linked to the rank of the holder,
so any policies restricting the use of crowns in SCA heraldry
must be determined from SCA heraldic history and policies. Given
the statement in the Glossary of Terms and the registration
history, it certainly seems acceptable for Principal Herald's
seals to use crowns, since the Principal Herald's seal is
registered to a kingdom. We thus explicitly overrule the
precedent set in the LoAR of September 1986 (although arguably
the wording in the Glossary has already overruled this
precedent), which stated that "[A Kingdom badge registration
designated for use of a guild] The crown is reserved to the arms
of Kingdoms, Principalities and Royal Peers and may not be used,
even with royal permission, by other individuals or groups".
It is clear from the SCA registration history that SCA Principal
Heralds' seals have not generally followed the rules for
fieldless armory. For example, most SCA heralds' seals contain
unconjoined charges, and many contain charges which are defined
by or end at the edge of the field, such as ordinaries throughout
or bordures. SCA herald's seals appear to have the same style
restrictions as tinctured armory, not fieldless armory. Thus the
design of this seal is acceptable, even though it uses a number
of design elements that would not ordinarily be allowed in
fieldless armory. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, 03/2003,
A-Trimaris]
[(Fieldless) A cross of Jerusalem purpure] "The Cross of
Jerusalem is a defined single charge, though it consists of
discrete elements in the same way than an ermine spot does."
(LoAR July 1996). As a result, there is no problem having a cross
of Jerusalem on a fieldless badge, even though portions of this
defined single charge are not conjoined. [Hans Faust der
herlat, 04/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[(Fieldless) An anchor fouled of its cable argent enfiling a
coronet bendwise sinister Or pearled argent] There is a high
degree of overlap between the coronet and the anchor and its
cable. This is not acceptable style for overall charges on a
fieldless badge for reasons of identifiability and non-period
style. The same stylistic constraints which apply to charges
surmounted by overall charges also apply to charges enfiled by
other charges.
The orientation of the coronet is neither clearly bendwise
sinister nor clearly palewise. This is not blazonable and
therefore a reason for return under RfS VII.7.b. There are also
contrast problems with this emblazon. The argent pearls on the
coronet overlap the argent anchor, giving no contrast at those
points. [William the Mariner, 04/2003,
R-An Tir]
[(Fieldless) An annulet sable overall a dragon segreant
argent] The dragon has a high degree of overlap with the
underlying annulet, which is not acceptable style for fieldless
badges. Moreover, an overall charge should extend significantly
past the outlines of the underlying charge, which is not the case
in this armory. [Alden Drake, 04/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[(Fieldless) A mantle gules, lined and charged on the sinister
breast with a mullet of six points argent] The submission was
originally pended in February 2003 to allow further discussion on
the possible offensiveness of this item.
We discussed this badge during the Laurel road show meeting at
KWHS 2003, which gave a greater sampling of College of Arms
members, local heralds, and non-heralds. For many in this group
this was the first contact with this item, which gave us a set of
first impressions to judge by. The mantle charged with a star was
generally considered evocative of the garments marked with a
six-pointed star that were required for Jews under Nazi Germany.
Based on the discussion at the meeting, the badge is being
returned.
We would like to note that if someone wore a red mantle which was
lined in white and charged on the sinister breast with a mullet
of six points argent, it would not appear to be a correct
heraldic display of this badge. It would appear to be a heraldic
display of (Fieldless) A mullet of six points argent
displayed on an order cloak. One correct heraldic display of
(Fieldless) A mantle gules, lined and charged on the sinister
breast with a mullet of six points argent would be to create
an enamelled pin in the shape of the charged mantle. Another
correct display would be to make a flag and put a picture of the
charged mantle on the flag. [Lochac, Kingdom of, 06/2003,
R-Lochac]
[(Fieldless) A double tressure triskely argent] RfS VIII.5
states "Since there is no field in such a [fieldless] design, it
may not use charges that rely on the edges of the field to define
their shape, such as bordures and orles." Because a double
tressure, like both the bordure and the orle, relies on the edges
of the field to define its shape, it may not be used on a
fieldless badge. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, 09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[(Fieldless) On a heart purpure, a compass star Or]
Precedent holds that a heart is a shape used for armorial display
(because of the heart-shaped escutcheons found in period): "While
blazoned on the LoI as (Fieldless) On a heart gules, a hare
salient contourny argent., since a heart is considered
standard shape for armorial display, the submission is considered
as Gules, a hare salient contourny argent. As such it
conflicts with..." (LoAR of May 1998, p. 26).
This submission has a similar problem. In this case, the armory
appears to be a display of Purpure, a compass star Or.
This conflicts with a large number of pieces of armory, including
(but not limited to) ... Azure, a compass star Or, (one CD
for changing the field), ... Purpure, a compass star within a
bordure embattled Or, (one CD for removing the bordure), and
the important non-SCA flag of Macedonia, Gules, a sun Or,
(one CD for changing the field, nothing for the difference
between a compass star and a sun).
The conflicts are not the only problem with this armory. The fact
that this fieldless armory does not appear to be a charged
charge, but appears to be an independent display of a different
piece of armory (because the heart is a shield shape), is in
itself a reason for return. Per the LoAR of April 2002 (which
upheld a significant number of prior precedents), "Note ... our
long-standing policy about such 'shield shape' charges used in
fieldless badges if the tincture is not plain (thus, divided or
with a field treatment), or if the charge is itself charged. Such
armory will continue to be returned for the appearance of an
independent form of armorial display." [Geoffrey Scott,
02/2004,
R-West]
FIMBRIATED and
VOIDED CHARGES
[Gules, on a fess rayonny argent
fimbriated sable ...] The device form shows a fess rayonny
argent fimbriated sable. While varying degrees of outline
thickness may be allowed due to artistic license, this artwork
cannot reasonably be interpreted any other way, since the
outlines of all the other charges are a normal, much thinner,
line. We do not allow charges argent fimbriated sable on a gules
field. This must be returned for redrawing. [Roise inghean ui
Ruaidhri, 09/2001,
R-Calontir]
The bordure here is much too thin to be acceptable. Each side of
a bordure is usually as thick as one-eighth to one-tenth of the
shield width, and this bordure is less than one-twentieth of the
shield width. Part of the problem is that the bordure was drawn
with a very thick black outline compared to the outlines on the
dragon's head. This outline cut into the white part of the
bordure and also had somewhat of an appearance of
fimbriation.
Please advise the submitter to be careful on future submissions
to avoid outlines so thick that they appear to be fimbriation. My
staff advises me that, in many cases, the problem with thick
outlines that appear to be fimbriation is due to use of the
computer program "Blazons". As a general rule, heraldic art from
that program is flawed, and we encourage the College to educate
their submitters not to use this program to generate the artwork
used on their forms. [Magy McTerlach, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
Chiefs may not be fimbriated. Voiding and fimbriation may only be
used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the
design, by RfS VIII.3. [Gerard du Quartier, 11/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
Flames are too complex in shape to be fimbriated. Flames proper
are drawn correctly using alternating tongues of Or and gules
flame, rather than gules fimbriated Or (which, in earlier days of
SCA heraldry, had been considered a correct form of proper
flames). See the Cover Letter for the April 1995 LoAR for more
discussion on proper flames. [Giovanna da Ferrara,
12/2001,
R-Meridies]
... nothing for changing the tincture of the fimbriation.
[Angus McGillivray, 01/2002,
R-Meridies]
... the three following very dissimilar-sounding blazons can all
be drawn identically, and thus should be considered heraldically
equivalent: A lozenge Or charged with a lozenge gules,
A lozenge Or voided gules, and A lozenge gules
fimbriated Or. This heraldic equivalence will apply for any
charge "simple enough to void" by the criteria stated in the
Cover Letter for the November 1992 LoAR. When checking for
conflict with armory using fimbriation or voiding, all these
interpretations should be considered when checking for conflict,
and if one of the interpretations conflicts, the two pieces of
armory conflict. This does not seem overly restrictive when one
considers the rarity of armory in period featuring voided or
fimbriated charges, or arms with the design of A "charge" charged
with "the same type of charge". These are very uncommon designs
in period. Period viewers probably had the same sorts of problems
that we have when interpreting such designs.
Note that charges which are voided by definition are generally
given one CD from their solid equivalents: mascles are given a CD
from lozenges, and annulets are given a CD from roundels. If one
interpreted these charges as voided, fimbriated, or charged
charges, the guidelines above would also give exactly one CD
between them. Comparing Azure, a lozenge Or vs. Azure,
a lozenge Or charged with a lozenge azure: one CD, for adding
a tertiary charge. Azure, a lozenge Or vs. Azure, a
lozenge Or voided azure: equivalent to the previous case of
adding a tertiary charge. Azure, a lozenge Or vs.
Azure, a lozenge azure fimbriated Or: one CD for changing
the tincture of the lozenge from Or to azure, and no additional
difference for removing the fimbriation. [Cecily of
Whitehaven, 06/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[three bendlets abased azure fimbriated] RfS VIII.3
states: "Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with simple
geometric charges placed in the center of the design." The
bendlets abased are not in the center of the design and therefore
their fimbriation is not acceptable. [Ann Busshenell of
Tylehurst, 10/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[a chevron abased] The chevron abased here is too far to
base to be acceptable without documentation for such a design in
period. Overly enhanced ordinaries have been a reason for return
for many years as non-period style: "These bendlets are enhanced
so much to chief that the style becomes unacceptably modern"
(LoAR January 1992). Overly abased ordinaries suffer from the
same problem.
In the particular case of this chevron, this design could also be
interpreted as a voided point pointed. Points pointed may not be
voided per RfS VIII.3, which states that "Voiding and fimbriation
may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the
center of the design." [Muirgius mac Con Mara hui S�gdai,
11/2002,
R-Trimaris]
[in base a compass star sable fimbriated Or] Note that the
submitter's previous device also used a fimbriated compass star
in base. Thus, the violation of RfS VIII.3, which states in
pertinent part "Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with
simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design", is
grandfathered to this submitter. [Edith Gray, 02/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[Sable, a bend sinister gules fimbriated Or and overall a
scorpion argent] By previous precedent, "Ermine fimbriation
is disallowed (LoAR of 3 Aug 86, p.17), as are overall charges
surmounting fimbriated ordinaries (9 March 86, p.12)". This
armory uses a fimbriated ordinary surmounted by an overall
charge, and thus is not acceptable. [Sophie Davenport,
02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[a bend sinister embowed-counterembowed] The bend sinister
was originally blazoned as wavy but did not have enough waves for
that blazon. The concensus of the College appeared to support the
SCA-acceptability of a bend sinister embowed-counterembowed.
Because there is no evidence that a bend sinister
embowed-counterembowed is a period charge, we must determine any
difference from a bend sinister wavy on solely visual grounds. A
bend sinister wavy and a bend sinister embowed-counterembowed do
not appear to be so visually distinct as to warrant
difference.
Thus, this conflicts with ... Vert, on a bend sinister wavy
between two ox heads erased affronty argent a scarpe wavy
azure. There is a CD for changing the type of the secondary
charges. A bend sinister wavy argent charged with a scarpe wavy
azure is heraldically equivalent to a bend sinister azure
fimbriated argent, so there is no additional difference.
[Aíbinn ingen Artáin, 03/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[on a cross ermine ... a cross sable] Concerning the
device, precedent indicates that fimbriating in a fur is not
registerable heraldic style: "Ermine fimbriation is disallowed
(LoAR of 3 Aug 86, p.17)..." (LoAR of October 1992, p. 26).
Precedent also indicates that voiding, fimbriation, and "on an X
an X" are considered equivalent designs for purposes of conflict,
as is discussed more fully in the LoAR of June 2002.
Heraldic designs which are equivalent for purposes of conflict
are not always equivalent for purposes of style:
In this case the blazon can make a difference: while you cannot
"blazon your way out of" a conflict, you can "blazon your way
out of" a style problem. If not, all submissions of per
chevron, three <X> would be returned because they
could also be blazoned as a charged chapé. (LoAR February
2000).
Therefore, we can consider whether this submission
is a registerable depiction of an ermine cross charged with a
sable cross, without being concerned about the fact that a cross
sable fimbriated ermine is not registerable. This submission does
have an acceptable depiction of a cross ermine charged with a
cross sable. In this depiction, the portion of the ermine cross
that shows is wide enough so that the ermine spots lying upon the
cross are clearly identifiable: they are not too small to be
identified, and the ermine spots and the tertiary cross do not
overlap, and thus do not obscure each others' identifiability.
This submission is therefore stylistically acceptable.
[Adriana von Grimme, 05/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[Per chevron throughout sable and vert, the line of division
"fimbriated", three laurel wreaths argent] This device has
identifiability problems. Because the three laurel wreaths are of
the same type and size, and because heraldic designs of the form
Per chevron [A] and [B], three [X] are overwhelmingly more
common in period than designs of the form [A], on a a pile
inverted [B] between two [X] an [X], the overwhelming visual
impression of this emblazon is of armory following the Per
chevron [A] and [B], three [X] design. However, the thin
white line in the middle of the field is not compatible with a
per chevron field interpretation. It is much too thin to be a
chevron between the laurel wreaths. It is too thick to be
considered simply an argent detail line dividing the field. It
cannot be fimbriation, because only charges may be fimbriated,
not field divisions. As a result of the identifiability issues,
this must be returned per RfS VII.7.a, which states in pertinent
part, "Any charge, line of partition, or field treatment used in
Society armory must be identifiable, in and of itself, without
labels or excessive explanation." [Druim Doineann, Shire
of, 05/2003,
R-An Tir]
[a merman maintaining an open book argent fimbriated
gules] ... the maintained book may not be fimbriated. RfS
VIII.3 states, in part, "Voiding and fimbriation may only be used
with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the
design." An open book is not a simple geometric charge and it is
not in the center of the field in this device. Note that the book
was blazoned on the Letter of Intent as an open book argent
bound gules, but that blazon would not necessarily recreate
the fact that the binding fimbriates the book around all of its
edges. [Jens Sveinsson, 05/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[Per chevron ermine and sable, on a chevron gules fimbriated
... Or] The fimbriation on the top half of the chevron is
effectively invisible, since it is a very thin Or line against an
ermine field. This has inadequate contrast per RfS VIII.2. Note
that so far no evidence has been presented where, in period
armory, the fimbriation failed to have good contrast with both
the charge being fimbriated and the field on which the charge
lies. [Ysolt de la Mere, 05/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[Per fess sable and argent, two lozenges gules fimbriated
argent and a fox passant proper] RfS VIII.3 states that:
Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by
significant reduction in size, marginal contrast, excessive
counterchanging, voiding, or fimbriation, or by being obscured
by other elements of the design... Voiding and fimbriation may
only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the center
of the design.
In this armory, we have a single group of primary
charges arranged two and one in the center of the design. Each
element of this charge group is close to the center of the design
(unlike, for example, a single charge group of charges in
orle, which would place the charges at the the outside of the
design by definition.) In a primary charge group of three charges
arranged two and one, each element of the group is considered to
be "in the center of the design" for purposes of the voiding and
fimbriation requirements of RfS VIII.3 and thus may be fimbriated
as long as the other criteria of this rule are met. [Onóra
Refsdóttir, 08/2003,
A-Middle]
[a sword the blade fimbriated of flame proper] We have
reblazoned the sword blade to be fimbriated of flames
proper rather than enflamed proper (as in the LoI), as
it more clearly describes the emblazon. Here, the blade is
entirely surrounded by tongues of flame radiating out from the
sword. At no point does the sword blade touch the field. The
small tongues of flame follow the outline of the blade closely,
giving the appearance of outlining (or "fimbriating") the sword
blade with flame.
The Letter of Intent stated, albeit without documentation, that
the depiction of the sword in this emblazon was "not all that
different from enflamed objects one occasionally sees in
religious paintings." Even if documentation were produced for
swords with this appearance in period paintings, that does not
guarantee the design's acceptability in heraldry. RfS VII.2
states "Use of an element in period art does not guarantee its
acceptability for armory. Use of the Greek key design, which was
common in period decorative art, never carried over into armory."
In order to document this design for use in SCA heraldry, it is
necessary to produce examples of this sort of enflaming in period
heraldry.
This submission therefore has a stylistic problem that is
equivalent to the problem described in the following return from
the April 1999 LoAR. Please advise the submitter to read this
previous return closely, as it describes how we expect period
enflamed objects in heraldry to be drawn, as well as why the
drawing found here does not meet those expectations.
This submission suffers from the same problem which resulted in
a return to Walram von Laufenberg (Fieldless) a flame gules,
winged argent, surmounted by the blade of a sword proper in
the May 1998 LoAR. At that time we said:
"While blazoned on the LoI as (Fieldless) between a pair of
wings argent a sword blade proper enflamed gules., we have
reblazoned to more accurately reflect the emblazon, as
"Period enflamed has a few gouttes of flame scattered around
the edge of the charge being enflamed. Where the flame
completedly surrounds an object, that object is said to be
'on a flame'. (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR May 1992, p. 26)." We
don't permit flaming fimbriation in Society armory." (Bruce
Draconarius of Mistholme, 24 July 1993 Cover Letter, (with
the June 1993 LoAR), p. 5-6."
We see no reason to overturn our ruling, and we
are returning this for the same reason.
[Stephen Other, 08/2003,
R-Artemisia]
... by long-standing SCA precedent, chiefs may not be fimbriated.
[Caitilín ni Killane, 09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[Gules, on a pile rayonny argent a standing balance sable]
Discussion on this submission asked whether a pile rayonny could
be considered "simple enough in outline to be voided", and thus
"suitable" under RfS X.4.j.ii. The pertinent clause of X.4.j.ii
states "Armory that has a group of identical charges on an
ordinary or other suitable charge alone on the field is a simple
case." A pile rayonny is an ordinary, and is eligible for this
clause whether or not it is otherwise a "suitable" charge.
A pile rayonny is a voidable charge. Most ordinaries with complex
lines are considered to be voidable charges. At this time we hold
that ordinaries with the following complex lines are voidable
charges when drawn correctly: engrailed, invected, indented,
dancetty, embattled, raguly, dovetailed, urdy, wavy, nebuly, and
rayonnny. The College may consider the question of the
voidability of ordinaries with some of the more complex lines,
such as flory counter-flory, on a case by case basis. [Augusto
Giuseppe da San Donato, 10/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Gules, three bendlets abased argent each charged with a
bendlet azure] Her previous armory submission was very
similar to this but was blazoned as using bendlets abased
azure fimbriated argent. That submission was returned for
using fimbriated charges that were not in the center of the
design, which is forbidden by RfS VIII.3. The submission is
blazoned as using bendlets each charged with a bendlet, and is
proportioned acceptably for that blazon.
Per the LoAR of February 2000, "In this case the blazon can make
a difference: while you cannot 'blazon your way out of' a
conflict, you can 'blazon your way out of' a style problem." In
the colored-in full-sized emblazon, the bendlets are identifiable
as bendlets (rather than part of a complicated bendy field), and
are not debased so far as to be unregisterable. [Ann
Busshenell of Tylehurst, 10/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[a wheel enflamed to chief Or] Heraldic enflaming
generally surrounds the enflamed charge with small tongues of
flame issuant from the charge's entire perimeter. In this
submission, the depiction of the "enflam[ing] to chief"
effectively fimbriates the top half of the wheel with flame,
rather than issuing small tongues of flame from the top portion
of the wheel. Such fimbriation of flame is not registerable: "The
flames here act only as a very complex fimbriation, which has
been previously disallowed" (LoAR of May 1995, p. 14).
In this submission, only part of the wheel is enflamed, not the
entire wheel. Usually, an entire charge must be enflamed,
although at times the SCA has allowed a clearly separable portion
of a charge to be enflamed (such as enflaming only the blade of a
sword). It was the opinion of the College that it is not
appropriate to only enflame the top of a wheel. Thus, even if the
enflaming were redrawn so that it did not appear to be
fimbriation of flame, this submission has a stylistic problem.
Without supporting documentation, this motif may not be
registered. [Shih Tan Po, 01/2004,
R-Middle]
[Vert, on a cross flory Or a rose proper] ... no
difference for changing the type only of the tertiary charge. A
cross flory is not a "suitable charge" for RfS X.4.j.ii, which
states in pertinent part, "A charge is suitable for the purposes
of [RfS X.4.j.ii] if (a) it is simple enough in outline to be
voided..." Crosses fleury are analogous to crosses moline for
purposes of considering whether they are too complicated to void
or to fimbriate. The LoAR of July 1999 stated, "This is being
returned for violating the precedent set by Bruce Draconarius of
Mistholme as Laurel (January 15, 1993, cover letter) concerning
which charges are suitable for fimbriation. A cross moline is too
complex to fimbriate."
In the cases of both crosses moline and crosses flory, some
period depictions of the cross have ends which are complicated
enough that the cross is arguably too complex to void by the
criteria of the Cover Letter dated January 15, 1993 (for the
November 1992 LoAR), although many other period depictions of
these crosses are simple enough to void by the same criteria.
While we are not certain whether we would rule, de novo,
that crosses moline are too complicated to void, insufficient
evidence has been presented to overturn the previous precedent
concerning the voidability of crosses moline. [Victoria
Anthoinette Sauvignon, 03/2004,
R-Calontir]
There is no difference for changing the type of tertiary charge
on an estoile per RfS X.4.j.ii, as an estoile is not a "suitable"
charge for purposes of this rule. [Eleanora von Ratzeburg,
03/2004,
R-Drachenwald]
FISH and DOLPHIN
We
have reblazoned the fish from a pike fish to a
dolphin. A heraldic pike is longer and thinner with a
pointed snout. This charge has the standard fins, proportions,
and embowed-counterembowed posture of a heraldic dolphin as it
would usually be drawn in England. [Minna of Tintagel,
01/2003,
A-East]
[three dolphins embowed-counterembowed in annulo] The
College had some concerns about whether the dolphins could
reasonably be blazoned in annulo. The one in dexter chief
is haurient to sinister, that in sinister chief is urinant and
the one in base is fesswise. We encourage the submitter, on
resubmission, to draw these charges so that they are more clearly
in annulo, or to posture them so that they may be blazoned
clearly. [James of Essex, 01/2003,
R-Trimaris] [Ed.: Returned for conflict.]
[Per fess engrailed azure and vert, in chief a natural dolphin
argent] ... this conflicts with Anton de Winton, Per
chevron azure, and Or scaly sable, in chief a herring naiant
embowed argent. There is one CD for changing the field. There
is no difference for changing the type of fish. A natural dolphin
is not apparently a period heraldic charge, and thus its
difference from other charges must be determined on visual
grounds under RfS X.4.e. Comparing this dolphin with Anton's
herring, the outlines of the two charges are very similar. They
both have slightly forked tails (it is impossible to tell whether
the tail is supposed to have horizontal or vertical flukes
without resorting to internal details, and Anton's dolphin lacks
these). Both creatures have a dorsal fin and a forefin. The
"beak" or "bottle-nose" on a natural dolphin helps identify it as
a natural dolphin, but is not a sufficient outline difference to
give a CD from a herring.
Note that this ruling does not revoke the many rulings that grant
no difference between a heraldic and a natural dolphin. Given the
well established trends towards naturalism in Renaissance art and
Renaissance heraldic art, it is possible that a natural dolphin
might have been used as an artist's variant of a heraldic
dolphin. Without evidence for natural dolphins in period
heraldry, the natural dolphin will conflict both with heraldic
dolphins and with standard-outlined fish, like herring. [Helga
Iden dohtir, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[two carp naiant tergiant] We are not aware of period
heraldry using fish tergiant. However, period heraldry uses fish
in a wide variety of orientations and arrangements. These fish
tergiant maintain their identifiability as fish. The tergiant
posture is thus one step from period practice ("a weirdness"),
but since this submission only contains one "weirdness", it is
stylistically acceptable. [Nonna the Midwife, 05/2003,
A-Middle]
The only difference in posture between a dolphin urinant and a
dolphin urinant to sinister is the way its head is facing, which
is not worth difference by RfS X.4.h: "[A dolphin urinant
contourny proper] "Conflict with... a dolphin urinant vert...
There is... nothing for reversing the fish in this position"
(LoAR of May 1992, p. 22). [Geoffrey Athos von Ulm,
02/2004,
R-Atlantia]
FLAG and BANNER
This category deals with flags and banners as charges; not
with important non-SCA flags or registered SCA
flags/banners
[(Fieldless) A dragon sable, crowned Or
and sustaining a banner quarterly sable and gules all semy of
fraises Or] "This fieldless badge appears to be a supporter
maintaining a flag with arms on it. As we do not register
supporters, we cannot register this" (LoAR of November 1999, p.
13). [Colin Tyndall de ffrayser, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
[(Fieldless) A banner azure] This banner is drawn like the
illustration in the Pictorial Dictionary under "Flag".
Such a flag can be seen in the arms of W�rzburg in the
Conzilium zu Constanz in 1413 or in Siebmacher's 1605
Wappenbuch f. 220.
A blue flag is an acceptable fieldless badge. It is not a display
of the arms Azure, but is merely a blue charge. As noted
in the April 2002 LoAR, "A 'shield shape' which is also a
standard heraldic charge will be acceptable as a fieldless badge
in a plain tincture, as long as the tincture is not one of the
plain tinctures that is protected armory in the SCA". Since
Azure is not protected armory in this SCA, a fieldless
badge consisting of a banner azure does not appear to be
an independent display of arms and is acceptable.
Please advise the submitters that it would not be heraldically
correct to display this badge by making and carrying a blue flag.
Such a blue flag would appear to be a display of the arms
Azure. The correct way to display this badge on a flag or
standard would be to paint the badge of A banner azure on
a flag or standard made of some other color (or colors) of
material. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, 06/2002,
A-Trimaris]
[a gryphon ... maintaining a flag per fess gules and
sable] This armory uses a flag that appears to be a display
of Per fess gules and sable. According to precedent,
"[... sustaining a banner quarterly sable and gules, seme of
fraises Or] ... we do not allow a depiction of heraldic display
which conflicts with registered armory..." (LoAR September
2000).
The flag maintained by this griffin (Per fess
gules and sable) conflicts with the real-world flags of
Monaco and Indonesia (important non-SCA flags), Per fess gules
and argent. There is only one CD by RfS X.4.a for changing
the tincture of half the field of the flag.
Some members of the College noted that another piece of armory
with similar design was accepted without comment, and asked if
the September 2000 precedent had been overturned due to that
acceptance. Please note that registrations without comment do not
establish precedent. [Magdelena Drucker, 02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
FLAMES and
FIRE
[(Fieldless) A phoenix rising from an estoile of
eight rays Or] Similarly, this conflicts with ... Gyronny
sable and gules, a phoenix Or, issuant from flames proper.
There is one CD for the field, but nothing for the change of
one-fourth of the tincture of the charge (the half of the flame
that is gules). [Eiríkr Mjoksiglandi Sigurðarson and Astridr
Selr Leifsdóttir, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
[(Fieldless) A phoenix rising from an estoile of eight rays
Or] Conflict with ... Per chevron argent and vert, in base
a phoenix Or. There's one CD for the change to the field but
nothing for position on the field versus a fieldless badge. The
phoenix rising from an estoile of eight rays is too visually
similar to a phoenix to be given difference from a phoenix. The
rays of the estoile are much like the tongues of flame, albeit
with one or two tongues of flame defying the laws of gravity.
...
The few errant downwards tongues of flame which cause a flame to
be shaped like an estoile would not be surprising in a period
depiction of an animal or object enflamed. For a late period
example, there is the collar of the Order of the Holy Spirit
(France). This order was founded in 1578. The collar contains
plaques which include a gold fleur-de-lis issuing flames gules.
The funeral effigy of Marshal Alphonse d'Omano, c. 1610, shows
him wearing the early (pre-1595) collar, and each fleur-de-lys is
shown issuing four flames, which are radially disposed
saltirewise, which is to say, the bases of the flames are
inwards, so the bottommost flames have the rays extending
downwards and outwards. Similarly, in a drawing showing the
collar of the Holy Spirit under Henri III (at the order's
founding), the fleurs-de-lys are also shown with four flames
radially disposed saltirewise. Hervé Pinoteau describes these
plaques as "fleurs de lis d'or ornées de flames rouges", showing
that the direction of the flames was not explicitly blazoned. As
with most such chivalric and livery collars, the items used to
make up the collar are generally compatible with contemporary
period heraldic art style and are frequently heraldic charges.
[Eiríkr Mjoksiglandi Sigurðarson and Astridr Selr
Leifsdóttir, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
Flames are too complex in shape to be fimbriated. Flames proper
are drawn correctly using alternating tongues of Or and gules
flame, rather than gules fimbriated Or (which, in earlier days of
SCA heraldry, had been considered a correct form of proper
flames). See the Cover Letter for the April 1995 LoAR for more
discussion on proper flames. [Giovanna da Ferrara,
12/2001,
R-Meridies]
[(Fieldless) A flame proper] Conflict with William of
Sark, Sable, a flame proper. William's armory is
emblazoned as an Or flame voided gules: an "old-SCA-style" proper
flame. Rúadhán's armory is emblazoned with alternating gules and
Or tongues of flame: a "new-SCA-style" (or real-world style)
proper flame.
The question asked by the submitting kingdom: should we consider
these charges distinct? A roundel paly wavy Or and gules would
after all be considered to have a different tincture from a
roundel Or voided gules, and the kingdom argued that the
situation with flames should be analogous. Flames proper are,
however, a special case of tincture due to SCA heraldic history,
and it does not seem appropriate to give difference between the
two different SCA styles of proper flames.
The "old-SCA-style" proper flames (drawn either as gules voided
Or or vice versa) are not a period depiction of flames, as stated
in the cover letter with the April 1995 LoAR. A ruling giving
tincture difference between the "old-SCA-style" and
"new-SCA-style" proper flames has unfortunate ramifications. It
would be necessary to inspect all the registered proper flames
and reblazon the flames which did not meet the current definition
of flames proper. This would affect between 150 pieces of
armory (armory using the two word-phrase flame proper in
the blazon, which only considers single flames) and 450 pieces of
armory (armory using the substrings flame and
proper in the blazon, which could include armory which did
not have a proper flame in it at all, but includes some other
proper charge, and a flame in a standard heraldic tincture.)
Because the April 1995 ruling was relatively late in the SCA's
heraldic history, we expect that the majority of the armory using
flame(s) proper use the "old-SCA-style" proper.
If we reblazon the "old-SCA-style" flames to match their current
emblazon, we would not allow the submitters who had learned that
the "old-SCA-style" flame was not period to choose to draw their
proper flames in a period fashion henceforth. The reblazon would
require them to continue to draw non-period flames, or to
resubmit their arms. This does not seem like a desirable
policy.
We therefore rule that, as a special case due to the SCA history
of the charge, there will be no difference given between the
various emblazons of flames proper. [Rúadhán Súilghlas,
05/2002,
R-An Tir]
[(Fieldless) On a flame proper, a heart argent] This does
not conflict with Grimn the Hele-Bourne, Sable, upon a flame
gules fimbriated Or, a skull argent. There is one CD for
fieldlessness. There is no difference for changing the type only
of charge on the flame, as a flame is too complicated to
fimbriate by RfS X.4.j.ii.
There is, however, a CD for the tincture change between a modern
flame proper (drawn with alternating tongues of gules and Or
flame), as in Dorren's submission, and a flame gules fimbriated
Or, as in Grimn's submission. While it is true that a flame gules
fimbriated Or is one way of drawing an "old-SCA-style" flame
proper, there is no evidence that Grimn ever intended the flame
in his device to be a proper flame. Even on the original 1976
form it was blazoned as a flame gules fimbriated Or. There
is therefore no reason to believe that Grimn's flame might be
drawn just like Dorren's as a matter of artistic license.
Similarly, there is no reason to believe that Dorren's modern
flame proper would ever be drawn in the old (and now disallowed)
SCA version of a flame proper, which might be depicted as
gules fimbriated Or. Therefore there is a CD between these
two flames, just as there would be a CD between a flame gules and
a flame paly Or and gules. [Dorren of Ashwell, 10/2002,
A-East]
[Sable, a spear bendwise sinister argent hafted of wood and
enflamed proper] The spear is mostly a wood-brown charge.
This has inadequate contrast with the sable field. The enflaming
does not remove the requirement that the charge should have good
contrast with the field on which it lies. This is thus in
violation of RfS VIII.2.b.i. [Philip Bell, 02/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[an eagle enflamed] The bird was originally blazoned as a
firebird, which is an SCA-defined charge representing a
folk art design. The SCA firebird resembles a peacock. This
charge is an eagle enflamed (surrounded with small tufts of
flame). We have reblazoned it accordingly.
Conflict ... no difference ... for removing the small tufts of
flame. [Piera da Ferrara, 04/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[Azure, on a flame Or a pavilion gules] Conflict with
William of Sark, Sable, a flame proper. William's armory
is heraldically equivalent to Sable, on a flame Or a flame
gules. As a result, there is one CD for changing the field
but no other difference for changing only the type of tertiary
charge on a complex-outlined flame by X.4.j.ii. [Jacqueline
Kathryn Lyonnais, 04/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[a sword the blade fimbriated of flame proper] We have
reblazoned the sword blade to be fimbriated of flames
proper rather than enflamed proper (as in the LoI), as
it more clearly describes the emblazon. Here, the blade is
entirely surrounded by tongues of flame radiating out from the
sword. At no point does the sword blade touch the field. The
small tongues of flame follow the outline of the blade closely,
giving the appearance of outlining (or "fimbriating") the sword
blade with flame.
The Letter of Intent stated, albeit without documentation, that
the depiction of the sword in this emblazon was "not all that
different from enflamed objects one occasionally sees in
religious paintings." Even if documentation were produced for
swords with this appearance in period paintings, that does not
guarantee the design's acceptability in heraldry. RfS VII.2
states "Use of an element in period art does not guarantee its
acceptability for armory. Use of the Greek key design, which was
common in period decorative art, never carried over into armory."
In order to document this design for use in SCA heraldry, it is
necessary to produce examples of this sort of enflaming in period
heraldry.
This submission therefore has a stylistic problem that is
equivalent to the problem described in the following return from
the April 1999 LoAR. Please advise the submitter to read this
previous return closely, as it describes how we expect period
enflamed objects in heraldry to be drawn, as well as why the
drawing found here does not meet those expectations.
This submission suffers from the same problem which resulted in
a return to Walram von Laufenberg (Fieldless) a flame gules,
winged argent, surmounted by the blade of a sword proper in
the May 1998 LoAR. At that time we said:
"While blazoned on the LoI as (Fieldless) between a pair of
wings argent a sword blade proper enflamed gules., we have
reblazoned to more accurately reflect the emblazon, as
"Period enflamed has a few gouttes of flame scattered around
the edge of the charge being enflamed. Where the flame
completedly surrounds an object, that object is said to be
'on a flame'. (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR May 1992, p. 26)." We
don't permit flaming fimbriation in Society armory." (Bruce
Draconarius of Mistholme, 24 July 1993 Cover Letter, (with
the June 1993 LoAR), p. 5-6."
We see no reason to overturn our ruling, and we
are returning this for the same reason.
[Stephen Other, 08/2003,
R-Artemisia]
[Purpure, a heart Or enflamed gules] The enflaming of the
heart, as is often the case, is drawn as small gouttes of flame,
and is a blazonable detail that is not worth difference. Because
the enflaming is considered an artistic detail, it is acceptable
to have gules enflaming on a purpure field. The fact that
enflaming can be too small to be worth difference, and can then
violate the rule of tincture, is mentioned in this ruling from
the LoAR of September 1996: "Therefore, the only possible
difference could come from the flames. The submitter has drawn
the salamander properly with small goutes of flame coming off it.
Unfortunately, of the eight goutes of flame, five were solid
gules, and three were solid Or. Therefore, if the goutes are
significant enough to count for difference, this would have to be
returned for breaking tincture [note: the charge was not returned
for breaking tincture, it was returned for conflict.]"
Please advise the submitter that enflamed charges usually have
the flames issuant from the edge of the charge towards the field,
with minimal overlap between the flames and the charge itself.
The submitter should not draw so much of the enflaming in the
center of the charge. [Aimée Long C{oe}ur, 12/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[a wheel enflamed to chief Or] Heraldic enflaming
generally surrounds the enflamed charge with small tongues of
flame issuant from the charge's entire perimeter. In this
submission, the depiction of the "enflam[ing] to chief"
effectively fimbriates the top half of the wheel with flame,
rather than issuing small tongues of flame from the top portion
of the wheel. Such fimbriation of flame is not registerable: "The
flames here act only as a very complex fimbriation, which has
been previously disallowed" (LoAR of May 1995, p. 14).
In this submission, only part of the wheel is enflamed, not the
entire wheel. Usually, an entire charge must be enflamed,
although at times the SCA has allowed a clearly separable portion
of a charge to be enflamed (such as enflaming only the blade of a
sword). It was the opinion of the College that it is not
appropriate to only enflame the top of a wheel. Thus, even if the
enflaming were redrawn so that it did not appear to be
fimbriation of flame, this submission has a stylistic problem.
Without supporting documentation, this motif may not be
registered. [Shih Tan Po, 01/2004,
R-Middle]
FLEUR-DE-LYS
Roses and
fleurs-de-lys are substantially different. [Katarina
Kittmann, 08/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[A fleur-de-lys pean] The ermine spots are too small to be
identifiable. The size derives in part from the very high number
of ermine spots (approximately 88). As the ermine spots cannot be
identified, this must be returned under RfS VIII.3.
Based on the disposition of ermine spots on similar charges in
period armory (such as cinquefoils), we would expect there to be
7-13 ermine spots on the average fleur-de-lys used as a primary
charge. We would also expect the ermine spots to be whole ermine
spots, rather than cut off at the edge of the charge. As a
general rule, ermine spots drawn on charges were usually whole
spots arranged to fit well on the charge (even if some of the
ermine spots needed to be made a bit smaller than usual, or
tilted slightly, to fit in their alloted spaces). In contrast to
the practices for ermine spots on charges, ermine spots on fields
in period were not infrequently drawn with the spots cut off at
the edge of the shield or at the edge of an overlying charge.
[Robin Gallowglass, 04/2003,
R-East]
[Azure, ... and in chief two fleurs-de-lis Or] There is no
pretense problem with the use of two Or fleurs-de-lys on an azure
field or charge. The strictures against the use of three or more
Or fleurs-de-lys on an azure design element is due to the period
practice of French augmentations that used the arms of France on
an armorial element such as a charge or field. These
augmentations were found using the ancient form of the French
arms, Azure semy-de-lys Or, or the modern form, Azure,
three fleurs-de-lys Or. An azure design element with only one
or two Or fleurs de lys does not presume on these period
augmentations. Per the LoAR of June 1995 p.13: "...It is thus the
use of three or more fleurs-de-lys Or on azure which is
restricted; not a single gold fleur on a blue field." [Davi
d'Orléans, 07/2003,
A-Caid]
The triangle inverted voided ployé fleury at the points
azure may have been considered a single charge in German
armory. However, this single charge is not heraldically distinct
from three fleurs-de-lys conjoined in pall azure. We do
not give difference between three charges and three conjoined
charges when both groups of charges are in in the same
orientation and arrangement. This is noted in the following
precedent, which specifically treats of charges in annulo: "There
is no difference between charges in annulo and charges in annulo
which are also conjoined, although the conjoining must be
blazoned when present" (LoAR January 2002).
As a result, this only has one CD from a badge of Atenveldt
(registered in December 2002), Or, three fleurs-de-lys in pall
bases to center azure. There is one CD for fieldlessness but
nothing for conjoining the fleurs-de-lys. [Sonnet Manon,
08/2003,
R-An Tir]
[a fleur-de-lys] The fleur-de-lys was originally blazoned
as florency but the SCA does not blazon this sort of
artistic detail. Per the Cover Letter for the June 1993 LoAR
(dated July 1993):
Occasionally, the very diversity of the Society dictates that
some details shouldn't be blazoned. For instance, we don't
normally blazon the local drawing style: a fleur-de-lys is
blazoned a fleur-de-lys, whether drawn in the Italian style
(sometimes blazoned a fleur-de-lys florencée by modern heralds)
or the French style. In this way, we permit the broadest mix of
cultures; we don't micro-manage the scribes, but allow them the
fullest creativity and expression; and we make it possible for
someone to change persona without requiring a reblazon.
[Oriana Luisa della Francesca, 09/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[Vert, on a cross flory Or a rose proper] Conflict with
... (Fieldless) On four demi-fleurs conjoined in cross Or a
torteau. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There is no
difference between the four demi-fleurs conjoined in cross
charged with (a tertiary charge) and a cross flory charged with
(a tertiary charge): the tertiary charge obscures any significant
difference between these two designs. [Victoria Anthoinette
Sauvignon, 03/2004,
R-Calontir]
FLOWER --
Lily
These lilies are not truly slipped as in the
original blazon. Slipped implies a sizeable slip. The
"slips" depicted here are small green stem stubs at the bottom of
the lily. Such stubs are an artistic detail which is too
insignificant to be included in the blazon. [Ella de
Lille, 12/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[two lilies argent] This is clear of conflict with Ram
Nordlilja, Per chevron sable and argent, two lilies slipped
and leaved respectant and a ram's head cabossed
counterchanged. There is one CD for the posture of the group.
The lilies in Ram's device have their bells fesswise, as one
might expect from the term respectant in the blazon. The lilies
in Ella's device are in the default palewise posture. [Ella de
Lille, 12/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[Azure semy of seeblatter argent, a lily Or] This is clear
of conflict with .. Azure, a day lily plant with three
blossoms Or. There is one CD for adding the seeblatter and at
least another for changing a day lily plant to a lily flower. The
day lily plant is a mound of foliage with some lilies growing out
of it. There is a CD between a rose branch and a rose: there
should be at least a CD between a lily and a lily plant.
[Marion inghean uí Ruanadha, 03/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[an arum lily] There were some questions in the College
concerning whether the arum lily was a flower known to Western
Europeans. The commenters noted that these flowers resembled the
calla lily, which is not European. Nebuly provided an extensive
and surprisingly entertaining discussion of the arum lily from
Demi Brown's book Aroids: Plants of the Arum Family (p.
70) stating in most pertinent part, "There are upwards of 100
common English names for Arum maculatum, a species found in woods
and hedgerows in northern Europe." [Debby of the Mists,
08/2002,
A-Meridies]
There is substantial difference between a standard heraldic lily
(a trumpet shaped flower in profile) and a daisy (a multipetalled
disk shaped flower affronty). [Katherine Merivale,
09/2002,
A-Caid]
We have reblazoned the calla lily as an arum lily.
The calla lily is not a Western European flower, but the very
similar arum lily is a Western European flower. [Serena Gethin
and Evelun Lambert, 04/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[A tiger lily affronty proper] The tiger lily in this
emblazon is orange with brown markings. The defining tiger lily
proper in the SCA is in the device of Joselyn Allyne Reynard,
registered in May 1980, Ermine, a red fox couchant between two
tiger lilies, slipped and leaved, conjoined in annulo proper.
(Vulpes vulpes, Lilium tigrinum). Those tiger lilies are also
orange with black or brown markings. This emblazon also matches
the proper tiger lilies in the badge of Arianell merch Iestin of
Carmarthen, registered in July 1981, Sable, two tiger lilies
slipped and leaved, the stems tied in a Carrick bend knot,
between on a pair of flaunches argent two estoilles of eight rays
sable. A number of different species of lily have been called
tiger lilies, according to the College's research. These
different sorts of lilies are all orange in color with dark
striped or spotted markings. [Dananir bint Zang al Tabib,
05/2003,
A-Ealdormere]
The lily of the valley plant is too tall and thin to be
counterchanged along its long axis. The slip, in particular,
loses its identifiability. Previous precedent has returned
similarly wide charges for similar reasons, for example, "[a mace
... counterchanged] There was discussion as to whether the mace
was wide enough to be counterchanged along its long axis.
Previous cases have decided that winged swords are not, and that
double-bitted axes and comets are. The issue is identifiability
such counterchanging was banned precisely because the charge
became unidentifiable. After examining the emblazon, we decided
that the charge was just barely too narrow to be counterchanged
like this" (LoAR of August 2000). [Clare Agatha MacLeod,
03/2004,
R-Northshield]
FLOWER --
Miscellaneous
... a forget-me-not proper is effectively a
cinquefoil azure... [Alethea of Shrewsbury, 08/2001,
A-Lochac]
[a trillium gules barbed vert vs a prickly pear flower gules
seeded Or, leaved of acanthus vert] There is a CD for the
change to the field, and a CD for the difference in the types of
the flowers. [Deirdre ingean Dhomhnaill, 11/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
There is substantial difference between a cinquefoil and a
dandelion. The outline of any foil shows clearly separated
countable petals, and a dandelion has a mass of small uncountable
petals. The petals of a dandelion are thin and pointed rather
than the rounder petals of a foil. Barring evidence that the
change from a dandelion to a foil would have been a cadency
change in period, and thus only a CD (per wording of RfS X.4, a
significant change), it seems appropriate to give (per wording of
RfS X.2) substantial difference between these charges. [Emma
Dandelion, 11/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[a bluebell sprig proper] This is clear of conflict with
Dorathea Osborne, Or, a gillyflower gules slipped and leaved
vert, a bordure azure. There is a CD for the type of flower.
The gillyflower in Dorathea's device is over half the charge, so
there is a CD for changing over half the tincture of the charge.
[Iodis Ebbesdottir, 12/2001,
A-Drachenwald]
[a vine vert flowered purpure] The vine has been
reblazoned from a morning glory vine to a default flowered vine,
as it does not have the morning glory's distinctive
trumpet-shaped flowers. [Fína ingen uú Scolaighe, 12/2001,
A-Lochac]
[lily Or] Conflict with ... (Fieldless) A jonquil
blossom bell to chief Or. There is one CD for fieldlessness
but nothing for the change in the type of flower. When a jonquil
is in this posture, it is visually similar enough to a lily that
we cannot give a CD for the change in type. [Eleanor
Fairchild, 12/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
[a quatrefoil vs a rue flower] Conflict with a badge of
Mariana Silversea, Azure, a rue-flower Or, seeded vert within
a bordure wavy argent. There is one CD for the change to the
field. On Mariana's form, the rue flower is drawn as a quatrefoil
with four thin "whiskers", two between each petal. The rue flower
is effectively a quatrefoil with some added artistic details and
thus has no difference from a quatrefoil. [Eórann Maguire,
01/2002,
R-Trimaris]
[a tulip slipped and leaved Or] ... this submission
conflicts with Christine the Accursed, Azure, a chrysanthemum
slipped and leaved Or. There is one CD for the change to the
type of flower but there is not substantial difference for
purposes of RfS X.2. Christine's chrysanthemum is drawn as a
globular mass, with a very rounded profile, and there is a marked
visual similarity between the two plants. [Sondra van
Schiedam, 02/2002,
R-Calontir]
[a tulip slipped and leaved Or] This is clear of conflict
with Uta Boucht, Azure, a water-lily plant eradicated argent,
flowered Or. There is one CD for the change in tincture of
the plant (which is almost entirely argent in Uta's device) and a
CD for the change in the type of charge. [Sondra van
Schiedam, 02/2002,
R-Calontir]
[a gendy flower] "There has been only one registration of
a gendy flower, and that was in 1979. Therefore, before I am
willing to register the charge again, I need proof that either it
is a reasonable heraldic charge or that Gethyn can register it
under the grandfather clause, i.e, that Gethyn is a close
relative of Alma Tea av Telemark" (LoAR November 1999). No
evidence has been presented that this is a reasonable heraldic
charge, or that this submitter is entitled to use it by the
grandfather clause. [Rothin in flamska, 02/2002,
R-Outlands]
A wood sorrel blossom is a trefoil-like charge without a slip and
with heart-shaped foils. It is given this name in Japanese
Design Motifs, from the Matsuya Piece-Goods store. [Washizu
Isabur{o-} Nobuhide, 04/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
The flowers were originally blazoned as gardenia blossoms, but
those flowers have an indefinite number of petals (anywhere from
five to eleven petals). We have therefore reblazoned these as
generic six-petalled flowers, or sexfoils. The classic
sexfoil would show more separation between the petals. [Zoraya
de Navarre, 04/2002,
A-Outlands]
After reading the discussion provided by the College, it seems
appropriate to rule that the daffodil, like the lotus, has no
default posture. The posture of the flower should be blazoned
explicitly, such as affronty or bell to chief.
Daffodils addorsed are daffodils with the bells facing
away from each other.
Daffodils are not slipped and leaved by default. The flower
portion of the daffodil may be referred to either as a
daffodil or as a daffodil blossom. [06/2002,
CL]
Élise's device, Argent, a pale purpure cotised vert between
two sprigs of lavender proper, is the defining example of
lavender proper in the SCA. Lavender proper has purple
flowers and green slips and leaves. [Élise da Nizza,
08/2002,
A-Atlantia]
There is substantial difference between a standard heraldic lily
(a trumpet shaped flower in profile) and a daisy (a multipetalled
disk shaped flower affronty). [Katherine Merivale,
09/2002,
A-Caid]
[Argent, on a pile throughout between two violets purpure
slipped and leaved vert a pegasus segreant argent] This does
not conflict with Gabriella Maddelena Pisano, Argent, on a
pile purpure between two common blue irises slipped and leaved
proper, a houndstooth burnisher argent. There is one CD for
the difference in type of flower: the violet is effectively a
cinquefoil affronty and an iris has a distinctly different shape
(more lily-like, and seen in profile). Gabriella's irises are
azure rather than purpure, giving a second CD for the change in
tincture. There is a third CD for changing the type of tertiary
charge under RfS X.4.j.ii, since the armory is simple for
purposes of that rule. [Yolande of Isenfir, 10/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[Gules, two plum flowers in bend slipped in annulo argent]
A plum flower is a standard cinquefoil-type flower like a
cherry blossom.
The device conflicts with ... Quarterly sable and gules, in
bend two cinquefoils argentThere is one CD for changing the
field, but no difference for slipping the cinquefoils. [Sancha
de Flores, 10/2002,
R-East]
... there is a CD between a single dandelion flower slipped and
leaved, as shown here, and a dandelion plant. [Chardonne de
Lyon, 01/2003,
R-East]
[A wild ginger flower] The wild ginger flower in Ginevra's
badge has the petals in pall inverted (with one petal to chief).
This is the default for wild ginger flowers, which is the
opposite of the default for the similarly three-petalled trillium
(see the cover letter of the January 2003 LoAR for more details).
[Ginevra Rodney, 02/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[A cinquefoil pierced purpure] Conflict with Alyanora of
Vinca, Argent, a periwinkle proper. Periwinkles are
effectively cinquefoils and given no type difference from
cinquefoils. There is no tincture difference: per the September
1996 LoAR, "The tincture of the periwinkle is somewhere between
blue [and] purple, and therefore both azure and purpure flowers
could potentially conflict with it." [Tatiana Pavlovna
Sokolova, 04/2003,
R-Outlands]
[a tulip] The tulip was originally blazoned as a
Turkish tulip. However, this appears to be a reasonable
variant of the standard tulip and needs not be explicitly
blazoned. This particular stylization of a tulip is found in
period Middle Eastern art. [Kathy of Tir Ysgithr, 08/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
The camellia flower is native to China and Japan. There is no
clear documentation produced either by the submitting kingdom, or
the College, indicating that camellias were known in the West in
our period. There is no strong registration history of camellias
in SCA armory. There are only two registrations - one in 1975 and
one in 1981.
In order to register further camellias, it is necessary to
provide documentation showing that the flower was known to
Western Europeans, and that the period camellia resembles the
flower in the submission. It is important to remember that
camellias have been extensively bred in modern times. The
camellias in the two registrations do not resemble the flower in
this submission, but have many petals, so that they belong in the
"multipetaled" section of the SCA Ordinary. The multipetaled
versions of camellias may well be modern variants of the
flower.
The flowers found in this submission each have five or six round
petals that overlap each other for most of their length. Because
the number of the petals is not the same in all these flowers,
and the petals are not clearly separated, the group of flowers
cannot be reblazoned as either cinquefoils or
sexfoils. Note that if the submitter wishes to submit
flowers that resemble the modern single versions of the
Camellia sasanqua, with five separated petals and a
central round tuft of seeds, they may be blazoned as generic
cinquefoils [seeded]. [Camilla Fante da Ferrara,
09/2003,
R-Meridies]
The amaranth as depicted in this submission is not identifiable.
The identifiability issue was mentioned in the October 2000
return and has not been adequately addressed with this
submission. The submitted amaranth does not resemble the picture
of the amaranth flower/flower-head mentioned by the submission
herald at
http://biodiversity.uno.edu/delta/angio/images/amara636.gif. Nor
does it match an illustration of the specific amaranth species
described in the attached documentation, Grain amaranth
(Amaranthus cruentus, Amaranthus hypochondriacus), which are New
World plants that were mentioned by a Western European, Fray
Bernardino de Shag�n, in 1570. A picture of this species, which
shows its resemblance to the other amaranth picture, may be found
at
http://www.desert-tropicals.com/Plants/Amaranthaceae/Amaranthus_cruentus.html.
This submission depicts a very small portion of the flower head,
rather than the whole flower, which causes it to lose its
identifiability. Brachet summarized the concerns as follows: "an
amaranth flower (or floret) is no more than 4 mm long ... someone
drawing a normal 'amaranth flower' would draw the inflorescence,
the grouping of hundreds of actual florets on a stem or set of
stems (sometimes they branch), something that might be blazoned
as a 'sprig of amaranth'. That drawing would look nothing like
this. This drawing may be botanically correct (except that the
stem is way too long and thick), but we feel a parallel may be
drawn between this and sunflowers. Were I to blazon 'a sunflower'
I would expect to see the round multi-'petaled' inflorescence,
not one of the little tubular florets. If I were to blazon
amaranth, I would expect to see a drawing of some macroscopic
portion of the plant, not a grossly exaggerated tiny portion
thereof." [Zoe Amaranta, 12/2003,
R-Artemisia]
[A sexfoil Or seeded sable] The College did not feel that
this flower, originally blazoned as an amaryllis flower,
was clearly identifiable as an amaryllis flower. The flower in
this emblazon is affronty and has six equally-sized and
equally-spaced petals that come to slight points at the end. Both
the commentary from the College and the documentation provided
with the submission indicated that an amaryllis flower has petals
that are significantly longer, thinner, and more sharply pointed
than the petals of the flower in this emblazon. The documentation
also indicated that the amaryllis flower has a trumpet shape that
was visually apparent even when the flower was affronty, while
this flower appears to be flat. We have reblazoned the flower in
this emblazon as a sexfoil, as it is well within the range of
depictions which we expect for that stylized heraldic charge.
[Amaryllis Coleman, 01/2004,
R-Æthelmearc]
The branches were originally blazoned as borage slipped.
However, a borage flower, which is found frequently in period
artwork, is a five-petalled flower with thin pointed petals and
long sepals (barbs). These branches end in a group of small blue
dots, which might be intended as a cluster of borage flowers but
are unidentifiable as such. We have thus blazoned the charges on
the chief as branches, as they are predominantly green
stems with green leaves. [Giovanna Giovannelli, 03/2004,
A-Middle]
FLOWER --
Rose
Roses and fleurs-de-lys are substantially different.
[Katarina Kittmann, 08/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[a thistle vs. a rose] Thistles and shamrocks were ruled
to be substantially different in October 1999; these should be
just as distinct visually. No evidence has been produced that a
change from a rose to a trefoil [Ed: Should be thistle] as
a primary charge was used for period cadency, which also shows
that they are substantially different as per rule X.2.
[Muirenn inghean Chiaráin, 08/2001,
A-Meridies]
... "by longstanding precedent (set in November 1990) reaffirmed
as recently as September 2000, there is no difference between a
rose and a cinquefoil". [Lucia filia Fausti, 08/2001,
R-Meridies]
[Argent, a cat sejant erect guardant azure between two rose
branches in chevron inverted conjoined in base sable] This
submission was listed in the Letter of Intent as a device and
augmentation. However, this is a simple new device registration.
The original blazon referred to a wreath of roses around this
cat, but a wreath of roses is circular (or nearly so.) The
emblazon here shows rose branches, and we have therefore so
blazoned them.
The design of two rose branches in a "V" shape is close to many
SCA depictions of a rose wreath. Thus the only persons who may
use such a design without presumption are those who are entitled
to bear a rose wreath. The submitter is a countess and Lady of
the Rose and is thus entitled to such a wreath. [Judith
Maryse, 10/2001,
A-Trimaris]
... originally blazoned as a four-petalled rose, but lacking any
standard attributes of the rose such as the seeds, barbs, or
standard number of petals for a rose, it has been reblazoned as a
quatrefoil. [Mari Greensleaves, 01/2002,
A-West]
This does not conflict with Rosalia O Brogan, Argent, two rose
branches in saltire vert, each with a rose gules, and on a chief
sable three butterflies Or. The rose branches in Rosalia's
device are drawn correctly so that they are predominantly
branches (ending in a small rose). The charges in this
submission, originally also blazoned as rose branches, are drawn
as roses slipped and leaved: the roses are at least half the
visual weight of the charge. There is a CD between roses and rose
branches, and another CD by RfS X.4.j.ii for changing the type
only of tertiary charge on the chief. We acknowlege that there is
a decided visual similarity between these two devices, but it is
not quite enough to be a conflict under RfS X.5. The submitter
also has a letter of permission to conflict with Rosalia O
Brogan, rendering the issue moot. [Abigail O Brogan,
02/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[Per bend sinister argent and azure, two cinquefoils
counterchanged] Conflict with ... Per bend sinister argent
and azure, a garden rose bendwise sinister, slipped and leaved,
azure and a goutte d'eau. There is one CD for changing half
the charge group from a goutte to a cinquefoil. However, there is
not substantial difference (as in RfS X.2) in type between the
two charge groups. Current precedent holds that a rose is not
different from a cinquefoil. [Katrein Adler, 02/2002,
R-Outlands]
[cinquefoil vs. garden rose bendwise sinister] There is no
posture difference for the flower in chief, because the slip and
leaf are not considered to be worth difference. The flowers
themselves are radially symmetrical, and thus you cannot get
difference for making one of them bendwise sinister. [Katrein
Adler, 02/2002,
R-Outlands]
[Per chevron sable and vert, a quatrefoil Or] This is
clear of conflict with a badge of the Kingdom of Caid,
(Fieldless) A rose Or barbed and seeded vert. "Quatrefoils
and roses do not appear to have been considered equivalent
charges in our period" (LoAR February 1996). [Celestine de
Chatham, 07/2002,
A-Meridies]
[in chief two garden rosebuds] The charges in chief were
originally blazoned as garden roses, but they are drawn as
rosebuds. Rosebuds have not been registerable since the cover
letter for the LoAR of November 1994, as they are not period
style. Please note that, by the same cover letter ruling, roses
drawn in a natural style (also known as "garden roses") are
blazoned in the same way as roses drawn in a heraldic style. Each
style of rose is blazoned simply as a rose. [Ása
lúfa, 07/2002,
R-Calontir]
The flowers were originally blazoned as Kendal flowers, which are
an SCA-invented charge that includes, as part of its definition,
alternating white and red petals. These flowers are drawn as
six-petalled roses with white petals only. Six-petalled roses are
a reasonable artistic variant of the standard heraldic rose, and
we have thus blazoned the flowers in this submission as
roses.
Please note that the Kendal flower is no longer registerable as
of the LoAR of January 2000. That ruling held that Kendal flowers
were a variant of the Tudor rose, which is a restricted charge.
[Megge Gormshuileach, 08/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Or, a four-leaved clover saltirewise slipped vert] This
is clear of conflict with ... Or, a rose vert, its stem nowed
sable, in chief two lions rampant gules. The type comparison
between the primary charges in the devices is, effectively, the
difference between a rose and a quatrefoil, and these two charges
have a type CD between them: "Quatrefoils and roses do not appear
to have been considered equivalent charges in our period" (LoAR
of October 1995). There is therefore one CD for changing the type
of primary charge from a rose to a four-leaved clover and another
CD for removing the charges in chief. [Ærne Clover,
08/2002,
A-An Tir]
"The use of the white rose of York with the byname 'of York' has
been disallowed since the LoAR of 11 Nov 77" (LoAR of December
1992). The combination of a white rose with the name element "of
Yorkshire" appears to strike the same chords of presumption in
the College and in the populace as does the combination of a
white rose and the byname "of York". [Samuel of Yorkshire,
09/2002,
R-East]
The fraises were originally blazoned as seeded of a tincture.
When fraises (or similar charges, such as roses and cinquefoils)
are blazoned as seeded, they are depicted with a roundel
in the center of the flower representing the seeding. This
emblazon does not show the standard heraldic seeding. Instead, it
shows thin-line details of long round-ended stamens that are
disposed radially on the fraise's petals. These artistic details
are acceptable but should not be blazoned. [Bronwen
Fraser, 11/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
There is a CD for changing a rose to a rose branch...
[Margarita de la Fuente, 12/2002,
A-Ealdormere]
The blazon has been changed ... to indicate that this is a rose
branch (where the main part of the charge is the branch and
leaves), rather than a rose slipped and leaved (where the main
part of the charge is the rose). [Elennar Linwen, 12/2002,
A-East]
The double roses have four petals on the lower deck and five on
the upper. This seems a reasonable artistic variant of a standard
double rose and does not need to be blazoned. [Jacobina of
White Moor, 01/2003,
R-East]
[a rose barbed and seeded vs. a rose slipped and leaved]
... no difference for removing the slips and leaves from the
rose. [Claire Bennett of Essex, 02/2003,
R-Caid]
[On a rose argent barbed vert a cat sejant affronty sable]
Conflict with ... Vert, on a cinquefoil argent a pen fesswise
sable. There is one CD for fieldlessness. Because there is no
meaningful posture comparison between a cat and a pen, the only
change to the group of charges on charges is the change of charge
type. Because a rose is not a voidable charge, charges on a rose
do not qualify for consideration under RfS X.4.j.ii. Changing the
type only of tertiary charge is not worth difference under RfS
X.4.j.i.
This does not conflict with the badge of Martin Luther,
(Fieldless) A rose argent seeded of a heart gules charged with
a Latin cross sable. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There
is a second CD for changing the type and tincture of tertiary
charge (from a black cat to a red heart). There is no additional
difference for removal of the quaternary charge (the black cross
on the red heart), as we do not give difference for addition,
removal, or changes to quaternary charges. [Laurin of
Rosewood, 06/2003,
R-An Tir]
[(Fieldless) A Glastonbury thorn blossom proper] The
Glastonbury thorn blossom in this submission is a five-petalled
flower with a close resemblance to a heraldic rose. Each petal is
a streaky pink on the inside of the petal and white on the
outside of the petal with some slight shading between the pink
and white, and somewhat jagged edges to the pink area. The flower
has red barbs (sepals) showing between the petals. The
submitter's registered device is, Azure, goutty d'Or, on a
bend argent a Glastonbury thorn twig blossoming proper. The
Letter of Intent stated:
The flower is pink shading to white at the edges; the thorns
are red. We believe this matches the charge on her device
(Glastonbury thorn twig blossoming proper) and it is
thus grandfathered to her. This is clear of [Fieldless] A
Tudor rose, with a CD for fieldless and another for
tincture. By the same reasoning, this should be clear of both
York, [Fieldless] A rose argent and of Lancaster,
[Fieldless] A rose gules.
To address these points in turn:
The Letter of Intent's description of the appearance of the
flower is largely correct, although the shading between pink and
white is minimal as stated above. As an additional note, the
flower in this submission is about three-quarters pink and
one-quarter white.
The Laurel file copy of her device consists of a black and white
outline drawing with the tinctures of the charges tricked in. The
flowers on the Glastonbury thorn twig are tricked as "pink".
Based on other submissions from a similar time frame (January
1974), it is entirely possible that no color submission form
exists, and that only the tricked version was ever submitted. In
any case, the Laurel office is not currently in possession of a
colored-in form from the time of her original registration. She
also had a badge submission, Azure, goutty d'Or, a Glastonbury
hawthorne blossom proper, barbed gules, which was returned in
August 1989. The Laurel office does have a color version of the
returned badge emblazon, where the flower is solid pink. The
return stated:
As the letter of intent indicates, the flower is pink. Shades
of pink are generally blazoned as gules (and, indeed,
horticultural books show this flower in several shades of
gules) so this is colour on colour.
Because the flower in this submission is not solid
pink, it neither matches the description of the flower in her
tricked device emblazon, nor does it match the equivalently
blazoned flower in her returned badge. We therefore cannot
consider this to be a grandfathered depiction of the flower in
her device.
It does seem reasonable to grandfather the use of a Glastonbury
thorn flower, as in the submitter's device, to the submitter.
Without the Laurel files being updated with a good color copy of
Mary Taran of Glastonbury's original form (should such a form
have existed), we will assume that the grandfathered flower is a
solid pink color.
This badge conflicts with the protected badge of the House of
Tudor, (Fieldless) A Tudor rose. There is one CD for
fieldlessness. A Tudor rose is defined as a rose which is red and
white. It can be depicted in a number of different ways. One of
the depictions of a Tudor rose is of a white rose charged with a
red rose. Such a rose would appear much like a five-petalled
flower where the outside of the petals were white, and the inside
of the petals were red. Changing the inside of the petals from
red to pink and adding some shading at the edges of the color
demarcation is not sufficient tincture difference from a Tudor
rose to be worth a second CD for tincture change.
We at this time decline to rule on whether an all-pink flower
would be given difference from either a red rose or a white rose,
and the associated conflict questions concerning the Houses of
Lancaster and York as mentioned in the Letter of Intent. [Mary
Taran of Glastonbury, 06/2003,
R-Caid]
[on a rose argent a sword inverted sable] As drawn in this
submission, the tertiary sword is barely visible on the argent
rose. The problem is with this particular rendition, not with the
general design of a rose argent charged with a sword sable. In
this depiction, the rose is drawn with such prominent and
complicated sable details that the sable sword is visually lost.
RfS VIII.3 states, in pertinent part, "Identifiable elements may
be rendered unidentifiable by ... being obscured by other
elements of the design." [Eóin Ó hEochaidh, 09/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[Argent, three irises purpure slipped and leaved vert]
Conflict under RfS X.5, "Visual Test", with Heather Rose of Glen
Laurie, Argent, three bouquets of three garden roses purpure
slipped and leaved vert. Ordinarily we would expect there to
be a CD for number of charges between a bouquet of three flowers
and a single flower, and also a CD for changing the type of
flower from a rose to an iris. However, on comparing these
emblazons they are visually very similar. The bouquets in
Heather's device each have one large purple flower and two
negligibly small purple flowers, so that the bouquets are
visually very close to a single flower slipped and leaved. In
addition, the roses in Heather's device and the irises in
Beatrice's device are both drawn indistinctly, so there is no
strong visual difference due to the types of flowers. On the
whole, the two pieces of armory resemble each other so strongly
that they are not clear of conflict under the Visual Test.
[Beatrice Villani, 10/2003,
R-Atlantia]
The roses are drawn as naturalistic roses (which, in days past,
were blazoned as garden roses). The roses are partially
open. Please advise the submitter to draw the roses as fully
opened flowers. These flowers are not the unregisterable
rosebuds, which are naturalistic roses in bud form, with
the petals mostly closed. But some members of the College felt
that this depiction was uncomfortably close to that of the
rosebud. [Skarpheðinn Irlandsfari, 11/2003,
A-Drachenwald]
The damask roses proper are drawn as naturalistic pink
roses. The Letter of Intent cited the Pictorial
Dictionary, which states that "When blazoned as a 'garden
rose' or a 'damask rose', the rose is depicted as found in
nature, the petals overlapping and slightly spread... a garden
rose may not be blazoned 'proper', but must have its tinctures
explicitly blazoned. (The exception is the 'damask rose', a breed
attested in Elizabethan herbals; this variety was always pink, so
a 'damask rose proper' is pink, slipped vert)."
The commentary was consistent in feeling that we should no longer
blazon charges as damask roses, since damask roses are garden
roses, citing the following precedent: "The commentary is in,
with a clear majority of commenters in favor of adopting Baron
Bruce's proposal that we continue to accept garden roses in SCA
armory, but simply blazon them as roses. As a consequence,
we will immediately and henceforth blazon a rose, whether the
default heraldic rose or the garden rose, as a rose"
(Cover Letter with the November 1994 LoAR).
The commentary also took issue with the statement in the
Pictorial Dictionary that the damask rose was "always
pink": both the commentary and the researches of Wreath's staff
indicated that damask roses in the Elizabethan period could be
found in both pink and white forms. If a "garden rose" is just an
artistic variant of a heraldic rose, and a damask rose is a
garden rose, then the "damask rose proper" has a problem because
heraldic roses may not be pink, as pink is not a heraldic
tincture. Some commenters suggested that perhaps the pink roses
could be considered a "light gules" but the color of these roses
is too far from gules to be considered a "light gules" (and is,
moreover, too far from argent to be considered a "dark
argent.")
The SCA has only registered three damask roses in its history. Of
these three registrations, only one of them is still registered:
one of the registrations was really gules, not pink (and was
later reblazoned as gules) and another one was
released.
Because the pink naturalistic damask rose is not found in
period heraldry, is not compatible with period heraldry, and is
not found with great frequency in existing SCA heraldry, it will
no longer be registered as of the July Laurel meeting. [Cecily
d'Abernon, 01/2004,
A-Atenveldt]
[A sexfoil Or seeded sable] The flower in this emblazon is
affronty and has six equally-sized and equally-spaced petals that
come to slight points at the end. ... We have reblazoned the
flower in this emblazon as a sexfoil, as it is well within the
range of depictions which we expect for that stylized heraldic
charge.
This submission therefore conflicts with the Caidan badge for the
Legion of Courtesy, (Fieldless) A rose Or barbed and seeded
vert. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There is no
difference for the miniscule tincture changes due to barbing and
seeding, which is much less than half the charge.
There is no difference given between a rose and a cinquefoil by
long-standing precedent, as noted in the LoAR of August 2001,
which referred to the LoARs of September 2000 and November 1990.
The difference between cinquefoils and sexfoils is heraldically
negligible. The SCA does not give difference between things
numbered five and six as stated in RfS X.4.f, and by extension,
we do not give difference between charges with attributes that
are enumerated five and six, such as mullets of five and six
points. Moreover, cinquefoils are not infrequently drawn as
sexfoils in period. A single piece of armory using multiple
cinquefoils may be drawn with the occasional sexfoil in place of
an (apparently random) cinquefoil.
Conflict is not transitive: if A conflicts with B
and B conflicts with C, it is not required that
A must conflict with C. However, in this case,
given the very close depictions and occasional interchangeability
of both roses and cinquefoils in period, and of cinquefoils and
sexfoils in period, we do believe that sexfoils should not be
given difference from roses under RfS X.4.e. [Amaryllis
Coleman, 01/2004,
R-Æthelmearc]
[roses Or barbed vert seeded of a heart gules charged with a
cross sable] The charged roses were originally blazoned as
Luther roses. They represent a variantly tinctured version
of an important non-SCA badge used by Martin Luther (and
protected in the Armorial and Ordinary), (Fieldless) A rose
argent seeded of a heart gules charged with a Latin cross
sable. The Letter of Intent surmised that because the "Luther
rose" design was known in period (as evidenced by the Martin
Luther badge), this submission should not be considered in
violation of RfS VIII.1.c.ii, Layer Limit, which would otherwise
be violated for placing a charge (the cross) on another charge
(the heart) which does not lie directly on the field (but lies
wholly on the rose). They also surmised that this submission
likewise should not be considered in violation of RfS
VIII.2.b.ii, which would otherwise be violated for placing the
color cross wholly on the color heart.
The College was not able to find any evidence that this symbol of
Martin Luther's was found outside of uses by Martin Luther
himself and eventually, by the Lutheran church.
RfS VIII.6, Documented Exceptions, describes the cases in which
period armory may be used to justify a violation of the SCA Rules
for Submission. This submission does not meet the criteria of RfS
VIII.6.a, General Exceptions, which states, "In most cases the
documentation for a proposed exceptional armorial design element
should be drawn from several European heraldic jurisdictions." No
documentation was provided, or found, showing that, in period,
this Luther rose was used in several European heraldic
jurisdictions.
This submission also does not meet the criteria of RfS VIII.6.b,
Regional Style, which states,
Alternatively, a proposed exceptional armorial design element
may be documented as characteristic of a specific regional
armorial style...In such cases the submitted armory may
be registered provided that all of the following conditions are
met. (1) The submitter explicitly requests an exception to the
other sections of Part VIII (Compatible Armorial Style) on the
grounds that the submitted armory exemplifies a specific
regional style. (2) Documentation is adduced to show that
exceptional design element was not uncommon in the regional
style in question. (3) Documentation is adduced to show that
all elements of the submitted armory can be found in the
regional style in question.
The submitter has not indicated a particular
regional style exemplified by this armory, has not provided
evidence that this design element was "not uncommon" in any
regional style, and has not shown that "all elements of the
submitted armory can be found" in any regional style. The College
was also not able to shed light on these issues.
The College also was concerned that the Luther rose may be so
closely associated with Martin Luther and the Lutheran Church
that this submission might violate either RfS XI, presumption
(claiming "status ... that the submitter does not possess"), or
RfS IX.2, Offensive Religious Symbolism (for reason of excessive
religious symbolism). We are declining to rule on these issues at
this time as this submission has clear reasons for return under
RfS VIII.1.c.ii and RfS VIII.2.b.ii. However, these are serious
issues and should be addressed on resubmission, if the
resubmission continues to use the Luther rose design. [Brighid
Óg inghean Néill, 02/2004,
R-Outlands]
FLOWER --
Thistle
[thistles proper] The thistles were
blazoned in the LoI as proper. The Glossary of Terms notes
some ambiguity in the SCA as to the proper for thistles. The
Glossary allows a thistle proper to have either a red or purple
flower. The flower is much less than half the charge so its
tincture is not heraldically significant, and as a result there
is no armorial conflict ambiguity because of this policy. In this
submission, the flowers (including the globular part, usually
drawn as vert) are purpure. We have preserved the submitted
blazon but caution the submitter that if the purple color is
important to her, she should submit a request for reblazon.
[Isabel du Lac d'Azur, 08/2001,
A-Atenveldt]
[a thistle vs. a rose] Thistles and shamrocks were ruled
to be substantially different in October 1999; these should be
just as distinct visually. No evidence has been produced that a
change from a rose to a trefoil [Ed: Should be thistle] as
a primary charge was used for period cadency, which also shows
that they are substantially different as per rule X.2.
[Muirenn inghean Chiaráin, 08/2001,
A-Meridies]
[Purpure, on a chevron between two Celtic crosses and a ferret
rampant Or three thistles proper] Conflict with ...
Purpure, on a chevron between three mullets of six points Or,
three fleurs-de-lys purpure. There is one CD for adding
[Ed: should be "changing type of"] the secondary charges
around the chevron. This submission is not simple for RfS
X.4.j.ii to give a CD for change in tertiary type alone, so any
CD from the tertiaries must derive from X.4.j.i. RfS X.4.j.i
requires two changes to the tertiary charge group for a CD. There
is a change in tertiary type between these two pieces of armory,
but not enough change in tertiary tincture to count towards the
second necessary X.4.j.i change. The thistles in this submission
have more than the usual proportion of purpure. The globular
portion of the thistle, which is vert in nature and in a standard
heraldic depiction, is purpure in this emblazon. The flower
portion is also purpure, and therefore the thistles are almost
half purpure. The text in X.4.j.i requires that any changes
"generally" affect the whole group. [Catrina of Whitemoor,
10/2001,
R-Meridies]
[A tree within and conjoined to an annulet Or] This is
clear of conflict with al-Barran, Barony of, (Fieldless) A
Russian thistle (tumbleweed) bush within an annulet Or. There
is one CD for fieldlessness, and another for the difference
between the tumbleweed bush and the tree. The bush has no
discernable trunk and most closely resembles a slightly shaggy
bezant. [Gyldenholt, Barony of, 01/2002,
A-Caid]
[Per saltire arrondy gules and azure, a thistle Or]
Conflict with the Order of the Sable Thistle of Ansteorra,
(Fieldless) A blue thistle sable, slipped and leaved Or.
There is one CD for changing the field, but the slips and leaves
of the thistle are most of its tincture. There is therefore not a
second CD for changing less than half the tincture of the
thistle. [Sigulf Bjarnarson, 07/2002,
R-Meridies]
The thistle was originally blazoned as proper. Thistles,
when proper, have green leaves and slips. The "head" of the
thistle is comprised of a ball of sepals with a tuft of petals at
the top. The head of a thistle proper is drawn with the ball of
sepals tinctured in vert and the tuft of petals tinctured in
gules or purpure. (To quote Lions Blood, "Only the mohawk is
purple.") [Guendolen of Cumbria, 01/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[Argent, ... a thistle vert headed argent] This thistle is
drawn with the head tinctured in argent, on the argent field. As
such, the charge has insufficient contrast, as a key identifying
portion of the thistle has no contrast. [Guendolen of
Cumbria, 01/2003,
R-Atlantia]
The Pictorial Dictionary indicates that teasels should be
explicitly blazoned as slipped and leaved if they are
slipped and leaved, so we have modified the blazon accordingly.
[Liadan Chu, 11/2003,
R-Ealdormere]
FLOWER --
Trillium
[a trillium gules barbed vert vs a prickly
pear flower gules seeded Or, leaved of acanthus vert] There
is a CD for the change to the field, and a CD for the difference
in the types of the flowers. [Deirdre ingean Dhomhnaill,
11/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
A trillium is a New World flower with three equal-sized
large pointed petals. It is sometimes depicted with sepals
showing between the petals, like the barbs of the heraldic rose.
The trillium is relatively popular in the SCA, with over thirty
registrations.
It has become apparent that, over the SCA's registration history,
there has been no consistent default orientation for this flower.
All agree that it is affronty by default, but the registration
history differs on whether it should be drawn with one petal up
by default (with the petals in pall inverted) or with one petal
down by default (with the petals in pall). Precedent indicates
that the orientation of a trillium is not an artistic choice, but
is worth difference:
[a wild ginger flower vs a trillium inverted] ... there is one
CD ... for the inversion of the flower. Three-petaled flowers
have a distinct orientation, unlike flowers with more petals.
(LoAR September 2000)
It is thus incumbent on us to declare a clear
default for the trillium. The earliest registration of the
trillium in the SCA was by Catherine de Bellefleur in August
1979, Azure, semy of Silver-Bell flowers, a Large-Flowered
Trillium flower, all proper. [Halesia carolina, Trillium
grandiflorium]. The trillium in her armory is depicted with
the petals in pall. The best-known registrations of a trillium
belong to the Kingdom of Ealdormere, who have always emblazoned
their trillium consistently with the petals in pall (with the
exception, ironically, of the Principal Herald's seal). This is
also the more common orientation for a trillium in SCA armory.
This orientation thus seems to be the correct default for the
charge:
PRECEDENT: The default orientation for a trillium has one petal
to base, so the petals are in pall. A trillium inverted has one
petal to chief, so the petals are in pall inverted.
In this LoAR, we have reblazoned the armory using
the trillium to comply with the new default.
Frequent users of the Pictorial Dictionary should note
that the trillium illustrated in that work is a trillium
inverted by the default stated above. The Pictorial
Dictionary only declares that a trillium is affronty
by default and does not otherwise specify its orientation. The
Pictorial Dictionary demonstrates that the ambiguity in
the default orientation of the trillium goes back quite some
time. Both its cited examples were blazoned as a trillium
in their registered blazons. However, one of the examples (Cedric
of Thanet, registered in 1989) uses a trillium with the petals in
pall inverted, and the other example (the Prince of Ealdormere,
also registered in 1989 and now the arms of the Kingdom of
Ealdormere) uses a trillium with the petals in pall. [01/2003,
CL]
FLOWER --
Tulip
[a tulip slipped and leaved Or] ... this
submission conflicts with Christine the Accursed, Azure, a
chrysanthemum slipped and leaved Or. There is one CD for the
change to the type of flower but there is not substantial
difference for purposes of RfS X.2. Christine's chrysanthemum is
drawn as a globular mass, with a very rounded profile, and there
is a marked visual similarity between the two plants. [Sondra
van Schiedam, 02/2002,
R-Calontir]
[a tulip slipped and leaved Or] This is clear of conflict
with Uta Boucht, Azure, a water-lily plant eradicated argent,
flowered Or. There is one CD for the change in tincture of
the plant (which is almost entirely argent in Uta's device) and a
CD for the change in the type of charge. [Sondra van
Schiedam, 02/2002,
R-Calontir]
Conflict with Thalassa Ilona of Soilka, Purpure, a chevronelle
Or between in chief two scimitars fesswise conjoined at the point
proper and in base a flamed tulip proper. ... The flamed
tulip is a tulip with petals constituted of flames proper. ...
There is no difference between a single chevronelle and a
chevron; at this time we would blazon any single central
"chevronelle" as a chevron regardless of how narrowly it was
drawn, to be in keeping with period armorial practices.
[Aclina of Wyvern Heyghts, 02/2003,
R-Caid]
FOIL
[a thistle vs.
a rose] Thistles and shamrocks were ruled to be substantially
different in October 1999; these should be just as distinct
visually. No evidence has been produced that a change from a rose
to a trefoil [Ed.: Should be thistle]as a primary charge
was used for period cadency, which also shows that they are
substantially different as per rule X.2. [Muirenn inghean
Chiaráin, 08/2001,
A-Meridies]
This is not an acceptable depiction of a quatrefoil. A quatrefoil
may have pointed or round foils, and it may have a central area
large enough to hold a tertiary charge. However, each lobe of the
foil should resemble a petal or leaf. If the lobes are circular,
each lobe should be well over half a circle. Internal details can
also help show that there are four separate petals in a
quatrefoil. In this emblazon, each lobe of the quatrefoil is less
than half a circle, with the result that these do not seem to be
separate petals, but rounded protrusions from some bulky center
charge.
As suggested by some commenters, we have compared the emblazon
with the quatrefoil shown on plate XXIX of Woodward and Burnett's
A Treatise on Heraldry, British and Foreign. The lobes of
those quatrefoils are pointed and much more detached, so that
they each comprise about 2/3 of a pointed oval. The quatrefoils
in Woodward also have internal details that help with
identifiability. Some commenters suggested that this quatrefoil
was identical to the one in the registered badge of Angus
MacBain, (Fieldless) On a quatrefoil pean a lion rampant
argent. However, this is not the case. In Angus's quatrefoil,
the quatrefoil's lobes are circular, but each lobe is notably
more than half a circle. It was also suggested that a similar
quatrefoil could be found in the registered badge of Padraic the
Fierce, (Fieldless) On a quatrefoil argent a demi-griffin
issuant from base sable. However, Padraic's quatrefoil also
has well-separated lobes where each lobe is significantly more
than half a circle. [Jacopo di Niccolo, 10/2001,
R-Æthelmearc]
There is substantial difference between a cinquefoil and a
dandelion. The outline of any foil shows clearly separated
countable petals, and a dandelion has a mass of small uncountable
petals. The petals of a dandelion are thin and pointed rather
than the rounder petals of a foil. Barring evidence that the
change from a dandelion to a foil would have been a cadency
change in period, and thus only a CD (per wording of RfS X.4, a
significant change), it seems appropriate to give (per wording of
RfS X.2) substantial difference between these charges. [Emma
Dandelion, 11/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[shamrock vs. cinquefoil] The only difference is for the
change in type of the primary charge, which is worth a CD. There
is not substantial difference between a shamrock (a type of
trefoil) and a cinquefoil, analogous to the following precedent:
[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). [Caitlin of
Drogheda, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
... originally blazoned as a four-petalled rose, but lacking any
standard attributes of the rose such as the seeds, barbs, or
standard number of petals for a rose, it has been reblazoned as a
quatrefoil. [Mari Greensleaves, 01/2002,
A-West]
[a quatrefoil] Conflict with a badge of Mariana Silversea,
Azure, a rue-flower Or, seeded vert within a bordure wavy
argent. There is one CD for the change to the field. On
Mariana's form, the rue flower is drawn as a quatrefoil with four
thin "whiskers", two between each petal. The rue flower is
effectively a quatrefoil with some added artistic details and
thus has no difference from a quatrefoil. [Eórann Maguire,
01/2002,
R-Trimaris]
[Per bend sinister argent and azure, two cinquefoils
counterchanged] Conflict with ... Per bend sinister argent
and azure, a garden rose bendwise sinister, slipped and leaved,
azure and a goutte d'eau. There is one CD for changing half
the charge group from a goutte to a cinquefoil. However, there is
not substantial difference (as in RfS X.2) in type between the
two charge groups. Current precedent holds that a rose is not
different from a cinquefoil. [Katrein Adler, 02/2002,
R-Outlands]
[cinquefoil vs. garden rose bendwise sinister] There is no
posture difference for the flower in chief, because the slip and
leaf are not considered to be worth difference. The flowers
themselves are radially symmetrical, and thus you cannot get
difference for making one of them bendwise sinister. [Katrein
Adler, 02/2002,
R-Outlands]
A wood sorrel blossom is a trefoil-like charge without a slip and
with heart-shaped foils. It is given this name in Japanese
Design Motifs, from the Matsuya Piece-Goods store. [Washizu
Isabur{o-} Nobuhide, 04/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
The flowers were originally blazoned as gardenia blossoms, but
those flowers have an indefinite number of petals (anywhere from
five to eleven petals). We have therefore reblazoned these as
generic six-petalled flowers, or sexfoils. The classic
sexfoil would show more separation between the petals. [Zoraya
de Navarre, 04/2002,
A-Outlands]
[Per chevron sable and vert, a quatrefoil Or] This is
clear of conflict with a badge of the Kingdom of Caid,
(Fieldless) A rose Or barbed and seeded vert. "Quatrefoils
and roses do not appear to have been considered equivalent
charges in our period" (LoAR February 1996). [Celestine de
Chatham, 07/2002,
A-Meridies]
[Or, a four-leaved clover saltirewise slipped vert] This
is clear of conflict with ... Or, a rose vert, its stem nowed
sable, in chief two lions rampant gules. The type comparison
between the primary charges in the devices is, effectively, the
difference between a rose and a quatrefoil, and these two charges
have a type CD between them: "Quatrefoils and roses do not appear
to have been considered equivalent charges in our period" (LoAR
of October 1995). There is therefore one CD for changing the type
of primary charge from a rose to a four-leaved clover and another
CD for removing the charges in chief. [Ærne Clover,
08/2002,
A-An Tir]
[a four-leaved clover saltirewise slipped vert] We have
blazoned this quatrefoil as a clover to preserve the cant.
[Ærne Clover, 08/2002,
A-An Tir]
[a four-leaved clover vs. a shamrock] ... and one CD for
the type difference between a trefoil and a quatrefoil. [Ærne
Clover, 08/2002,
A-An Tir]
[Gules, two plum flowers in bend slipped in annulo argent]
A plum flower is a standard cinquefoil-type flower like a
cherry blossom.
The device conflicts with ... Quarterly sable and gules, in
bend two cinquefoils argent. There is one CD for changing the
field, but no difference for slipping the cinquefoils. [Sancha
de Flores, 10/2002,
R-East]
The fraises were originally blazoned as seeded of a tincture.
When fraises (or similar charges, such as roses and cinquefoils)
are blazoned as seeded, they are depicted with a roundel
in the center of the flower representing the seeding. This
emblazon does not show the standard heraldic seeding. Instead, it
shows thin-line details of long round-ended stamens that are
disposed radially on the fraise's petals. These artistic details
are acceptable but should not be blazoned. [Bronwen
Fraser, 11/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[a dandelion plant vert with three flowers, the centermost in
profile, the outer flowers affronty, Or slipped gules] This
does not conflict with ... Argent, a pimpernel gules, slipped
and leaved, within a bordure vert. A pimpernel is effectively
a cinquefoil and there is substantial (X.2) difference between a
cinquefoil slipped and leaved and a dandelion plant.
[Chardonne de Lyon, 01/2003,
R-East]
[trefoils Or pierced argent] The trefoils are drawn with
white piercings in the center of the yellow foil. This has
inadequate contrast by RfS VIII.2. A pierced trefoil should
follow the same contrast rules as a trefoil charged with a
roundel. Note that a standard pierced charge would have the
tincture of the underlying charge or field (in this case, the
blue chief) as the tincture of the piercing.
Please advise the submitter to draw the slip of the trefoil
thinner. Period trefoils could have prominent slips, but these
slips are so wide that they could almost be mistaken for another
foil. This depiction thus blurs the ability to clearly identify
the charge either as a trefoil or as a quatrefoil. [Gráinne
inghean Chonaill uí Eachadha, 03/2003,
R-Outlands]
[a trefoil double-slipped] Parker describes trefoils
double-slipped in his A Glossary of Terms used in
Heraldry. One example may be found in Glover's Ordinary, and
another similar example in Legh's 16th C Accedens of
Armory. The charge seems a reasonable variant of a trefoil,
although one which is not given difference from a standard
trefoil. [Sesildi Garces de Leon, 04/2003,
A-Trimaris]
[A cinquefoil pierced purpure] Conflict with Alyanora of
Vinca, Argent, a periwinkle proper. Periwinkles are
effectively cinquefoils and given no type difference from
cinquefoils. There is no tincture difference: per the September
1996 LoAR, "The tincture of the periwinkle is somewhere between
blue [and] purple, and therefore both azure and purpure flowers
could potentially conflict with it." [Tatiana Pavlovna
Sokolova, 04/2003,
R-Outlands]
[(Fieldless) A cinquefoil pierced purpure] We have
blazoned the cinquefoil as pierced because we believe that
it is standard SCA practice to blazon this detail. Piercing of
cinquefoils was likely due to artistic license in some portions
of our period, and is not worth difference. [Tatiana Pavlovna
Sokolova, 04/2003,
R-Outlands]
[trefoils double-slipped vs. cinquefoils] In order to get
a CD for changing type only of tertiary charges under RfS
X.4.j.ii, it is necessary to show substantial change in type of
the tertiary charges. The difference in type between the various
sorts of foils can be significant, but it cannot be substantial.
Thus, there is no difference for changing the type only of
charges ... [Sesildi Garces de Leon, 04/2003,
R-Trimaris]
Purpure, on a pale argent three oak leaves vert Conflict
with ... Purpure, on a pale invected argent, three shamrocks
vert. There is one CD for removing the complex line of
partition from the pale. There is no difference under RfS
X.4.j.ii for changing the type only of tertiary charges, since
the type change is not substantial, just significant, per the
following precedent:
[Returning Sable, on a chevron between three horses rampant
argent, three oak leaves vert.] Conflict with ... Sable,
on a chevron argent, three trefoils slipped vert. There is
a CD for the addition of the secondaries, but the consensus
among the commenters was that there was not the substantial
difference required by X.4.j.ii. to grant the necessary second
for the change to type of the tertiaries. (LoAR 5/94, p.18)
[Laoghaire of the Valley, 05/2003,
R-East]
Note that a shamrock, in the SCA, is defined as a trefoil with
heart-shaped foils. A shamrock with any number of foils other
than three must be blazoned explicitly. A default (three-foiled)
shamrock is slipped by default, like a trefoil. If there are more
than three foils on the shamrock, the charge is not slipped by
default (which is also the case with the similar n-foils).
[Ærne Clover, 07/2003,
A-An Tir]
[Per chevron argent and vert, two trefoils vert and a
dragonfly argent] Conflict with ... Per chevron argent and
vert, two oak leaves and a war-hammer counterchanged.
Precedent holds that there is significant, but not substantial,
difference between trefoils and oak leaves. Because the criterion
in RfS X.2 requiring that "the type of every primary charge is
substantially changed" is not met in this armorial comparison,
RfS X.2 cannot be used to clear the two pieces of armory of
conflict. Thus, there is only one CD for changing the type of the
charge group on the field under RfS X.4.e. The pertinent
precedent reads: "[oak leaves vs. trefoils as charges on a
chevron] Consensus among the commenters was that there was not
the substantial difference required by X.4.j.ii. to grant the
necessary second for the change to type of the tertiaries" (LoAR
May 1994 p.18). Note that, while this precedent applies to RfS
X.4.j.ii rather than RfS X.2, the same distinction between
substantial and significant type change is used in both sections
of the Rules for Submission. [Elena filia Dugalli,
09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
... no difference between a trefoil and a shamrock. [Elena
filia Dugalli, 09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[On a trefoil gules three crescents in pall inverted horns
inward conjoined at the horns argent] The College felt that
this submission was overly visually confusing and insufficiently
identifiable. While the blazon describes a trefoil charged with
three conjoined crescents, the College felt that this design
closely resembled a trefoil charged with a trefoil voided. This
results in a situation similar to one which was ruled on in the
LoAR of November 1992, p.20: "[On a trefoil slipped three
hearts points to center] The radial arrangement of the
tertiary charges is not period style, and their placement makes
this effectively 'a shamrock... voided...' which is not
permissible because it becomes effectively 'thin-line' heraldry."
[Zebeeba al-Kharqaa, 11/2003,
R-Meridies]
[A sexfoil Or seeded sable] The College did not feel that
this flower, originally blazoned as an amaryllis flower,
was clearly identifiable as an amaryllis flower. The flower in
this emblazon is affronty and has six equally-sized and
equally-spaced petals that come to slight points at the end. Both
the commentary from the College and the documentation provided
with the submission indicated that an amaryllis flower has petals
that are significantly longer, thinner, and more sharply pointed
than the petals of the flower in this emblazon. The documentation
also indicated that the amaryllis flower has a trumpet shape that
was visually apparent even when the flower was affronty, while
this flower appears to be flat. We have reblazoned the flower in
this emblazon as a sexfoil, as it is well within the range of
depictions which we expect for that stylized heraldic charge.
This submission therefore conflicts with the Caidan badge for the
Legion of Courtesy, (Fieldless) A rose Or barbed and seeded
vert. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There is no
difference for the miniscule tincture changes due to barbing and
seeding, which is much less than half the charge.
There is no difference given between a rose and a cinquefoil by
long-standing precedent, as noted in the LoAR of August 2001,
which referred to the LoARs of September 2000 and November 1990.
The difference between cinquefoils and sexfoils is heraldically
negligible. The SCA does not give difference between things
numbered five and six as stated in RfS X.4.f, and by extension,
we do not give difference between charges with attributes that
are enumerated five and six, such as mullets of five and six
points. Moreover, cinquefoils are not infrequently drawn as
sexfoils in period. A single piece of armory using multiple
cinquefoils may be drawn with the occasional sexfoil in place of
an (apparently random) cinquefoil.
Conflict is not transitive: if A conflicts with B
and B conflicts with C, it is not required that
A must conflict with C. However, in this case,
given the very close depictions and occasional interchangeability
of both roses and cinquefoils in period, and of cinquefoils and
sexfoils in period, we do believe that sexfoils should not be
given difference from roses under RfS X.4.e. [Amaryllis
Coleman, 01/2004,
R-Æthelmearc]
FRET and
FRETTY
[Gules, in dexter chief a fret couped
argent] This does not conflict with ... Per fess gules
fretty argent and sable. There is one CD for the change to
the field. The comparison between the fretty in chief and the
fret couped in dexter chief is like the comparison between a
mullet in chief and a mullet in dexter chief. This is an unforced
move and thus worth a CD. This also does not conflict with ...
Per saltire gules and pean, a fret argent. There is one CD
for the change to the field and another for the unforced move of
the primary charge to dexter chief. This also does not conflict
with John Thorn, Gules, a chief embattled argent. The fret
here is a primary charge in a non-central position on the field.
John's armory has no primary charge. Addition of a primary charge
is sufficient difference by X.1. [Ané{zv}ka z
Ro{zv}mitála, 11/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[a fret gules surmounted by a badger statant sable] The
fret was difficult to identify under the badger, but was
sufficiently identifiable to people at the meeting (including
non-heralds) to permit registration. It should be noted that in
any case where a complex-outlined charge overlies a fret, there
is danger of the fret or the overlying charge becoming
unidentifiable. [Muirgheal inghean Raghailligh mhic
Seachnasaigh, 03/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[Or, a four-leaved clover saltirewise slipped vert] This
is clear of conflict with ... Or, a rose vert, its stem nowed
sable, in chief two lions rampant gules. The type comparison
between the primary charges in the devices is, effectively, the
difference between a rose and a quatrefoil, and these two charges
have a type CD between them: "Quatrefoils and roses do not appear
to have been considered equivalent charges in our period" (LoAR
of October 1995). There is therefore one CD for changing the type
of primary charge from a rose to a four-leaved clover and another
CD for removing the charges in chief. [Ærne Clover,
08/2002,
A-An Tir]
[Per chevron purpure fretty Or and Or, in base a bunch of
grapes purpure leaved within a laurel wreath vert] This
device uses three primary charges of three different types in a
single charge group: the grapes, the wreath, and the fretty
(which is equivalent to a fret). This is not allowable style by
RfS VIII.1.a. [Bordescros, Shire of, 03/2002,
R-Lochac]
[Argent, a fret and a bordure azure] Conflict with ...
Argent, fretty azure, a triple-towered castle sable within a
bordure azure. ... the castle functions as an overall charge,
as noted in the September 1992 Cover Letter: "The main reason
that Gules fretty Or, overall a lion argent conflicts with
Gules fretty Or lies not in how we consider fretty,
but in how we consider overall charges. So long as overall
charges, by definition, can never be primary charges, such
conflicts will continue to exist." There is thus one CD for
removing the overall castle per RfS X.4.c, but no additional
difference. [Ellen of York, 10/2003,
R-Atlantia]
FRUIT
[A
pomegranate argent slipped leaved and seeded Or] This is not
a standard heraldic pomegranate as seen, for example, in the
various depictions of arms of Granada. The standard pomegranate
slipped and leaved has the fruit clearly visible against the
field, with a small slip to base with plain leaf-shaped leaves.
Here the fruit's outline is almost entirely obscured by large,
complex-outlined, acanthus leaves. The submitted artwork may well
be a period design, as might have been used in a Renaissance
brocade, but it is not heraldically identifiable as a
pomegranate. Moreover, because the white fruit lies almost
entirely on the Or leaves, this design has insufficient contrast.
[Jan Antheunis van Ghent, 11/2001,
R-Lochac]
[three lemons fracted chevronwise] The lemons fracted
chevronwise are drawn as two lemon halves conjoined in
chevron, with the cut part of the lemon opened to base. A number
of commenters felt that the fracted lemons could not be
identified as lemons. The commenters also raised questions about
whether the term fracted was appropriate for a lemon.
The previous return of this badge was predominantly for conflict
(which has been cleared by the addition of the bordure). However,
the previous return also indicated that this treatment of the
lemons was problematic, stating: "We would also like to see
evidence of lemons or other fruit depicted this way in period
heraldry." (LoAR of December 2000). Because no evidence was
presented, as requested in the previous return, for this sort of
treatment of lemons or fruit in period heraldry, and because the
charges are not clearly identifiable as lemons, this must be
returned per RfS VIII.3. [Beatrice Domenici della Campana,
08/2002,
R-An Tir]
[a bunch of bananas Or] No documentation was presented
with this submission, which would be the defining instance of
bananas in SCA heraldry (aside from the bananas protected as
modern non-SCA armory in the flag of Fiji). The College presented
evidence that bananas, or a similar species such as plantains,
were known to Western Europeans, with a banana having been found
in a Tudor English midden.
Some members of the College inquired whether a yellow banana was
period, speculating that period bananas and plantains were of a
different color (or colors), perhaps green. However, if we accept
a charge we accept it in any heraldic tincture, so if bananas are
acceptable, they should be registerable in any heraldic tincture,
including Or. Argent Snail also informs us that in the 14th C
manuscript Tacuinum Sanitatis which has been translated
(and had its photos reproduced) as "The Four Seasons of the House
of Cerruti", page 82 (of the translation) states that "The banana
has a yellow skin when ripe..." The "bunch of bananas" in the
submission shows three bananas. They are conjoined at the stalk
and otherwise nested closely, approximating three bananas
fesswise in pale conjoined for their entire length. The bananas
lose their identifiability as individual bananas by being
conjoined as closely as they are in this "bunch".
A bunch of grapes is an entire cluster that would hang from a
main stem. The analogous group of bananas, a "stalk" of bananas,
is a large cluster that has the rough shape of a cluster of
grapes. We would suspect that the hypothetical armorial grouping
of bananas would either be in this large impressive "stalk"
format, or would maximize the identifiability of the few
individual bananas by having their outlines against the field
rather than obscured against each other. We suspect that
documentation showing period depictions of bananas would help us
see how period people perceived the fruit in a way that was most
identifiable, and such a depiction might be a good guideline for
heraldic use. However, no such documentation has yet been
provided. We remind the College that when a charge is new to SCA
heraldry, it should be accompanied with accompanying
documentation demonstrating that the charge, and its submitted
depiction, is appropriate for use in SCA heraldry.
Lacking documentation for the design presented here as a "bunch
of bananas", and noting that the particular grouping of the
bananas diminishes the identifiability of each individual banana,
this submission cannot be registered. [Ferogain of River
Shannon, 01/2003,
R-Calontir]
[a bend engrailed to base Or between two pineapples Or leaved
vert] Pineapples are new world flora and thus considered a
step from period style (a "weirdness"): "New World flora and
fauna... are a discouraged weirdness, but registerable" (LoAR of
August 1999). It appears that having a two-sided ordinary (like a
bend) with a complex line on only the lower side of the bend
should also be considered a "weirdness": "The only period
examples of treating one side of an ordinary which were noted was
that of embattling the upper edge of an ordinary" (LoAR of
November 1990 p. 15). As a result, the armory has two steps from
period style armory ("two weirdnesses") and is stylistically
unacceptable. [Pamela Gattarelli, 04/2003,
R-East]
FUR
see also Ermine Spot
[a
dragon erminois] Some questions were asked about the
stylistic acceptability of an erminois animate charge. Erminois
is an uncommon period tincture, but one might expect that if
there are animate ermine charges, erminois would be similarly
acceptable. A quick scan through a book giving the arms of the
Aldermen of Aldersgate shows the arms of Mathew Phillipp in the
30th year of Henry VI: Sable a lion rampant ermine crowned
within an orle of fleurs-de-lys Or, and the arms of Rafe
Warren in the 20th year of Henry VIII: Azure on a chevron
argent between three lozenges Or three griffins heads erased
azure on a chief checky Or and gules a greyhound courant ermine
collared Or. (Note: this last example should not be used as a
general model for SCA armory, but it shows that ermine was a
reasonable tincture for animate charges, even a small tertiary
one.) [Armand Dragonetti, 09/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
The College should please keep in mind, while performing
stylistic analysis and conflict checking, that ermine spots which
are part of an ermine(d) tincture are not strewn charges. They
are just part of the tincture, like the lozenges in lozengy or
the delfs (squares) in checky are part of a tincture. [Tófa
Asgeirsdóttir, 11/2001,
R-Middle]
[Ermine, a lion dormant...] This is returned for
redrawing. The ermine spots are far too small and numerous for
identifiability. As few as ten ermine spots would be perfectly
acceptable; this has over 130 spots. [Rurik Levushka
Ul'ianov, 12/2001,
R-Atenveldt]
[a bend sinister ermine] Please advise the submitter that
the ermine spots on the bend would have been drawn bendwise in
period, rather than palewise as depicted here. Maister Iago ab
Adam, who has been doing research into furs in heraldry and
heraldic art, has provided some useful information which is
summarized here.
There seem to be few ermine bends in period, but they may be
found throughout the heraldic period. Those which he found are
all depicted with the ermine spots tilted bendwise on the bend.
The analogous design of ermine fretty usually tilts the ermine
spots. Ermine spots on other ordinaries incorporating diagonal
portions, such as chevrons, saltires, and bordures, are generally
drawn palewise. However, sometimes one finds the spots on the
diagonal portions of these charges tilted bendwise or bendwise
sinister to follow that portion of the ordinary, apparently as a
matter of artist's license. In short, they act much like a group
of compact tertiary charges (such as mullets or escallops) when
placed on an ordinary.
Ermine spots which are part of an ermine tincture are not charges
but are part of a tincture. There does not seem to be any sort of
distinct period tincture of ermine palewise or ermine
bendwise sinister and we are disinclined to introduce such a
concept into SCA heraldry without supporting documentation. By
contrast, charges are explicitly found in different orientations
(such as bendwise or palewise) in period. As a result, if a bend
ermine is drawn with palewise spots, we will blazon it simply as
ermine and instruct the submitter to draw the fur in a
more period fashion. However, if a bend is charged with palewise
charges, they will continue to be explicitly blazoned as
palewise. [Artemisia da Quieto d'Arzenta, 01/2002,
A-Lochac]
This needs to be redrawn. The ermine spots on the mini-emblazon
are larger and more distinct than the ones on the forms. With
over forty ermine spots on only half the field (almost ten times
more than necessary) and the small indistinct drawing, the ermine
spots are not clearly identifiable. [Ismenia O'Mulryan and
Cosmo Craven the Elder, 01/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Vert, a bend sinister argent ermined vert between three
ermine spots argent] When there are three or more ermine
spots on a stripe ordinary such as a bend or fess or chief, the
ordinary will be interpreted as ermined, as this is a standard
way of drawing an ermine stripe ordinary. It is also true that
small numbers of ermine spots on the field may be interpreted as
charges, rather than part of an ermined tincture. Three spots
around a bend sinister are so sparsely distributed that they can
only be interpreted as charges.
No documentation was presented, and none was found, for the
combination of ermine spots as distinct charges and ermine spots
as part of an ermined tincture in the same armory. Until
documentation for this combination is presented, this combination
will be considered a weirdness. [Edmund Sharpe, 02/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[A cross of Santiago erminois] The ermine spots are too
numerous and small to be identified. There are over 40 full or
partial spots on this thin-limbed cross. It is difficult to
imagine the spots being large enough to identify unless there
were fewer than half as many on the cross. [William le
Fendur, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
Please advise the submitter that the ermine spots on a bend are
tilted bendwise in the vast majority of period armory using
ermine bends. [Guillaume de Vaison, 05/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
[Per chevron potent and gules] This does not conflict with
... Per chevron azure and Or. This is clear by RfS
X.4.a.ii.b., Complete Change of Tincture. Even though the fur
potent is composed of azure and argent, it is considered a
complete change of tincture from either azure or argent. This is
parallel to the case of ermine(d) furs. By RfS X.4.a.ii.b, "The
ermine furs and their variants are considered to be different
tinctures". [Tanczos Istvan, 05/2002,
A-East]
[a saltire ermine] The ermine spots on this saltire are
drawn palewise. A question was raised in commentary as to
whether the ermine spots on an ermine saltire should be drawn in
a tilted fashion, as is customary for ermine spots on a bend
(which generally tilt bendwise with the bend). Maister Iago ab
Adam, in his study on furs, was not able to find many examples of
ermine saltires, but the one example which he did find (in
England in 1572) draws the ermine spots palewise. He also found
that on chevrons (a similar case, resembling the bottom half of a
saltire) the ermine spots are more often palewise throughout
period than otherwise. Of thirteen examples of ermine(d) chevrons
in period, ten of them had palewise ermine spots, two had the
ermine spots tilted to follow the arms of the chevron (so the
bendwise portion of the chevron had bendwise ermine spots) and
one had the ermine spots tilted perpendicularly to the chevron
(so the bendwise portion of the chevron had bendwise sinister
ermine spots.)
Therefore, we should advise our submitters that in period
depictions of ermined chevrons or saltires, ermine spots palewise
are most common, but ermine spots bendwise or bendwise sinister
(to follow the models of the spots on the chevrons given above)
would also be acceptable style. None of these variants should be
explicitly blazoned: they appear to be artistic choices rather
than heraldically distinct practices.
Maister Iago's research also shows that period practices for
drawing ermine ordinaries have little correlation with those for
drawing vair ordinaries, so one should not generalize from one
style of fur to another. (Before anyone asks, he has been
Strongly Encouraged to summarize the materials from his class,
"May the Furs Be With You", in a paper so the whole College may
benefit.) [Therion Sean Storie, 05/2002,
R-Æthelmearc] [Ed.: Returned for redraw of an overall
charge.]
[Per pale ermine and vert, in sinister a lion's head cabossed
Or] Many commenters mentioned that this appeared to be the
impalement of the arms of Brittany (Ermine) and the armory
Vert, a lion's head cabossed Or. RfS XI.3 states: "Armory
that appears to marshall independent arms is considered
presumptuous.... Divisions commonly used for marshalling, such as
quarterly or per pale, may only be used in contexts that ensure
marshalling is not suggested." The rule continues, in RfS XI.3.b,
to state that "Such fields may only be used when no single
portion of the field may appear to be an independent piece of
armory.... Charged sections must all contain charges of the same
type to avoid the appearance of being different from each
other".
RfS XI.3.b was later refined by Laurel ruling, indicating that
even when "charged sections ... all contain charges of the same
type" there may be an appearance of marshalling if the uncharged
quarters are complex fields. See the return of Quarterly Or
and lozengy azure and Or, in bend two ravens contourny sable
(LoAR of October 1992, Aric Thomas Percy Raven):
After much soul-searching, I must agree with the commenters who
saw an appearance of marshalling in the device. Rule XI.3.b
states that quarterly may be used only "when no single portion
of the field [appears] to be an independent piece of armory."
In general, complexity in any of the quarters makes it look
like independent armory; for example, XI.3.b explicitly cites
the use of multiple charges in a quarter as unacceptable. The
motif Quarterly X and Y, in bend two [charges] is
allowable when the uncharged quarters are plain tinctures; we
don't protect plain tinctures. But when the uncharged quarters
are complex fields, we lose that rationale; and the complexity
then begins to make it look like an independent coat. This,
beneath all the subtext, is exactly what XI.3.b is meant to
prevent.
After similar soul-searching, and considering the
strong reactions of the College to this submission, we rule as
follows:
When considering armory using a field division commonly used for
marshalling, if every uncharged portion of the field is a plain
tincture that the SCA protects as "important non-SCA arms", then
those uncharged portions of the field will appear to be displays
of independent coats of arms, and the armory will appear to be
marshalling.
Quarterly azure and ermine, in bend two mullets Or has the
appearance of marshalling Azure, a mullet Or with
Ermine, the protected "important non-SCA arms" of
Brittany. In this case, every uncharged portion of the field
appears to be a display of the arms of Brittany. Quarterly
azure and ermine, in dexter chief a mullet Or does not have
the appearance of marshalling, because not every uncharged
portion of the field appears to be a display of arms. This armory
includes an uncharged quarter of azure, which is not
protected in the SCA as "important non-SCA arms." This armory
simply appears to be arms using a quarterly field with a single
charge in dexter chief.
Quarterly azure and vert, in bend two mullets Or does not
have the appearance of marshalling. The flag of Libya,
Vert, is a plain tincture protected as an "important
non-SCA flag". Only arms would be used in marshalling in the real
world, not flags or badges. There is only an appearance of
marshalling when the protected plain tincture represents
"important non-SCA arms". [Murdoch Bayne, 08/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
Some commentary asked whether this depiction of an ermine bend,
which charges the bend with five bendwise ermine spots, should be
blazoned as A bend argent charged with five ermine spots
sable rather than a bend ermine. This is an excellent period
depiction of an ermine bend. As noted in the January 2002 LoAR:
There seem to be few ermine bends in period, but they may be
found throughout the heraldic period. Those which [Maister Iago
ab Adam] found are all depicted with the ermine spots tilted
bendwise on the bend.
Maister Iago has provided some additional detailed
information about English depictions of ermine bends throughout
our period:
Out of seven period examples of ermine bends studied, two had
two offset rows of spots (like footprints up the bend), one had
seven spots arranged 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, one was charged and had the
spots arranged to fit around the charges, and three were drawn
as in this submission, with a single row of five spots
(although it should be noted that these last three examples are
all mid-16th C. or later.)
[Catarina de Zaneto Rizo, 04/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[roundels ermine] Please advise the submitter that, as a
general rule, ermine charges in period were drawn charged with
whole ermine spots, rather than having the spots cut off at the
edge of the charge. (This is different from the practice for
ermine fields, which commonly had the spots cut off at the edge
of the shield.) [Finn Folhare, 04/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[A fleur-de-lys pean] The ermine spots are too small to be
identifiable. The size derives in part from the very high number
of ermine spots (approximately 88). As the ermine spots cannot be
identified, this must be returned under RfS VIII.3.
Based on the disposition of ermine spots on similar charges in
period armory (such as cinquefoils), we would expect there to be
7-13 ermine spots on the average fleur-de-lys used as a primary
charge. We would also expect the ermine spots to be whole ermine
spots, rather than cut off at the edge of the charge. As a
general rule, ermine spots drawn on charges were usually whole
spots arranged to fit well on the charge (even if some of the
ermine spots needed to be made a bit smaller than usual, or
tilted slightly, to fit in their alloted spaces). In contrast to
the practices for ermine spots on charges, ermine spots on fields
in period were not infrequently drawn with the spots cut off at
the edge of the shield or at the edge of an overlying charge.
[Robin Gallowglass, 04/2003,
R-East]
[on a cross ermine ... a cross sable] Concerning the
device, precedent indicates that fimbriating in a fur is not
registerable heraldic style: "Ermine fimbriation is disallowed
(LoAR of 3 Aug 86, p.17)..." (LoAR of October 1992, p. 26).
Precedent also indicates that voiding, fimbriation, and "on an X
an X" are considered equivalent designs for purposes of conflict,
as is discussed more fully in the LoAR of June 2002.
Heraldic designs which are equivalent for purposes of conflict
are not always equivalent for purposes of style:
In this case the blazon can make a difference: while you cannot
"blazon your way out of" a conflict, you can "blazon your way
out of" a style problem. If not, all submissions of per
chevron, three <X> would be returned because they
could also be blazoned as a charged chapé. (LoAR February
2000).
Therefore, we can consider whether this submission
is a registerable depiction of an ermine cross charged with a
sable cross, without being concerned about the fact that a cross
sable fimbriated ermine is not registerable. This submission does
have an acceptable depiction of a cross ermine charged with a
cross sable. In this depiction, the portion of the ermine cross
that shows is wide enough so that the ermine spots lying upon the
cross are clearly identifiable: they are not too small to be
identified, and the ermine spots and the tertiary cross do not
overlap, and thus do not obscure each others' identifiability.
This submission is therefore stylistically acceptable.
[Adriana von Grimme, 05/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[ermine field] The ermine spots in the full-sized emblazon
had identifiability problems. The spots were very numerous and
small, and many of the spots were hampered further in their
identifiability by being partially obscured by the chevron
engrailed and the Maltese crosses. This lack of identifiability
can be a reason for return under RfS VIII.3, which states in
pertinent part "Identifiable elements may be rendered
unidentifiable by significant reduction in size ... or by being
obscured by other elements of the design."
Unfortunately, because there was a significant discrepancy
between the artwork in the full-sized emblazon and the
mini-emblazon provided to the College of Arms in the Letter of
Intent, we were unable to get the College's input on this
armorial style problem. The mini-emblazon illustrated the ermine
field with 20 ermine spots, none of which were obscured by other
charges in the armory. The full-sized emblazon shows 60 full or
partially obscured ermine spots, each of which was much smaller
proportionally than the ermine spots on the mini-emblazon.
Usually we would rely heavily on the College's input to determine
whether the ermine spots were in fact too unidentifiable to be
registered under RfS VIII.3, or whether the submission's
identifiability was sufficient to enable it to be registered,
with an artistic note to the submitter to draw fewer, larger, and
less obscured ermine spots. [Genevieve de Calais, 06/2003,
R-West]
[a chief embattled ermine] On the first viewing of the
submission form, the Wreath meeting attendees had a lively
discussion about whether the ermine spots were too small to be
identified. While there were strong adherents to both sides of
this question, the consensus was that the ermine spots were
sufficiently identifiable, especially because, for the most part,
the ermine spots were neither obscuring, nor obscured by, other
elements of the design.
We were suprised at the lack of commentary on the identifiability
issue, and (on inspection of the Letter of Intent) found that
there was a notable discrepancy between the depiction of the
ermine chief in the full-sized emblazon and in the mini-emblazon.
The mini-emblazon drew the embattled chief with two rows of five
ermine spots each, with the lower line "offset" so that each
ermine spot is centered in the space between the two ermine spots
above it. However, the full-sized emblazon had twice as many rows
and almost twice as many ermine spots per row (except for the
bottom row, which had just as many spots, as it only had one spot
per embattlement). It was no surprise that the issue with the
identifiability of the ermine spots was not raised in the
commentary - the identifiability issue did not even begin to
arise on the mini-emblazon.
As a period artistic note, the depiction in the mini-emblazon is
very much in keeping with period armorial depictions both of
ermine chiefs and of the portion of an ermine field showing over
the top of a fess. The majority of depictions which Wreath staff
was able to find on a short research mission show two rows of
(offset) ermine spots with 4-7 spots per row. We were not able to
find (nor were we were presented with evidence for) a depiction
of a period ermine chief with more than three rows of ermine
spots on it. We will note that ermine spots are often packed more
densely on some other types of armorial elements, such as ermine
beasts and ermine fretty (where the complex outline of the beast
and the narrow lathes of the fretty encourage the depiction of
small and numerous ermine spots).
This submission has failed to strictly comply with the
requirement in the Administrative Handbook that "An accurate
representation of each piece of submitted armory shall be
included on the letter of intent." Certainly, the College was
unable to adequately comment on the issue of whether the ermine
spots were drawn identifiably. We thus had to seriously consider
whether the administrative handbook required the return of this
submission. Because the Wreath meeting was able to reach a
general consensus that the ermine spots in the full-sized
emblazon were, in fact, identifiable, we were willing to
recommend registration if Laurel allowed it (which he has).
However, we advise the submitter and the Kingdom College of
Heralds to ensure that the mini-emblazon is a good rendition of
the full-sized emblazon. We remind the Kingdom College that a
significant discrepancy between the full-sized emblazon and the
mini-emblazon can be cause for return, particularly if the
depiction on the mini-emblazon masks a style problem on the
full-sized emblazon. [Jean de Leedes, 07/2003,
A-West]
The SCA has previously chosen to avoid error-prone terms. For
example, it has chosen not to use the error-prone term
ermines (easily confused with ermine), in favor of
the less error-prone term counter-ermine. [Ginevra
Visconti, 09/2003,
A-Trimaris]
[Azure, ... a chief vair] The chief in the full-sized
emblazon has two rows of identifiable vair bells, but the bottom
row of vair bells is azure against the azure field. When drawing
a vair chief, the bottom row of vair bells should not be of the
same tincture as the field, for contrast reasons. If the bottom
row of the vair bells is the same tincture as the field, it is
difficult or impossible to tell whether the chief has a plain
line of division or if it has a complex line of division (such as
wavy or urdy, depending on the depiction of the vair). In this
emblazon, an attempt was made to clarify the issue by demarking
the chief with a thick black line, but that does not materially
help the contrast problem, as the thick black line is almost
impossible to see between the blue bottom of the vair bells and
the blue field. The thick line also raises the possibility of
fimbriation: by long-standing SCA precedent, chiefs may not be
fimbriated. [Caitilín ni Killane, 09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[Bendy sinister vert and erminois] Please advise the
submitter not to draw the ermine spots palewise, but to tilt them
bendwise sinister to follow the underlying bendwise sinister
traits of the field. The vast majority of ermine bends in period
appear to be drawn with bendwise ermine spots, and we would
expect other ermined furs, and bendlets sinister (or traits of a
bendy sinister field), to follow suit. [Cú Chonnacht Ó
Tighearnáin, 10/2003,
R-Middle]
[a label ermine] The ermine label on this submission is
drawn with one palewise ermine spot on each of the three points,
and fesswise ermine spots on the bar from which the points
depend. Please advise the submitter that the only ermine labels
that our post-meeting research was able to discover appear to
have a thinner horizontal bar (charged with no ermine spots), and
longer points (each point charged with two or more palewise
ermine spots - generally three ermine spots.) Please also advise
the submitter that the points of the label should not be bunched
so closely together in the center of the label. [Mattheus
Dupuy, 02/2004,A-Atlantia]
GOUTTE
A correctly
drawn goutte, with a long wavy tail, is substantially different
from a roundel. [Siobhan inghean ui Dhonnabhain, 01/2003,
A-East]
GRANDFATHER
CLAUSE
[Tierced per chevron wavy throughout argent Or
and azure, a garden rose gules slipped and leaved, a sprig of
Saint John's wort vert, and a heron rising argent] This
submission violates the complexity rules on "slot machine"
design, using three types of charge in a single group. However,
this armory is a very small change from her previously registered
armory, changing the type of sprig from allspice to Saint John's
wort. Thus the stylistic problems are allowed under the
Grandfather Clause. The general form of her blazon, using the
term tierced, has been held over from her previous device
as well. [Allison Poinvillars de Tours, 09/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Checky Or and argent, on a fess sable ...] The use of
Checky Or and argent is grandfathered to the Kingdom of An
Tir. [An Tir, Kingodm of, 09/2001,
A-An Tir]
[(Fieldless) A tree blasted and couped the trunk transfixed by
an arrow fesswise reversed Or] This tree is identical to the
one on his registered device, including the lack of detail lines
showing whether the arrow surmounts the tree, or vice versa.
Since the two charges are the same tincture, this really does not
matter for heraldic purposes.
The proportions of the device and of the badge show the tree as
primary with the arrow in a "maintained" proportion. However,
when the device was registered, Laurel said "This does not
conflict with Huette Aliza von und zu Ahrens und Mechthildberg
(SCA) Vert, a tree blasted throughout Or. There are CDs
for the change to the field and the addition of the overall
charge." Therefore, the badge is also clear of Huette's badge by
grandfathering. [Thomas Towlewardie, 02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[a brown horse couchant proper blazed and stockinged
argent] The details of the tincture of the stockings and
blaze of the horse would not generally be blazoned but were
present in the submitter's previous blazon. Blazons can be
changed by Laurel at any time, so the Grandfather Clause does not
apply to blazons as it does to registration of armorial elements.
However, it seems appropriate to maintain the same blazon if that
blazon is not misleading. [Betha of Bedford, 11/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a winged sea-unicorn] The monster in this emblazon is a
winged sea-unicorn: It has a unicorn's beard and cloven hooves.
The Shire's device is blazoned using unicornate sea-pegasi, and
the monsters are clearly depicted in that fashion (with horse's
hooves and no beards). Because the badge and the device depict
different monsters, they may not be blazoned identically.
[Trinovantia Nova, Shire of, 12/2002,
A-Ealdomere]
[in base a compass star sable fimbriated Or] Note that the
submitter's previous device also used a fimbriated compass star
in base. Thus, the violation of RfS VIII.3, which states in
pertinent part "Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with
simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design", is
grandfathered to this submitter. [Edith Gray, 02/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[A wild ginger flower] The wild ginger flower in Ginevra's
badge has the petals in pall inverted (with one petal to chief).
This is the default for wild ginger flowers, which is the
opposite of the default for the similarly three-petalled trillium
(see the cover letter of the January 2003 LoAR for more
details).
Ginevra's device, Argent ermined vert, a wild ginger flower
purpure, was registered in September 2002. The registration
explicitly called the device clear from Seamus a' Chnuic Ghuirm,
blazoned at that time as Argent, a trillium inverted purpure
barbed vert and seeded Or, and Elspeth of Harilow, A
heartsease proper [Viola tricolor]. Thus any possible
conflicts between this badge and either Seamus or Elspeth are
grandfathered, as the same conflicts would apply to this
submitter's device as well.
It is worth noting that Seamus' arms were reblazoned in January
2003 to Argent, a trillium purpure barbed vert and seeded
Or. The two flowers are indeed in opposite orientations;
Seamus' has one petal pointing to base and Ginevra's has one
petal pointing to chief. [Ginevra Rodney, 02/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[(Fieldless) A Glastonbury thorn blossom proper] The
Glastonbury thorn blossom in this submission is a five-petalled
flower with a close resemblance to a heraldic rose. Each petal is
a streaky pink on the inside of the petal and white on the
outside of the petal with some slight shading between the pink
and white, and somewhat jagged edges to the pink area. The flower
has red barbs (sepals) showing between the petals. The
submitter's registered device is, Azure, goutty d'Or, on a
bend argent a Glastonbury thorn twig blossoming proper. The
Letter of Intent stated:
The flower is pink shading to white at the edges; the thorns
are red. We believe this matches the charge on her device
(Glastonbury thorn twig blossoming proper) and it is
thus grandfathered to her. This is clear of [Fieldless] A
Tudor rose, with a CD for fieldless and another for
tincture. By the same reasoning, this should be clear of both
York, [Fieldless] A rose argent and of Lancaster,
[Fieldless] A rose gules.
To address these points in turn:
The Letter of Intent's description of the appearance of the
flower is largely correct, although the shading between pink and
white is minimal as stated above. As an additional note, the
flower in this submission is about three-quarters pink and
one-quarter white.
The Laurel file copy of her device consists of a black and white
outline drawing with the tinctures of the charges tricked in. The
flowers on the Glastonbury thorn twig are tricked as "pink".
Based on other submissions from a similar time frame (January
1974), it is entirely possible that no color submission form
exists, and that only the tricked version was ever submitted. In
any case, the Laurel office is not currently in possession of a
colored-in form from the time of her original registration. She
also had a badge submission, Azure, goutty d'Or, a Glastonbury
hawthorne blossom proper, barbed gules, which was returned in
August 1989. The Laurel office does have a color version of the
returned badge emblazon, where the flower is solid pink. The
return stated:
As the letter of intent indicates, the flower is pink. Shades
of pink are generally blazoned as gules (and, indeed,
horticultural books show this flower in several shades of
gules) so this is colour on colour.
Because the flower in this submission is not solid
pink, it neither matches the description of the flower in her
tricked device emblazon, nor does it match the equivalently
blazoned flower in her returned badge. We therefore cannot
consider this to be a grandfathered depiction of the flower in
her device.
It does seem reasonable to grandfather the use of a Glastonbury
thorn flower, as in the submitter's device, to the submitter.
Without the Laurel files being updated with a good color copy of
Mary Taran of Glastonbury's original form (should such a form
have existed), we will assume that the grandfathered flower is a
solid pink color.
This badge conflicts with the protected badge of the House of
Tudor, (Fieldless) A Tudor rose. There is one CD for
fieldlessness. A Tudor rose is defined as a rose which is red and
white. It can be depicted in a number of different ways. One of
the depictions of a Tudor rose is of a white rose charged with a
red rose. Such a rose would appear much like a five-petalled
flower where the outside of the petals were white, and the inside
of the petals were red. Changing the inside of the petals from
red to pink and adding some shading at the edges of the color
demarcation is not sufficient tincture difference from a Tudor
rose to be worth a second CD for tincture change.
We at this time decline to rule on whether an all-pink flower
would be given difference from either a red rose or a white rose,
and the associated conflict questions concerning the Houses of
Lancaster and York as mentioned in the Letter of Intent. [Mary
Taran of Glastonbury, 06/2003,
R-Caid]
GRENADE and
FIREBALL
[a fireball Or vs. a grenade Or, enflamed
proper] There is no difference for changing less than half
the tincture of the primary charge from mostly Or to entirely Or.
There is no difference between a grenade and a fireball...
[Jehanne le feu du Christ, 06/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
The SCA distinguishes the single-flamed grenade from the
quadruply-flamed fireball in blazon. [Constanza de
Sevilla, 08/2003,
A-Middle]
GURGES
[a cross
engrailed argent overall a gurges Or] The model for this
armory submission is in Foster's The Dictionary of
Heraldry. It depicts the arms of Robert Giffard, from the
Dering Roll c. 1275. Foster's blazon is Argent, a cross
engrailed sable, over all a gorge azure, and it is drawn much
like this submission. The gurges is depicted as concentric
annulets, each annulet overlying the "cup" parts of the engrailed
cross. The outside annulets are cut off by the sides of the
shield so only the corners show.
Unfortunately, we were unable to find a period emblazon of these
arms. One must be careful about relying too heavily on Foster's
redrawn emblazons. A design found only in Foster's artwork will
generally not be considered sufficient documentation to be
accepted in the SCA, as noted in the return of Séamus Ó
Cuileáin's device in the LoAR of December 1998.
One notably different depiction of the same coat of arms is in
Humphrey-Smith's Anglo-Norman Armory II, where it is
blazoned, Or, a cross engrailed sable surmounted by five
concentric annulets vert. Humphery-Smith's research is
usually considered to be more accurate than Foster's.
Humphery-Smith emblazons the armory with five concentric annulets
surmounting the center of the cross. The outside portions of the
cross are not obscured by the annulets, and none of the annulets
are cut off by the sides of the shield.
However, there is also some scholarly support for Foster's
emblazon. Brault's Early Blazon gives a (modern)
illustration of a 'concentric-annulet' gurges (p.76, fig.11)
where the outside annulets are cut off by the sides of the
shield. Woodward's A Treatise on Heraldry, p.193, states:
Akin to this last bearing is the Gorge or Gurges,
or Whirlpool, a spiral line of azure commencing
in the fess point of a field of argent, and occupying
the whole shield; it is figured in Plate XIX, fig.6, and was
borne, in the reign of HENRY III, as armes parlantes, by
the Wiltshire family of GORGES. In GLOVER'S Roll of
Arms, No.188, this bearing takes an unusual form: being,
Argent, four concentric annulets azure, the exterior one
is cut by the outline of the shield. It is there given thus:
'Rauf de Gorges Roele dArgent & dazur' (sic).
In general, it appears that concentric annulets, of
which the outermost are cut off by the edges of the shield, are
an early form of gurges. Thus, it seems appropriate to give this
emblazon the benefit of the doubt, and assume that this is an
acceptable period-style combination of a gurges and a cross
engrailed. [Gregory of Glencairn, 05/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a chevron between two garbs Or and a gurges couped] Prior
precedent indicates that the charge in base (a spiral cut off in
base) is not acceptable period style, and the College did not
find any evidence to overrule these precedents:
It has previously been ruled (LoAR of Oct 90) that the
gurges may not be couped- "Whirlpools or gurges are used
as a single, throughout charge on a field." (LoAR July 1993,
pg. 13)
The spiral does not appear to be an acceptable charge; a
previous attempt at registration (under the blazon gurges
couped) was returned Oct 90. (LoAR December, 1992, pg. 21)
[Leandra de Levet, 03/2003,
R-Calontir]
HAND and GAUNTLET
There
was also a question about whether a hand should be given a CD for
posture versus a hand in benediction. Current precedent regarding
gauntlets would imply that this is not so: "[a dexter gauntlet
clenched apaumy vs a dexter gauntlet appaumy] The clenching is an
artistic detail which does not contribute difference. (William
MacGregor, May 1998 p. 22)". However, it is important to remember
that gauntlets are often 'mitten gauntlets' and what is true for
a gauntlet may not always be true for a hand. We encourage the
College to research this issue. [Ihon Vinson MacFergus,
09/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[A sinister hand in benediction argent] Conflict with ...
Lozengy azure and Or, a hand argent. There is one CD for
fieldlessness. Per previous precedent, The clenching is an
artistic detail which does not contribute difference (William
MacGregor, 5/98 p. 22). [Gaston de Champvieux,
11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
By current precedent, "The cupped hand is neither a documented
nor a recognizable position." (LoAR April 2000, p. 18). However,
it is grandfathered to the submitter, who has the same sort of
design in her registered device ... [Elonda Blue Haven,
01/2002,
A-An Tir]
The glove in the device was blazoned on the LoI and on the forms
as a glove aversant, which is a (default dexter) glove
seen from the back. There is no silhouette difference between the
outline of a dexter glove aversant and a sinister glove appaumy
(seen from the palm). This glove has a very prominent detail
showing the seam around the base of the thumb, present only on
the palm side of the glove, so we have acceded to the requests of
the College of Arms and reblazoned this as a sinister
glove. [Alexander Craythorne, 05/2002,
A-Middle]
There is no difference between a dexter and a sinister hand.
[Elspeth Flannagann, 12/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
HAT
[Gules, a monk's
hood Or] Possible conflicts were called against Catherine the
Merry, Azure, a fool's cap Or, and Amata Quentin Motzhart,
Gules, a jester's cap lozengy argent and sable. In both
cases, a necessary CD must come from the type of the hat. There
is a CD between a monk's hood, and either a jester's/fool's hat
or a jester's hood. Both these latter charges, according to the
Pictorial Dictionary, have tall padded pointed horns ending with
bells and cannot be visually confused with the monk's hood.
[William Worm, 08/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[... a camel rampant Or wearing a hat gules...] The hat,
which is roughly cylindrical and topped with a tassel, was
originally blazoned as a fez. Commentary suggested, but did not
clearly prove, that the term fez may not have been period for
this sort of hat and the tassel on such a hat may not be period.
Because the basic shape of the hat (absent tassel) is found in
period costume, and because the detail is so small, we are giving
the charge the benefit of the doubt and blazoning it simply as a
hat. [Xenos the Butcher, 06/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
HEAD --
Beast
see also COUPED and
ERASED
[Two horses' heads addorsed couped
conjoined] There were a number of comments from the College
about the artwork of this submission. To address each in turn:
The line of couping on the heads is slightly curved, but so
shallowly as to be almost imperceptible. This line is a
reasonable artistic variation of couped. The amount of
neck showing is standard for a period horse's head, and thus
these heads do not need to be blazoned as couped at the
shoulders. The manes dangling down past the couping point
seem to be a valid unblazonable artist's choice, given the
various degree of mane flourishes shown by equines, unicorns,
lions, et cetera, in the heraldic art of our period. [Lí Ban
ingen Echtigeirn, 08/2001,
A-An Tir]
The armory does not conflict with Keriane St. John of
Shaddoncarraig, Purpure, a horse's head erased to sinister
argent. There is a CD for the change in the field and another
CD for the change from a horse's head to the default
double-headed chess knight. As Palimpsest notes,
... the reason for the conflict of the single-headed chess
knight and a horse's head is visual. The double-headed chess
knight is a period charge (found in Siebmacher in the arms of
Hertzheim) so the visual standard does not apply. Even were it
to apply it would clear the conflict, but the applicable
standard is whether the charges were considered equivalent by
period heralds. There is no reason to believe that this was the
case for double-headed chess knights and horse's heads, so this
submission is clear.
[Joseph Angus Wilson, 09/2001,
A-Calontir]
The moose's head cabossed is not recognizable as drawn on either
the forms or the Letter of Intent. This must be returned for
redrawing. [Ailionóra ingen mhic Gafraidh, 09/2001,
R-Æthelmearc]
[a wolf's head couped close] The wolf's head is drawn as
if it were couped close, except that the expected smooth couping
line was replaced with a very small, pinking-shear indented line.
This sort of treatment of a head neither has the smooth line of a
period couped, or the prominent jags of a period erased. Without
supporting documentation, such a depiction will not be considered
acceptable period style after May 2002. The submitter's original
blazon of couped (changed to erased in the LoI) has been
restored, since this depiction is, arguably, closer to period
couped than erased. However, please advise the submitter to draw
the couping with a smooth line in the future. A high T-shirt
neckline (as if the wolf were wearing a high necked t-shirt,
giving a smooth concave line at the neck) is one style of couping
found in period, and is the closest period form to this
depiction. [Laurenço Affonso, 11/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[a brown bear's head cabossed proper] RfS VIII.4.b. Modern
Insignia states: Allusions to modern insignia, trademarks, or
common designs may not be registered. This rule does not
refer to a particular artistic style, such as whether the
particular depiction is stylized (such as the Chicago Bulls logo)
or naturalistic (such as the Chicago Bears logo), nor does it
refer to technical conflict. The issue here is unmistakable
allusion to the modern insignia or trademark.
The bear's head here appears to be a photocopy of the Chicago
Bears logo as seen on their web site, but flipped on the vertical
axis, omitting some details, and colored in a different shade of
brown. Because this could reasonably be seen by many viewers as
just the same as the bear's head portion of the Bears
logo, this is too strong an allusion to a modern trademark to be
registered. [Erik the Bear, 11/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[a dragon's head and a donkey's head couped addorsed] If
drawn correctly, a charge group consisting of a dragon's head and
a donkey's head would be acceptable in the SCA without comment.
However, as drawn here, at first they appear to be the same type
of charge, and it then takes some time to distinguish what types
of charge these might be. There are some internal details that
are visible on the black and white mini emblazon which might help
somewhat with the identifiability, but they are entirely lost in
the colored emblazon. This is not identifiable as drawn and must
be returned. [Dubhgall mac Réamoinn, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[a ram's head couped] Unfortunately, the stylization of
this ram's head diminishes its identifiability to the point where
it is not sufficiently recognizable. The muzzle of the ram is
drawn identifiably, but the head is surrounded by some sort of
ruff or mane, which substantially changes the outline of the head
as a whole from that of a standard ram's head. The horn is drawn
in an extremely stylized fashion with disconnected segments. The
disconnected segments are not easily identifiable as portions of
a spiral horn. [Davin Steingrimsson, 01/2002,
R-An Tir]
[wolf's heads erased ululant] This seems a good time to
remind the College that the blazon term ululant,
indicating that the animal has its head up and is howling, is not
a period blazon term: "While we allow wolves and foxes to be
ululant, the head posture is an SCA invention. It is
possible that had the head posture been introduced today we would
not allow it. Allowing ululant wolves is a step beyond period
practice; allowing anything but canines to use the position is
two steps beyond period practice and therefore grounds for
return" (LoAR December 2000). [Wülfer Drachenhand,
02/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[in fess a horse's head couped close a horse's head caboshed
and a horse's head couped close contourny all conjoined] The
armory needs to be redrawn or redesigned. The central cabossed
head is not recognizable as a horse's head because it is much too
wide. The other horse's heads' identifiability is compromised by
the very close conjoining with the central head. [Philip of
Crescent Moon, 02/2002,
R-Calontir]
[a stag's head cabossed argent] Conflict with ... Vert,
a stag's head cabossed argent, orbed and attired of flames
proper, resting on its head a chalice Or. There is a CD for
changing the field but no difference for changing the tincture of
the attires, which are less than half the tincture of the stag's
head. [Kunrad Eisenhart, 02/2002,
R-Meridies]
[a horse's head contourny erased Or collared gules] This
is clear of conflict with ... Sable, a single headed chess
knight contourny Or. There is a CD for changing the field and
a second CD for adding the collar. "When considering a full beast
or monster gorged, the gorging is usually treated as an artistic
detail, worth no difference. When consider the same creature's
head gorged, however, the gorging is much more prominent in
proportion --- and treated as a tertiary charge." (LoAR 9/93 p.5)
[Ceinwen ferch Rhys ap Gawain, 03/2002,
A-Caid]
[stag's head erased gorged of a pearled coronet ...
argent] A beast's head gorged of a coronet or collar is
treated by the SCA as having a tertiary charge. "When
[considering a] creature's head gorged, however, the gorging is
much more prominent in proportion --- and treated as a tertiary
charge." (LoAR of September 1993). A tertiary charge needs to
have good contrast with the underlying charge. This coronet is
the same tincture as the underlying head, so it violates our
rules for contrast. On a full-sized beast, where a collar is
considered an artist's detail rather than a charge in its own
right, it would be acceptable to have a no-contrast detail of
this nature. [Chrestienne de Waterdene, 04/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[a ram's head cabossed sable] Conflict with Riordan Robert
MacGregor, Quarterly purpure and argent, a ram's head caboshed
sable armed Or. ... The horns are less than half the ram's
head charge and therefore changing their tincture is also not
worth difference. [Kenrick Dryden, 04/2002,
R-Calontir]
[Per pale gules and vert, three cat's heads cabossed Or]
Conflict with Dalmatia, Azure, three lions' heads cabossed
crowned Or. When a crown is added to the top of an animal's
head, the change is not as visually significant as when one
gorges the head with a high-contrast crown (which has been
considered addition of a tertiary charge, and worth a CD, since
the LoAR of September 1993). A crown on an animal's head
generally either has poor contrast with the field, which makes it
hard to see, or it has poor contrast with the head, making it
appear to be part of the head. In the particular case of crowned
lion's heads, a lion's head is often drawn with a jagged outline
at the top of the head due to the lion's mane. When the crown on
a lion's head is the same tincture as the lion's head, the crown
will be very difficult to distinguish visually. There is
therefore one CD for changing the field but nothing for removing
the near-invisible crowns. [Ástrídr Brandsdóttir, 06/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
The College was generally in agreement that the addition or
deletion of a crown from the head of a (whole) animal should not
be worth difference. Some period evidence was presented
suggesting that, in armory using a crowned animal, the crown was
at times dropped from the emblazon. Such an easily deletable
artist's distinction should not be considered to be worth
difference.
The College was not able to find period evidence about whether
crowned animal's heads could have the crown added or deleted by
artistic license. Some commenters suggested that perhaps crowns
on animal's heads should be considered analogous to collars on
animal's heads. Current precedent gives a CD for collaring an
animal's head (as if the collar were a tertiary charge) but does
not give a CD for adding a collar to a whole animal. However,
these two designs are not truly analogous. A collar on an
animal's head does indeed function as a tertiary charge and thus
must have good contrast with the head on which it lies. This good
contrast enhances the collar's visual prominence. However, a
crown on an animal's head does not generally have such good
contrast. The crown generally either has poor contrast with the
field or with the animal's head. In addition, a crown may be
further obscured by some artistic details of the head on which it
lies, such as ruffled eagle's feathers or a lion's mane.
Without period evidence to the contrary, and because of the
contrast problems inherent in the design of a crown on an
animal's head, it does not seem appropriate to give difference
for adding a crown to a charge consisting only of an animal's
head. [12/2002,
CL]
[a ram's head] In period armory, rams are usually drawn
with very prominent horns that lie partially on the field, rather
than having the horns lie entirely on the rest of the ram's head.
[Angus Ramsay, 01/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[a goat's head couped ... argent] Conflict with Carol
Stewart of Horsehill, Vert, a musimon's head erased argent,
horns wreathed Or and sable. ... The change of the horn
tincture between Carol's musimon head and David's goat head
constitutes less than half the charge, and thus there is no
tincture difference.
The musimon's head and the goat's head are quite similar
visually. The only visual difference between these types of head
is that a musimon has a set of ram's horns in addition to the
goat horns. We are not aware of evidence indicating that a goat's
head and a musimon's head would have been considered distinct
charges in period. Thus, until such evidence has been presented
to the contrary, we rule that difference will not be given
between these charges on purely visual grounds. We note that in
the case of the entire animal, in the LoAR of July 1998 no type
difference was given between a goat and a musimon. [David
Friedrich von Einbeck, 01/2003,
R-Calontir]
... no difference between a lynx's head and a cat's head.
[Cristal Fleur de la Mer, 02/2003,
R-Caid]
There is no difference between a head cabossed and a head erased
affronty. [Richenza von Augsburg, 03/2003,
R-West]
[three bear's heads couped] Some members of the College
thought that the bear's heads were erased close rather
than couped. The full-sized emblazon clearly shows these
heads as couped (and couped under the head rather than
couped close.) The backs of the bear's heads are somewhat
fuzzy, as is appropriate for the charge, and that probably led to
the misinterpretation of erased close. [Ásbj{o,}rn
kolbrúnarskáld, 08/2003,
A-Calontir]
[a horse's head couped] Some commentary suggested that the
head be blazoned in some fashion other than the default couped
because it was "not couped in the usual horizontal manner." We
direct the College to the Cover Letter of the November 2001 LoAR,
which discusses period treatments of both couped and erased in
some detail. Regarding the form of couped found in this emblazon,
the cover letter states that one of the period depictions was "a
straight line... [which could be] parallel to the side of the
shield." Because Francesca's horse's head is a primary charge,
drawn to fill the space, the bottom of the horse's head and neck
is near the sinister base portion of the shield. The angle of the
side of the shield in sinister base is approximately bendwise
sinister, and the couping of the horse's head in this emblazon is
roughly parallel to that sinister base portion of the side of the
shield. Thus, this is a period form of couping, and it is not
necessary to describe it further in blazon. [Francesca
Testarossa de' Martini, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
[a stag's head couped affronty] There were some concerns
in the commentary about the way that the stag's head was drawn,
with its nose slightly to sinister. People in period had a hard
time drawing the long narrow stag's head affronty, too, and a
stag's head affronty/cabossed that is looking ever so slightly to
dexter or sinister is well within the range of reasonable
depictions for this charge. The head would have to be turned much
more before requiring a return for being in trian aspect.
[Katheryne Hart, 12/2003,
R-Calontir]
[a wolf's head] The wolf's head was originally blazoned as
ululant, a term used in SCA heraldry for a wolf in some
posture with its head pointed to chief and howling. In this
emblazon, the muzzle of the head is tilted to dexter chief, which
is a reasonable artistic variant for a plain wolf's head. We do
not believe that it is necessary to blazon a charge consisting
only of a head in profile as ululant. [Caitilín inghean
Sheáin, 01/2004,
A-Outlands]
HEAD --
Bird
[a raven displayed vs. a double-headed eagle
displayed] There is no type difference given between a raven
displayed and a double-headed eagle displayed: "[a raven
displayed vs. an eagle displayed] Even though ravens and
eagles were different birds in period, only eagles were ever
displayed. Therefore there is not a CD for type" (LoAR
November 1999; see also the extensive discussion in the Cover
Letter for the January 2000 LoAR). There is also no difference
for the number of heads: "...(not too dissimilarly to not
granting a CVD for the difference between an eagle and a
double-headed eagle)" (LoAR October 1990 p.14). [Njall
Randvesson, 04/2003,
R-East]
[a hawk's hood facing to dexter] Some members of the
College had concerns about the identifiability of the hawk's
hood, and asked if it should be considered an acceptable charge.
As noted in the Pictorial Dictionary, "Though a period
artifact, the hawk's hood was evidently not used in period
armory. It doesn't seem to have a default posture: the
illustration. . . shows a hawk's hood facing to dexter." RfS
VII.3, "Period Artifacts", states: "Artifacts that were known in
the period and domain of the Society may be registered in armory,
provided they are depicted in their period forms." As a period
artifact, a hawk's hood is an acceptable charge, as long as it is
drawn in a period form. The hawk's hood as drawn in this
submission (which is very similar to the one in the Pictorial
Dictionary) is drawn in a period form, and was quite
identifiable to people at the meeting who had some knowledge of
falconry (which was a very popular sport of the nobility in
period).
The device does not conflict with ... Argent, six hawk's heads
erased azure armed Or. There is a CD for changing the number
of charges. RfS X.4.e states: "A charge not used in period armory
will be considered different in type if its shape in normal
depiction is significantly different." As a hawk's hood was not a
period charge, we must compare the normal depictions of a hawk's
head and a hawk's hood to determine the difference between them.
The shape of a hawk's head, with its prominent beak, is
significantly different than the shape of a hawk's hood, with no
protruding beak. There is thus a CD between a hawk's head and a
hawk's hood. [Edmund Wolfe, 07/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[Or, a cock's head couped gules] This device conflicts
with a badge of Ranulf of the North Country, for Shasta
Provincial Mercenaries, also called the Gobbler Company,
(Fieldless) A turkey's head erased gules, beaked Or, wearing a
horned Viking's helmet Or. There is one CD for fieldlessness.
There is no difference between a turkey's head and a cock's head.
The difference in tincture of the charges is less than half the
charge. There is no difference for adding the helmet to the
bird's head. As stated in the December 2002 Cover Letter,
"Without period evidence to the contrary, and because of the
contrast problems inherent in the design of a crown on an
animal's head, it does not seem appropriate to give difference
for adding a crown to a charge consisting only of an animal's
head." The situation with this helmet is analogous. [Guillem
Gallo, 10/2003,
R-East]
HEAD --
Human
[Per pale Or and gules, a sun in splendor
counterchanged] Conflict under RfS X.5, "Visual Test", with
Ajax Thermopylokles, Per pale Or and gules, a Gorgon's head
cabossed counterchanged. The particular stylization of the
gorgon's head in Ajax' armory leads it to be visually very
similar to a sun in splendor. The snakes are evenly arrayed
radially about the gorgon's face, rather than just issuant from
the top of the head as one might expect of a gorgon with snakes
for hair. The gorgon's face is also very stylized, more like a
mask than a face. Thus the face resembles the disk of a sun more
than one might expect of a standard woman's face. Overall the
visual similarity is so overwhelming that we have no choice but
to call conflict under RfS X.5. In ordinary circumstances we
would expect there to be X.2 difference between a variant of a
human head and a sun. [Liudmila Vladimirova doch',
09/2002,
R-Caid]
[a cherub's head] It is clear of conflict with ...
Azure, a lion's head, winged, erased and affronty, argent.
There is one CD between the two types of winged heads ...
[Bella da Firenze, 03/2003,
A-Meridies]
HEAD --
Monster
[a unicorn's head couped argent vs. a
unicorn's head erased argent horned Or] There is a CD for the
field, but none for the tincture of the horn (which is much less
than half the charge) and nothing for changing a head erased to a
head couped. [Zaritsa Vlastova, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
[a dragon's head and a donkey's head couped addorsed] If
drawn correctly, a charge group consisting of a dragon's head and
a donkey's head would be acceptable in the SCA without comment.
However, as drawn here, at first they appear to be the same type
of charge, and it then takes some time to distinguish what types
of charge these might be. There are some internal details that
are visible on the black and white mini emblazon which might help
somewhat with the identifiability, but they are entirely lost in
the colored emblazon. This is not identifiable as drawn and must
be returned. [Dubhgall mac Réamoinn, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
The dragon's head is made unrecognizable by the large frill or
ruff around the head of the dragon, which completely changes the
outline of the charge from the expected shape. No one in the
College of Arms was able to find an example of a period heraldic
dragon drawn with such a frill or ruff around its head.
[Susanna Craven, 01/2002,
R-An Tir]
[Per pale Or and gules, a sun in splendor counterchanged]
Conflict under RfS X.5, "Visual Test", with Ajax Thermopylokles,
Per pale Or and gules, a Gorgon's head cabossed
counterchanged. The particular stylization of the gorgon's
head in Ajax' armory leads it to be visually very similar to a
sun in splendor. The snakes are evenly arrayed radially about the
gorgon's face, rather than just issuant from the top of the head
as one might expect of a gorgon with snakes for hair. The
gorgon's face is also very stylized, more like a mask than a
face. Thus the face resembles the disk of a sun more than one
might expect of a standard woman's face. Overall the visual
similarity is so overwhelming that we have no choice but to call
conflict under RfS X.5. In ordinary circumstances we would expect
there to be X.2 difference between a variant of a human head and
a sun. [Liudmila Vladimirova doch', 09/2002,
R-Caid]
The sea-tyger's heads are drawn as tyger's heads with a fish fin
down the back of the neck. These are very similar to dragon's
heads, but it seems reasonable to maintain the distinction in
blazon. [Amalia Künne, 01/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[a cherub's head] It is clear of conflict with ...
Azure, a lion's head, winged, erased and affronty, argent.
There is one CD between the two types of winged heads ...
[Bella da Firenze, 03/2003,
A-Meridies]
HEART
The hearts in
this emblazon are drawn with rounded bases. Some commenters asked
whether these round-based hearts are period style, or whether it
is necessary to draw hearts with pointed bases. The 15th C Scots
Roll depicts some arms of the Douglas family (which use hearts as
primary charges) with round-based hearts much like the hearts in
this submission. Therefore, it is acceptable period style to draw
hearts with rounded bases instead of pointed bases.
Some commentary suggested that hearts drawn in this fashion can
be found in the flag of Friesland, and indeed the modern flag of
Friesland depicts charges like these, but those charges depict a
stylized water-lily leaf (or seeblatt) rather than a heart, as
noted at http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/nl-fr.html. Because
this submitter has requested that his name be made authentic for
Frisia, perhaps he would prefer to blazon the charges on the bend
as seeblatter rather than hearts (although the submission form
clearly blazons these charges as hearts, so we have kept that
blazon). Seeblatter and hearts are sometimes drawn similarly, and
are occasionally blazoned interchangeably: see the May 1993 LoAR,
p. 17, for a fuller discussion. [Douwe Johannes
Brongersma, 11/2003,
A-Drachenwald]
There is substantial difference between hearts and standard
leaves, although there is not substantial difference between
hearts and all leaf shapes. [Victoria Rose, 01/2004,
A-Meridies]
[(Fieldless) On a heart purpure, a compass star Or]
Precedent holds that a heart is a shape used for armorial display
(because of the heart-shaped escutcheons found in period): "While
blazoned on the LoI as (Fieldless) On a heart gules, a hare
salient contourny argent., since a heart is considered
standard shape for armorial display, the submission is considered
as Gules, a hare salient contourny argent. As such it
conflicts with..." (LoAR of May 1998, p. 26).
This submission has a similar problem. In this case, the armory
appears to be a display of Purpure, a compass star Or.
This conflicts with a large number of pieces of armory, including
(but not limited to) ... Azure, a compass star Or, (one CD
for changing the field), ... Purpure, a compass star within a
bordure embattled Or, (one CD for removing the bordure), and
the important non-SCA flag of Macedonia, Gules, a sun Or,
(one CD for changing the field, nothing for the difference
between a compass star and a sun).
The conflicts are not the only problem with this armory. The fact
that this fieldless armory does not appear to be a charged
charge, but appears to be an independent display of a different
piece of armory (because the heart is a shield shape), is in
itself a reason for return. Per the LoAR of April 2002 (which
upheld a significant number of prior precedents), "Note ... our
long-standing policy about such 'shield shape' charges used in
fieldless badges if the tincture is not plain (thus, divided or
with a field treatment), or if the charge is itself charged. Such
armory will continue to be returned for the appearance of an
independent form of armorial display." [Geoffrey Scott,
02/2004,
R-West]
HELM and HELMET
[two
Saxon helms affronty] We compared this with the defining
instance of the Saxon Helm in the submission of Halfdan Ivarsson
(July 1991, Caid). That submission showed something much like the
"Sutton Hoo" helmet, which has a large faceplate almost covering
the whole face. These helmets have no faceplate. We were unable
to find a helmet which matched these, and the only comment
received from the College of Arms asked what kind of helmet these
were. Absent examples that this is a period style helm, we must
return this. [Hrólfr inn digri Jóhansson, 08/2001,
R-Meridies]
[Per pale argent and sable, a helm affronty
counterchanged] Conflict with a badge of Aleta Ara of
Helsgard, the Cruel, Vert, a great helm affronté per pale
sable and argent, ocularium counterchanged, plumed argent and
sable, fimbriated Or. There is one CD for the change to the
field. There is no difference for adding the plumes, which are a
significant detail worth blazoning, but not co-primary. There is
no difference for the small tincture change in counterchanging
the ocularium (eye-slits). [Wilhelm von Arnsburg, 02/2002,
R-Calontir]
The helmet depicted here is not a sallet or any other standard
period type of helmet. A sallet has a rounded top that then
flares outwards towards the base of the neck, almost like a
brimmed hat with the brim pulled down to cover the bottom of the
face and the neck. In contrast, the helm depicted here has a
noticeable chin portion, and is then inset for a long sloping
"neck covering" portion. Neither of these features are part of a
sallet helm. The helmet shown here has some indistinct sort of
crest or other structural element at the top of the helmet, which
is not standard for a sallet. Without documentation for this sort
of helm, it may not be registered. [Constanza de Talavera,
11/2002,
R-Atlantia]
Conflict with a badge of the Barony of Wastekeep, Azure, a
great helm, pendant therefrom a chain crescentwise argent, the
helm pierced through the eyeslot by an arrow fesswise reversed
Or. ... The chain and arrow through the helmet are equivalent
to maintained charges, and their deletion is not worth
difference. [Concordia of the Snows, Barony of, 05/2003,
R-East]
We have reblazoned the helmet from a jousting helm to a barbute
to better match the information we have from dictionaries of arms
and armor. [Concordia of the Snows, Barony of, 05/2003,
R-East]
[Or, perched atop a visored helm a dragon statant purpure]
The College uniformly had difficulty identifying the sort of helm
depicted in the emblazon. None of the members of the College felt
that this depicted a visored helm, and were not able to identify
a type of helm which resembled this emblazon (although the helm
incorporates some design elements which may be seen in various
sorts of period helmets.) Without documentation for this helmet,
this must be returned for violating RfS VII.3, "Period
Artifacts", which states that "Artifacts that were known in the
period and domain of the Society may be registered in armory,
provided they are depicted in their period forms." [Gina il
Castello del Drago, 08/2003,
R-Ealdormere]
HUMAN
The maiden as
drawn here does not appear to be depicted in a period fashion.
Originally blazoned by the submitter as a dancer maiden, the
maiden is drawn wearing a halter top and harem pants. A standard
maiden, vested by default, would be in the long gown of a
Western culture female, which would cover her arms and her legs.
An Arabic culture female might have worn trousers like these, but
her arms and legs would also be covered. This maiden has bare
arms and midriff. The College was not comfortable in considering
this to be an acceptable depiction of either a standard maiden
vested or a Saracen maiden vested. Without evidence that this
sort of clothing would be appropriate for a period maiden in
heraldry, the submission must be returned. [Marie
Boleyn,11/2002,
R-Middle]
Here follow the SCA's standard depictions, attributes, and proper
colorations for some of the different varieties of people found
in period heraldry. The following definitions should allow the
SCA to recreate all the varieties of people found in period
emblazons, using the most common blazon term for each of these
varieties of people.
The proper tincture for varieties of people not described below
continues to be Caucasian proper, with hair color specified in
the blazon.
The Turk: The Turk is drawn with a large mustache. By
default he is bare-headed with a distinctive hairstyle (shaven
head except for a topknot). If the Turk is vested of a turban
it must be explicitly blazoned. When proper, he is Caucasian
with dark hair.
The Moor and the Blackamoor: The terms Moor and
Blackamoor will both be used to blazon the same sort of human.
He has Negro features, and is clean-shaven with short
curly/nappy hair. If the Moor or Blackamoor wears headgear,
such as a torse, it must be explicitly blazoned. When proper he
is dark brown, a tincture which classifies as a color (rather
than a metal), and his hair is black.
The Saracen: The Saracen has Semitic features, and is
bearded by default. His hair, when visible, is long and wavy.
He is depicted with headgear; usually this is a turban, but
sometimes it is a torse or a crown. The type and tincture of
the headgear must be explicitly blazoned.
Saracens in period heraldry may be found in two different
proper colorations. Saracens may be tinctured in a light shade,
roughly that of a suntanned Caucasian. This shade classifies as
a metal for purposes of contrast. Saracens may also be
tinctured in the same way as the Moor or Blackamoor, dark brown
with black hair. The light proper tincture appears to be more
common in period heraldry and also matches the defining SCA
Saracen's head in the 1978 registration of Athelas of the
Knife, reblazoned in the West section of this LoAR. Thus, a
default Saracen proper is a light tincture, the tincture
of a tanned Caucasian, and is considered heraldically
equivalent to a standard Caucasian tincture (although as an
artistic note, the period rolls using both standard Caucasians
proper and Saracens proper generally draw the Saracens proper
slightly darker than the Caucasians proper).
The SCA has not yet received a submission using the dark brown
version of a Saracen proper. This sort of Saracen proper would
need to be distinguished in blazon from the default Saracen
proper for reasons of contrast and reproducibility of emblazon.
Some commenters suggested that we might blazon such a charge as
a brown Saracen proper. This is not a mellifluous
blazon, but it has the virtue of clarity. The final decision on
what to term such a charge may be deferred until we receive a
submission with such a charge.
[12/2002,
CL]
[(Fieldless) A horned man vested of a loincloth maintaining in
his dexter hand a sword inverted and in his sinister hand two
spears inverted crossed at the butts argent] Conflict with
Bari the Unfettered, Barry argent and gules, a naked man
manacled on each wrist, lengths of broken chain pendant, and a
length of broken chain at his feet, all proper. There's one
CD for fieldlessness. There is no difference for the changes to
the small held charges (including the chains in Bari's armory as
small held charges), and no difference for adding the horns to
the man's head. [William FitzHugh de Cambria, 12/2002,
R-Meridies]
IDENTIFIABILITY
[concerning internal
detailing] Over the last months, we have seen an increasing
number of submissions where a complex charge (such as an animal)
is drawn without any internal details. The members of the College
have been quick to point out that this can lead to difficulties
in identifying the charge. They are, of course, correct, and it
is probably for this reason that most period depictions of
complex charges have some internal details. However, not all
period heraldic art has internal details, and such
silhouette depictions are acceptable in the SCA as long as
identifiability is preserved.
The most identifiable postures for animals are those which are
commonly used for the animal being depicted, and which show the
distinguishing aspects of the animal to their best advantage. A
rampant lion has the profile of the head, all four limbs, and the
tail all laying directly on the field. A displayed eagle has the
profile of the head, both wings, both legs, and the tail all
lying directly on the field. Because we are accustomed to seeing
rampant quadrupeds and displayed eagles, and because almost every
part of these animals is outlined against the field, these
animals can generally be identified with little or no internal
details.
Any posture that obscures some limbs (such as sejant), or which
does not show the profile of the head (such as guardant) should
generally be drawn with some internal details. So should any
charge in an uncommon or confusing posture, like a lion sejant
erect affronty, or an escallop fesswise. Any charge whose outline
identifiability is compromised by some other portion of the
design, such as a partially low-contrast field or an overall
charge, will benefit from some internal details.
While on this topic, I would also like to remind people that a
charge can also suffer from too many internal details. In
some cases, we receive artwork that is based on a
photo-enlargement of a heavily shaded or cross-hatched black and
white original. In these cases, the black details can almost
overpower the real tincture of the charge. In other cases, we
have a charge with a complicated tincture (such as ermine or
checky), or which is charged with a tertiary charge. In these
cases, the internal details can interfere with the
identifiability of the complicated tincture or tertiary, and
should be used with restraint. [08/2001,
CL]
[three mice dormant] This is a good example of
identifiable dormant, since the mouse heads with their
identifying ears are largely against the high contrast field,
rather than the low contrast mouse bodies. [Gwenddolynn ni
hAilleachaín, 10/2001,
R-Middle]
[a dragon erminois] Some questions were asked about the
stylistic acceptability of an erminois animate charge. Erminois
is an uncommon period tincture, but one might expect that if
there are animate ermine charges, erminois would be similarly
acceptable. A quick scan through a book giving the arms of the
Aldermen of Aldersgate shows the arms of Mathew Phillipp in the
30th year of Henry VI: Sable a lion rampant ermine crowned
within an orle of fleurs-de-lys Or, and the arms of Rafe
Warren in the 20th year of Henry VIII: Azure on a chevron
argent between three lozenges Or three griffins heads erased
azure on a chief checky Or and gules a greyhound courant ermine
collared Or. (Note: this last example should not be used as a
general model for SCA armory, but it shows that ermine was a
reasonable tincture for animate charges, even a small tertiary
one.) [Armand Dragonetti, 09/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[a ram's head couped] Unfortunately, the stylization of
this ram's head diminishes its identifiability to the point where
it is not sufficiently recognizable. The muzzle of the ram is
drawn identifiably, but the head is surrounded by some sort of
ruff or mane, which substantially changes the outline of the head
as a whole from that of a standard ram's head. The horn is drawn
in an extremely stylized fashion with disconnected segments. The
disconnected segments are not easily identifiable as portions of
a spiral horn. [Davin Steingrimsson, 01/2002,
R-An Tir]
[Per fess indented sable and argent, on a chief argent two
birds displayed heads to sinister sable, a base vert] This
has been returned for redrawing or redesign. The emblazon cannot
be clearly interpreted. This emblazon could also be interpreted
as Per fess sable and vert, a fess indented on the upper edge
and on a chief argent two birds displayed heads to sinister
sable. Note that neither armory using both a chief and a
base, nor armory using a fess indented only on the upper edge,
are standard period armorial design, so there is no obviously
correct interpretation. [Dietrich von Ravensburg, 02/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[in fess a horse's head couped close a horse's head caboshed
and a horse's head couped close contourny all conjoined] The
armory needs to be redrawn or redesigned. The central cabossed
head is not recognizable as a horse's head because it is much too
wide. The other horse's heads' identifiability is compromised by
the very close conjoining with the central head. [Philip of
Crescent Moon, 02/2002,
R-Calontir]
[Per chevron gules semy of compass stars argent and ermine, a
wolf and a bear combattant argent] Only one of the strewn
compass stars is clearly identifiable: the rest of the strewn
charges are obscured significantly by other elements of the
design. This is a reason for return under RfS VIII.3, Armorial
Identifiability: "Elements must be used in a design so as to
preserve their individual identifiability. Identifiable elements
may be rendered unidentifiable by significant reduction in size,
marginal contrast, excessive counterchanging, voiding, or
fimbriation, or by being obscured by other elements of the
design." [Sergei Bolotnikov, 03/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Quarterly azure and argent, in pale a raven perched atop a
decrescent sable] This submission has insufficient contrast.
Sable objects technically have good contrast on a quarterly azure
and argent field by RfS VIII.2.a.2: "Good contrast exists between
... ii. An element equally divided of a color and a metal, and
any other element as long as identifiability is maintained." In
this submission, identifiability is not maintained. All the
identifying portions of the close bird are on the low contrast
portion of the field, as are the more identifiable portions of
the decrescent. We were unable to identify either charge
accurately without close viewing of the form. This is therefore
not identifiable due to marginal contrast by RfS VIII.3, Armorial
Identifiability: "Elements must be used in a design so as to
preserve their individual identifiability. Identifiable elements
may be rendered unidentifiable by significant reduction in size,
marginal contrast, excessive counterchanging, voiding, or
fimbriation, or by being obscured by other elements of the
design." [Tristan Ravencrest, 03/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[A dragon sejant contourny barry engrailed vert and Or]
There were some concerns in the College that the engrailing would
not be identifiable due to the complex outline of the charge and
the internal details. The full-sized colored emblazon shows that
the engrailing is very obvious. This barry engrailed monster is
at most one step from period practice, since animate charges in
multiply divided tinctures were found in period armory. One of
the most famous examples is that of the arms of Hesse, Azure,
a lion rampant queue-forchy barruly argent and gules crowned
Or. Siebmacher's 1605 Wappenbuch gives a number of
other examples, including Truchess von Wellerswalde, Azure, an
eagle displayed barry argent and gules (f. 161), Schirau,
Azure, a unicorn rampant bendy gules and argent (f. 69)
and Badendorf, Azure, a lion lozengy argent and gules crowned
Or (f. 179). [Killian M'Cahall, 04/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[two winged lions statant respectant] The lions need to be
redrawn. They have small stub tails rather than the heraldic
lion's distinctive long tufted tail, and their necks are
disproportionately long. Most of the viewers at the Wreath
meeting originally thought the charges were some sort of long
necked herbivore, such as a llama. The wings are much smaller
than the usual wings added to a winged quadruped, which should be
roughly one-third to one-half the size of the charge. Winged
charges generally show some space between the wing and the neck
of the animal, which is not present in this emblazon. When the
wings are conjoined to the neck, it confuses the outline of the
charge and thus further diminishes the charge's identifiability.
[Elisabetta Malipiero, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[a chief invected] The chief is drawn with four
invections, which is an acceptable number. However, the
invections are much too shallow to be acceptable. Good invections
are close to semicircles, about twice as wide as they are deep.
These are so shallow that the line of division is not
identifiable at any distance. [Jacomus Wyndswift, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[in fess two leeches palewise embowed counter embowed
respectant] ... the charges are not identifiable, which is in
itself a reason for return. To be identifiable, a creature must
be drawn in a period heraldic stylization or drawn so that it is
clearly identifiable as the natural animal. In this case, no
documentation has been presented, and none was found, for either
slugs or leeches in period armory, so until documentation for a
period heraldic stylization has been found, they must be drawn
like some sort of natural animal. The animals in this submission
have antennae, which a leech does not have, so they are not
clearly identifiable as leeches. A slug has antennae, but these
animals are not clearly identifiable as slugs, as they have no
other identifying factors of a slug, such as the slug's "mantle"
(near its head). [Eoin mac Neill mhic Lochlainn, 04/2002,
R-East]
[Per fess engrailed azure and argent, an oak tree eradicated
gules within a bordure sable] The College of Arms unanimously
found that the identity of the line of division was obscured by
the overlying tree, rendering it unidentifiable. Such
unidentifiability is unacceptable by RfS VIII.2. In this
emblazon, the tree branches and leaves overlie the majority of
the line of division. Often, a tree on a per fess field will only
have the narrow trunk overlie the line of division, which would
help the line of division maintain its identifiability. However,
because the top part of the field has low contrast with the tree,
such a drawing might have other identifiability problems, since
the majority of the identifying portion of the tree (the branches
and leaves) would lie on the low contrast portion of the field.
While redrawing may solve the identifiability problem with the
line of partition, swapping the field tinctures so that the red
tree branches lie mostly on the white parts of the field would
improve the general identifiability of the armory substantially.
[Ethne an Locha, 05/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[a sword and a drop spindle in saltire] The College was
unanimous in its opinion that the armory appears to be two swords
in saltire, until detailed inspection is performed. The lack of
identifiability of the spindle in this group is reason for
return. The threading of the drop spindle does not remove the
visual implication of a second sword. The problems with the
identifiability are exacerbated by the fact that the drop spindle
in this submission is extremely attenuated, with sword-like
proportions. A drop spindle generally has a much wider spindle
whorl in proportion to the length of the spindle (see, for
example, the picture in the Pictorial Dictionary). A drop
spindle with a wider spindle whorl, when loaded with thread,
would have a roughly triangular outline rather than a sword-like
outline. [Rory Daughton, 05/2002,
R-Atlantia]
[a rabbit sejant erect affronty paly argent and azure] The
identifiability of the rabbit is unacceptably compromised by the
combination of the unusual sejant erect affronty posture and the
paly tincture of the rabbit. While there is period armory
depicting animals in multiply divided tinctures such as barry and
checky, the period animals so tinctured are in their most
identifiable postures. Sejant erect affronty is not such a
posture. In addition, period examples of sejant erect affronty,
such as the crest of Scotland, are generally drawn with the
forepaws displayed. Such a rendition is more identifiable than
the depiction in this emblazon, where the forepaws lie entirely
on the rabbit's body. [Tieg ap Gwylym, 07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[three lemons fracted chevronwise] The lemons fracted
chevronwise are drawn as two lemon halves conjoined in
chevron, with the cut part of the lemon opened to base. A number
of commenters felt that the fracted lemons could not be
identified as lemons. The commenters also raised questions about
whether the term fracted was appropriate for a lemon.
The previous return of this badge was predominantly for conflict
(which has been cleared by the addition of the bordure). However,
the previous return also indicated that this treatment of the
lemons was problematic, stating: "We would also like to see
evidence of lemons or other fruit depicted this way in period
heraldry." (LoAR of December 2000). Because no evidence was
presented, as requested in the previous return, for this sort of
treatment of lemons or fruit in period heraldry, and because the
charges are not clearly identifiable as lemons, this must be
returned per RfS VIII.3. [Beatrice Domenici della Campana,
08/2002,
R-An Tir]
[Per fess dovetailed purpure and sable] Some commenters
asked whether a complex line of partition was ever acceptable
between sable and purpure, due to the particularly low contrast
of these tinctures. Complex lines between low contrast tinctures
are rare in period armory. However, a smattering of such designs
does occur, and such examples include a variety of low-contrast
tincture combinations. As a result, as long as the line of
partition remains identifiable and is not obscured by other
elements of the design, complex lines between low-contrast
tinctures may be allowed between any pair of low-contrast
tinctures. The line of partition in this emblazon is not obscured
by the tinctures of the field or by overlying charges, and it
will be acceptable if its placement is changed to clearly show a
per fess division. [Agneszka the Wanderer, 09/2002,
R-Meridies]
[Per fess wavy vert and azure, a bucket Or] RfS VIII.3
notes that obscuring a complex low-contrast line of partition may
well be grounds for return for unidentifiability. We have such a
case here: the bucket covers most of the line of partition.
[Jorunn Eydisardottir, 01/2003,
R-Calontir]
[Chevronelly inverted argent and azure ... a bordure compony
gules and argent] Precedent does not allow a compony ordinary
to share a tincture with an underlying plain field:
[Per pale, a pale compony counterchanged] The use of a
compony ordinary that shares a tincture with its field has been
disallowed since at least the LoAR of July 85; the precedent
was confirmed Sept 87, April 89, and Aug 90. This submission is
an excellent illustration of the reason for the ban: the visual
appearance is not of a pale, but of a group of billets
straddling the field division. The lack of identifiability is
sufficient reason for return. We suggest making the pale a
solid tincture. (LoAR August, 1993, pg. 20)
Because of the identifiability issues, this must be
returned for violating RfS VII.7.a. If documentation can be
provided for this practice in period armory, we can then consider
whether the identifiability issues should be overridden based on
a documented exception. [Ivak Marzik, 02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
The invected line on the chief is not drawn identifiably. The
repeats are too numerous and too shallow. This is a reason for
return per RfS VII.7.a. In addition, please advise the submitters
to draw the laurel wreath with leaves on both the inside and
outside of the wreath, rather than just on the outside of the
wreath as drawn in this emblazon. [Sandmörk, Canton of,
02/2003,
R-East]
[on a chief triangular Or in cross a full drop spindle and a
needle fesswise sable] The small tertiary charges, which
overlap each other and share the same tincture, lose their
identifiability. This is reason for return by RfS VIII.3. We also
advise the submitter that, as a general rule, a full drop spindle
has somewhat less yarn on it and the yarn makes more of a cone
shape. On resubmission, she may wish to resubmit with a more
standard drop spindle in order to enhance the identifiability of
the charge. [Kathleen O'Deay, 03/2003,
R-Middle]
[An armored leg erased at the calf argent in a stirrup with
leather Or] The erasing of the armored leg is too small to be
acceptable - what is colloquially known as "pinking shear
erasing" in the SCA College of Arms. There is a long discussion
in the November 2001 cover letter about how couped and erased
charges were drawn in period. The pertinent summary for erased
charges states:
For purposes of recreating period armorial style for erasing,
the erasing should (1) have between three and eight jags; (2)
have jags that are approximately one-sixth to one-third the
total height of the charge being erased; and (3) have jags that
are not straight but rather are wavy or curved. The
predominance of the three-jag erasing is such that it can be
recommended throughout our period and across Europe...
Submissions which contain ... erased charges that diverge
significantly from the guidelines above risk being returned for
unidentifiability or non-period style unless they are
accompanied by documentation.
In addition, it was difficult to identify the
stirrup. Stirrups in heraldry are generally drawn as affronty
charges rather than charges in profile as this stirrup is drawn.
The stirrup, of course, is forced to be in a profile position
because the leg is through the stirrup, and the leg is in
profile. Still, please advise the Kingdom to take care to draw
the stirrup so that it is clearly identifiable.
Please also advise the Kingdom that the leather through the top
of the stirrup would be more identifiable if it were drawn with a
clearly visible buckle, or even if it were twisted to show the
strap face on rather than from the side. We have explicitly
blazoned the leather as, according to the Pictorial
Dictionary, the default stirrup in the SCA does not include
the leather. [Middle, Kingdom of the, 03/2003,
R-Middle]
[A fleur-de-lys pean] The ermine spots are too small to be
identifiable. The size derives in part from the very high number
of ermine spots (approximately 88). As the ermine spots cannot be
identified, this must be returned under RfS VIII.3.
Based on the disposition of ermine spots on similar charges in
period armory (such as cinquefoils), we would expect there to be
7-13 ermine spots on the average fleur-de-lys used as a primary
charge. We would also expect the ermine spots to be whole ermine
spots, rather than cut off at the edge of the charge. As a
general rule, ermine spots drawn on charges were usually whole
spots arranged to fit well on the charge (even if some of the
ermine spots needed to be made a bit smaller than usual, or
tilted slightly, to fit in their alloted spaces). In contrast to
the practices for ermine spots on charges, ermine spots on fields
in period were not infrequently drawn with the spots cut off at
the edge of the shield or at the edge of an overlying charge.
[Robin Gallowglass, 04/2003,
R-East]
[Per chevron throughout sable and vert, the line of division
"fimbriated", three laurel wreaths argent] This device has
identifiability problems. Because the three laurel wreaths are of
the same type and size, and because heraldic designs of the form
Per chevron [A] and [B], three [X] are overwhelmingly more
common in period than designs of the form [A], on a a pile
inverted [B] between two [X] an [X], the overwhelming visual
impression of this emblazon is of armory following the Per
chevron [A] and [B], three [X] design. However, the thin
white line in the middle of the field is not compatible with a
per chevron field interpretation. It is much too thin to be a
chevron between the laurel wreaths. It is too thick to be
considered simply an argent detail line dividing the field. It
cannot be fimbriation, because only charges may be fimbriated,
not field divisions. As a result of the identifiability issues,
this must be returned per RfS VII.7.a, which states in pertinent
part, "Any charge, line of partition, or field treatment used in
Society armory must be identifiable, in and of itself, without
labels or excessive explanation." [Druim Doineann, Shire
of, 05/2003,
R-An Tir]
[Azure semy of compass stars, on a flame Or a crescent
azure] Please advise the submitter to have less overlap
between the compass stars and the flames. In period armory,
primary charges do at times overlap the surrounding strewn
charges. However, because of the complex outline of this (period
style) flame, and the fact that it is tinctured identically to
the strewn charges which it overlaps, the overlap compromises the
identfiability of both charge groups. [Finbarr Mathgamain mac
Conchobair and Aífe Fael ingen Brénainn, 08/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[Per bend sinister rayonny gules and purpure, a swan naiant
argent gorged of a ring between three trefoil knots Or] RfS
VIII.3 states that "A complex line of partition could be
difficult to recognize between two parts of the field that do not
have good contrast if most of the line is also covered by
charges." Here we have a complex line of partition between two
parts of the field that do not have good contrast, and where the
line is partially covered by the swan. As drawn here, only some
of the line is covered by the swan, due to very careful placement
of the swan and its neck, but in most emblazons the swan would
cover a much larger portion of the line. The sinister chief
portion of the line is also obscured by one of the charges (the
sinister chief trefoil knot) . On the whole, the identifiability
of the complex line is too obscured in this design by the charges
which cover it to be registerable. [Anne Maguier of
Kylharnon, 07/2003,
R-Lochac]
[Purpure, a bend sinister argent, overall three mullets of six
points voided in bend sinister and interlaced Or] This
submission must be returned for reasons of identifiability. RfS
VIII.3 states "Identifiable elements may be rendered
unidentifiable by ... marginal contrast, ... voiding, ... or by
being obscured by other elements of the design." In this device,
the interlacing of the voided mullets obscures the
identifiability of each individual mullet by obscuring the shape
of its outline. The ability to visually discern what is happening
where the mullets are interlaced is further hampered by the fact
that the places where the Or mullets are interlaced all overlie
the argent bendlet sinister - causing those areas to have poor
contrast, and generally to be obscured by the underlying charge.
These identifiability problems cannot be solved by re-drawing or
re-proportioning the charges: the problems are implicit in any
design described by this blazon. [Zacarias Callado,
07/2003,
R-Middle]
[a reremouse dormant pendant from a branch] The reremouse
is hanging upside down and has its wings wrapped around its body
in a natural sleeping posture. This posture is not registerable
by previous precedent: "[a reremouse dormant dependent from an
annulet] The bat was not dormant, but was rather in
its natural sleeping posture. We know of no examples of this
posture in period heraldic depictions of bats, and for good
reason: this posture eliminates any identifiable aspects of the
bat. Therefore the device violates VIII.4.c, Natural Depiction:
... Excessively natural designs include those that depict
animate objects in unheraldic postures ... and VIII.3,
Armorial Identifiability" (LoAR August 2000). [Sebastian
Goulde, 09/2003,
R-Middle]
[a dragon in annulo] The dragon is not drawn in a period
or identifiable posture. Its head is tergiant, but the body is
not. Even in the period insignia of the Society of the Dragon
(which uses as part of its insignia a dragon in a posture that is
similar to in annulo) the dragon's head is in profile.
This dragon's tergiant head is not very identifiable on its own,
and is further obscured by its overlap with both the dragon's
tail and one of its foreclaws. The wings of the dragon and its
hind legs overlap its body to a significant extent so that they
also lose their identifiability. The problems with the
identifiability mandate a return under RfS VII.7.a, and the
non-period posture mandates a return under RfS VII.2.
[Elysabel Lengeteyll, 10/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[on a chief azure in saltire a sword argent and an artist's
brush inverted Or] Some commenters raised concerns about
whether the sword and brush on the chief lost their
identifiability. The concern was due to the fact that tertiary
charges are smaller than primary charges and that, in this
emblazon, the group of tertiary charges is of two types of
charge, rather than the more common group of identical charges.
In this submission, the full-sized emblazon showed no
identifiability problems whatsoever. One cannot make any sort of
general statement concerning the identifiability of a group of
two similar but not identical types of tertiary charges: the
identifiability must be determined on a case by case basis.
[Gwenhwyfar ferch Dafydd, 11/2003,
A-Caid]
[two swords inverted in saltire surmounted by a bear's head
cabossed] This emblazon is drawn with a very small overall
bear's head. As a result, there is a very high degree of overlap
between the swords and the bear's head. Because the swords and
the small overall bear's head are the same tincture, the high
degree of overlap causes the small overall charge to be
insufficiently identifiable per RfS VIII.3, which states in
pertinent part, "Identifiable elements may be rendered
unidentifiable by significant reduction in size, marginal
contrast, ... or by being obscured by other elements of the
design."
In general, it is acceptable to have a (round) bear's head
cabossed surmounting (long thin) swords in saltire of the same
tincture, as long as the bear's head is drawn large enough to
maintain its identifiability. [Gerardus Christopherus de
Burgondia, 11/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[Per fess nebuly vert and sable] The line of division is
drawn with too many and too small repetitions to be registerable,
particularly on a low contrast field division. RfS VIII.3 states
"Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by
significant reduction in size, marginal contrast..." It is
acceptable to draw a nebuly line of partition between vert and
sable as long as the identifiability is not lost for other
reasons. [Raffe Ó Donnabháin, 01/2004,
R-An Tir]
JAPANESE MON and
CHARGES
A wood sorrel blossom is a trefoil-like charge
without a slip and with heart-shaped foils. It is given this name
in Japanese Design Motifs, from the Matsuya Piece-Goods
store. [Washizu Isabur{o-} Nobuhide, 04/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[three barrulets bevilled] The bendlets provided here are
not bevilled. A bend bevilled, as illustrated in
the Pictorial Dictionary, is a bend which has been cut
along a vertical line and offset so that the top edge of the
chiefmost portion of the bend touches the bottom edge of the
basemost portion. Each of the bars here is in a "Z" shape: the
bar is not broken but bent at two sharp angles. No evidence has
been presented that a bar in this shape is a period heraldic
charge or an SCA-compatible heraldic charge.
Moreover, the nested Z-shaped barrulets are each individually
much too thin and much too close together for good heraldic style
for any sort of barrulet. This emblazon is much more like a
single Z-shaped barrulet with white artistic details rather than
three barrulets bevilled. We cannot, however, reblazon this, as
we lack a term of art for a Z-shaped barrulet of this sort.
While the College speculated about whether a charge of this shape
might be a traditional element of Japanese mon, no such example
has been found. The closest that could be found is the
traditional Japanese stream depiction, which uses S-shaped
barrulets.
As this design cannot be blazoned in either Eastern or Western
terms, and as it is not a documentable design in either the East
or the West, it cannot be accepted. [Kusunoki Yoshimoto,
10/2002,
R-East]
[a Japanese stream] Previous precedents have indicated
that design elements which are only found in Japanese mon may
only be registered if they can be blazoned in European heraldic
terms. Previous precedent has also held that a Japanese stream
cannot be blazoned in European heraldic terms. No evidence has
been presented which either overturns the philosophical basis of
the previous precedents, or which presents an acceptable European
blazon for the Japanese stream. Thus, the Japanese stream design
element continues to be unregisterable.
In general, Mon-like designs are acceptable in Society armory
only if they can be blazoned in European heraldic terms - as
though a period Japanese, visiting Europe, were attempting to
register his Mon with one of the kings of arms. Tomoe cannot be
blazoned in European terms, and so cannot be considered
compatible with European heraldry. This submission, though a
splendid Japanese design, may not be registered in the Society.
(LoAR November 1992, pg. 15)
[returning a Japanese stream] The primary charge is not
blazonable in standard heraldic terminology, as required by RfS
VII.7.b. (LoAR September 1995, p. 23)
[Ishikawa Akirakeiko, 02/2003,
R-Caid]
[Azure, a Japanese well-frame crosswise with an annulet
argent] This device does not conflict with ... Azure, a
mascle within an annulet argent. The corners of the Japanese
well-frame cannot be mistaken for the corners of a default mascle
when drawn correctly. We would give a CD between a default
mascle and a mascle fourchy at the points, and a
similar CD applies when comparing a default mascle and a Japanese
well frame. There is a second CD for orientation between a
Japanese well-frame crosswise (which is oriented like a delf) and
the default Japanese well-frame, which is oriented like a mascle.
[Tadatsune of Carolingia, 11/2003,
A-East]
KNOTS
[two Wake
knots conjoined in pale] A Wake knot, as per the PicDic, is
fesswise by default. Two Wake knots in pale would be arranged
like these. However there is no guarantee that the loose ends
would tie up as neatly as in this badge. It is as likely that the
loose ends would stick out and the round parts would be
conjoined.
The fact that the loose ends do connect up with each other in an
unbroken interlace could imply that this is "knotwork". On the
other hand, the knots maintain their identifiability as Wake
knots, which are themselves a standard heraldic knot. The
conjunction may not be the only way to conjoin the knots, but it
is an acceptable way to do so.
A pertinent precedent on the topic is in the LoAR of November
1994, for the Middle Kingdom's Order of the Cavendish Knot,
[Fieldless] Four Cavendish knots conjoined in cross vert:
There was much commentary on the issue of whether the charge
runs afoul of our long-standing ban on knotwork; the consensus
here seems to be similar to that of several years ago when we
were considering three Wake knots conjoined in pall: "The
question is whether the conjunction of the knots diminishes
their identifiability to the point where they should not be
allowed. In this case, the answer seems to be 'no'. Note,
however, that this would not be the case were the knots not of
themselves clearly defined period heraldic charges, were the
knot itself complex or requiring modification in shape to
produce the conjunction (as would be the case with a Lacy knot)
or were the numbers so increased ... as to diminish the size
seriously." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR of 26 November
1989, p. 9)
It should be noted, however, that this badge is probably
pushing right to the limits of the allowance; an increase of
number would probably begin to reduce the identifiability of
the separate knots.
This conjunction of knots is a weirdness, but as
there is only one such weirdness, it is registerable.
[Nottinghill Coill, Barony of, 08/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[a Bowen knot crosswise braced with an annulet] This could
equally well be blazoned, absent some rather unimportant internal
detail lines, as a Bowen knot crosswise surmounted by an annulet.
The annulet does not hamper the identifiability of the Bowen knot
or vice versa. This comes close to being the registration of a
new knot, but falls on the acceptable side of that line.
[Fergus O'Fey, 09/2001,
A-Caid]
The Lacy knot depicted in this submission is not quite the
standard Lacy Knot. Please advise the submitter to draw the Lacy
knot correctly. The standard SCA Lacy knot in the Pictorial
Dictionary (which matches the Lacy knot illustration in
Brooke-Little's An Heraldic Alphabet, Fox-Davies'
Heraldic Badges, and Boutell's Heraldry) has a
lozengewise orientation, as with the knot submitted here.
However, the Lacy knot in the Pictorial Dictionary has a
more complicated center part than the one shown here. A Lacy knot
in the aforementioned sources is effectively a large Bowen knot
lozengewise fretted with another crosswise which is fretted in
the center with an annulet. The Lacy knot in Parker's A
Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry omits the annulet and is
drawn with an overall delfwise orientation rather than
lozengewise. (The second, smaller, Bowen knot also is drawn
"tauter" than the one in the standard Lacy knot, which needs some
"slack" to allow the central annulet to be fretted with it.) The
Lacy knot in this submission is drawn lozengewise (like the
standard Lacy knot) but without the annulet (like Parker's
non-standard Lacy knot). [Thomas de Lacy, 02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[a Bourchier knot entwined of strands sable and gules]
Forming the Bourchier knot out of two differently tinctured
strands impairs its identifiability as a knot. It also does not
seem compatible with the usual heraldic practices for tincturing
a single charge. The vast majority of charges are either
tinctured of a single tincture or are divided by a standard
heraldic division (such as per fess or checky).
This design may not be accepted unless documentation is provided
for period armory using knots where the strands are of different
tinctures. [Mwynwen in le Willewys, 09/2002,
R-East]
[(Fieldless) A pretzel Or ermined gules] This submission
does not conflict with the protected non-SCA badge of the
Staffords, A Stafford knot. There is one CD for
tincturelessness and another for the type difference between a
pretzel and a Stafford knot: "...after consideration, we feel
that there is significant, although not substantial, difference
between a Stafford knot and this depiction of a pretzel, as the
pretzel is knotted differently from a Stafford knot" (LoAR of
April 2001). This pretzel is drawn identically to the one in the
April 2001 precedent. [Roberto Carlos Dominguez, 01/2003,
A-Calontir]
[Sable, a lion's tail nowed in a Cavendish knot Or] The
Cavendish knot is a standard knot for a nowed tail, but the exact
type of knot is generally artist's license. Because in a
tail-only charge the type of knot has significant visual impact,
we have blazoned the type of knot explicitly. [Sadb ingen uí
Cherbaill, 01/2003,
R-Calontir]
... there is no difference between a triquetra and a trefoil
knot. The triquetra has pointier ends than the trefoil knot, but
this slight change is insufficient to give type difference
between these two charges. [Donnan of Whispering Wude,
04/2003,
R-East]
[triquetras argent] The triquetras are not drawn
correctly. Triquetras are thin-line charges made of a single
interlaced strand, like a three-lobed knot. (The triquetra is
given no difference from a trefoil knot; it merely has more
pointed ends than the trefoil knot.) As with a knot, the
underlying field or charge shows through the loops made by the
strand of a correctly drawn triquetra. In this submission, the
triquetras are some sort of solid charge: both the strand making
up the triquetra and the inside of the triquetra's loops are
argent. Because these charges cannot be identified as heraldic
charges or recreated from a blazon, they must be returned by RfS
VII.7.a. [Davyd Robertson, 04/2003,
R-Trimaris]
The submitter asked that the tails of the dragon be blazoned as
nowed in an Ormand knot [sic]. The SCA usually uses the
term Wake knot for this knot, but the term Ormond
knot is found as a synonym for this knot in standard
real-world and SCA sources (Brooke-Little's An Heraldic
Alphabet and the Pictorial Dictionary). Since the
submitter wants to use this alternate name for the knot, we have
acceded to her request, although we have fixed the spelling of
the knot to the documented spelling Ormond Knot.
[Symmonne Deccarrette de Villette, 01/2004,
A-An Tir]
LABEL
Labels are
throughout by default, so this need not be blazoned. [Thomas
de Lacy, 02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[a label dovetailed throughout] A peculiarity of SCA
blazon is that the standard label is throughout by default, but
the dovetailed label is couped by default. The blazon in this
submission label is both dovetailed and throughout, and both
these details must be blazoned. [Kharra Unegen, 07/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[in pale three labels couped] The armory depicts all three
labels in the top two-thirds of the escutcheon. These labels are
therefore not in the in pale arrangement (which would
distribute them equally across the shield). However, the labels
cannot be blazoned in chief, because that would place the
labels considerably higher on the field. The blazon term
enhanced only applies when there is a standard position on
the field for the charge (from which the charge has been moved
towards chief). There is no standard position on the field for
three labels, so enhanced is not meaningful in this
context. Thus, this device is not blazonable as drawn. At this
time, it appears that the armory would be acceptable if the three
labels were correctly drawn in pale, as indicated in the
blazon.
There was a question about whether it is acceptable to have
multiple labels in a piece of armory. This is not a common period
design but al-Jamal provided a number of period or near-period
examples from various sources. [Valentino da Siena,
03/2003,
R-An Tir]
[a label ermine] The ermine label on this submission is
drawn with one palewise ermine spot on each of the three points,
and fesswise ermine spots on the bar from which the points
depend. Please advise the submitter that the only ermine labels
that our post-meeting research was able to discover appear to
have a thinner horizontal bar (charged with no ermine spots), and
longer points (each point charged with two or more palewise
ermine spots - generally three ermine spots.) Please also advise
the submitter that the points of the label should not be bunched
so closely together in the center of the label. [Mattheus
Dupuy, 02/2004,A-Atlantia]
LEAF
[Per chevron
inverted azure and gules, a leaf bendwise sinister argent]
Both leaves and feathers are found in English heraldry and do not
seem to be considered variants of each other in period. Thus,
this is clear from the badge of Silver Quill Pursuivant,
(Tinctureless) A quill bendwise sinister within a roundel.
Even if the roundel is just an indication of a shape for armorial
display, rather than an actual charge, there is one CD for
fieldlessness and another for charge type. [Agnes de
Lanvallei, 09/2001,
R-Calontir] [Ed.: Returned for redraw of the line of
division]
[an oak leaf inverted vs. an oak leaf] The lobes of oak
leaves are generally horizontal, and types of oak leaves have
enough individual variations that the only reliable visual cue to
the orientation of the leaf is the stem. This is not sufficient
visual difference for an orientation CD. [Muirgheal inghean uí
Ógaín, 10/2001,
R-Atlantia]
To quote the LoAR of May 1994 regarding maple leaves versus oak
leaves: "The two leaves are not so visually similar as to warrant
granting no difference between them". We do not find this ruling
so unreasonable as to overrule it. [Tylar of Lochmere,
04/2002,
A-Atlantia]
... there is a CD between an oak leaf and an elm leaf ...
[Ralf of Oak Lawn the Oxhandler and Elaina of Oaklawn,
06/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
The leaves were originally blazoned as grape leaves, but
they do not resemble the palmate lobed leaves of a grapevine.
They have thus been reblazoned as standard leaves.
[Gabrielle Méricourt, 09/2002,
A-An Tir]
There is a second CD between a holly sprig and a holly leaf. A
sprig has multiple leaves and the outline is notably different
from a single leaf. [Alyna of the Ilex, 09/2002,
A-Calontir]
[three oak leaves] The leaves in this submission were
originally blazoned as maple leaves. However, they are not
drawn like the palmate maple leaf. They appear to be the leaves
of the pin oak, which have the multi-lobed appearance of a
standard oak leaf but with sharply pointed lobes rather than the
rounded lobes of the classic heraldic oak leaf. Pin oak leaves
are an acceptable artistic variant of oak leaves and need not be
blazoned explicitly. [Amy of Stargate, 10/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[Azure, an orle of oak leaves argent] This does not
conflict with Catterina da Calabria, Azure, six leaves
argent. There is one CD for changing the type of leaf. There
is a second CD for changing the arrangement from three two and
one to in orle. While six charges three two and one
could conceivably be misdrawn to leave a clear open space in the
center, that is not the case with Catterina's emblazon, so there
is no visual conflict problem between the two pieces of armory.
[Jake de Twelfoaks,10/2002,
A-East]
[Three linden leaves conjoined in pall inverted] Conflict
with David the Ironlivered, Azure, a sprig of three poison oak
leaves sable, veined and fimbriated argent. There is one CD
for fieldlessness. The sprig in David's device consists of three
oval-shaped leaflets, one to chief, one to dexter and one to
sinister, with a slip issuant to base.
There is not sufficient difference in the arrangement or
orientation of the leaves due to the slight angling of the two
basemost leaves in Emelyne's badge to give a CD. There is no
difference for removing the slip or for removing the fimbriation
or the artistic details of the leaf veining in David's device.
There might be a CD for the type difference between an
oval-shaped leaf and a card-pique shaped linden leaf when the
leaves are used as single charges. However, the conjoining of the
leaves into near-identical sprigs diminishes the visual
difference too much for there to be a type CD given between them.
[Emelyne le Tresor, 01/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
... the leaf in the emblazon is not the default leaf, and no
documentation was presented indicating what type of leaf it is. A
default leaf is oval-shaped, possibly with a pointed tip. This
leaf has five pointed lobes. We were unable to identify it as any
particular sort of leaf, and were thus unable to blazon it
correctly. Without the ability to blazon the leaf correctly, this
may not be accepted by RfS VII.7.b. [Emma Wolvyne,
02/2003,
R-Caid]
A default leaf has an oval shape, possibly with a pointed tip
(the leaves in this case have pointed tips). The spiky holly leaf
has one CD from a default leaf. [Matilda in the Holis,
03/2003,
A-Middle]
Purpure, on a pale argent three oak leaves vert Conflict
with ... Purpure, on a pale invected argent, three shamrocks
vert. There is one CD for removing the complex line of
partition from the pale. There is no difference under RfS
X.4.j.ii for changing the type only of tertiary charges, since
the type change is not substantial, just significant, per the
following precedent:
[Returning Sable, on a chevron between three horses rampant
argent, three oak leaves vert.] Conflict with ... Sable,
on a chevron argent, three trefoils slipped vert. There is
a CD for the addition of the secondaries, but the consensus
among the commenters was that there was not the substantial
difference required by X.4.j.ii. to grant the necessary second
for the change to type of the tertiaries. (LoAR 5/94, p.18)
[Laoghaire of the Valley, 05/2003,
R-East]
[a seeblatt vs an aspen leaf inverted] Since an aspen leaf
is not a period heraldic charge, the difference between an aspen
leaf inverted and a seeblatt must be determined on visual grounds
per RfS X.4.e. There is sufficient visual difference between
these two charges for a CD. A seeblatt is a heart-shaped leaf
with the tip of the leaf to the base of the shield, and with some
sort of notch (often, but not always, trefoil-shaped) taken out
of the part of the leaf which is to chief. An aspen leaf inverted
is also a leaf with the tip of the leaf to the base of the
shield, but it has a very distinct stem issuant to chief rather
than a notch removed from the leaf. [Auriana Maria
Ravenstein, 06/2003,
R-Meridies]
[Per chevron argent and vert, two trefoils vert and a
dragonfly argent] Conflict with ... Per chevron argent and
vert, two oak leaves and a war-hammer counterchanged.
Precedent holds that there is significant, but not substantial,
difference between trefoils and oak leaves. Because the criterion
in RfS X.2 requiring that "the type of every primary charge is
substantially changed" is not met in this armorial comparison,
RfS X.2 cannot be used to clear the two pieces of armory of
conflict. Thus, there is only one CD for changing the type of the
charge group on the field under RfS X.4.e. The pertinent
precedent reads: "[oak leaves vs. trefoils as charges on a
chevron] Consensus among the commenters was that there was not
the substantial difference required by X.4.j.ii. to grant the
necessary second for the change to type of the tertiaries" (LoAR
May 1994 p.18). Note that, while this precedent applies to RfS
X.4.j.ii rather than RfS X.2, the same distinction between
substantial and significant type change is used in both sections
of the Rules for Submission. [Elena filia Dugalli,
09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
The hearts in this emblazon are drawn with rounded bases. Some
commenters asked whether these round-based hearts are period
style, or whether it is necessary to draw hearts with pointed
bases. The 15th C Scots Roll depicts some arms of the Douglas
family (which use hearts as primary charges) with round-based
hearts much like the hearts in this submission. Therefore, it is
acceptable period style to draw hearts with rounded bases instead
of pointed bases.
Some commentary suggested that hearts drawn in this fashion can
be found in the flag of Friesland, and indeed the modern flag of
Friesland depicts charges like these, but those charges depict a
stylized water-lily leaf (or seeblatt) rather than a heart, as
noted at http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/nl-fr.html. Because
this submitter has requested that his name be made authentic for
Frisia, perhaps he would prefer to blazon the charges on the bend
as seeblatter rather than hearts (although the submission form
clearly blazons these charges as hearts, so we have kept that
blazon). Seeblatter and hearts are sometimes drawn similarly, and
are occasionally blazoned interchangeably: see the May 1993 LoAR,
p. 17, for a fuller discussion. [Douwe Johannes
Brongersma, 11/2003,
A-Drachenwald]
[tulip-poplar leaves] The LoI blazoned these leaves as
poplar leaves. Poplar is an Old World tree whose leaf has
a vague resemblance to a card-pique. These distinctly different
leaves appear to be those of the New World tulip poplar. The
tulip poplar (alias yellow poplar, tulip tree, [canary]
whitewood, et alii - Liriodendron tulipifera) is a tree
widely distributed throughout the eastern United States,
including areas where the United States was first settled by
Western Europeans, as noted in (among other places)
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_2/liriodendron/tulipifera.htm.
Some pictures of tulip poplar leaves may be found on the
following Web page concerning the Commonwealth of Kentucky, where
the tulip poplar is the state tree:
http://officialcitysites.org/statetree.php3?st=KY.
Because of its distribution, this tree was quite likely to be
known to Western Europeans in period, and this tree's distinctive
leaf may thus be registered as a charge in SCA armory. However,
such distinctively New World flora are discouraged in the SCA and
are considered one step from period heraldic practice (a
"weirdness") as noted in this ruling from the August 1999 LoAR,
"New World flora and fauna ... are a discouraged weirdness, but
registerable." [Viviana of Meridies, 11/2003,
A-Meridies]
[card pique vs. crabapple leaf] A crab apple leaf (as per
this emblazon, and for that matter, the local apple tree) is a
standard leaf shape (slim pointed oval) with a finely serrated
edge. A crab apple leaf appears to be a non-period charge and
thus, under RfS X.4.e, the difference from a card pique must be
determined on visual grounds. There is significant difference (a
CD) between this leaf shape and a card pique but not substantial
(RfS X.2) difference. [Quentin de Rougemont, 11/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[card pique vs. seeblatt] No evidence has been presented,
and none has been found, indicating that seeblatter and card
piques were interchangeable in period. Prior precedent holds that
a seeblatt and a card-pique-shaped leaf inverted are different
enough on visual grounds to merit a CD. Per the LoAR of June
2003: "Since an aspen leaf is not a period heraldic charge, the
difference between an aspen leaf inverted and a seeblatt must be
determined on visual grounds per RfS X.4.e. There is sufficient
visual difference between these two charges for a CD. A seeblatt
is a heart-shaped leaf with the tip of the leaf to the base of
the shield, and with some sort of notch (often, but not always,
trefoil-shaped) taken out of the part of the leaf which is to
chief. An aspen leaf inverted is also a leaf with the tip of the
leaf to the base of the shield, but it has a very distinct stem
issuant to chief rather than a notch removed from the leaf."
Barring further information, it seems appropriate to rule,
analogously, that there should be a CD between a seeblatt
inverted and a card pique. [Quentin de Rougemont, 11/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
There is substantial difference between hearts and standard
leaves, although there is not substantial difference between
hearts and all leaf shapes. [Victoria Rose, 01/2004,
A-Meridies]
[Per pale sable and vert, a sprig of ash Or] This does not
conflict with a badge for the Barony of Bjornsborg, A sprig of
alamosa palewise Or, slipped argent. There is one CD for
fieldlessness. The sprig of alamosa is very similar in appearance
to a small alder twig with Or leaves and an argent twig. There is
one CD for the significant change in shape between the oval
leaflet of the ash sprig and the more card-piqued shape leaflet
of the alamosa. There is no difference for changing less than
half the tincture of the sprig. [Baldric of Falkonmore,
02/2004,
A-Atlantia]
LEG and JAMBE
[a
lion's paw escallop] The use of the term lion's paw
escallop is found in other armory belonging to the barony.
The term may be grandfathered into their blazon. A lion's paw
escallop is, effectively, a default escallop. [Lyondemere,
Barony of, 09/2001,
A-Caid]
[Argent, a bird's leg erased a la quise within a bordure
sable] Conflict with a badge of Julia Windsor, Argent, an
eagle's foot couped within a bordure sable, registered
December 2001. There is only one CD for the type difference
between the eagle's foot (couped just above the talons) in
Julia's badge and the bird's leg erased a la quise in this badge.
[Magnus MacCraith, 01/2002,
R-Caid]
[Cornish chough's leg erased proper] This is clear of
conflict with a badge of ... (Fieldless) A raven's foot couped
sable, armed and banded gules. There is one CD for
fieldlessness and another for the type difference between a
bird's leg and a bird's foot. This is also clear of conflict with
... Per fess lozengy argent and sable and argent, a bird's leg
a-la-quise sable. There is one CD for changing the
orientation of the leg and another CD for fieldlessness. There is
no CD for changing the tincture: the red portion of the leg,
while significant enough to blazon, is less than half the charge.
[Leona of Remington, 02/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[An armored leg erased at the calf argent in a stirrup with
leather Or] The erasing of the armored leg is too small to be
acceptable - what is colloquially known as "pinking shear
erasing" in the SCA College of Arms. There is a long discussion
in the November 2001 cover letter about how couped and erased
charges were drawn in period. The pertinent summary for erased
charges states:
For purposes of recreating period armorial style for erasing,
the erasing should (1) have between three and eight jags; (2)
have jags that are approximately one-sixth to one-third the
total height of the charge being erased; and (3) have jags that
are not straight but rather are wavy or curved. The
predominance of the three-jag erasing is such that it can be
recommended throughout our period and across Europe...
Submissions which contain ... erased charges that diverge
significantly from the guidelines above risk being returned for
unidentifiability or non-period style unless they are
accompanied by documentation.
In addition, it was difficult to identify the
stirrup. Stirrups in heraldry are generally drawn as affronty
charges rather than charges in profile as this stirrup is drawn.
The stirrup, of course, is forced to be in a profile position
because the leg is through the stirrup, and the leg is in
profile. Still, please advise the Kingdom to take care to draw
the stirrup so that it is clearly identifiable. [Middle,
Kingdom of the, 03/2003,
R-Middle]
[The sole of a human foot vert] The College felt strongly
that, given the artwork in the emblazon, this was the depiction
of a sole of a foot rather than a footprint. There were no
suggestions made in the commentary about how to blazon the
plantar view of a foot. Based on the discussions in Parker's A
Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry and Woodward's A
Treatise on Heraldry British and Foreign, it appears that
human feet are in profile by default, so this posture must be
explicitly blazoned. Woodward does cite (without a date) the arms
of Voet in Flanders as, Azure, three human feet, the soles
alone appearing, proper. We considered this blazon when
creating the blazon for this badge. [Mat of Forth Castle,
08/2003,
A-Caid]
LIGHTNING BOLT
These
are not lightning bolts, as they lack the arrowheads at the end.
They are neither bendlets bretessed nor
embattled-counterembattled and are not defined charges in
heraldry. This is a sufficient reason for return. [Calum
Nickeson, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
The lightning bolt held by the bear needs to have barbs on both
ends of the bolt, not just one end. [Asbjørn Pedersen
Marsvin, 01/2002,
R-Caid]
We have blazoned the lightning bolt as palewise because
neither the Pictorial Dictionary nor the Glossary of Terms
gives a default for this SCA-invented charge. [Maddalena de
los Angeles, 06/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[... within an orle of three lightning bolts] A lightning
bolt is an SCA-invented charge taken from one component of the
classical Roman thunderbolt. Lightning bolts are straight charges
by definition and curving them to be in orle is not acceptable
style.
Moreover, the lightning bolts are drawn as very thin lines,
effectively one pen-width thick. Even if these were drawn as
straight lightning bolts, the bolts are too thin to be accepted.
[Ana{-}n bint Saa{'} iqa, 09/2002,
R-Meridies]
LINES of DIVISION --
Jagged
[Per bend sinister engrailed] In SCA
heraldry, a field division engrailed has the little "cups"
pointing towards the more honorable portion of the field. Thus,
per fess engrailed, or per bend engrailed, has the tops of the
"cups" (the points between the "cups") pointing to chief, and the
bottom of the "cups" pointing towards base. This is the opposite
of at least some real world practice, but has consistently been
the case in the SCA. Therefore, as the cups in this engrailed
field division point towards dexter chief, this blazon is
consistent with SCA practice. [Oswald von Ebersberg,
08/2001,
A-Drachenwald]
[a base engrailed] The engrailing is too small and shallow
to be acceptable. There are ten cups in the engrailing, which
would be a fairly large number on a fess. Here the width across
the base is much smaller than the width of a fess. [Derdriu de
Duglas, 10/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[a chief enarched and invected] To quote from the LoAR of
June 1997, "While it is true that lines could be enarched and
also embattled, engrailed, et cetera, the enarching was basically
to show the curvature of the shield". Enarched lines are an
exception to the general practice of disallowing the combination
of two different complex lines of partition into one line of
partition, so this enarched and invected chief may be accepted.
[Justinian the Gentle, 05/2002,
A-Outlands]
[a bordure indented] This bordure differs somewhat from
the standard SCA bordure indented. This bordure indented is drawn
with the indentations extending all the way to the edge of the
shield, so that the indentations appear to be a series of
conjoined triangles issuing from the side of the shield. (Or,
alternately, drawn so that the bordure indented looks like the
outside portion of a bordure parted bordurewise indented.)
This bordure also has rather numerous small indentations (15 up
one side), but (unlike most cases which are returned for "too
many too small" indentations), the indentations are not too small
to be identifiable. The indentations in this emblazon are very
prominent and clearly visible. No explicit documentation was
provided by the College for this form of bordure, and a number of
commenters asked whether this was acceptable for SCA use.
Precedent has noted that period chiefs could be drawn with the
indentations "inwards" reaching all the way to the chief line:
The device was blazoned as having three triangles issuant
from chief. This style of indentation can be found in
period (for example Lowell of Balumbye (Lindsay of the Mount,
pl. 107)), but it was blazoned as either indented or
three piles. As current scholarship believes that such
chiefs were originally indented with deep indentations,
we decided to blazon it as indented and leave the depth
to artistic license (LoAR July 2000).
In addition, some period bordures indented
approached this depiction. The Milanese Stemmario
Trivulziano (second half of 15th C) has two coats of arms
using bordures indented where the indentations touch the outside
of the bordure: the arms of d[i] [L]uino de Barbati and the
second and third quarters of Dal Vermo. Each of these emblazons
has almost the same number of indentations up one side of the
escutcheon as in this emblazon. While we do not have a period
blazon for these arms, the modern blazon provided by the editor
of the text is indented.
Because the bordure in this emblazon has a clearly identifiable
indented line, and the artwork of the indentation is similar to
period indented chiefs and at least one period armorial's
depiction of an indented bordure, it is an acceptable variant of
a bordure indented. Please also advise the submitter that the
standard way to draw such a bordure through most times and places
in our period would have fewer and larger indentations and would
not have the indentations extend all the way to the outside of
the shield. If the submitter can find a blazon term to describe
this specific sort of bordure, and can show that it was
considered distinct from a standard bordure indented in period,
he may provide this documentation and make a request for
reblazon. [Ulf de Fribois, 10/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
[a chevron engrailed] Please advise the submitter to draw
the engrailings deeper. They should be semicircles. The number of
engrailings is acceptable but the art might be improved by
another two engrailings along each edge. With a few more
engrailings it would be easier to draw each engrailing deeper.
[Fiadhnait inghean Chiaragáin, 10/2002,
A-East]
This submission has been reblazoned by Laurel many times since it
was originally registered. ... Some commenters questioned the
blazon of the chief as urdy, as it has somewhat rounded
lines. This chief has consistently been blazoned as urdy in her
long and varied reblazon history, and at this point we are happy
to grandfather this odd depiction of urdy to this submitter.
However, should this somewhat "onion-domed" depiction of urdy be
presented by anyone else, it must be accompanied by
documentation. [Neptha of Thebes, 02/2003,
A-Caid]
The invected line on the chief is not drawn identifiably. The
repeats are too numerous and too shallow. This is a reason for
return per RfS VII.7.a. [Sandmörk, Canton of, 02/2003,
R-East]
In the SCA, the per fess and per bend engrailed lines of division
are drawn with the bottom of the "cups" to base (and the points
between the "cups" to chief), so this is an engrailed line of
division rather than an invected line of division as it was
originally blazoned. To quote from Master Bruce Draconarius of
Mistholme's A Grammar of Blazonry at
http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/bruce.html: "The engrailed
line of partition, when applied to the field, does not seem to
follow the mundane default; the references disagree on exactly
what that mundane default is. In SCA blazon, Per fess
engrailed has its points to chief... similar defaults hold
for Per bend engrailed, Per chevron engrailed, etc.
Invected lines have their points to base by SCA default."
[Krakafjord, Shire of, 04/2003,
A-An Tir]
[a fess of three conjoined fusils] This does not conflict
with Vert, a dance Or between three daisies proper. There
is one CD for removing the secondary daisies. There is another CD
for the difference between a dance and a fess of fusils:
[a bend sinister fusilly vs. a bend sinister dancetty]
Evidence taken from the Dictionary of British Arms
strongly indicates that bends dancetty were not used
interchangeably with bends fusilly; in fact, they were
used by different people and in different ways. Thus there is a
CD for changing the line of division on the bend ... (LoAR
April 2001)
We have also researched the question in the
Dictionary of British Arms in the two bars section,
and also found that bars dancetty were used by different people
from bars lozengy. Unfortunately, the Dictionary of British
Arms is not yet published to the point where we could
research fesses, but the evidence so far found implies strongly
that what is true for bends and bars should also be true for
fesses.
We do note that there is some interchangeability in period
between the somewhat analogous lines
embattled-counterembattled and bretessed, which
also differ by putting the top and bottom lines 180 degrees out
of phase. As a consequence of the period interchangeability, we
do not give difference between embattled-counterembattled
and bretessed. However, the square and indented line
treatments are not exactly analogous, because there is no
"zig-zag" form of the square lines analogous to dancetty. The
"zig zag" form of embattled-counterembattled would look like the
shaft of the SCA charge of a lightning bolt (see the Pictorial
Dictionary for an illustration). There is no period treatment
of an ordinary which makes this sort of square "zig zag". Because
the two sides of a period ordinary
embattled-counterembattled or bretessed are always
separated by at least a thin amount of central ordinary, the two
treatments are much more visually similar, and this may have
contributed to the period confusion between them.
Some commentary on this submission addressed previous precedent
on this topic, which appears to need some clarification
(especially when only excerpts of the precedent were quoted).
Here is some discussion clarifying these past precedents. As
always, we encourage people quoting precedents to consider going
back to the original LoAR and reading the excerpts in context.
As a bend sinister of fusils is an artistic variant of
indented, there is not a CD between it and a bend
sinister indented (LoAR April 2001, p. 13)
This precedent only refers to the lack of difference
between an ordinary indented and an ordinary of fusils -
ordinaries dancetty are not discussed by this precedent at all.
Ordinaries indented and ordinaries of fusils were indeed
interchangeable artistic variants in period. In both an ordinary
indented and an ordinary of fusils, the top and bottom lines are
180 degrees out of phase, and the only difference is whether the
artist decides to touch the "inside" parts of the top and bottom
lines (creating an ordinary of fusils) or whether to leave some
space between them (leaving an ordinary indented).
...the distinction between 'dancetty' and 'indented' when
applied to ordinaries being not one of amplitude, as White Stag
suggests, but a distinction parallel to that between
counterembattled and bretassed (LoAR December 1988)
This precedent did not discuss the determination of
difference between ordinaries dancetty and indented, but solely
discussed the definitions of the two treatments. It makes the
very good point that there is no implication of an amplitude
difference between indented and dancetty (as indicated in some
very post-period treatises). As noted in the discussion above,
the difference between dancetty and indented is indeed "parallel"
to that between counterembattled and bretessed, but it is by no
means exactly the same. [Elena Bertholmeu, 05/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[Quarterly per pale indented azure and Or, a bordure
counterchanged] This does not conflict with Anne Tanzer,
Quarterly dancetty of five per fess and six per pale azure and
Or. There is one CD for adding the bordure. Anne's quarterly
line is indented in both the palewise and fesswise directions,
while Nathon's is only indented in the palewise direction. Period
armory appears to draw a consistent distinction between
quarterly and quarterly per fess indented. If
period people considered a plain quarterly division to be
distinct from on which is half plain and half indented, it seems
reasonable to surmise (without evidence to the contrary) that
they would similarly consider a division which is all indented to
be different from one which is half plain and half indented.
[Nathon of Arindale, 07/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[Gules, on a pile rayonny argent a standing balance sable]
Discussion on this submission asked whether a pile rayonny could
be considered "simple enough in outline to be voided", and thus
"suitable" under RfS X.4.j.ii. The pertinent clause of X.4.j.ii
states "Armory that has a group of identical charges on an
ordinary or other suitable charge alone on the field is a simple
case." A pile rayonny is an ordinary, and is eligible for this
clause whether or not it is otherwise a "suitable" charge.
A pile rayonny is a voidable charge. Most ordinaries with complex
lines are considered to be voidable charges. At this time we hold
that ordinaries with the following complex lines are voidable
charges when drawn correctly: engrailed, invected, indented,
dancetty, embattled, raguly, dovetailed, urdy, wavy, nebuly, and
rayonnny. The College may consider the question of the
voidability of ordinaries with some of the more complex lines,
such as flory counter-flory, on a case by case basis. [Augusto
Giuseppe da San Donato, 10/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
There was also commentary about whether this rayonny line was
drawn with too many and small repeats to be acceptable. Rayonny,
because of its design, needs smaller and more frequent repeats
than most complex lines of partition. Fifteen repetitions of a
complex line down the center of the shield (palewise, bendwise,
or the side of a pile) would be marginal or unacceptable for
engrailed, embattled, or wavy, but it is more acceptable for
rayonny. [Augusto Giuseppe da San Donato, 10/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
Per the LoAR of January 1997 p.18, "[urdy vs embattled]
There is ... nothing for line of division." [Lillian
Taylor, 10/2003,
R-Calontir]
[a chevron inverted engrailed to base vs. a chevron
inverted] There is no difference for only engrailing the
bottom side of the chevron inverted. Per the LoAR of November
1990, p. 15, "[A bend potenty on the lower edge] Conflict
with [a plain bend]. Were the ordinary in this proposal potenty
on both sides, it would be clear, but the majority of the
commenters (and Laurel) did not feel that difference should be
granted for this non-period treating of only one (and the less
visually important) side of an ordinary. The only period examples
of treating one side of an ordinary which were noted was that of
embattling the upper edge of an ordinary." [Ívarr
bjarnherðar, 12/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
The bordure also must be returned for redrawing. While it was
blazoned on the Letter of Intent as rayonny, the repeats
are drawn in a fashion that is not clearly either rayonny,
indented, or wavy-crested. Each repeat is small, roughly
triangular, and very slightly curved. Rayonny repeats should be
longer, thinner and more markedly wavy, indented repeats should
be triangular with straight sides, and wavy-crested is a line of
division which significantly post-dates 1600 and thus is not
acceptable for SCA use. In addition, the repeats are too small
and numerous to be registered. [Theron Andronikos,
02/2004,
R-Atlantia]
LINES of DIVISION --
Long
[Per fess rayonny gules and sable] The device
needs to be redrawn. The rayonny line as drawn here is
unacceptably small and indistinct. Rayonny is a complex line that
should extend to wavy points above and below the line. Here the
points are more like wavy crested. They are much too shallow, in
that the total height between the top and bottom points of the
line is roughly one-twentieth of the shield. One would expect at
least one-eighth of the shield to be subtended by the complex
line (three-fourths of an inch or taller on this size of shield).
There are also roughly twice as many repeats as one would
generally expect on a per fess line. [Sylvana Ballaster,
12/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[a bordure rayonny argent] The rayonny line of division is
drawn with too many and too small repeats to be acceptable. There
are about 20 repeats across the top and 30 down each side: a good
four or five times more than the usual standard number. Because
each repeat of the line is so small, the line of partition has
lost any ability to be distinguished from indented. [Lethann
ingen Áeda, 09/2002,
R-Meridies]
[Gules, on a pile rayonny argent a standing balance sable]
Discussion on this submission asked whether a pile rayonny could
be considered "simple enough in outline to be voided", and thus
"suitable" under RfS X.4.j.ii. The pertinent clause of X.4.j.ii
states "Armory that has a group of identical charges on an
ordinary or other suitable charge alone on the field is a simple
case." A pile rayonny is an ordinary, and is eligible for this
clause whether or not it is otherwise a "suitable" charge.
A pile rayonny is a voidable charge. Most ordinaries with complex
lines are considered to be voidable charges. At this time we hold
that ordinaries with the following complex lines are voidable
charges when drawn correctly: engrailed, invected, indented,
dancetty, embattled, raguly, dovetailed, urdy, wavy, nebuly, and
rayonnny. The College may consider the question of the
voidability of ordinaries with some of the more complex lines,
such as flory counter-flory, on a case by case basis. [Augusto
Giuseppe da San Donato, 10/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
There was also commentary about whether this rayonny line was
drawn with too many and small repeats to be acceptable. Rayonny,
because of its design, needs smaller and more frequent repeats
than most complex lines of partition. Fifteen repetitions of a
complex line down the center of the shield (palewise, bendwise,
or the side of a pile) would be marginal or unacceptable for
engrailed, embattled, or wavy, but it is more acceptable for
rayonny. [Augusto Giuseppe da San Donato, 10/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
The bordure also must be returned for redrawing. While it was
blazoned on the Letter of Intent as rayonny, the repeats
are drawn in a fashion that is not clearly either rayonny,
indented, or wavy-crested. Each repeat is small, roughly
triangular, and very slightly curved. Rayonny repeats should be
longer, thinner and more markedly wavy, indented repeats should
be triangular with straight sides, and wavy-crested is a line of
division which significantly post-dates 1600 and thus is not
acceptable for SCA use. In addition, the repeats are too small
and numerous to be registered. [Theron Andronikos,
02/2004,
R-Atlantia]
LINES of DIVISION --
Miscellaneous
[Per bend trefly Or and sable] The
submitter has fixed the artistic problems with his previous
submission. However, the line of division drawn here is not (as
blazoned on the LoI) fleury. Fleury would be drawn
with demi-fleurs-de-lys issuing from the per bend line towards
sinister chief. A demi fleur-de-lys would show three petals
tapering to a stalk, like the top half of a fleur-de-lys. This
appears to be trefly, with three round conjoined lobes and
no stalk, like the end of a cross bottony. The submitter should
be advised to draw fewer and larger trefoils in the trefly.
[Rudolphus Heydenreic, 03/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
[Quarterly Or and vert] This device does not conflict with
... Quarterly arrondi sable and Or. There is one CD for
changing the tincture of the field. Recent precedent has been
mixed about whether there is a CD for making a field division
arrondy. The weight of the recent precedent and the commentary is
in favor of giving a CD between these two lines. This is an SCA
choice (rather than one which can be based on period evidence).
The weight of precedent, and the fact that there is a visual
distinction between a straight and an arrondy line, indicates
that we should give a CD for this change. [Br{o,}ndólfr the
Stout, 03/2003,
A-Middle]
[Per chevron] Please note that the line of partition was
originally blazoned as enhanced. The line is moved
slightly to chief from the most standard central position, but
that is a natural consequence of only having one charge in base.
The term enhanced has thus been removed from the blazon as
unnecessary. [Jon the Tall, 04/2003,
A-Meridies]
[a chief indented fleury at the points] The College had
some questions about the way that the line of division was drawn.
In this submission, each of the points of the indented line is
cut off flat, and the center "ring" and top of the
demi-fleur-de-lys issues from the flat cut (so that the center
ring of the fleur-de-lys is throughout on the flat cut.) The LoAR
cited a May 1996 LoAR reference to this line of division:
"Pelican has found support for the unusual line of division on
the chief in a somewhat similar design element in Randle Holme's
Book (15th c.): a coat blazonable as Ermine, a chief indented
flory at the upper points sable is attributed to Adame Dovynt of
Sowthereychyre (Surrey)." On referencing this book as it is
described and redrawn in Oswald Barron's article "A Fifteenth
Century Roll of Arms" (The Ancestor Vol. 7 (October 1903)
p. 184), we find that the line is not dissimilar from this one.
The upwards points of the indented line (the ones pointing into
the chief) are each cut off flat and topped with the center and
top of a fleur-de-lys. The center "ring" of the fleur-de-lys
actually is wider than the flat cut and rests atop it like a hat.
A similar combination of indented and fleury on a chief can be
found on p. 194 attributed to Ballard of Cheschier (Cheshire),
but in this case both the upwards and downward points of the
chief are fleury, as in this submission. As a result, we feel
that this is an artistically acceptable variant of indented
fleury at the points. We have reblazoned the chief in a
standard SCA fashion for such a complex line. [Elysabeth
Vernon, 07/2003,
R-Drachenwald]
[Per pale fleury-counterfleury vert and azure] ... there
was some question as to whether the fleury-counterfleury line of
division could ever be registerable between low-contrast
tinctures. The October 1998 LoAR, p. 12, discussed Continental
lines of division that terminate in leaves or similar plant
motifs:
The submitter has provided examples from Siedmacher's [sic]
1605 Wappenbuch of armory that could be blazoned Per
chevron ployé pointed with a linden leaf argent and gules.,
and Per bend Or and sable with trefoils counterposed and
issuant from the center of the line., thereby showing
period evidence for this motif. However, all exemplars provided
used difference tincture classes for each half of the
field.
This design motif is essentially a divided field with leaves as
counterchanged charges. Therefore, this submission violates the
Rule of Tincture. Barring period evidence of this motif using
two tinctures from the same class, it can only be used in the
SCA with tinctures from the different classes.
Fleury-counterfleury is similar in concept to the
lines discussed in this precedent. It could be considered
analogous to "a divided field with leaves [or, in this case,
demi-fleurs-de-lys] as counterchanged charges." If one follows
the logic of this precedent, one could decide that
fleury-counterfleury is not registerable between low-contrast
tinctures unless period documentation is provided for that
design. We decline to rule on this issue at this time; we might
have pended this submission for consideration of this issue,
except that it was necessary to return the submission for the
other reasons mentioned. We suggest that this question be
addressed in any resubmission that uses fleury-counterfleury
between low-contrast tinctures. [Ainbthen inghean Risdeig,
09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[Gules, on a pile rayonny argent a standing balance sable]
Discussion on this submission asked whether a pile rayonny could
be considered "simple enough in outline to be voided", and thus
"suitable" under RfS X.4.j.ii. The pertinent clause of X.4.j.ii
states "Armory that has a group of identical charges on an
ordinary or other suitable charge alone on the field is a simple
case." A pile rayonny is an ordinary, and is eligible for this
clause whether or not it is otherwise a "suitable" charge.
A pile rayonny is a voidable charge. Most ordinaries with complex
lines are considered to be voidable charges. At this time we hold
that ordinaries with the following complex lines are voidable
charges when drawn correctly: engrailed, invected, indented,
dancetty, embattled, raguly, dovetailed, urdy, wavy, nebuly, and
rayonnny. The College may consider the question of the
voidability of ordinaries with some of the more complex lines,
such as flory counter-flory, on a case by case basis. [Augusto
Giuseppe da San Donato, 10/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
LINES of DIVISION --
Square
"By prior Laurel precedent, there is not a CD
between embattled and raguly" (LoAR February 2001). [Katarina
Daniilova doch' Sergeeva zhena, 04/2002,
R-Artemisia]
[Per fess dovetailed purpure and sable] Some commenters
asked whether a complex line of partition was ever acceptable
between sable and purpure, due to the particularly low contrast
of these tinctures. Complex lines between low contrast tinctures
are rare in period armory. However, a smattering of such designs
does occur, and such examples include a variety of low-contrast
tincture combinations. As a result, as long as the line of
partition remains identifiable and is not obscured by other
elements of the design, complex lines between low-contrast
tinctures may be allowed between any pair of low-contrast
tinctures. The line of partition in this emblazon is not obscured
by the tinctures of the field or by overlying charges, and it
will be acceptable if its placement is changed to clearly show a
per fess division. [Agneszka the Wanderer, 09/2002,
R-Meridies]
Because chevrons and fesses embattled (with a complex line
of partition on the top of the charge and a plain line on the
bottom) and embattled counter-embattled (with a complex
line of partition on both sides of the charge) are found as
distinct treatments in period heraldry, there is a type CD
between them. [Robert Blackhawk, 04/2003,
A-Outlands]
[a fess of three conjoined fusils] This does not conflict
with Vert, a dance Or between three daisies proper. There
is one CD for removing the secondary daisies. There is another CD
for the difference between a dance and a fess of fusils:
[a bend sinister fusilly vs. a bend sinister dancetty]
Evidence taken from the Dictionary of British Arms
strongly indicates that bends dancetty were not used
interchangeably with bends fusilly; in fact, they were
used by different people and in different ways. Thus there is a
CD for changing the line of division on the bend ... (LoAR
April 2001)
We have also researched the question in the
Dictionary of British Arms in the two bars section,
and also found that bars dancetty were used by different people
from bars lozengy. Unfortunately, the Dictionary of British
Arms is not yet published to the point where we could
research fesses, but the evidence so far found implies strongly
that what is true for bends and bars should also be true for
fesses.
We do note that there is some interchangeability in period
between the somewhat analogous lines
embattled-counterembattled and bretessed, which
also differ by putting the top and bottom lines 180 degrees out
of phase. As a consequence of the period interchangeability, we
do not give difference between embattled-counterembattled
and bretessed. However, the square and indented line
treatments are not exactly analogous, because there is no
"zig-zag" form of the square lines analogous to dancetty. The
"zig zag" form of embattled-counterembattled would look like the
shaft of the SCA charge of a lightning bolt (see the Pictorial
Dictionary for an illustration). There is no period treatment
of an ordinary which makes this sort of square "zig zag". Because
the two sides of a period ordinary
embattled-counterembattled or bretessed are always
separated by at least a thin amount of central ordinary, the two
treatments are much more visually similar, and this may have
contributed to the period confusion between them.
Some commentary on this submission addressed previous precedent
on this topic, which appears to need some clarification
(especially when only excerpts of the precedent were quoted).
Here is some discussion clarifying these past precedents. As
always, we encourage people quoting precedents to consider going
back to the original LoAR and reading the excerpts in context.
As a bend sinister of fusils is an artistic variant of
indented, there is not a CD between it and a bend
sinister indented (LoAR April 2001, p. 13)
This precedent only refers to the lack of difference
between an ordinary indented and an ordinary of fusils -
ordinaries dancetty are not discussed by this precedent at all.
Ordinaries indented and ordinaries of fusils were indeed
interchangeable artistic variants in period. In both an ordinary
indented and an ordinary of fusils, the top and bottom lines are
180 degrees out of phase, and the only difference is whether the
artist decides to touch the "inside" parts of the top and bottom
lines (creating an ordinary of fusils) or whether to leave some
space between them (leaving an ordinary indented).
...the distinction between 'dancetty' and 'indented' when
applied to ordinaries being not one of amplitude, as White Stag
suggests, but a distinction parallel to that between
counterembattled and bretassed (LoAR December 1988)
This precedent did not discuss the determination of
difference between ordinaries dancetty and indented, but solely
discussed the definitions of the two treatments. It makes the
very good point that there is no implication of an amplitude
difference between indented and dancetty (as indicated in some
very post-period treatises). As noted in the discussion above,
the difference between dancetty and indented is indeed "parallel"
to that between counterembattled and bretessed, but it is by no
means exactly the same. [Elena Bertholmeu, 05/2003,
A-Atlantia]
The previous blazon ... misspelled the bretessed line of
division as betressed. Betressed is not an
acceptable spelling for this line of division. [Christopher
Jameson, 08/2003,
A-Middle]
[a chief embattled] The chief is drawn with the minimum
acceptable number of embattlements. There are three embattlements
pointing out from the chief, and the two outermost embattlements
touch the side of the shield, so there are three "down" and two
"up", and the outside edges of the two outside "down"
embattlements touch the sides of the shield. This would also be
acceptable if there were three "up" and two "down." Usually,
however, an embattled chief would be drawn with two more
embattlements (so, for example, three "down" and four "up").
[Éamonn mac Rioghbhardáin, 09/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[Gules, on a pile rayonny argent a standing balance sable]
Discussion on this submission asked whether a pile rayonny could
be considered "simple enough in outline to be voided", and thus
"suitable" under RfS X.4.j.ii. The pertinent clause of X.4.j.ii
states "Armory that has a group of identical charges on an
ordinary or other suitable charge alone on the field is a simple
case." A pile rayonny is an ordinary, and is eligible for this
clause whether or not it is otherwise a "suitable" charge.
A pile rayonny is a voidable charge. Most ordinaries with complex
lines are considered to be voidable charges. At this time we hold
that ordinaries with the following complex lines are voidable
charges when drawn correctly: engrailed, invected, indented,
dancetty, embattled, raguly, dovetailed, urdy, wavy, nebuly, and
rayonnny. The College may consider the question of the
voidability of ordinaries with some of the more complex lines,
such as flory counter-flory, on a case by case basis. [Augusto
Giuseppe da San Donato, 10/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
There was also commentary about whether this rayonny line was
drawn with too many and small repeats to be acceptable. Rayonny,
because of its design, needs smaller and more frequent repeats
than most complex lines of partition. Fifteen repetitions of a
complex line down the center of the shield (palewise, bendwise,
or the side of a pile) would be marginal or unacceptable for
engrailed, embattled, or wavy, but it is more acceptable for
rayonny. [Augusto Giuseppe da San Donato, 10/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
Per the LoAR of January 1997 p.18, "[urdy vs embattled]
There is ... nothing for line of division." [Lillian
Taylor, 10/2003,
R-Calontir]
There is no difference for changing the type of the bordure as
there is "nothing for dovetailed vs. embattled" (LoAR of July
1999). [Jenet Froste, 02/2004,
R-Atlantia]
LINES of DIVISION --
Wavy
[two pallets wavy] The wavy would be more
classic and easier to identify if it were drawn with deeper
waves. However, except in the beginning of the armorial period,
wavy is a fairly shallow line compared to all the others. A
shallow wavy line is much more acceptable than a shallow
embattled, engrailed, or indented line. [Keran Roslin,
09/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
... no difference between wavy and nebuly: "[There is no]
difference between nebuly and wavy: there are simply too many
examples of these lines being used interchangeably, even in late
period" (LoAR 9/93). [Iamys MacMurray de Morayshire,
01/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Per fess wavy vert and azure, a bucket Or] RfS VIII.3
notes that obscuring a complex low-contrast line of partition may
well be grounds for return for unidentifiability. We have such a
case here: the bucket covers most of the line of partition.
[Jorunn Eydisardottir, 01/2003,
R-Calontir]
[Per bend sinister nebuly] The nebuly in this emblazon
consists of repeats that look like the top portion of a heart or
(as Red Hawk put it) "the end of a dog's chew toy bone". This is
a period form of nebuly that be seen in multiple places in
Siebmacher's 1605 Wappenbuch, one example being the Swiss
family of de Ziegler on fol. 201. [Apollonia Voss,
01/2003,
R-East]
[a bend sinister embowed-counterembowed] The bend sinister
was originally blazoned as wavy but did not have enough waves for
that blazon. The concensus of the College appeared to support the
SCA-acceptability of a bend sinister embowed-counterembowed.
Because there is no evidence that a bend sinister
embowed-counterembowed is a period charge, we must determine any
difference from a bend sinister wavy on solely visual grounds. A
bend sinister wavy and a bend sinister embowed-counterembowed do
not appear to be so visually distinct as to warrant
difference.
Thus, this conflicts with ... Vert, on a bend sinister wavy
between two ox heads erased affronty argent a scarpe wavy
azure. There is a CD for changing the type of the secondary
charges. A bend sinister wavy argent charged with a scarpe wavy
azure is heraldically equivalent to a bend sinister azure
fimbriated argent, so there is no additional difference.
[Aíbinn ingen Artáin, 03/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[a bordure wavy] The blazon originally used the term
undy rather than wavy. We have reblazoned it to use
the more standard SCA term to avoid confusion. The term
undy is confusing for two reasons. One reason is that the
term undy sometimes represents a line of division (wavy)
and sometimes a field division (barry wavy). Brooke-Little's
An Heraldic Alphabet, p. 212, states: "Undy (also
Undé or Ondé) A synonym for wavy. It is not much
used today but in early blazon it was always employed, often
meaning barry wavy." The other reason that the term undy
is confusing is that it is prone to handwriting or typing errors,
and might easily be misinterpreted as the different field
division urdy. The SCA has previously chosen to avoid
error-prone terms. For example, it has chosen not to use the
error-prone term ermines (easily confused with
ermine), in favor of the less error-prone term
counter-ermine. [Ginevra Visconti, 09/2003,
A-Trimaris]
[Gules, on a pile rayonny argent a standing balance sable]
Discussion on this submission asked whether a pile rayonny could
be considered "simple enough in outline to be voided", and thus
"suitable" under RfS X.4.j.ii. The pertinent clause of X.4.j.ii
states "Armory that has a group of identical charges on an
ordinary or other suitable charge alone on the field is a simple
case." A pile rayonny is an ordinary, and is eligible for this
clause whether or not it is otherwise a "suitable" charge.
A pile rayonny is a voidable charge. Most ordinaries with complex
lines are considered to be voidable charges. At this time we hold
that ordinaries with the following complex lines are voidable
charges when drawn correctly: engrailed, invected, indented,
dancetty, embattled, raguly, dovetailed, urdy, wavy, nebuly, and
rayonnny. The College may consider the question of the
voidability of ordinaries with some of the more complex lines,
such as flory counter-flory, on a case by case basis. [Augusto
Giuseppe da San Donato, 10/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
There was also commentary about whether this rayonny line was
drawn with too many and small repeats to be acceptable. Rayonny,
because of its design, needs smaller and more frequent repeats
than most complex lines of partition. Fifteen repetitions of a
complex line down the center of the shield (palewise, bendwise,
or the side of a pile) would be marginal or unacceptable for
engrailed, embattled, or wavy, but it is more acceptable for
rayonny. [Augusto Giuseppe da San Donato, 10/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Per fess nebuly vert and sable] The line of division is
drawn with too many and too small repetitions to be registerable,
particularly on a low contrast field division. RfS VIII.3 states
"Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by
significant reduction in size, marginal contrast..." It is
acceptable to draw a nebuly line of partition between vert and
sable as long as the identifiability is not lost for other
reasons. [Raffe Ó Donnabháin, 01/2004,
R-An Tir]
The bordure also must be returned for redrawing. While it was
blazoned on the Letter of Intent as rayonny, the repeats
are drawn in a fashion that is not clearly either rayonny,
indented, or wavy-crested. Each repeat is small, roughly
triangular, and very slightly curved. Rayonny repeats should be
longer, thinner and more markedly wavy, indented repeats should
be triangular with straight sides, and wavy-crested is a line of
division which significantly post-dates 1600 and thus is not
acceptable for SCA use. In addition, the repeats are too small
and numerous to be registered. [Theron Andronikos,
02/2004,
R-Atlantia]
LOZENGE
The
lozenge was blazoned on the LoI as a fusil. "Fusils do not
have an independent existence as a charge" (LoAR 1/91). The term
fusil may be used when describing a group of lozenges
conjoined into an ordinary, such as a bend or fess
fusilly. [Brigid of Kincarn, 01/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
This submission was originally blazoned using a lozenge
fesswise. Because lozenges could be drawn with various
proportions in period, including a square set on its corner
(which can be neither fesswise nor palewise), it does not make
sense to distinguish different proportions of lozenge in blazon.
[Cecily of Whitehaven, 02/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Or, a mascle within a mascle throughout sable] This was
originally blazoned as Sable vêtu Or, a lozenge within a
mascle Or. The visual realities of the emblazon are such that
it is immediately perceived as a mascle within another, and we
have so reblazoned it. There were concerns about "op art"
stylization, but this is clearly visible and reproducible as a
mascle within another, so it does not have visual ambiguity.
While it is possible to blazon this in the fashion originally
presented in the Letter of Intent, blazon ambiguity is not the
same problem as visual ambiguity. [Marquet de Hyet,
02/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
The device was blazoned on the LoI using a lozenge ployé
throughout rather than the originally submitted vêtu
ployé. We have been asked whether one can reblazon using a
lozenge ployé throughout to avoid stylistic problems with
placing charges (in this submission, the estencely) on the
"vested" portions of a field (in this submission, the portions of
the field outside the "lozenge"). There is explicit precedent
stating that placing charges around a lozenge ployé
throughout (also known as a lozenge concave
throughout) is not allowable style:
Vêtu fields should not have charges in the "vested" portions of
the field --- and although this was blazoned on the LOI as a
lozenge concave throughout, the latter two adjectives
almost mandate this be considered a vêtu field. (LoAR December
1992, pg. 15)
Some commenters noted that we allow fields per
chevron throughout to be charged with three charges two and
one. Such fields could conceivably be blazoned as chapé with
charges on the "vested" portions of the field. Yet we do not
return these arms for using charged chapé. This is because a "per
chevron" design with three charges on it is relatively common in
period, and "per chevron throughout" is a period artistic variant
of "per chevron". Chapé with any charges on it is
extremely rare. The most likely interpretation of such a design
is per chevron, and thus that design is acceptable. The
design in this submission is one for which the most likely
interpretation is of a vêtu field, rather than some design
using a variant lozenge, and absent documentation to the
contrary, will be considered to be a vêtu ployé field.
We have had a few previous registrations of charged lozenges
ployé throughout between charges, but they were registered
without explanatory stylistic comment. One cannot draw any firm
conclusions about heraldic policy from registrations without
comment. [Brigitte MacFarlane Red, 02/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[A lozenge Or] We do not register fieldless badges which
appear to be independent forms of armorial display. Charges such
as lozenges, billets, and roundels are all both standard heraldic
charges and "shield shapes" for armorial display. The SCA has
never protected armory consisting of plain tinctures, except for
two examples that are particularly famous: the (important
non-SCA) arms of Brittany, Ermine, and the (important
non-SCA) flag of Libya, Vert. If we do not protect, and
have never protected, the arms Or, we should not be
concerned about the possible appearance of a display of Or
by using a single lozenge Or as a fieldless badge. This is
parallel to our practices concerning inescutcheons of pretense.
To quote RfS XI.4, Arms of Pretense and Augmentations of Honor,
"Similarly, an augmentation of honor often, though not
necessarily, takes the form of an independent coat placed on an
escutcheon or canton. Generally, therefore, a canton or a single
escutcheon may only be used if it is both uncharged and of a
single tincture." This rule demonstrates that an uncharged
escutcheon shape in a single plain tincture does not appear to be
a display of an independent coat of arms.
Therefore, a "shield shape" which is also a standard heraldic
charge will be acceptable as as a fieldless badge in a plain
tincture, as long as the tincture is not one of the plain
tinctures that is protected armory in the SCA. This explicitly
overturns the precedent "We do not normally register fieldless
badges consisting only of forms of armorial display, such as
roundels, lozenges and delfs in plain tinctures, since in use the
shape does not appear to be a charge, but rather the field
itself" (LoAR January 1998).
Note that this does not change our long-standing policy about
such "shield shape" charges used in fieldless badges if the
tincture is not plain (thus, divided or with a field treatment),
or if the charge is itself charged. Such armory will continue to
be returned for the appearance of an independent form of armorial
display. [Solveig Throndardottir, 04/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
...a lozenge fesswise is considered equivalent to a lozenge, and
the distinction should not be blazoned. [Cecily of
Whitehaven, 06/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
... the three following very dissimilar-sounding blazons can all
be drawn identically, and thus should be considered heraldically
equivalent: A lozenge Or charged with a lozenge gules,
A lozenge Or voided gules, and A lozenge gules
fimbriated Or. This heraldic equivalence will apply for any
charge "simple enough to void" by the criteria stated in the
Cover Letter for the November 1992 LoAR. When checking for
conflict with armory using fimbriation or voiding, all these
interpretations should be considered when checking for conflict,
and if one of the interpretations conflicts, the two pieces of
armory conflict. This does not seem overly restrictive when one
considers the rarity of armory in period featuring voided or
fimbriated charges, or arms with the design of A "charge" charged
with "the same type of charge". These are very uncommon designs
in period. Period viewers probably had the same sorts of problems
that we have when interpreting such designs.
Note that charges which are voided by definition are generally
given one CD from their solid equivalents: mascles are given a CD
from lozenges, and annulets are given a CD from roundels. If one
interpreted these charges as voided, fimbriated, or charged
charges, the guidelines above would also give exactly one CD
between them. Comparing Azure, a lozenge Or vs. Azure,
a lozenge Or charged with a lozenge azure: one CD, for adding
a tertiary charge. Azure, a lozenge Or vs. Azure, a
lozenge Or voided azure: equivalent to the previous case of
adding a tertiary charge. Azure, a lozenge Or vs.
Azure, a lozenge azure fimbriated Or: one CD for changing
the tincture of the lozenge from Or to azure, and no additional
difference for removing the fimbriation. [Cecily of
Whitehaven, 06/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Argent vêtu ployé quarterly sable and gules, a cat passant
guardant sable] This .... conflicts with Amber Lang, Vert,
on a lozenge argent, a cat sejant guardant sable. When
comparing armory using a vêtu field with armory using a lozenge,
the comparison must be made in two ways: as if both pieces of
armory used a vêtu field, and as if both pieces of armory used a
lozenge. If we consider Isabel's armory as the equivalent blazon
Quarterly sable and gules, on a lozenge ployé througout argent
a cat passant guardant sable, there is one CD from Amber's
armory for changing the field, but no difference by RfS X.4.j for
changing only the posture of the tertiary charge. There is no
difference between a lozenge and a lozenge ployé, nor is there
difference between a lozenge and a lozenge throughout. [Isabel
Margarita de Sotomayor y Pérez de Gerena, 11/2002,
R-Trimaris]
... no difference between a lozenge ployé and a
lozenge. [Ulbrecht vom Walde, 04/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
... a second CD for the type difference between a cross of
lozenges and a cross of mascles. [Arabella Mackinnon,
06/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
A question was raised in commentary about heraldic difference
between a rustre and a lozenge. A rustre is an uncommon charge in
comparison with lozenges and mascles, but one which is described
in late period. Hierosme de Bara's 1581 Le Blason Des
Armoiries pp. 46-47 depicts the lozenge, the rustre, and the
mascle. These are treated as distinct charges in the treatise.
Thus, these three charges are considered significantly different
under the provisions of difference in RfS X.4.e, which states,
"Types of charges considered to be separate in period... will be
considered different."
Note that by previous precedent, piercing is considered
equivalent to a tertiary charge unless it is drawn in a small
insignificant fashion: "After much thought, we decided that
piercing is worth a CD when drawn large enough to be equivalent
to adding a tertiary charge" (LoAR December 1999). By this
criterion, lozenges, rustres and mascles are also distinct from
each other. As an artistic note concerning the "lozenges with
holes in them" class of period charges, the roundel in the center
of the rustre in De Bara is by no means an insignificant
piercing, but is the size of a good-sized tertiary charge. It is
a bit larger proportionally than the (also significantly sized)
roundel in the center of the rustre illustrated in
Brooke-Little's An Heraldic Alphabet. As for mascles, they
have always been drawn with a sizeable central piercing
throughout their extensive period of use as a charge in heraldry.
For some examples, see Bedingfeld and Gwynn-Jones'
Heraldry p. 17 (from the Matthew Paris shields c.1244),
and p. 61 (from the 15th c. Fenwick roll). [Griffin de
Mohun, 09/2003,
A-Trimaris]
[Azure, a Japanese well-frame crosswise with an annulet
argent] This device does not conflict with ... Azure, a
mascle within an annulet argent. The corners of the Japanese
well-frame cannot be mistaken for the corners of a default mascle
when drawn correctly. We would give a CD between a default
mascle and a mascle fourchy at the points, and a
similar CD applies when comparing a default mascle and a Japanese
well frame. There is a second CD for orientation between a
Japanese well-frame crosswise (which is oriented like a delf) and
the default Japanese well-frame, which is oriented like a mascle.
[Tadatsune of Carolingia, 11/2003,
A-East]
MAUNCH
[Azure,
issuant from a maunche reversed, a hand maintaining a threaded
needle argent] This is clear of conflict with the Barony of
Fettburg's Order d'Élégance, Per fess argent ermined gules and
gules, in base a maunch argent. There is one CD for changing
the field and another for reversing the maunch. Depictions of
maunches range from those which are almost bilaterally
symmetrical to those which have an unambiguous orientation. The
majority of the depictions of maunches have a clear orientation,
and in this badge, the hand provides an extra cue to the maunch's
orientation. Thus we can give a CD for reversing the maunch.
[Caid, Kingdom of, 12/2001,A-Caid]
[a maunch fracted in pale] The maunch fracted is not
identifiable. It appears to be two slightly different styles of
maunches addorsed rather than a single fracted charge.
[Padraig Dillon of Liaththor, 07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
MOLLUSK --
Snail
[in fess two leeches palewise embowed counter
embowed respectant] ... the charges are not identifiable,
which is in itself a reason for return. To be identifiable, a
creature must be drawn in a period heraldic stylization or drawn
so that it is clearly identifiable as the natural animal. In this
case, no documentation has been presented, and none was found,
for either slugs or leeches in period armory, so until
documentation for a period heraldic stylization has been found,
they must be drawn like some sort of natural animal. The animals
in this submission have antennae, which a leech does not have, so
they are not clearly identifiable as leeches. A slug has
antennae, but these animals are not clearly identifiable as
slugs, as they have no other identifying factors of a slug, such
as the slug's "mantle" (near its head). [Eoin mac Neill mhic
Lochlainn, 04/2002,
R-East]
There is ... no difference between an untenanted and a tenanted
snail shell. [Caera in Cridi Tréuin, 08/2002,
R-East]
MONSTER --
Chimera
[a monster rampant composed of the head of an
otter, the body wings and tail of a dragon, and the hind legs of
a lion] The commenters in the College of Arms generally held
that this chimerical monster should not be considered visually
different from a griffin. The dragon's forelegs also resemble an
eagle's or griffin's foreclaws, and the pointed otter's head as
depicted here has an outline similar to a griffin's head. Wyverns
were sometimes drawn with bird wings rather than bat wings, so
when a monster contains dragon-like parts one cannot give
difference between bird- and bat-wings.
This should be an acceptably constructed chimerical monster per
the following precedent:
[registering a monster composed of the head and torso of a
bull, the tail of a snake, the wings of an eagle and the
forearms of a man] While this is an extreme example of a
constructed monster, given the carefree abandon with which
chimerical monster [sic] were employed in Renaissance heraldry,
this is just within the limits of acceptability. (Merwydd of
Effington, 4/90 p.10)
[Edward de Molay, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
[a chimerical beast with the head of a lion, a unicorn, and a
dragon, a body of a lion, and a dragon's tail] This is a
small change from Bossewell's chimera, substituting a unicorn's
head for a goat's head. Examples of Bossewell's original chimera
can be seen in the 1572 Armorie or the Pictorial
Dictionary. [Cromán of Brineside Moor, 11/2001,
A-Trimaris]
This chimera is drawn as the one in Bossewell's 1572
Armorie. It has a lion's body, a lion's head, a goat's
head, and a dragon's head regardant. This is the default SCA
composition for a chimera. [Maximilian Gartenheit of
Heatherwyne, 04/2002,
A-Caid]
[a chimera] Conflict with ... Sable, a chimerical beast
with the head of a lion, a unicorn, and a dragon, a body of a
lion, and a dragon's tail statant argent. ... There is no
difference for the minor change in type of the chimera. [Kevin
Daniel Madoc, 09/2002,
R-Caid]
MONSTER --
Dragon and Wyvern
[a dragon rampant] Winged
quadrupedal monsters have their wings elevated and addorsed by
default when rampant. For dragons and griffins, both
segreant and rampant will result in the same
emblazon. There is no reason to prefer one term over the other in
blazon, and thus I will preserve the submitted term in blazon.
[Ed.: See BLAZON for complete
discussion] [Feme inghean Donnabháin, 10/2001,
A-Trimaris]
[a unicorn-headed dragon vs. a dragon] There is no
difference for changing the head only of the monster, per the
following precedent:
[A dragon vs. a unicorn-headed dragon with lion's forepaws] The
visual similarities of the dragon and [the other] monster
(changes to head and forepaws only) are simply too great [for
there to be a CVD] (LoAR 1/91 p.24).
[Lecelina O'Brien of Mountshannon, 12/2001,
R-Artemisia]
[winged lion vs. a lion-dragon] ... and at least another
[CD] for the difference between a winged lion and a lion-dragon.
As seen in the Pictorial Dictionary, a lion-dragon is a
demi-lion conjoined to the tail of a dragon, much like a sea-lion
is a demi-lion conjoined to the tail of a fish. [Maredudd
Angharad ferch Gwenhyfar, 01/2002,
A-Outlands]
[Barry wavy azure and argent, a wyvern sejant gules] When
quadruped postures are used to blazon two-legged monsters, the
difference between some of these postures becomes blurred. While
there is a CD between a sejant quadruped and a statant quadruped,
there is no clear distinction between a wyvern statant and a
wyvern sejant. Both legs are down, and the angle of the body and
disposition of the tail is variable in both postures. Nor is
there a clear distinction between a wyvern passant and a wyvern
statant or sejant. The passant wyvern has one leg raised,
as opposed to both legs on the ground as in the other two
postures. Current precedent does not give difference between
these postures: "[a wyvern passant vs. a dragon sejant] As
a wyvern passant can be equally blazoned as a wyvern
sejant, there is no CD for posture, thus there is only a
single CD for the tincture of the wyvern." (LoAR 10/00).
This precedent for wyverns apparently follows our precedents for
birds, which give no difference for raising one leg of a bird
close or rising, interpreting it as unblazonable artist's license
(LoAR April 1992). Continental sources such as Siebmacher and
Gelre uphold this interpretation of bird postures, but it is
harder to find evidence of wyvern postures. One example of a
wyvern passant in Siebmacher (die Wörmb, f. 144) is blazoned
modernly in Rietstap's Armorial Géneral (under Wurmb)as
dragon ailé d'or, la patte dextre levée ("A winged dragon,
the dexter paw raised"), but this is a modern blazon, and only
one example. A counterexample showing a wyvern passant wings
displayed is also in Siebmacher (v. Breidenstein gen. Bredenbach,
f. 130). This is modernly blazoned in Rietstap as the first
quarter of Breidbach-Bürresheim, Argent a dragon gules
(not mentioning the raised foreleg). Again, this is only one
example. Without clear evidence that period heralds would have
considered passant and statant as distinct postures for wyverns,
the existing precedent stands.
Thus, this conflicts with a badge of the House of Tudor,
(Fieldless) A dragon passant gules (important non-SCA
armory) and the flag of Wales, Per fess argent and vert, a
dragon passant gules (important non-SCA armory). In both
cases there is a CD for fieldlessness but nothing for the
difference in type between a wyvern and a dragon and nothing for
the difference in posture. [Ramiro the Sicilian, 01/2002,
R-Caid]
[a wyvern erect vs. a dragon rampant] There is no type
difference between a wyvern and a dragon. A wyvern erect is in an
equivalent posture to a dragon rampant, so there is no difference
for posture. [Ian Lindsay MacRae, 02/2002,
R-Outlands]
[Gyronny sable and argent, a wyvern erect maintaining a sheaf
of arrows inverted and a bow within a bordure gules] Conflict
with Bela of Eastmarch, Gyronny sable and argent, a dragon
rampant gules, armed and webbed vert. As a general rule,
changing the tincture of a dragon's wings is considered to be
change of tincture of half the charge. However, the webs of the
dragon's wings are not the entire wing, and visual inspection of
the dragon in Bela's emblazon shows that it has particularly
small wings. Therefore, less than half the tincture of the charge
has changed, and so there is no additional difference for change
in tincture. [Ian Lindsay MacRae, 02/2002,
R-Outlands]
[an Oriental dragon tergiant embowed-counterembowed] There
is one CD between a winged dragon and a wingless dragon,
including Oriental dragons. This clears a number of possible
conflicts. An Oriental dragon in this posture is a weirdness, as
it combines a monster not found in period heraldry with a posture
not found for similar monsters in period heraldry. Such a
combination is well beyond period practice. A wingless dragon in
a standard heraldic posture would not be a weirdness. [Richard
of Wyvernwood, 04/2002,
A-Trimaris]
[an amphisbaena nowed] The monster in this armory is not
identifiable as an amphisbaena. An amphisbaena is too compact to
be nowed in the center (unlike the serpent, a much longer and
thinner creature). Another difference between this monster and an
amphisbaena is that an amphisbaena has bird wings and this charge
has wyvern wings.
Some possible reblazons were offered by the College or by the
proofing staff, but none of them would recreate this armory. This
charge cannot be reblazoned as two wyverns addorsed tails
nowed, nor can it be reblazoned as two wyverns addorsed
tails issuant from a stafford knot. The reblazons would
require visible tapering for the tails, and this charge maintains
an even thickness throughout the knot, as if a dragon-ended
sausage had been tied in a knot. This charge is too many steps
from period practice to be acceptable. [Otto Helmsmid,
05/2002]
We would like to note that it is acceptable for a wyvern to have
two hind legs as drawn here. Some commenters thought that wyverns
had to be drawn with two forelegs rather than two hind legs. Both
sorts of emblazon may be found in period armory. For examples of
wyverns which appear to have hind legs (they are proportioned
more or less like a long-tailed bird), see Dennys' Heraldic
Imagination p.189, illustration of the attributed arms of
Uther Pendragon. See also the Grand Armorial Équestre de la
Toison d'Or (aka the European Armorial in the
Pinches/Wood edition), Holy Roman Empire section, families of
Mesze and Neidecker. For examples where the wyverns appear to
have forelegs (proportioned like a winged reptile without hind
legs) see Siebmacher's Wappenbuch, f. 144 Die Wormb and f.
130 Breidenstein. For wyverns whose two legs are not clearly
identifiable either as forelegs or hind legs, see Burgave de
Drachenfels found in Armorial Bellenville f. 18r and in
Gelre f. 28v. [William Cormac Britt, 07/2002,
R-Meridies]
[a six-headed two-legged hydra] The monster was originally
blazoned as a six-headed wyvern, but it was felt that this was a
hydra-cephalic monster and we have thus reblazoned it.
[Lisette la lavendière de Shelby, 12/2002,
A-Middle]
There is no type difference between a dragon and a wyvern. There
is also no difference in posture between a wyvern erect contourny
and a dragon contourny (in its default rampant or segreant
posture). [Gawyne d'Ibelin, 12/2002,
R-Lochac]
[an amphisbaena] Conflict with Abraham ben Aaron,
Gules, two Sassanian horned winged demi-lions statant addorsed
conjoined Or. The monster so formed is almost identical to an
amphisbaena. [Otto Helmsmid, 04/2003,
R-Middle]
[a winged serpent displayed vs. a python wings displayed]
There is no difference given between bird-winged and bat-winged
serpents: "[a winged serpent vs a bat-winged tree python] The
change to the type of wings is too slight to count for the
necessary second [CD]." [i.e. there is not a significant
difference between a bird-winged and a bat-winged creature] (LoAR
January 1995 p. 14). In considering this ruling, it is worth
remembering the fact that the wyvern, a closely related monster,
was often drawn with bird wings in early heraldic art. [Volker
Ælfwine, 04/2003,
R-Outlands]
[a sea-dragon vs. a Japanese dragon] Because the Japanese
dragon is wingless, there is one CD for changing the type of the
dragon variant by adding wings, which are present on a default
sea-dragon. [Callum Lamond, 05/2003,
A-Artemisia]
A dragon contourny is rampant to sinister, so again, there is no
difference between rampant to sinister and salient
contourny. [Erich von Drachenholz, 08/2003,
R-Caid]
This also conflicts with a badge of Giesele Hildegaard of the
Mystic Dragon, Argent, a lion-tailed, fire-breathing sea
dragon erect purpure. ... On visual inspection, the
lion-tailed, fire-breathing sea dragon is
indistinguishable from a wyvern, when one considers the various
ways in which wyverns were drawn in period. Because the
lion-tailed, fire-breathing sea dragon cannot be
distinguished from a wyvern in any meaningful fashion, and
dragons are not given difference from wyverns, the dragon in this
submission obtains no difference from this monster. [Conn
Draca, 09/2003,
R-Meridies]
[Per saltire sable and gules, a dragon segreant Or] ...
and another CD for the difference in posture between a dragon
segreant and a wyvern passant. The wyvern posture erect is
equivalent to the dragon posture segreant. [Godwin of
Edington, 10/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
...note that wyverns are statant by default... [Godwin of
Edington, 10/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[a dragon in annulo] The dragon is not drawn in a period
or identifiable posture. Its head is tergiant, but the body is
not. Even in the period insignia of the Society of the Dragon
(which uses as part of its insignia a dragon in a posture that is
similar to in annulo) the dragon's head is in profile.
This dragon's tergiant head is not very identifiable on its own,
and is further obscured by its overlap with both the dragon's
tail and one of its foreclaws. The wings of the dragon and its
hind legs overlap its body to a significant extent so that they
also lose their identifiability. The problems with the
identifiability mandate a return under RfS VII.7.a, and the
non-period posture mandates a return under RfS VII.2.
[Elysabel Lengeteyll, 10/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[a dragon sejant close] The College had difficulty
identifying the dragon. A number of the identifying features of
the dragon are obscured by its posture. The wings are folded
against the body and are hard to see. The clawed feet are all
flattened out so that their exact type is also hard to see. This
depiction of the dragon is also generally confusing. The tail is
unusual for a dragon, ending in a leonine tuft. While the head is
clearly the head of some sort of monster, the type of monster is
not immediately identifiable as a dragon. This needs to be
redrawn as a clearly identifiable dragon. We also strongly
suggest that the wings be in the two standard postures for dragon
wings, addorsed or displayed, instead of being close. [Tobyn
Kembold, 10/2003,
R-East]
Wyverns and dragons are variants of the same charge in period,
and they thus have a meaningful posture comparison. See the Cover
Letter for the July 2003 LoAR for more discussion of meaningful
posture comparisons (also known as "comparable postures").
[Ríoghnach de Fae, 01/2004,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a dragon couchant] The dragon was originally blazoned
with its wings elevated and inverted, which is a
contradiction in terms. The wings are addorsed, which is
the default for a winged quadruped couchant. In the past, we have
sometimes blazoned wings as either elevated (wingtips to
chief) or inverted (wingtips to base), but the distinction
between elevated and inverted is not a period heraldic difference
but a mere artistic choice. This is most apparent in displayed
eagles, as noted in the LoAR of August 2001, "An examination of
the development of the various heraldic eagles shows that the
direction of the wingtips of a displayed eagle is entirely a
matter of artistic license. To avoid incorrectly limiting the
submitter's ability to display the arms in reasonable period
variants, we will no longer specify 'elevated' and 'inverted'
when blazoning displayed birds."
The winged quadrupedal monsters, such as griffins and dragons,
appear to follow the same pattern as birds. We therefore will not
distinguish elevated and inverted wingtips when
posturing those monsters. [Kateline Conteville, 01/2004,
A-East]
[Per pale Or and gules, two dragons combattant
counterchanged] This is clear under RfS X.2 from both ...
Per pale Or and gules, two winged stags combattant
counterchanged and ... Per pale Or and Gules, two
hippogriffs combatant counterchanged. Per the LoAR of July
2001, "There is a substantial difference between a dragon and a
griffin." Dragons are at least as different from winged stags and
hippogriffs as they are from griffins. [Murienne Duquette,
01/2004,
A-East]
MONSTER --
Griffin
Reblazon to: Sable, a pegasus with eagle's
foreclaws rampant to sinister Or. His previous blazon was
Sable, a hippogriff rampant to sinister Or. An inspection
of the form showed that this was not a hippogriff (a griffin with
the hindquarters of a horse) but a variant of a pegasus.
[Iriel of Branoch, 10/2001,
A-Middle]
[a dragon rampant] Winged quadrupedal monsters have their
wings elevated and addorsed by default when rampant. For dragons
and griffins, both segreant and rampant will result
in the same emblazon. There is no reason to prefer one term over
the other in blazon, and thus I will preserve the submitted term
in blazon. [Ed.: See BLAZON for complete
discussion] [Feme inghean Donnabháin, 10/2001,
A-Trimaris]
[a griffin segreant Or winged argent maintaining an acorn
Or] Conflict with ... Sable, a griffin segreant within an
annulet Or. There is one CD for removing the annulet. There
is no difference for adding the small maintained acorn. Under
normal circumstances, the wings of a griffin are considered half
the charge for purposes of tincture changes. However, this
griffin is drawn with abnormally small wings. We register the
emblazon, not the blazon, so we cannot give a CD for changing the
tincture of wing color only unless the griffin is drawn with
normal proportions. In a winged quadruped monster such as a
griffin, a normal depiction has the wings one-third to one-half
of the visual weight of the charge. If the griffin were drawn
this way, neither this conflict, nor the other conflicts listed
here, would apply. [Alana Griffin , 10/2001,
R-Æthelmearc]
[a griffin vs. a hippogriff] While the hippogriff, a
griffin with the hindquarters of a horse (rather than a lion),
was found in the Renaissance poetry of Ludovico Ariosto, we could
find no evidence that it was used in period heraldry. Therefore
the difference between a hippogriff and a griffin must be
determined on visual grounds.
In a winged quadruped such as a griffin or a hippogriff, the
hindquarters are roughly one-third to one-fourth the visual
weight of the charge. There are more visual cues to
identifiability in the forequarters than the hindquarters, since
the tails of monsters are rarely drawn with the care devoted to
their heads. We also note the following precedent:
[A dragon vs. a unicorn-headed dragon with lion's forepaws]
"The visual similarities of the dragon and [the other] monster
(changes to head and forepaws only) are simply too great [for
there to be a CVD]. (LoAR 1/91 p.24).
If changing most of the forequarters of a winged
quadruped, including the highly identifiable head, is
insufficient for a CD, then changing the less identifiable
hindquarters of a winged quadruped should also be insufficient
for a CD. Thus, there is no difference for type of monster ...
[Alana Griffin , 10/2001,
R-Æthelmearc]
... there is a CD ... (possibly RfS X.2 difference) between a
griffin and a pegasus with eagle's foreclaws. [Alana
Griffin , 10/2001,
R-Æthelmearc]
The griffin was blazoned sable but was depicted brown, which is
not acceptable for griffins:
[returning a brown bull of Saint Luke] While we register
brown beasts proper if the animal is found naturally brown,
such as a brown rabbit, or a brown hound, this is not a beast,
but rather a monster, because of the wings and halo. Since
monsters do not have proper coloration, they cannot be brown.
(LoAR May 1998)
To clarify that precedent: monsters may have a
proper coloration, as long as it is a heraldically defined proper
coloration. An example of such a heraldically defined proper
coloration would be the proper tincture of a mermaid, defined in
the SCA Glossary of Terms as "Caucasian human with green tail and
yellow hair." However, a monster without a heraldically defined
proper coloration may not be "brown proper", even if the animals
which donated the component parts for the monster may be brown
when in nature. [Cynuise ó Cianáin of Bardsea, 11/2002,
R-Trimaris]
The charge blazoned by the submitter as a Lombardic
griffin was taken from a 7th C shield ornament found in a
grave. The term Lombardic griffin was from a museum Web
site that described the shield ornament. The charge looks
somewhat like a bird close with its head down, its back humped,
and an unusually stylized face (more like a sheep's face than a
bird's face).
RfS VII.2 states that "Use of an element in period art does not
guarantee its acceptability for armory." The College felt
strongly that this artistic element from period is not compatible
with period heraldic design and is thus not acceptable for SCA
armory.
The College also felt that the "Lombardic griffin" charge
submitted here could not be considered an acceptable artistic
variant of a standard heraldic charge (such as a generic bird
close). It certainly is not an acceptable artistic variant of the
heraldic griffin, which is a winged quadruped with the back half
of a lion, the front half of an eagle (including eagle foreclaws)
and mammalian ears (generally, but not always, drawn as pointed
ears in period).
As this charge is not a variant of a period heraldic charge, and
is not an artistic motif which is compatible with heraldic style,
it may not be accepted. [Clef of Cividale, 03/2003,
R-Calontir]
Most demi-quadrupeds (including winged demi-quadrupeds, such as
demi-griffins) are erect in period armory. Erect appears
to be the default posture for such charges in the real world.
Therefore, erect should be the default posture for
demi-quadrupeds in the SCA. [Thomas von Hessen, 08/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a dragon couchant] The dragon was originally blazoned
with its wings elevated and inverted, which is a
contradiction in terms. The wings are addorsed, which is
the default for a winged quadruped couchant. In the past, we have
sometimes blazoned wings as either elevated (wingtips to
chief) or inverted (wingtips to base), but the distinction
between elevated and inverted is not a period heraldic difference
but a mere artistic choice. This is most apparent in displayed
eagles, as noted in the LoAR of August 2001, "An examination of
the development of the various heraldic eagles shows that the
direction of the wingtips of a displayed eagle is entirely a
matter of artistic license. To avoid incorrectly limiting the
submitter's ability to display the arms in reasonable period
variants, we will no longer specify 'elevated' and 'inverted'
when blazoning displayed birds."
The winged quadrupedal monsters, such as griffins and dragons,
appear to follow the same pattern as birds. We therefore will not
distinguish elevated and inverted wingtips when
posturing those monsters. [Kateline Conteville, 01/2004,
A-East]
[Per pale Or and gules, two dragons combattant
counterchanged] This is clear under RfS X.2 from both ...
Per pale Or and gules, two winged stags combattant
counterchanged and ... Per pale Or and Gules, two
hippogriffs combatant counterchanged. Per the LoAR of July
2001, "There is a substantial difference between a dragon and a
griffin." Dragons are at least as different from winged stags and
hippogriffs as they are from griffins. [Murienne Duquette,
01/2004,
A-East]
MONSTER --
Humanoid
[Argent, an angel argent winged and garbed
gules crined and cuirassed sable] The device blazon appears
at first glance to refer to an argent angel on an argent field.
However, given the tinctures of the hair, wings and garb of the
angel, there is no argent portion of the angel which rests
directly on the field. Thus this has no more of a contrast
problem than there is in the arms Argent, a cross argent
fimbriated azure. [Sankt Vladimir, College of,
10/2001,
A-Atenveldt]
[a standing seraph gules] This does not conflict with
Jussi of Ylitalo, Or, an angel statant to sinister arm
extended sable, head and hand argent. There is a CD for
changing the tincture of the angel. Jussi's angel is statant to
sinister with its wings addorsed. The standing seraph is in its
default affronty position, with its six wings in their default
posture (the top two displayed and elevated, the middle two
displayed and out to the side, and the bottom two crossed over
the body). Thus, there is a CD for changing the posture, just as
there would be between a bird displayed and a bird rising to
sinister wings addorsed. [Henry of Three Needles, 02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[Vert, a mandrake Or] This is clear of conflict with a
badge of Migel Gneuyle de Normandie, Gules, an old man statant
affronty maintaining sword and shield Or. The mandrake in
this submission is drawn with a more humanoid root than is found
in the Pictorial Dictionary, but it is compatible with
depictions of mandrakes in some period herbals. There is a CD
between a mandrake and a human figure: "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.
(LoAR September 1993, pg. 12)". A visual comparison with Migel's
badge shows no overwhelming visual similarity: Migel's man is in
a long robe, has no headgear, and has a long beard.
[Cairistiona nic Bheathain, 02/2002,
A-Lochac]
[Or, a winged naked woman statant affronty wings displayed
azure crined argent] Conflict with Victoria of the Vales of
Barnsdale, Or, an insect-winged naked woman passant, wings
chased, azure. There is one CD for changing the posture of
the winged woman. There is no difference for changing the type of
the wings. The insect wings in Victoria's device are mostly Or
but have a significant amount of azure in their thick azure veins
and outlines. Over half of Victoria's winged woman is azure, and
therefore, there is no tincture difference from this submitter's
winged woman, which is almost all azure.
The device also conflicts with ... Or, a four-armed demon
azure, winged gules. There is one CD for changing the
tincture of the wings, which are half the charge. Both monsters
are in the same posture. There is no difference for changing the
type of winged humanoid: "[Saint Michael...wings displayed vs. a
fury rampant affrontee] There is... nothing for type between one
winged humanoid to another" (LoAR 4/97 p. 17). [Faílenn de
Céarsaigh, 05/2002,
R-Æthelemearc]
[A hare-headed man argent statant to sinister vested
azure] The primary charge was blazoned on the letter of
intent as a hare-headed man, and blazoned by the submitter
as a hare. The charge has a hare's feet and head but a
man's proportions. This is a style of drollery which is found in
period art, but no documentation has been presented for such a
charge in period heraldry. Most of the commentary received on
this submission indicated that it was difficult to identify the
charge. As a result, this may not be accepted without either
documentation for such a charge in heraldry, or a redrawing so
that the charge is clearly either a hare-headed man or a hare.
[Bright Hills, Barony of, 07/2002,
R-Atlantia]
[an angel statant to sinister] The angel was originally
blazoned as a seraph contourny. Seraphim in period
heraldry consist of a human head cabossed conjoined to six wings.
The top two pairs of wings are displayed and the bottom pair
crosses beneath the head. The SCA has an invented charge of a
"standing seraph", which is a standing gowned human with six
wings (the top two pairs displayed and the bottom pair crossed
over the body). Since the angel in this emblazon is a standing
human with two addorsed wings, it is a standard angel and should
be blazoned as such.
Angels are affronty by default and so contourny is not a well
defined term: the angel must be r[e]blazoned as statant
contourny. Because an angel is a humanoid monster, the term
statant is understood to mean "standing as a human does":
it is not necessary to blazon an angel as statant erect.
(And it is not period heraldic practice, nor is it respectful, to
emblazon an angel statant as an animal would be statant, down on
all fours.) [Rivenvale, Shire of, 10/2002,
R-Middle]
MONSTER --
Merfolk
There is no difference given between a merman and
a mermaid: "[a winged merman vs a winged mermaid displayed] In
each case there is... nothing for posture (which is identical) or
for the minor differences among the types of the winged humanoid
sea-monsters" (LoAR January 1996 p.22). [Catherine de
Gray, 05/2003,
R-West]
The mermaids were originally blazoned as respectant. We
understand the temptation to use the term respectant:
mermaids were often drawn in period so that they are slightly in
trian aspect and they can thus face each other to a small extent,
as these mermaids do. The LoAR of July 2001, ruling on an earlier
submission of this device, stated, "The device originally
blazoned the mermaids as respectant, but that implies that their
bodies are in profile as well. There is no way to indicate in the
blazon that the tails are symmetrical; the direction of the tail
is normally artistic license and not blazoned." We agree with the
previous ruling and have removed the term respectant from
the blazon. [James of Riverhold, 10/2003,
A-Calontir]
[a merman proper crined Or .... issuant from a base] The
merman is in his default affronty guardant posture. For mermen
and mermaids, this posture is often tilted slightly to the side
rather than fully affronty: this is a standard period way of
drawing merfolk. The hair color of the merman was not blazoned in
the Letter of Intent, but was blazoned on the submitter's form.
Since the Pictorial Dictionary notes that the hair color
of merfolk proper is usually blazoned explicitly, and the
submitter did so on the original blazon, we have done so
here.
Some commenters mentioned the fact that the merman has his tail
reflexed up in a 'u' in this emblazon. The main body of the
merman through the top of his tail (where his hips would be if he
had them) issues from the base, and the end of his tail also
issues from the base, and these two pieces of the merman are not
conjoined to each other. This is an acceptable way of drawing a
merman issuant from a base. It is analogous to the period
practice of drawing a demi-lion issuant from a line of division
so both the demi-lion and the end of the demi-lion's tail are
issuant from the line of division and are not conjoined to each
other. It is the choice of the heraldic artist to decide whether
to draw the merman in this fashion, whether to draw him so that
his body and tail end are conjoined, or to draw him without the
tail tip showing at all. [Christopher MacEveny, 01/2004,
A-An Tir]
MONSTER --
Miscellaneous
see also MONSTER --
Chimera
[winged lion vs. a lion-dragon] ... and
at least another [CD] for the difference between a winged lion
and a lion-dragon. As seen in the Pictorial Dictionary, a
lion-dragon is a demi-lion conjoined to the tail of a dragon,
much like a sea-lion is a demi-lion conjoined to the tail of a
fish. [Maredudd Angharad ferch Gwenhyfar, 01/2002,
A-Outlands]
[a Norse serpent] The Norse serpent was declared an
unregisterable charge in the LoAR of May 1998, effective in
October of that year. [Johann Gunnbjornsson, 02/2002,
A-Ansteorra][Ed.: Registered under the Hardship Clause]
[a bear rampant contourny gules] Conflict with Elfarch
Myddfai, Or, a bear legged of an eagle's legs rampant to
sinister gules. There is one CD for changing the field but no
difference for changing the type of the bear's feet. [Od
Barbarossa, 07/2002,
R-Calontir]
[a Greek sphinx rampant azure winged sable] The tips of
the sphinx's wings touched the back of the sphinx's head in this
emblazon, which impaired the identifiability of the charge at a
distance. Please advise the submitter to separate the wings and
the head of the sphinx.
Some members of the College questioned the stylization of the
wings, which were somewhat increscent-shaped. According to Metron
Ariston, this shape of wing is found on archaic Greek statues of
sphinxes, and people at the end of our period knew of these
statues. The attendees at the road show meeting generally felt
that these were identifiable as wings, as long as they were
separated from the sphinx's head. [Ariadne Leontodes,
06/2002,
A-An Tir]
[a six-headed two-legged hydra] The monster was originally
blazoned as a six-headed wyvern, but it was felt that this was a
hydra-cephalic monster and we have thus reblazoned it.
[Lisette la lavendière de Shelby, 12/2002,
A-Middle]
[an amphisbaena] Conflict with Abraham ben Aaron,
Gules, two Sassanian horned winged demi-lions statant addorsed
conjoined Or. The monster so formed is almost identical to an
amphisbaena. [Otto Helmsmid, 04/2003,
R-Middle]
Most demi-quadrupeds (including winged demi-quadrupeds, such as
demi-griffins) are erect in period armory. Erect appears
to be the default posture for such charges in the real world.
Therefore, erect should be the default posture for
demi-quadrupeds in the SCA. [Thomas von Hessen, 08/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[enfield vs. talbot] Previous precedent strongly implies
that there is difference between a wolf and an enfield (and thus,
a talbot and an enfield) as long as the forelegs of the enfield
are not obscured by other elements of the design: "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" (LoAR July
1992, pg. 17). There is thus a second CD for changing the talbots
to enfields. [Dafydd ap y Kynith, 09/2003,
A-Meridies]
[A yale rampant vert bezanty armed Or] Conflict with ....
Or, a yale rampant guardant vert bezanty armed gules.
There is one CD for fieldlessness. There is no difference for
changing the head posture of the yale, and no difference for
changing the tincture of its horns. [Sean O'Fogarty,
02/2004,
R-Atlantia]
MONSTER --
Panther
[Purpure, a panther passant guardant argent
incensed proper spotted of roundels of diverse tinctures]
This is in conflict with the badge of Sterling de Seincler,
(Fieldless) A panther courant facing dexter argent. ... As
of the LoAR of October 1999, the spots of a panther do not
contribute to its tincture. Moreover, Sterling's panther is
detailed with the outlines of spots, which increases the
resemblance. Unfortunately, this beautiful armory must be
returned. [Elspeth Colquhoun, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
[a continental panther] Continental panthers are sometimes
drawn in period with a horse or bull's head, bull horns and
cloven hind hooves. This variant of a panther appears to be a
standard artistic variant of the Continental panther. It should
not be distinguished in blazon from other forms of Continental
panther, such as the one found in the Pictorial Dictionary, which
resembles a wingless griffin.
Rosemary Pinches notes, in her edition of the European
Armorial, a.k.a. the Armorial of the Toison d'Or p. 36 (15th
C), that the panthere heraldique was represented
medievally with the head of a horse and the horns of a bull, as
well as breathing fire. That Armorial presents a panther similar
to this one, with bull horns, cloven hind hooves, and a long
face. Warnecke's Rare Book-Plates 1400-1600 gives arms
using a monster like the one submitted here on three plates, all
belonging to members of a family of Scheurl. A monster almost
identical to the one shown here is on plate 2 (Albr. Scheurl) ca.
1513, and plate 64 (Scheurl von Defersdorf, 16th C). A similar
monster (with an eagle's head and cow horns) is on plate 46 of
the same book (Christoph Scheurl, 16th C). Rietstap blazons the
monster in the arms of Scheurl von Defersdorf as a panther, which
is another indication that the charge used by the Scheurl family
is meant to represent a panther rather than some other sort of
monster. [Massaria da Cortona, 11/2001,
A-Lochac]
There is no difference for adding spots to a panther: "The spots
of panther are part of its tincture, so there is only a CD for [a
different change to the armory]" (LoAR of October 1999).
[Grecia de Caunteton, 04/2002,
R-Middle]
[a lion vs. a continental panther] There is one CD, but
not substantial difference, between a heraldic (as opposed to
natural) panther and a lion, just as there is only one CD between
a heraldic tyger and a lion per RfS X.4.e. [Jane Atwell,
02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[a cat rampant guardant] This device does not conflict
with ... Per chevron sable and azure, an English panther
rampant reguardant argent pellety incensed Or, an orle
argent. ... Precedent indicates that there is a CD between a
panther and a lion, so there should also be a CD between a
panther and a cat: "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]" (LoAR March
1993). [Catte MacGuffee, 03/2003,
A-Meridies]
[a panther sejant head to dexter argent] Table 3 of the
Glossary of Terms indicates that the panther (which is to say,
the default "English-style" heraldic panther) is guardant by
default. As a result we must explicitly state that this panther
has its head to dexter. Note that the Continental panther does
not have an SCA default posture.
Please note that the discussions of the panther's default posture
in the Pictorial Dictionary in the SCA have been
superceded by the listing in the Glossary, which has been
available for some years. [Katerina McGilledoroughe,
08/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
This charge was originally blazoned as a panther, but it
is neither a heraldic panther (as it lacks the appropriate
incensing) nor a natural panther (as it has the elaborately
tufted tail and legs of a heraldic lion, which would never be
found on a natural panther). It is an appropriately stylized lion
for much of the heraldry in the last two centuries of our period.
While it has either a minimal or nonexistent mane, this lack of
mane is common with heraldic lions in our period. [Racheel
Dominique de Brienne, 03/2004,
A-Middle]
MONSTER --
Pegasus
Reblazon to: Sable, a pegasus with eagle's
foreclaws rampant to sinister Or. His previous blazon was
Sable, a hippogriff rampant to sinister Or. An inspection
of the form showed that this was not a hippogriff (a griffin with
the hindquarters of a horse) but a variant of a pegasus.
[Iriel of Branoch, 10/2001,
A-Middle]
... there is a CD ... (possibly RfS X.2 difference) between a
griffin and a pegasus with eagle's foreclaws. [Alana
Griffin, 10/2001,
R-Æthelmearc]
[a pegasus salient] Ginevra's pegasus was originally
blazoned with its wings elevated and addorsed. This is the
default for a salient winged quadruped and may thus be omitted
from the blazon. [Ginevra da Ravenna, 01/2002,
A-West]
[a pegasus salient vs. a unicornate pegasus salient wings
displayed] There is a second CD for changing the posture.
While there is no difference between rampant and salient, there
is a CD between a creature with its wings displayed and one with
its wings addorsed. [Philip Cloonagh, 07/2002,
A-Trimaris]
[a pegasus passant reguardant contourny] Please advise the
submitter to draw the pegasus so that the head does not overlap
the wing. [Geneviève Ravencrest, 02/2003,
Æthelmearc]
MONSTER --
Phoenix
[(Fieldless) A phoenix rising from an estoile
of eight rays Or] Conflict with ... Per chevron argent and
vert, in base a phoenix Or. There's one CD for the change to
the field but nothing for position on the field versus a
fieldless badge. The phoenix rising from an estoile of eight rays
is too visually similar to a phoenix to be given difference from
a phoenix. The rays of the estoile are much like the tongues of
flame, albeit with one or two tongues of flame defying the laws
of gravity.
Similarly, this conflicts with ... Gyronny sable and gules, a
phoenix Or, issuant from flames proper. There is one CD for
the field, but nothing for the change of one-fourth of the
tincture of the charge (the half of the flame that is gules).
The few errant downwards tongues of flame which cause a flame to
be shaped like an estoile would not be surprising in a period
depiction of an animal or object enflamed. For a late period
example, there is the collar of the Order of the Holy Spirit
(France). This order was founded in 1578. The collar contains
plaques which include a gold fleur-de-lis issuing flames gules.
The funeral effigy of Marshal Alphonse d'Omano, c. 1610, shows
him wearing the early (pre-1595) collar, and each fleur-de-lys is
shown issuing four flames, which are radially disposed
saltirewise, which is to say, the bases of the flames are
inwards, so the bottommost flames have the rays extending
downwards and outwards. Similarly, in a drawing showing the
collar of the Holy Spirit under Henri III (at the order's
founding), the fleurs-de-lys are also shown with four flames
radially disposed saltirewise. Hervé Pinoteau describes these
plaques as "fleurs de lis d'or ornées de flames rouges", showing
that the direction of the flames was not explicitly blazoned. As
with most such chivalric and livery collars, the items used to
make up the collar are generally compatible with contemporary
period heraldic art style and are frequently heraldic charges.
[Eiríkr Mjoksiglandi Sigurðarson and Astridr Selr
Leifsdóttir, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
[a Russian firebird displayed head to sinister and a flame
issuant from base gules] Note that the flames beneath the
Russian firebird are not part of the charge's definition and need
to be explicitly blazoned. [James Standish, 03/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[an eagle enflamed] The bird was originally blazoned as a
firebird, which is an SCA-defined charge representing a
folk art design. The SCA firebird resembles a peacock. This
charge is an eagle enflamed (surrounded with small tufts of
flame). We have reblazoned it accordingly.
Conflict ... no difference ... for removing the small tufts of
flame. [Piera da Ferrara, 04/2003,
R-Atlantia]
MONSTER --
Pithon
[a legless wyvern] The primary charge in the
device was originally blazoned as a pithon. A
pithon is a bat-winged snake. This creature has a thicker
body and is proportioned like a legless wyvern, so we have thus
reblazoned it. [Axel Haroldsøn, 08/2002,
A-Calontir]
[a winged serpent displayed vs. a python wings displayed]
There is no difference given between bird-winged and bat-winged
serpents: "[a winged serpent vs a bat-winged tree python] The
change to the type of wings is too slight to count for the
necessary second [CD]." [i.e. there is not a significant
difference between a bird-winged and a bat-winged creature] (LoAR
January 1995 p. 14). In considering this ruling, it is worth
remembering the fact that the wyvern, a closely related monster,
was often drawn with bird wings in early heraldic art. [Volker
Ælfwine, 04/2003,
R-Outlands]
[a pithon displayed head to chief] The tertiary charge was
originally blazoned as a dragon migrant to chief. However,
the charge has no visible legs so clearly cannot be a dragon. We
have reblazoned it to a pithon as this more closely resembles a
bat-winged snake than a dragon. However, the College felt
strongly that the charge was not identifiable as drawn. The wings
are clearly drawn but the body and head of the pithon are too
small and slight to clearly identify. [Cassandra Catharne,
05/2003,
R-An Tir]
[a pithon] This was originally blazoned as a
sea-python. Firstly, the bat-winged snake monster found in
this submission is blazoned as a pithon, and the
natural snake is blazoned as a python. Secondly,
this charge does not have a fish's tail, as one would expect from
a sea-pithon. The small detail at the end of the tail is not
large enough to require reblazoning this as a sea-pithon.
[Setembrina Bramante, 01/2004,
A-Northshield]
MONSTER --
Sea
The question of difference between a sea-lion and a
sea-tyger is a difficult one. In the case of this submission, one
CD is needed to clear conflict with any of the armory cited by
the College. Rule X.4.e states in part that
Types of charges considered to be separate in period, for
example a lion and an heraldic tyger, will be considered
different. A charge not used in period armory will be
considered different in type if its shape in normal depiction
is significantly different.
Neither the commentary nor any research by the
armory sovereign's staff provided a real-world example of a
sea-tyger, so it is difficult to discuss period difference
between these charges.
Without evidence that the sea-tyger existed in period, and was
given difference from a sea-lion in period, it does not appear
appropriate to grant difference between these charges on purely
visual grounds. [Mora of Lincolnshire and Robert of
Caithness, 08/2001,
R-An Tir]
[a sea-tyger erect] Sea monsters erect may be drawn
correctly with their tails embowed like the bottom half of a fish
haurient, as here. [Mora of Lincolnshire and Robert of
Caithness, 08/2001,
R-An Tir]
This is drawn as a unicornate seahorse, not as a sea-unicorn.
Unicornate seahorses were ruled unregisterable in the LoAR of
August 1998 (Osandrea Elspeth Gabrielle de le Bete, Artemisia
returns). [Dyfwn Wen Ysginydd, 09/2001,
R-Middle]
[a natural seahorse Or] Conflict with a badge of the
Kingdom of Atlantia, (Fieldless) A unicornate natural seahorse
Or. There is one CD for the fieldlessness, but nothing for
removing the horn from the Atlantian seahorse. [Sea March,
Shire of, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[a winged sea-unicorn] The monster in this emblazon is a
winged sea-unicorn: It has a unicorn's beard and cloven hooves.
The Shire's device is blazoned using unicornate sea-pegasi, and
the monsters are clearly depicted in that fashion (with horse's
hooves and no beards). Because the badge and the device depict
different monsters, they may not be blazoned identically.
[Trinovantia Nova, Shire of, 12/2002,
A-Ealdomere]
Because of the fishtail flukes at the end of the serpent's tail,
and because their device already uses the blazon term
sea-serpent, we have registered the charge as a
sea-serpent rather than a serpent as submitted.
Note that period serpents may be smooth-skinned, like a snake, or
may show dorsal spines or ridges, as with this creature. [Loch
Solleir, Barony of, 01/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
The sea-tyger's heads are drawn as tyger's heads with a fish fin
down the back of the neck. These are very similar to dragon's
heads, but it seems reasonable to maintain the distinction in
blazon. [Amalia Künne, 01/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[a sea serpent erect] Please advise the submitters to draw
the serpent erect correctly. Its tail should be to base, rather
than twisting upwards and overlapping the serpent's body. The
current rendition obscures the identifiability of the serpent's
posture, although it does not obscure it so much that it may not
be registered. [Krakafjord, Shire of, 04/2003,
A-An Tir]
... no type difference between a sea-wolf and a fish-tailed
demi-dog The two charges are effectively identical ... [Mists,
Principality of, 06/2003,
R-West]
[a baby sea-loat] The sea-loat is an SCA-invented monster.
The baby sea-loat resembles a six-legged calf with finned ears, a
finned paddle-like tail, and very small horns on its nose.
[Morgan of Aberystwyth, 09/2003,
A-An Tir]
... there is no difference for changing the type of the primary
charge from a baby sea-loat to a sea-dog. A baby
sea-loat is an SCA-invented monster that resembles a six-legged
calf with finned ears, a finned paddle-like tail, and very small
horns on its nose. Because a baby sea-loat is not a period
charge, its type difference from a period charge must be
determined on solely visual grounds, which are insufficient to
give a CD from a sea-dog. Remember that a sea-dog is not a
fish-tailed demi-dog, as one might expect given the formation of
most sea-monsters: a sea-lion, for example, is a fish-tailed
demi-lion. A sea-dog is a quadrupedal monster, like a scaly dog
with webbed feet and a paddle-like tail. [James Erik of
York, 09/2003,
A-Ealdormere]
[wolves vs. seawolves] There is a ... CD for changing the
type of secondary charges. Most (albeit not all) "sea-beast"
monsters are constructed as fish-tailed demi-beasts (the top half
of the beast conjoined to a fish's tail). A sea-wolf follows this
general practice: it is a fish-tailed demi-wolf, just as a a
sea-griffin is a fish tailed demi-griffin. As a general rule,
there is a CD between a quadruped (or quadrupedal monster) and a
fish-tailed demi-quadruped. While there are not many explicit
precedents on this topic, one such precedent is found in the LoAR
of January 1992, p. 6: "There is a CD... for the difference
between a sea-griffin and a griffin." [Daniel of Whitby,
11/2003,
A-Ealdormere]
[a pithon] This was originally blazoned as a
sea-python. Firstly, the bat-winged snake monster found in
this submission is blazoned as a pithon, and the
natural snake is blazoned as a python. Secondly,
this charge does not have a fish's tail, as one would expect from
a sea-pithon. The small detail at the end of the tail is not
large enough to require reblazoning this as a sea-pithon.
[Setembrina Bramante, 01/2004,
A-Northshield]
[a beaver vs. a sea-dog] ... and a second CD for the type
difference between a sea-dog and a beaver.
One commenter asserted that the sea-dog is "the heraldic
depiction of a natural beaver", and went on to reason that, as a
result, no difference should be given between a sea-dog and a
beaver. No references or documentation were provided to support
this assertion. Two questions are begged by this unsupported
assertion:
-
What natural animal (if any) is the origin of the
sea-dog?
-
If the sea-dog originates from some natural animal, should
we give difference between the sea-dog and the heraldic
version of that originating animal? (and in any case, should
we give difference between a sea-dog and a beaver?)
As for the first question, the only source we found saying
that the beaver is the origin of the sea-dog is Fox-Davies' A
Complete Guide to Heraldry, where the sea-dog is discussed
with the other dogs in the chapter titled "Beasts". Parker's A
Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry mentions a conjecture that
the crocodile is the origin of the sea-dog. However, it seems
generally agreed that the most likely origin of the sea-dog is
the otter (as stated in Parker's A Glossary of Terms Used in
Heraldry, Woodward's A Treatise on Heraldry British and
Foreign, and Moule's The Heraldry of Fish).
As for the second question, RfS X.4.e gives clear criteria for
when we should, and should not, give difference between two
charges. That rule states "Types of charges considered to be
separate in period, for example a lion and an heraldic tyger,
will be considered different."
In comparing the sea-dog with the most likely animal of origin,
the otter, Woodward states explicitly that "The otter may be the
original of the heraldic creature known as the sea-dog, but it is
quite clear that, as represented, the latter finds a fitting
place among armorial monsters. The otter, of whose use in armory
The Heraldry of Fish contains a sufficient number of
instances both as a charge and as a supporter, is usually drawn
proper, and is thus very unlike the heraldic sea-dog." By
"drawn proper" it is clear in context that Woodward means "drawn
naturalistically" rather than "in its proper tincture": The
Heraldry of Fish, pp. 147-149, provides a sizeable discussion
of armory using otters, none of which are tinctured
proper, but which are illustrated using naturalistic
otters.
Visually, the sea-dog is quite distinct in period heraldry from
period heraldic otters and from period heraldic beavers. The
sea-dog is drawn like a talbot with prominent scales and fins. It
often has a paddle-shaped tail, but not always: the sea-hounds
dated to 1547 on p. 155 of Dennys' The Heraldic
Imagination do not have paddle-shaped tails. The sea-dog's
prominent fins often extend to the head of the creature as in the
crest circa 1528 for Thomson on the bottom row of figure 13 of
Woodcock and Robinson's The Oxford Guide to Heraldry,
stated in the index to be a sea-dog.
By contrast, the heraldic otter is drawn as a smooth-furred
animal with the shape of an ermine, except with a wider tail, as
can be seen in the various arms of Meldrum (a good example is in
the 15th C Armorial de Berry). The otter's head is a
particularly popular charge in period Scottish heraldry, and is
very different from the finned talbot-like head of a sea-dog: the
heraldic otter's head has a pointed weasel-like face and small
erect round ears, rather than the blunt muzzle, large floppy
ears, and finny details of a sea-dog's head.
The heraldic beaver is drawn with a stocky, smooth-furred (not
finned or scaled) body, a wide (usually, but not always,
paddle-like) tail, and small or nonexistent ears. It is sometimes
contorted into an unspeakable posture based on the medieval view
of this animal's habits, as noted in Dennys' The Heraldic
Imagination, p. 151. As an example of a beaver in a standard
heraldic posture, see the family of Biber, Or, a beaver
rampant sable, in the 14th C Zuricher Wappenrolle
(http://ladyivanor.knownworldweb.com/zroadt2r.htm). Some heraldic
beavers did not resemble naturalistic beavers but did maintain
the smooth-furred body, wide tail, and small (or nonexistent)
ears of the beaver. Note, for example, the arms of the town of
Biberach from 1483 (redrawn in Fox-Davies' A Complete Guide to
Heraldry from the Concilum von Constanz), also in the
chapter on "Beasts". Note also the arms of the same town on f.
219 of Siebmacher from 1605, which depict a less stocky beaver
than the other examples, but which still cannot be visually
confused with a sea-dog.
The evidence above appears to strongly indicate that a sea-dog
and a beaver were considered distinct charges in period and
should be given a CD for type difference under RfS X.4.e.
We do note that Fox-Davies, in his discussion of the sea-dog,
states that "There has been considerable uncertainty as to what
the sinister supporter [of the city of Oxford] was intended to
represent. A reference to the original record shows that a beaver
is the real supporter, but the representation of the animal,
which in form has varied little, is very similar to that of a
sea-dog." Certainly the sinister supporter of the city of Oxford
in the emblazon used in Fox-Davies' time does not closely
resemble a sea-dog, although it does resemble Siebmacher's
beaver. A depiction of the emblazon used in Fox-Davies' time
(roughly 100 years ago) is depicted at
http://www.oxfordbusiness.info/civic/old_oxford/town_hall.htm,
which site states that the charge is indeed intended to depict a
beaver. It is not clear what emblazons Fox-Davies is using to
support his assertion that the depictions of the sea-dog and the
beaver are "very similar": it is entirely possible that any "very
similar" emblazons are found after 1600. Given the other evidence
above, we do not feel that Fox-Davies' assertion contravenes the
demonstrated general pattern by which sea-dogs were drawn
distinctly from beavers before 1600. [Elia Stefansdottir,
01/2004,
A-Outlands]
[Per fess argent and vert ermined argent, a sea-serpent
ondoyant and issuant from the line of division azure] A
number of commenters expressed concerns about the posture of the
serpent. They cited a precedent concerning a sea-serpent ondoyant
emergent, an SCA invention which is described in the Pictorial
Dictionary under Sea-Serpent:
[Per fess azure and Or, three flanged maces palewise in fess
argent and a sea-serpent emergent ondoyant to sinister
vert.] While there is perhaps a precedent for the
peculiarly fragmented partial sea-serpent in Caid in the
armoury of the Barony of Calafia, this is an old one. The
serpent emerging from thin air does not seem to be a period
charge and the effect here is to have three charges in fess in
chief with another three non-identical fragments in base [the
three separated pieces of the sea-serpent] (LoAR of June 1990).
We believe that the stylistic problem with
ondoyant emergent serpents is that they incorporate two
steps from period style (also known colloquially as "two
weirdnesses"). The serpent is broken into "non-identical
fragments" (one step from period style) that are disassociated
from each other because they are "emerging from thin air" (the
second step from period style). Armory incorporating two steps
from period style is not registerable.
A serpent ondoyant and issuant from a [line of division],
however, is only one step from period style (colloquially, "one
weirdness"). Period armory is replete with animals issuant from
lines of division or from charges. In some of these cases, there
is even a small degree of fragmentation of the charge: the tail
of a demi-lion issuant from a line of division may sometimes be
separated from the rest of the demi-lion. The fact that a
serpent ondoyant and issuant from [a line of division] is
broken into three or more "non-identical fragments" when it
emerges from the line of division is still one step from period
style. However, these fragments are associated with each other by
the line of division from which they all issue, so this design
does not have the second step from period style, that of
disassociation by "emerging from thin air." Armory with only one
step from period style may be registered. [Isabel
McThomas, 01/2004,
A-West]
[fish-tailed demi-dogs] The monsters were originally
blazoned as sea-dogs. The period sea-dog is a quadrupedal
monster. It does not follow the usual period method of forming
sea-monsters from beasts (as is done with sea-lions or
sea-horses), which is to conjoin a demi-beast with a fish's tail.
In order to re-create this emblazon, we have blazoned the
monsters in this submission as fish-tailed demi-dogs.
[Humfrey Matthew Lovett, 03/2004,
A-Atlantia]
MONSTER --
Winged
[winged boars vs. boars] There is one CD for
the number of boars and another for removing the wings:
[A winged wolf] Conflict with ... a wolf ... there is only one
CVD for adding the wings. (LoAR October 1991 p.16).
[Ruaidhri ua Ceallaigh, 09/2001,
A-Calontir]
[a bat-winged tyger sejant affronty head to dexter] This
tyger's identity is completely lost due to the uncommon posture
of the tyger, the particular rendition with the head obscured by
the wing, and the uncommon bat-winged charge variant. This
appears to be a dragon under any but the closest scrutiny. The
identifying nose tusk of the tyger is laid against the
no-contrast wing, the ears of the tyger are much like a dragon's,
and any other details of the body are obscured by the sejant
affronty position. This must be returned for unidentifiability.
In a different posture, with all the body parts clearly visible,
the bat-winged tyger should be identifiable. [Angus
Sturmisbroke, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
[two winged stags vs. two winged unicorns] ... at least
another CD for changing the type of charge from winged unicorn to
winged stag. [Sibéal inghean uú Ruairc, 01/2002,
A-Ansteora]
[winged lion vs. a lion-dragon] ... and at least another
[CD] for the difference between a winged lion and a lion-dragon.
As seen in the Pictorial Dictionary, a lion-dragon is a
demi-lion conjoined to the tail of a dragon, much like a sea-lion
is a demi-lion conjoined to the tail of a fish. [Maredudd
Angharad ferch Gwenhyfar, 01/2002,
A-Outlands]
[two winged lions statant respectant] The lions need to be
redrawn. They have small stub tails rather than the heraldic
lion's distinctive long tufted tail, and their necks are
disproportionately long. Most of the viewers at the Wreath
meeting originally thought the charges were some sort of long
necked herbivore, such as a llama. The wings are much smaller
than the usual wings added to a winged quadruped, which should be
roughly one-third to one-half the size of the charge. Winged
charges generally show some space between the wing and the neck
of the animal, which is not present in this emblazon. When the
wings are conjoined to the neck, it confuses the outline of the
charge and thus further diminishes the charge's identifiability.
[Elisabetta Malipiero, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[Or, a winged naked woman statant affronty wings displayed
azure crined argent] Conflict with Victoria of the Vales of
Barnsdale, Or, an insect-winged naked woman passant, wings
chased, azure. There is one CD for changing the posture of
the winged woman. There is no difference for changing the type of
the wings. The insect wings in Victoria's device are mostly Or
but have a significant amount of azure in their thick azure veins
and outlines. Over half of Victoria's winged woman is azure, and
therefore, there is no tincture difference from this submitter's
winged woman, which is almost all azure.
The device also conflicts with ... Or, a four-armed demon
azure, winged gules. There is one CD for changing the
tincture of the wings, which are half the charge. Both monsters
are in the same posture. There is no difference for changing the
type of winged humanoid: "[Saint Michael...wings displayed vs. a
fury rampant affrontee] There is... nothing for type between one
winged humanoid to another" (LoAR 4/97 p. 17). [Faílenn de
Céarsaigh, 05/2002,
R-Æthelemearc]
Winged quadrupeds have their wings addorsed by default, so this
detail need not be specified in the blazon. [Andreu
Recheles, 09/2002,
A-An Tir]
[a winged sea-unicorn] The monster in this emblazon is a
winged sea-unicorn: It has a unicorn's beard and cloven hooves.
The Shire's device is blazoned using unicornate sea-pegasi, and
the monsters are clearly depicted in that fashion (with horse's
hooves and no beards). Because the badge and the device depict
different monsters, they may not be blazoned identically.
[Trinovantia Nova, Shire of, 12/2002,
A-Ealdomere]
[a bear vs. a winged bear] There is one CD for removing
the wings ... [Wilhelm Bär, 02/2003,
R-Calontir]
[an amphisbaena] Conflict with Abraham ben Aaron,
Gules, two Sassanian horned winged demi-lions statant addorsed
conjoined Or. The monster so formed is almost identical to an
amphisbaena. [Otto Helmsmid, 04/2003,
R-Middle]
Most demi-quadrupeds (including winged demi-quadrupeds, such as
demi-griffins) are erect in period armory. Erect appears
to be the default posture for such charges in the real world.
Therefore, erect should be the default posture for
demi-quadrupeds in the SCA. [Thomas von Hessen, 08/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a dragon couchant] The dragon was originally blazoned
with its wings elevated and inverted, which is a
contradiction in terms. The wings are addorsed, which is
the default for a winged quadruped couchant. In the past, we have
sometimes blazoned wings as either elevated (wingtips to
chief) or inverted (wingtips to base), but the distinction
between elevated and inverted is not a period heraldic difference
but a mere artistic choice. This is most apparent in displayed
eagles, as noted in the LoAR of August 2001, "An examination of
the development of the various heraldic eagles shows that the
direction of the wingtips of a displayed eagle is entirely a
matter of artistic license. To avoid incorrectly limiting the
submitter's ability to display the arms in reasonable period
variants, we will no longer specify 'elevated' and 'inverted'
when blazoning displayed birds."
The winged quadrupedal monsters, such as griffins and dragons,
appear to follow the same pattern as birds. We therefore will not
distinguish elevated and inverted wingtips when
posturing those monsters. [Kateline Conteville, 01/2004,
A-East]
[Per pale Or and gules, two dragons combattant
counterchanged] This is clear under RfS X.2 from both ...
Per pale Or and gules, two winged stags combattant
counterchanged and ... Per pale Or and Gules, two
hippogriffs combatant counterchanged. Per the LoAR of July
2001, "There is a substantial difference between a dragon and a
griffin." Dragons are at least as different from winged stags and
hippogriffs as they are from griffins. [Murienne Duquette,
01/2004,
A-East]
MOUNT and MOUNTAIN
see also DOCUMENTED
EXCEPTION for discussions on Azure, ... a mount (or
trimount) vert.
[Argent, a tierce gules] This
device is in conflict with ... Argent, a mountain of three
peaks issuant from base gules. The SCA currently considers a
mountain to be a variant of a mount, which is a peripheral
ordinary, as per the following precedents:
Mountains, as variants of mounts, should be emblazoned to
occupy no more than the lower portion of the field. (Barony of
Blackstone Mountain, September, 1993, pg. 10)
[a wolf statant gules atop a mount vert] The wolf appears to be
neither on nor atop the mount; a blazon which more accurately
reproduces the emblazon is Argent, a mount vert, overall a wolf
statant gules. However, we do not register charges that overlap
peripheral ordinaries. [Bastian Wolfhart, 11/99, R-Middle]
A tierce is also a peripheral ordinary. Rule X.2
does not apply between these devices, as neither device has a
primary charge. Therefore, there is only one CD for difference of
type of charge group on the field. We encourage the College to
research whether, under some circumstances, mountains and mounts
may be considered a primary charge in their own right. After all,
unlike a bordure, chief or base, a mount and its variants may be
couped and centrally placed on the field. [Charles le
Grey, 09/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
[a mountain Or] Conflict with Morna ó Monadh, Purpure a
mount of three hillocks Or. There is one CD for the field.
Morna's mount is drawn as a mountain of three peaks, and so there
is no other difference. [Jesmond Ravenlea, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[a mountain vs. a point pointed] This mountain is drawn
with some rough spots to its outline, but its outline is too
similar to that of a point pointed to grant difference.
[Calista Cristi, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
"Mountains, as variants of mounts, should be emblazoned to occupy
no more than the lower portion of the field" (LoAR September,
1993, pg. 10). [Leonora of the Willows, 10/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a triple-peaked mountain issuant from base] We note that
a mountain is issuant from base by default but are keeping
the submitters' requested blazon of issuant from base, which
matches their previous badge's blazon. [Mountain
Confederation, 02/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Or, two bears statant respectant gules and a mountain
sable] This is not in conflict with ... Or, two arrows
fesswise gules and a mountain sable. The mountain functions
as a peripheral charge in these pieces of armory. Therefore,
these are clear by RfS X.2 for substantially changing the type of
the primary group from arrows to bears. [Krag MacYntier,
04/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[Argent, a mountain of three peaks vert enflamed at the peaks
gules] This also conflicts with the badge of the Barony of
Ered Sûl, Azure, a mountain of three peaks, issuant from base
vert, fimbriated and snow-capped argent. There is one CD for
changing the field, nothing for fimbriating the mountains,
nothing for the small tincture change in removing the "snow caps"
and nothing for the effectively maintained flames.
Please advise the submitter that a heraldic mountain is
considered a peripheral charge by the SCA, and these mountains
should therefore be lower on the field. [Angus Redberd,
09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
MULLET
see also COMPASS STAR and
SUN
Some commenters questioned the internal detail lines
on these mullets of eight points, which make them each look like
a mullet of four point saltirewise surmounted by a mullet of four
points. This is an acceptable artistic variant of a mullet of
eight points. [Colin de Vire, 09/2001,
A-Calontir]
[a mullet of six greater and six lesser points] This
mullet is too far from period practice to be acceptable. A
compass star is a variant mullet of eight points, and a mullet of
eight points is a standard period charge. This would by analogy
be a variant of a mullet of twelve points, which is not a
standard period charge. This is analogous to the following
precedent:
The compass star is not just of sixteen points, but of
four greater, four lesser, and eight even lesser points.
Basically, it is a variant of a non-period charge, the compass
star. Variants of non-period charges have been disallowed
before, as being not one but two steps from period practice.
The submitter's argument that a Maltese star cross is but
one step from a recognized period charge, a Maltese cross, is
interesting but not particularly compelling. The fact remains
that six armed crosses are not a period charge. (Da'ud ibn
Auda, LoAR December 1993, p.10) Neither are compass
stars of sixteen points. If the compass star was redrawn as
a sun or a standard mullet, that would take care of the
problem. (Jaelle of Armida, LoAR January 1999, p. 14)
[Chrysantha d'Argento, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[(Tinctureless) A mullet of four points distilling a
goutte] Because a tinctureless badge may be depicted in any
tincture or combination of tinctures on any tincture or
combination of tinctures, this badge occupies a large area of
heraldic space and has a correspondingly large potential for
conflict. After confirming that Eleanor Leonard continues to
stand by her letter, we are accepting her blanket letter of
permission. ... Therefore, there is permission to conflict for
any armory with a primary charge that is not solidly one of the
seven major tinctures (argent, Or, azure, gules, purpure, sable,
and vert). As well, there is permission to conflict for any
fielded armory (not fieldless) where the field is not solidly one
of those seven major tincture. In other words: for permission to
conflict, the primary charge and/or the field must use a divided
tincture, a field treatment, or a fur. [01/2002,
CL]
There is another CD for changing the type of mullet from a mullet
of eight points to a mullet of five points. The rules for change
of type of mullets follow the rules for change of number of
charges. Mullets of n points will get a CD from mullets of
m points if RfS X.4.f gives a CD for changing the number
of charges from n to m. [Kouac Myklos,
02/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[(Fieldless) On a mullet of five greater and five lesser
points Or a griffin passant contourny sable] "There's ...no
difference between suns and multi-pointed mullets --- which
includes compass stars" (LoAR June 1993 p.18). Therefore this
badge has multiple conflicts. In each case, there is one CD for
fieldlessness. In all the cases, there is nothing for change of
type only of tertiary charge on a sun or multipointed mullet, as
this shape is not simple for purposes of RfS X.4.j.ii. [Burke
Kyriell MacDonald, 02/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[a sun vs. a mullet of seven points] By current precedent
there is not a CD between a multi-pointed mullet and sun...
[Máire MacPharthláin, 02/2002,
R-Calontir]
We give no type difference for the change between mullets of
eight points and compass stars. [Rixa Eriksdottir,
05/2002,
R-Meridies]
... there is no difference between mullets of five points and
mullets of six points. There is a wealth of period evidence
showing that mullets may be drawn either with five or six points
as artist's license, with Continental armorists showing a
preference for six-pointed mullets and British artists showing a
preference for five-pointed mullets. The general SCA practices
for difference of mullets of various numbers of points have been
unchanged for some years but were summarized in the February 2002
LoAR: "The rules for change of type of mullets follow the rules
for change of number of charges. Mullets of n points will
get a CD from mullets of m points if RfS X.4.f gives a CD
for changing the number of charges from n to m."
RfS X.4.f does not give difference between groups of five charges
and six charges, and therefore our general SCA practice for
determining difference between these types of mullets
conveniently matches the period practice. [Brian
macSeyfang, 06/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Argent mullety azure ...] The strewn mullets need to be
redrawn. Strewn charges need to be distributed evenly over the
field. While the strewing need not be done with geometrical
precision, the overall effect should be an even strewing of
mullets. Here, due to the small size of the mullets in
combination with their uneven placement, the mullets appear to be
an attempt to represent some particular constellation of stars.
This is reason for return, as noted in past precedent: "[The
submittor] must draw the upper portion of the field properly as
mulletty, i.e., more evenly distributed. As drawn now, the design
looks more like an attempt to depict a constellation ... which is
not permitted as a charge in Society heraldry." (LoAR 28 December
1986, p.9). [Dáire de Haya, 09/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[Counter-ermine, three estoiles Or] This does not conflict
with the Counts of Celje (important non-SCA arms), Azure,
three mullets of six points Or. There is one CD for changing
the field. The SCA has consistently held, since the Cover Letter
for the June 1991 LoAR, that mullets should be given a CD from
estoiles (in the estoile's standard depiction, with six wavy
rays). [Giovanni Basilio de Castronovo, 10/2002,
A-Lochac]
Mullets of five (straight) points and estoiles of six (wavy) rays
are both standard period charges, and the SCA gives a CD between
them, but an estoile of five (wavy) rays is not a period charge.
Per RfS X.4.e, armorial difference involving a non-period charge
must be determined based on whether "its shape in normal
depiction is significantly different" from the charge with which
it is being compared. Because the rays of estoiles are often
drawn with very shallow waves, it does not seem appropriate to
give a CD on purely visual grounds between a mullet of five
points and an estoile of five rays. [Ygraine de Bracy,
09/2002,
R-Atlantia]
The submitter may be interested to know that in Iberian armory,
mullets of six and eight points are found almost exclusively.
[Miguel Estevan de Cabra, 11/2002,
A-Atlantia]
There is no difference for the small artistic change between a
mullet dismembered and a mullet. Note that precedent does not
give difference between a compass star and a riven star, showing
a case where similar (although not identical) breaks in a star
are not worth difference: "...nor is there a CD between a compass
star and a riven star" (LoAR April 2001). [Margyt
Withycombe, 11/2002,
R-Middle]
[(Fieldless) A mullet of five greater and five lesser points
within and conjoined to an annulet argent] Conflict with ...
Azure, a compass rose argent. There's one CD for
fieldlessness. Precedent holds that a compass star within an
annulet has no difference from a compass rose: "There is no
difference given between a compass rose and a compass star within
an annulet" (LoAR June 2000). No difference is given between
mullets of six or more points, so this submission's mullet of
five greater and five lesser points within an annulet is
heraldically equivalent to a compass star within an annulet.
[Hans Dürrmast von der Wanderlust, 12/2002,
R-An Tir]
There is no type difference between mullets of five and six
points. [Atenveldt, Kingdom of, 12/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
There is one CD for the difference between a sun and a demi-sun,
but there is not substantial difference for purposes of RfS X.2.
In addition, there are a number of other conflicting pieces of
armory consisting solely of a demi-compass star or demi-mullet of
eight or more points on a field. Demi-mullets of many points are
not given type difference from a demi-sun, and the submitter
should be careful to avoid these conflicts on resubmission.
[Atenveldt, Kingdom of, 12/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
There is no difference between a sun and a mullet of eight
points... [Nimenefeld, Canton of, 01/2003,
R-Atlantia]
Some members of the College of Arms asked if it was acceptable to
have a the mullet and the sun in the same charge group, or
whether this was a "sword and dagger" problem. A mullet of five
points is a heraldically distinct charge from a sun. The two are
not possible artistic variants of each other (unlike a sword and
a dagger, or a dragon and a wyvern). As a result, there is no
problem having a charge group which incorporates both a sun and a
mullet of five points. [Elinor Larke le Dauncer, 04/2003,
R-Middle]
[a mullet of four points elongated to base vs. a compass
star] There is no difference between a mullet of four points
and a compass star per the LoAR of January 2001: "As neither a
compass star nor a mullet of four points are period charges, and
they differ only by the addition of the lesser points, there is
not a CD between a mullet of four points and a compass star."
There is also no difference for the slight artistic variant in
elongating the bottom point of a mullet. [Catherine Diana de
Chambéry, 05/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
A possible conflict was called with the trademark of Maersk
Shipping, described by the commenter calling the conflict as
Bleu-celeste a mullet of seven points argent. In searching
the U.S. Patent and Trademark database under "Maersk" (at
http://www.uspto.gov/), it is not entirely clear whether the
argent mullet (on some field) is trademarked on its own, or only
when the artwork is in conjunction with the name of the firm. If
the argent seven-pointed mullet on a blue field is indeed
protected on its own (without the name of the firm), there will
be a conflict, with one CD for changing the field, no difference
for the change between a seven- and eight-pointed mullet, and no
difference (as with the Barony of Rivenstar) for moving the
mullet on the field because the change in location is forced.
[Starkhafn, Barony of, 06/2003,
R-Caid] [Ed.: Returned for conflict with Rivenstar]
[(Fieldless) A mullet of eight points gyronny purpure and
argent] This does not conflict with ... Ermine, a mullet
of four points gyronny argent and purpure. There is one CD
for fieldlessness. There is a second CD between a mullet of eight
points and a mullet of four points. Note that this is a different
case from the comparison of a compass star with a mullet of four
points. Because of the unusual, and non-period, design of the
compass star, with its four greater and four lesser points, a
compass star conflicts both with a mullet of four points and with
a mullet of eight points. [Alia Marie de Blois, 07/2003,
A-Outlands]
There is no type difference between the compass stars and the
mullets of six points. Because of the unusual (and non-period)
design of compass stars, with their four greater and four lesser
points, they are considered as variants of both mullets of four
points and mullets of eight points. There is no type difference
between mullets of six points and mullets of eight points and,
hence, no difference between mullets of six points and compass
stars. [Brian Sigfridsson von Niedersachsen, 07/2003,R-Atenveldt]
[Purpure, a bend sinister argent, overall three mullets of six
points voided in bend sinister and interlaced Or] This
submission must be returned for reasons of identifiability. RfS
VIII.3 states "Identifiable elements may be rendered
unidentifiable by ... marginal contrast, ... voiding, ... or by
being obscured by other elements of the design." In this device,
the interlacing of the voided mullets obscures the
identifiability of each individual mullet by obscuring the shape
of its outline. The ability to visually discern what is happening
where the mullets are interlaced is further hampered by the fact
that the places where the Or mullets are interlaced all overlie
the argent bendlet sinister - causing those areas to have poor
contrast, and generally to be obscured by the underlying charge.
These identifiability problems cannot be solved by re-drawing or
re-proportioning the charges: the problems are implicit in any
design described by this blazon. [Zacarias Callado,
07/2003,
R-Middle]
There is no difference between a sun and a mullet of eight points
per the following precedent: "There is ... nothing for the
difference between a sun and a multi-pointed mullet" (LoAR May
1998, p. 28). [Disa blat{o,}nn, 08/2003,
R-Caid]
Mullets are not eligible for RfS X.4.j.ii per the following
precedent: "There is one CD for fieldlessness, but as the mullets
are not simple charges, there is no CD for changing the type only
of the tertiary. (LoAR June 1994, p.15). [Disa blat{o,}nn,
08/2003,
R-Caid]
The charges in this device are the default SCA spur rowel, which
is a pierced mullet of six points (as noted in the Pictorial
Dictionary). [Davis de Rowell, 09/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[mullets vs. compass stars] ... a second CD between the
default mullets of five points and compass stars. RfS X.4.e
states that "A charge not used in period armory will be
considered different in type if its shape in normal depiction is
significantly different." Compass stars are not used in period
armory and thus must be compared with mullets of five points on
visual grounds. They have sufficient visual difference to be
given a CD. [Asad de Barcelona, 10/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
There is no difference between default mullets of five points and
mullets of five greater and lesser points. Mullets of five
greater and five lesser points are not period charges and thus,
by RfS X.4.e, their difference from other charges must be
determined on visual grounds. Precedent from the LoAR of May 2000
indicates that there is not enough difference between these
charges for a CD: "[(Fieldless) A mullet sable] ... in
conflict with ... A mullet of five greater and five lesser
points distilling goutes. As with the mullet of four vs. a
compass star (see the June 1995 LoAR, pg. 23), the lesser points
of the mullet have very little visual impact, and as mullets of
greater and lesser points are not known in period, the visual
difference counts. This reaffirms the precedent set in July 1990
(pg. 13.)"[Timothy of Glastinbury, 10/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[(Fieldless) A mullet vert pierced argent] Conflict with
... Argent ermined vert, on a mullet vert a fox's mask
argent. There is one CD for changing the field. The piercing
here is identical to charging the mullet with a roundel argent,
so the difference between the argent fox's mask and the argent
piercing is effectively only changing the type of tertiary
charge. This is not sufficient difference for a CD per RfS
X.4.j.ii, because a mullet is not a "suitable" charge for
purposes of this rule, which states:
A charge is suitable for the purposes of this rule if
(a) it is simple enough in outline to be voided, and (b) it is
correctly drawn with an interior substantial enough to display
easily recognizable charges ... [cited as an example in the
rule] Gules, on a mullet of six points Or a cross crosslet
sable does not have a clear difference from Gules, on a
mullet of six points Or a pellet because the interior of a
correctly drawn mullet of six points is too small.
Note that both mullets of five points and mullets of
six points are period charges, and given the range of variation
with which these charges are drawn in period, a mullet of five
points is just as suitable (or unsuitable) for purposes of RfS
X.4.j.ii as a mullet of six points. [Lorccán hua
Conchobair, 11/2003,
R-Caid]
The estoile was blazoned on the Letter of Intent as
fesswise, which was presumably intended to describe the
fact that the estoile does not have a point to chief. It is not
necessary to blazon the exact orientation of either a mullet of
six points or an estoile (which by default has six rays). The
orientation of such charges appears to an artistic preference,
not a heraldically significant choice. For example, in Iberian
armory mullets of six points often do not have a point to chief,
but in French armory they often do have a point to chief.
[Stromgard, Barony of, 03/2004,
A-An Tir]
MUNDANE ARMORY
This section is a list of real-world armory that has been
ruled not important enought to protect. It organized by
the owner of the armory in question. A list of the names is
included in the index.
This flag is
for a treaty organization, similar to NATO or the Warsaw Pact.
The SCA does not generally protect the flags of treaty
organizations. While the SCA does protect the flag of the
European Union, the European Union has some features which are
generally associated with nation-states, such as courts and
legislative authority. [Arab Nations, League of, 12/2003,
R-Nebuly]
[Gules, a wolf's head erased argent] ... while we
recognize that the Bal{sv}i{c'}i are people of some historical
importance, their importance combined with the importance of the
arms themselves is not sufficient to protect their arms in the
SCA. [Bal{sv}i{c'}i, Rulers of Zeta (Montenegro), 05/2002,
R-Nebuly Letter of Intent to Protect]
This submission was pended to consider whether the SCA should
protect the version of the arms of Campbell of Argyll that were
found through the 16th C, Gyronny argent and sable. This
form of the Campbell arms does not appear to be well-known in its
own right (under the "arms" school) to most SCA members. General
references (heraldic and otherwise) only cite the modern Or and
sable form of the armory.
There is some support for protecting the arms under the "man"
school, as some of the bearers of the arms in this form are found
in some standard references. Archibald Campbell, fifth Earl of
Argyll (who lived in the 16th C) has his own listing in the
Encyclopædia Britannica as a supporter of Mary Queen of Scots. He
and two other 16th C Campbell Earls of Argyll are listed as
subentries in the Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia under a general
entry for the Campbell family.
The consensus of the College was that the combination of the
"arms" and "man" school evidence were insufficient to require
that the SCA protect the argent and sable form of the Campbell
arms as important non-SCA armory. Wulfgar's arms may thus be
registered. [Wulfgar Neumann, 09/2002,
A-Outlands]
These arms were pended for consideration of whether we should
protect the Cunningham of Glencairn arms as Argent, a pall
sable in addition to the already protected version,
Argent, a shakefork sable.
... The "pall" form of the Cunningham arms, however, is not
nearly so well known in its own right as the "shakefork" form.
The balance of the "man" and "arms" schools for this coat is
therefore not sufficient to protect it in the SCA. [Gwenllian
de Castell Coch, 06/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[Argent, a lion rampant gules within a pair of bull's horns
azure] The combined fame of the owner and the armory is not
sufficient to protect these arms in the SCA. [Djuradj
Brankovi{c'}, Despot of Serbia, 05/2002,
R-Nebuly Letter of Intent to Protect]
[Hunter of Hunterson] The Hunter of Hunterston is the
chief of the name and arms of Hunter in Scotland. The original
matriculation of the arms of Hunter of Hunterston, in the Lyon
Ordinary, is Vert three dogs of the chase courant argent
collared Or on a chief of the second three hunting horns of the
first stringed gules. Those arms have no CDs from this
submission. The dogs' collars are not worth difference, nor is
there difference for changing the tincture of the stringing on
the horns. While it is true that the arms of the Hunter of
Hunterston were later modified to Or three hunting horns vert
stringed and viroled gules, this does not change the fact
that the Hunter of Hunterston retains an interest in the first
matriculation, and that other members of the family continue to
cadence from the first matriculation.
The arms of a Hunter clan chief are not so well known that they
must be protected in the SCA. While these arms could be
registered to someone whose name did not refer to Hunter of
Hunterston, the combination of the Hunter surname with these arms
causes the submitter to appear to be a real-world clan chief, and
this is presumptuous. To avoid presumption, the submitter may
either difference his arms so that they are one CD from the arms
born by a Hunter clan chief, or he may change his name so that it
does not refer to the Hunter of Hunterston. [Kieran
Hunter, 10/2001,
R-Atlantia]
This does not conflict with the flag of Lebanon until 1920,
Argent, a cedar tree vert, as this flag was not the flag of a
sovereign nation. Flags of dependent territories are not
automatically considered important enough to protect. No evidence
was presented, and none was found, that the flag used by Lebanon
in this period was important enough to be protected by the
SCA.
Before World War I, Lebanon was, along with Syria, a single
political unit in the Ottoman Empire. After World War I, this
territory fell under French control. France proclaimed Lebanon's
independence in stages from November 26, 1941. [Shaun of the
Forrest, 10/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Argent, on a cross gules between four furisons azure, an
eagle displayed argent] The combined fame of the owner and
the armory is not sufficient to protect these arms in the SCA.
[Mrnjav{cv}evi{c'}i, Kings of Serbia, 05/2002,
R-Nebuly Letter of Intent to Protect]
The flag of the Palestinian Authority does not clearly fall into
one of the categories which are protected under section III.B.2
of the Administrative Handbook. [Palestinian
Authority, 12/2003,
R-Nebuly]
Puerto Rico is a commonwealth associated with the United States.
Its world importance is roughly that of the importance of a state
of the United States. Puerto Rico has more visibility than some
states - its Olympic team gives it a more significant
international prominence than that of North Dakota - but Puerto
Rico is less prominent than some of the states of the Union, such
as California or Texas.
The SCA does not consider the flags of the states of the United
States to be important enough to protect, although it does
consider the arms of the states to be important enough to
protect, and in some states, the flag is the same as the arms, so
those states have their flags protected via the arms. If Puerto
Rico is roughly as important as a state of the United States, and
we do not protect the flags of the states of the United States,
then the flag of Puerto Rico should not be important enough to
protect either.
It was suggested that the presence of the flag of Puerto Rico on
someone's shield might result in obtrusive modernity for the
viewer of that shield. This may be true, but if we receive such a
submission and it is viewed as obtrusively modern, the correct
course of action is simply to return the problematic submission
for obtrusive modernity. The rules for obtrusive modernity do not
require the registration of modern insignia that, when referenced
in SCA armory, might cause the SCA armory to be obtrusively
modern. The pertinent portion of RfS VIII.4, "Obtrusive
Modernity", is section b, "Modern Insignia", which states
Overt allusions to modern insignia, trademarks, or common
designs may not be registered.
Such references, including parodies, may be considered
obtrusive. Examples include using a bend within a bordure
gules to parody the international "No Entry" sign,
variations on the geometric Peace sign, and so forth.
Thus, armory that looks like the international "No
Entry" sign may be obtrusively modern, but this does not require
us to register (Fieldless) A bend within a bordure gules.
Armory that looks like the geometric peace sign may be
obtrusively modern, but this does not require us to register
(Tinctureless) a pale and overall a chevron all within and
conjoined to an annulet. And armory that looks like the flag
of Puerto Rico may be obtrusively modern, but does not require us
to register the flag of Puerto Rico. [Puerto Rico,,
12/2003,
R-Nebuly]
[Bendy gules and argent] The combined fame of the owner
and the armory is not sufficient to protect these arms in the
SCA. [Stefan Vuk{cv}i{c'} Kosa{cv}a, Duke of S. Sava
(Hercegovina), 05/2002,
R-Nebuly Letter of Intent to Protect]
MUSICAL
INSTRUMENTS
... and another [CD] for the difference
between a standard hunting horn and a spiral hunting horn. We can
find no evidence that a spiral hunting horn was used in period
heraldry, so difference between the charges must be determined on
visual grounds per RfS X.4.e. The two charges are visually
distinct. [Æthelmearc, Kingdom of, 03/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a bowed psaltery] The instrument in this submission is a
psaltery shaped like a tall isoceles triangle, with the strings
running vertically from attachments on the base side of the
triangle to attachments along the top two sides. It is
effectively the same as the one blazoned in the Pictorial
Dictionary as a bowed psaltery. One commenter asked
whether this sort of psaltery was a period musical instrument. We
have researched this issue with the help of Bruce Draconarius of
Mistholme (one of the authors of the Pictorial
Dictionary), Janneke van DenDraak (author of the web page on
psalteries at
http://home.foni.net/~lyorn/sca_e/guild/psalter.html), and Arthur
D'Glenn (author of the web page on various musical instruments at
http://www.radix.net/~dglenn/defs/inst.html).
Plucked psalteries were period musical instruments and were found
in a number of shapes. However, the bowed psaltery was not a
period musical instrument. Mary Remnant, Musical Instruments:
an Illustrated History from Antiquity to the Present, p. 30,
states that the bowed psaltery "was not a medieval instrument at
all but a Tyrolean folk instrument of no great antiquity". The
various on-line sources consulted agree and some posit that the
instrument may have originated in the 20th C.
There were some triangular-shaped plucked psalteries found in
period, but we have not found evidence for this triangular shape
strung in this fashion. The closest we have found to this shape
is on Janneke's web page, which gives an illustration from a
"10th century copy of 'De Musica' a book by M. Severinus
Boëthius, who lived at the end of the 6th century in Italy". The
triangular shaped psaltery illustrated here is close to an
equilateral triangle. The strings attach near the top point in a
bunch and then radiate out to attachments near the bottom of the
triangle, so that the strings are almost all the same length.
The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Stanley
Sadie (ed.), vol. 16, under Rotte, says that "rotte" was
another name for a triangular psaltery, which came to be used
more loosely for a number of stringed instruments. An
illustration is given from an "11th- or 12th-century MS" showing
a triangular psaltery in the shape of a right triangle, with the
strings extending up from one of the right angle sides and
attaching to the hypotenuse side. Remnant shows a psaltery of a
similar right triangle shape from a Spanish reliquary c. 1390.
The first psaltery (played by King David) is held with the
strings vertically and the second (played by an angel) with the
strings horizontally.
It is possible that there might have been triangular psaltery
shapes in period that differed from those described above. The
New Grove Dictionary states that "in the 12th century a copyist
of Notker Balbulus complained that the ancient ten-string
psaltery had been adopted by musicians and actors, who had
altered its mystic triangular shape to suit their convenience,
increased the number of strings, and given it the barbarian name
'rotta'".
However, the bowed psaltery, due to the way it is strung,
appears to be a significantly different musical instrument than
any of the psalteries described or illustrated in period in the
web pages and in the books cited above. The bowed psaltery
is strung so that it has long strings at the center of the
instrument, diminishing in length to short strings at the outside
of the instrument, like two harps back to back. All of the period
psaltery shapes found are strung with equal length strings, or
strings which are long on one side of the instrument and decrease
to the shortest strings on the other side of the instrument. The
bowed psaltery shape, strung as it is, would be a very different
instrument from the documented period psalteries. As a result, it
seems appropriate to ask for documentation for this form of
psaltery as a musical instrument.
This submission, and all others received before the October 2002
decision meetings, will be registered under the current SCA
blazon for this charge, bowed psaltery. Future submissions
of this charge should provide documentation for this form of
musical instrument in period or they may not be registered.
[Sean of the Outlands, 03/2002,
A-Meridies]
A bugle horn is an acceptable alternate blazon term for a
hunting horn. [Ronan of Hereford, 05/2003,
A-Artemisia]
A harp is of wood, and wood-colored when proper, as stated in the
Pictorial Dictionary. [Coletta Briant, 04/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
The hunting horn in this submission is drawn without the
traditional string. The tincture and exact disposition of the
string of a hunting horn appear to be artistic license in period,
so without documentation to the contrary, we assume that the
presence or absence of the string is similarly artistic license.
[Siegfried McClure, 04/2002,
R-Atlantia]
NESSELBLATT
Some
commenters questioned the identifiability of the nesselblatt
inverted, either on the grounds of the particular artwork drawn
here, or on the grounds of identifiability due to the
nesselblatt's unusual posture. We feel that the nesselblatt here
is drawn correctly. While we are not aware of any period armory
using nesselblatter inverted, a nesselblatt inverted appears to
be no less identifiable than a nesselblatt in its default
orientation. [Morgan MacBride, 07/2002,
A-Meridies]
Conflict ... because a nesselblatt is too complex to void, there
is no difference by RfS X.4.j.ii for changing the type only of
tertiary charge. [Adella de Tourlaville, 11/2002,
R-Outlands]
OBTRUSIVE
MODERNITY
[Or, a chevron inverted gules, in chief two
hurts] While this has some resemblance to a face, it really
doesn't resemble the classic "smiley face" logo enough to warrant
return for obtrusive modernity. In the classic logo, the eyes and
the mouth are the same tincture and the mouth is much more like a
crescent. Here the roundels are a different tincture from the
chevron inverted.
It is true that the different tinctures of the roundels and the
chevron inverted helps this piece of armory resemble some sort of
face, but some period pieces of armory also resemble faces.
[Remus Fletcher, 09/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a brown bear's head cabossed proper] RfS VIII.4.b. Modern
Insignia states: Allusions to modern insignia, trademarks, or
common designs may not be registered. This rule does not
refer to a particular artistic style, such as whether the
particular depiction is stylized (such as the Chicago Bulls logo)
or naturalistic (such as the Chicago Bears logo), nor does it
refer to technical conflict. The issue here is unmistakable
allusion to the modern insignia or trademark.
The bear's head here appears to be a photocopy of the Chicago
Bears logo as seen on their web site, but flipped on the vertical
axis, omitting some details, and colored in a different shade of
brown. Because this could reasonably be seen by many viewers as
just the same as the bear's head portion of the Bears
logo, this is too strong an allusion to a modern trademark to be
registered. [Erik the Bear, 11/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[three annulets interlaced one and two Or] A question was
raised about possible problems with use of the Ballantine's Ale
insignia. While we did not find the corporate web site, we did
find beer collectors' web sites showing many beer labels of
varying ages, and the Ballantine's Ale logo uses the annulets two
and one, not one and two. Because this is a simple geometric
logo, without any particular nuances of artwork that make these
rings an unmistakable allusion to the Ballantine's logo, the
inversion of the three rings design does not infringe on the
Ballantine's Ale insignia. [Roaring Wastes, Barony of the,
11/2001,
R-Middle]
[(Fieldless) A penguin statant affronty, head to dexter,
proper] One commenter raised the question of whether there
was some problem due to the Penguin Books logo. That logo would
be blazoned in the same manner as this badge. This is not illegal
style under RfS VIII.4.b, a subsection of the rules on "Obtrusive
Modernity". This rule forbids "Overt illusions to modern
insignia, trademarks or common designs". This penguin is clearly
a different penguin than the one in the Penguin Books logo. The
Penguin Books penguin has a white crescent marking on its face,
much more white on its front, and is all black and white. The
submission under consideration has different proportions, no
crescent marking on its face, and a very prominent red beak and
feet.
As a guideline, there generally will not be an obtrusively modern
"overt" allusion to a logo when the logo uses a single charge,
unless the artwork of the submission matches the artwork of the
logo very closely, or unless the charge is in some way unique.
There might be an "overt" allusion to a logo without the artwork
matching if the charge is unique or if the logo used a very
unusual combination of charges. A girl holding an open parasol
and strewing salt behind her from a canister might seem
obtrusively modern due to the famous Morton Salt logo even if you
dressed the girl in a cotehardie. These cases of obtrusive
modernity must all be determined on a case by case basis.
[Tylar of Lochmere, 04/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[Checky sable and argent, a bull's head cabossed gules]
Some commenters inquired whether this armory conflicted with the
Chicago Bulls NBA logo, which features a red bull's head
cabossed. There are two possible problems which might arise due
to resemblance to a modern logo or trademark. One is conflict and
the other is obtrusive modernity.
On the matter of conflict, the Administrative Handbook says that
we protect Coyprighted Images, Trademarks, Military Insignia, et
cetera "when covered by applicable laws and regulations in the
country from which the material derives." We are not aware of any
pertinent laws by which registration of this badge would infringe
on the brand recognizability or business of the Chicago Bulls.
Checking the trademark data base at
http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm, the trademarked
versions of the Chicago Bulls insignia all have the text "Chicago
Bulls" written prominently between the horns of the bull. These
words are significant by our rules for difference. Under the SCA
Rules for Submission, there is no conflict between this badge and
the trademark. There is one CD for tincturelessness (of the Bulls
trademark) and another CD for removing the words "Chicago Bulls".
The words also seem to be integral to the trademark, as all the
active registered Chicago Bulls trademarks are of the type "(3)
DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS". This badge omits the
words and thus should not infringe on the trademarks. Moreover,
the stated uses for the Chicago Bulls trademarks concern very
modern goods and services, and do not resemble the uses to which
the SCA puts its armory.
The pertinent rule for possible Obtrusive Modernity due to
resemblance to a real-world trademark is RfS VIII.4.b. This rule
forbids "Overt allusions to modern insignia, trademarks or common
designs". As noted in the LoAR of April 2002, "As a guideline,
there generally will not be an obtrusively modern 'overt'
allusion to a logo when the logo uses a single charge, unless the
artwork of the submission matches the artwork of the logo very
closely, or unless the charge is in some way unique." In this
case, the bull's head in the emblazon does not strongly resemble
the artwork of the bull's head found in the Chicago Bulls logo.
Nor is a bull's head cabossed a unique charge. Therefore, this is
not an obtrusively modern use of a bull's head because of an
overt allusion to the Chicago Bulls logo. [Darius of
Jaxartes, 05/2002,
A-Outlands]
[Argent, two crescents gules and a scourge sable] Many
commenters indicated that this reminded them of some sort of
cartoon face. This resemblance does not appear to be obtrusively
modern, since some period armory did resemble faces, and because
this does not strongly resemble any of the classic "smiley face"
logos or their common variants. [Laura de Givet, 06/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[an ape affronty bendwise, arms embowed-counterembowed]
The posture of the ape cannot be reproduced from this blazon or
any other blazon we were able to determine. The overall art style
was also generally felt to be obtrusively modern. This was
partially due to the generally modern stylization of the art, and
partially due to the similarity of this ape to some modern pop
icons, such as the "monkeys" from the Barrel of Monkeys game (see
http://www.yesterdayland.com/popopedia/shows/toys/ty1003.php)
[Angus John Macleod, 07/2002,
R-Calontir]
[Paly of four argent and gules, three spur rowels
counterchanged sable and argent] This submission also appears
to be overly modern "op-art" (or "optical art") style. As noted
in RfS VIII.4.d, "Artistic techniques and styles developed after
1600 should not be used in Society armory. Charges may not be
used to create abstract or op-art designs." Per the on-line
Artcyclopedia (http://www.artcyclopedia.com/), "Optical Art is a
mathematically-oriented form of (usually) Abstract art, which
uses repetition of simple forms and colors to create vibrating
effects, moir� patterns, an exaggerated sense of depth,
foreground-background confusion, and other visual effects." This
design is reminiscent of op-art and includes visually vibrating
effects and foreground-background confusion: one viewer, at
first, saw the primary charge as three lozenges conjoined in pall
inverted bases to center, because she thought that the shape
between the three spur rowels was the primary charge. [Davis
de Rowell, 09/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[Sable, on a saltire voided Or nine mullets of five points
argent] This submission received much more commentary than
most submissions. The College of Arms was uniformly of the
opinion that this submission was problematic in its apparent
reference to the protected non-SCA flag (battle standard) of the
Confederate States of America, Gules, a saltire azure
fimbriated and mullety argent. The strength of the College's
reaction mandates the return of this badge.
Some commenters objected to the armory on the grounds of
obtrusive modernity, stating that this armory caused their
perceptions to be wrenched from those of the Middle Ages and
Renaissance to the times of, or since, the American Civil War.
The pertinent rule is RfS VIII.4, Obtrusive Modernity, subclause
b, Modern Insignia, which states "Overt allusions to modern
insignia, trademarks, or common designs may not be registered."
Others commenters felt that the armory was problematic under RfS
IX.4, Offensive Political Symbolism, which states, "Symbolism
specifically associated with social or political movements or
events that may be offensive to a particular race, religion, or
ethnic group, will not be registered." A number of commenters
thought that this armory violated both of these rules.
[Meridies, Kingdom of, 11/2003,
R-Meridies]
OFFENSE
Two
commenters asked whether the cross gurgity was too close to a
swastika (or fylfot) to be registered without causing offense.
The cross gurgity in this submission is drawn as it is in the
Pictorial Dictionary: each arm curves smoothly to a hook
which ends in a point. A swastika is drawn with arms which make a
right angle and end bluntly. This seems to be sufficient visual
distinction to avoid offense, especially as the commentary on the
matter was more in the nature of a question about the charge -
neither commenter stated that he or she found it difficult to
distinguish this charge from a swastika, or that he or she took
offense at the charge. [Uther Schiemann der Hunt, 06/2003,
A-West]
[(Fieldless) A mantle gules, lined and charged on the sinister
breast with a mullet of six points argent] The submission was
originally pended in February 2003 to allow further discussion on
the possible offensiveness of this item.
We discussed this badge during the Laurel road show meeting at
KWHS 2003, which gave a greater sampling of College of Arms
members, local heralds, and non-heralds. For many in this group
this was the first contact with this item, which gave us a set of
first impressions to judge by. The mantle charged with a star was
generally considered evocative of the garments marked with a
six-pointed star that were required for Jews under Nazi Germany.
Based on the discussion at the meeting, the badge is being
returned.
We would like to note that if someone wore a red mantle which was
lined in white and charged on the sinister breast with a mullet
of six points argent, it would not appear to be a correct
heraldic display of this badge. It would appear to be a heraldic
display of (Fieldless) A mullet of six points argent
displayed on an order cloak. One correct heraldic display of
(Fieldless) A mantle gules, lined and charged on the sinister
breast with a mullet of six points argent would be to create
an enamelled pin in the shape of the charged mantle. Another
correct display would be to make a flag and put a picture of the
charged mantle on the flag. [Lochac, Kingdom of, 06/2003,
R-Lochac]
[Sable, on a saltire voided Or nine mullets of five points
argent] This submission received much more commentary than
most submissions. The College of Arms was uniformly of the
opinion that this submission was problematic in its apparent
reference to the protected non-SCA flag (battle standard) of the
Confederate States of America, Gules, a saltire azure
fimbriated and mullety argent. The strength of the College's
reaction mandates the return of this badge.
Some commenters objected to the armory on the grounds of
obtrusive modernity, stating that this armory caused their
perceptions to be wrenched from those of the Middle Ages and
Renaissance to the times of, or since, the American Civil War.
The pertinent rule is RfS VIII.4, Obtrusive Modernity, subclause
b, Modern Insignia, which states "Overt allusions to modern
insignia, trademarks, or common designs may not be registered."
Others commenters felt that the armory was problematic under RfS
IX.4, Offensive Political Symbolism, which states, "Symbolism
specifically associated with social or political movements or
events that may be offensive to a particular race, religion, or
ethnic group, will not be registered." A number of commenters
thought that this armory violated both of these rules.
[Meridies, Kingdom of, 11/2003,
R-Meridies]
[roses Or barbed vert seeded of a heart gules charged with a
cross sable] The charged roses were originally blazoned as
Luther roses. They represent a variantly tinctured version
of an important non-SCA badge used by Martin Luther (and
protected in the Armorial and Ordinary), (Fieldless) A rose
argent seeded of a heart gules charged with a Latin cross
sable. ... The College was not able to find any evidence that
this symbol of Martin Luther's was found outside of uses by
Martin Luther himself and eventually, by the Lutheran church.
...
The College also was concerned that the Luther rose may be so
closely associated with Martin Luther and the Lutheran Church
that this submission might violate either RfS XI, presumption
(claiming "status ... that the submitter does not possess"), or
RfS IX.2, Offensive Religious Symbolism (for reason of excessive
religious symbolism). We are declining to rule on these issues at
this time as this submission has clear reasons for return under
RfS VIII.1.c.ii and RfS VIII.2.b.ii. However, these are serious
issues and should be addressed on resubmission, if the
resubmission continues to use the Luther rose design. [Brighid
Óg inghean Néill, 02/2004,
R-Outlands]
PALE
The submission
must be returned because the pale is drawn so wide that it is not
period style. A redrawing would solve this problem. To quote
al-Jamal, "While an ordinary will normally widen or narrow
depending upon whether it is charged and/or surrounded by
charges, the width here seems a bit excessive, covering more than
half the field and thus being wider than even the modern Canadian
pale." [Maura McCrery, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
[Paly sable and Or] Conflict with Aragon (important
non-SCA arms) Or, four palets gules. These arms are
equivalent to Paly gules and Or (as well as Paly Or and
gules). "It was not unusual for barry or paly fields in
period to be drawn with an odd number of traits (which we'd
blazon as bars or palets); see, for example, the arms of Mouton
(Multon, Moleton) found both as Barry argent and gules and
Argent, three bars gules. (Dictionary of British
Arms, Volume 1, pp 59, 88; Foster, p.145) and the arms of von
Rosenberg, whose Per fess field has in base either three bends or
bendy depending upon the artist's whim (Siebmacher, p. 8;
Neubecker and Rentzmann, p. 290). Even when the distinction is
worth blazoning, it's worth no difference" (LoAR December 1997
p.8). Therefore there is only one CD for changing the tincture of
half the field. [Aethelwine Aethelredson, 02/2002,
R-Calontir]
[Argent, two pallets gules overall a tree vert] This does
not conflict with the important non-SCA arms of O'Connor Don ...
Argent, a tree eradicated vert. Armory using three or more
pallets is interchangeable with paly on visual grounds and on
grounds of historical heraldic difference. Armory using two
pallets is visually distinct from paly, and evidence was neither
presented nor found that paly and two pallets should be
considered artistic variants of each other in period. This is
therefore clear of O'Connor Don by RfS X.1 for adding a primary
charge group (the pallets). [Floris van Montfort, 05/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
PALL and PALL
INVERTED
[a pall inverted vs. a shakefork inverted]
... by current precedent, another CD between a pall inverted and
a shakefork inverted.
Note that the precedent giving a CD between a pall inverted and a
shakefork inverted is under discussion this month (see the cover
letter). However, there is no need to pend this submission until
the completion of a general policy discussion: it may be
registered now under current SCA policy. Should the policy change
as a result of the ongoing research and discussion, it will apply
to those submissions received after the policy change. [David
of Caithness, 12/2001,
A-Caid] [Ed.: CD granted between a pall inverted and a
shakefork inverted as of 08/2002 (see below)]
A shakefork is a pall couped with pointed ends. The ends do not
change shape with the shape of the escutcheon on which the
shakefork lies. ... There is currently a CD for the difference
between a pall and a shakefork. That policy applies at this time,
although it is currently under review by the College of Arms: see
the cover letter for the December 2001 LoAR for details.
[Frederick Thurstone, 01/2002,
A-Outlands] [Ed.: No CD granted between a pall and a shakefork
as of the 06/2002 CL]
PRECEDENT: Because of the period evidence presented concerning
pall variants and in light of RfS X.4.e, no difference will be
given between the following four pall variants: the pall
(throughout), the pall couped, the shakefork, and the pallium.
Any of these four charges will be given a CD from a pall with a
decidedly different end treatment, such as a pall fleury or a
pall potent.
There are three standard versions of the pall in heraldic texts:
the pall (a throughout ordinary), the shakefork
(couped with pointed ends at all three arms), and the
pallium (throughout in chief but couped in some fashion in
base).
The shakefork is the least frequently found of the forms
mentioned in heraldic texts, and appears to be confined to the
Scottish family of Cunningham in period. Because the Cunninghams
are the only family so far shown in period to have used
shakeforks, the College felt that the history of their armory had
particular weight in determining difference for these charges,
more so than would be usual for a single family. The Cunningham
arms are depicted in sources throughout our period using both the
pall and the shakefork, demonstrating that the charges were not
"separate in period" from each other. The only period example
that has so far been presented of a pall couped is also an
emblazon of the Cunningham family arms (found in the Armorial
de Berry). As a result, the pall couped is not considered
"separate in period" from the standard pall or shakefork.
The pallium is most frequently used by ecclesiastical
organizations, where it functions as the heraldic representation
of an ecclesiastical vestment. Evidence was presented by the
College showing that the treatment of the basemost leg of a
pallium could be done in a number of different ways without
deriving any heraldic difference from the change. The basemost
leg of a pallium is generally couped (plain), but it is sometimes
couped with a fringed end, and sometimes couped and pointed like
the basemost leg of a shakefork. This indicates that the exact
treatment of the basemost arm of this charge is not heraldically
significant. The concensus of the College was that the pallium
should not be given difference from the pall or those charges
which are not "separate in period" from a pall: the shakefork and
the pall couped. If the pallium resembles the pall in all
respects except for the treatment of the basemost (and least
visually significant) arm, and the treatment of the basemost arm
is not heraldically significant, then the pallium is effectively
heraldically equivalent to a pall. Thus, the pallium is not
entitled to a CD from a pall, shakefork or pall couped.
No evidence has been presented that a pall with complex ends,
such as fleury, would be considered heraldically interchangeable
in period with a pall, shakefork, pallium or pall couped. We will
therefore continue to give difference between a pall with complex
ends and palls, shakeforks, palliums and palls couped. A pall
with complex ends would be at most one step from period practice,
and would likely just be a very uncommon, but standard sort of,
variant of an uncommon ordinary. [06/2002,
CL]
[a pall inverted vs. a shakefork inverted] ... and another
[CD] for changing the type of primary charge from a
shakefork inverted to a pall inverted. While palls are not given
difference from shakeforks due to the fact that they appear to be
interchangeable in period (see the Cover Letter for the June 2002
LoAR for details), no evidence has been presented that a pall
inverted and a shakefork inverted would have been interchangeable
in period. Palls and palls inverted are different ordinaries, and
what is true for one may not be true for another. Without
evidence showing that palls inverted and shakeforks inverted are
interchangeable in period, there is a CD between them by the
general principle that an ordinary throughout has a CD from the
same ordinary couped. [Rhain McHenrik, 08/2002,
R-Outlands]
Period Rolls of Arms
and Armorials (discussion)
[Ed.: Even though this isn't
technically a precedent, I have chosen to include it because the
information is valuable and Precedents tend to have a wider
audience than individual Cover Letters.]
From Wreath: Period Rolls of Arms and Armorials
One of the best ways to learn about heraldry and heraldic art is
to look at rolls of arms and armorials. These documents were
compiled by heralds, who drew the heraldry that they saw around
them. Thus, period rolls of arms and armorials are excellent
sources for "getting a feeling for" period heraldry and heraldic
art, either by visual immersion or by logical analysis.
It is important to realize the limitations of most heraldic books
and Web sites when trying to learn about period heraldic style.
Many heraldry sources discuss individual heraldic elements (such
as tinctures or charges) but do not provide any guidelines about
how to combine these elements so that the heraldry is appropriate
for a particular time and place. A look at a roll of arms or
armorial from that time and place will help answer these
questions.
In addition, one cannot truly understand period heraldry without
seeing period heraldic art. Any person who would like his shield,
scroll, or encampment to be decorated in the style of a
particular place and time needs to see appropriate heraldic art.
A good facsimile of an appropriate roll of arms or armorial will
provide that artwork. It is important to be careful to look for a
"good" facsimile, particularly when doing research on the
Internet. A growing number of Web sites claim to represent a
period roll of arms or armorial but use modern heraldic clip art.
These sites are poor substitutes for the original artwork.
It is not always easy to find good facsimiles of period armorials
and rolls of arms. So, in order to help with the search, the next
two sections of this article describe some selected sources that
are available, and some places where you might be able to find
these (and other) sources.
What are some good books or Web sites about period rolls of
arms?
The sources in this list are only a small subset of the sources
available in libraries or bookstores. Each of the sources on this
list has the following characteristics (except as noted below):
- It includes a good reproduction of the original heraldic art
for an entire roll of arms.
- It contains explanatory text including at a minimum blazons,
an armorial (or other name index) and scholarly
description.
- It is in print, or is frequently available as a used book.
Because this article includes a focus on period
heraldic artwork, it does not discuss the many valuable books
that describe the contents of one or more period rolls of arms
only through blazon.
Some of the books mentioned below are not in English, which is no
surprise considering that French may be the premier language for
heraldic studies today. Luckily, the grammar / word order of
blazon is fairly standard across European languages, so it is not
difficult to translate a blazon in an unfamiliar language. A good
guide to translating blazon between various European languages
(English, French, German, Spanish, Italian and Dutch) may be
found at http://www.heraldica.org/topics/glossary/.
This article intentionally does not include Joseph Foster's
The Dictionary of Heraldry in the list below, because this
book does not reliably provide a good reproduction of the
original artwork. Foster would often read a blazon-only roll of
arms and create his own illustrations.
- Armorial Gelre is a personal favorite, because it
includes armory from all over Europe and has excellent heraldic
art. This armorial was compiled between 1370 and 1414. It
contains some 1700 coats of arms (and some crests) from almost
the entirety of Europe. The following edition has black and
white photographs and explanatory text in French: P. Adam-Even,
annotator, Gelre (Jan von Helmont, Leuven, 1992, ISBN
90-74318-03-7).
- Zuricher Wappenrolle is a 14th C Swiss/German roll of
arms known from later copies, with about 450 coats of arms and
some additional armory depicted on standards. A color facsimile
with explanatory text in English or in German is available on a
Web site: http://ladyivanor.knownworldweb.com/zroaen0.htm.
Print editions have also been published, one (with black and
white redrawings and explanatory text in French) from Leopard
d'Or.
- Scots Roll is a Scottish roll from the 15th C with 114
coats of arms. The following edition is available from the
publisher at a bargain price, and it includes color photographs
and explanatory text in English: Colin Campbell, The Scots
Roll (The Heraldry Society of Scotland, Scotland, 1995,
ISBN 0 9525258 0 1).
- Siebmacher's Wappenbuch is an armorial from 1605
covering Germany and neighboring areas. It has 3400 coats of
arms with associated crests. The edition described here does
not have blazons but it does have a name index. It has been
going in and out of print about every five years, with the most
recent edition in 1999, and is often available at a very low
price. The 1994 and 1989 editions are effectively identical to
the 1999 edition: Johann Siebmachers Wappenbuch von 1605
(Harenburg Komm., Dortmund, 1999, ISBN: 357210050X).
- Anglo-Norman Armory and Anglo-Norman Armory Two
discuss 13th C Anglo-Norman armory. They are written in
English. The first book contains a discussion of 13th C armory.
It also contains a black and white photograph of the entire
Herald's Roll (Fitzwilliam version), along with explanatory
text. The Herald's Roll (Fitzwilliam version) contains roughly
700 coats of arms. Anglo-Norman Armory Two is an
ordinary to twenty-five rolls of arms compiled from 1250 to
1315, covering 3000 coats of arms. The artwork in the second
volume is modern. The volumes are Cecil Humphery-Smith,
Anglo-Norman Armory (Family History, Canterbury, 1973,
ISBN 0-9504879-2-9), and Cecil Humphery-Smith, Anglo-Norman
Armory Two (Institute of Heraldic and Genealogical Studies,
Canterbury, 1984, ISBN 0-9504879-8-8).
- Armorial Bellenville is a late 14th C armorial with
about 1700 coats of arms and some crests. It covers much of
Europe, and it has a high degree of overlap with the armory in
Armorial Gelre. The older edition (still apparently in print)
is a black and white tricked redrawing that includes French
explanatory text and an ordinary: Léon Jéquier, Armorial
Bellenville (Cahiers d'Heraldique V) (Le Leopard d'Or,
Paris, 1983, ISBN 2-86377-029-2). The newer (limited) edition
will include a color photograph volume and an accompanying
explanatory volume in French. It is forthcoming from Editions
du Gui in February 2004, with a pre-publication price available
through October 31, 2003.
- Grand Armorial Equestre de la Toison d'Or is a 15th C
armorial covering most of Europe, with a concentration on the
continent. It contains over 1000 coats of arms and some fine
heraldic equestrian figures. The quality of the heraldic art in
this roll is very high. There are two editions that are readily
available. The older edition is a black and white redrawing
with explanatory text in English: Rosemary Pinches and Anthony
Wood, A European Armorial (Heraldry Today, London, 1971,
ISBN 0 900455 13 6). The newer (limited) edition has a color
photograph volume with an accompanying explanatory volume in
French: M. Pastoureau and M. Popoff, Grand armorial equestre
de la Toison d'Or (Editions du Gui, Paris, 2001).
- Libro de Armeria del Reino de Navarra is a 16th C
Navarrese roll containing over 700 coats of arms. It includes a
color reproduction of the roll with explanatory text in
Spanish. One edition is from 1974: Faustino Menendez Pidal,
Libro de Armería del Reino de Navarra (Editorial La Gran
Enciclopedia Vasca, Bilbao, 1974, ISBN 84-248-0119-9). A new
edition of the book appears to be on sale from the government
of Navarre, according to their Web site, with a new second
editor: Faustino Menendez Pidal and Juan José Martinena Ruiz,
Libro de Armería del Reino de Navarra (Gobierno de
Navarra. Dpto. de Educación y Cultura, 2002, ISBN
84-235-2166-4).
- Stemmi depicts heraldic art, which performs a function
similar to that of a roll of arms. This book describes 176
armorial bas relief plaques in the courtyard of the Bargello
museum in Florence, Italy. The arms belonged to the individuals
holding the position of Podesta at the Bargello between 1313
and 1557. The heraldic art is excellent, and often includes
crests and supporters. For each plaque, the book provides a
black and white photograph, some information about the Podesta,
and the name of the artist (in Italian). The book also has a
scholarly introduction. The blazons are accurate when
describing the charges but may not be accurate for tincture, as
the pigments have mostly worn off the plaques. (In some cases,
the blazon in the book gives the same tincture for a charge and
the field or other charge on which it lies.) Unlike a roll of
arms, where all the artwork was done in a short period of time,
these plaques were roughly contemporary with the arms that they
depict, and thus they survey over 200 years of Tuscan heraldic
art: Francesca Fumi Cambi Gado, Stemmi (Firenze, 1993,
no ISBN). The museum's publication Web site is
http://www.sbas.firenze.it/musei/bargello/barg04.html.
- The Balliol Roll is a 14th C roll containing 36
Scottish coats of arms, which was probably compiled by (or for)
an Englishman. A color photograph of the one-page roll is
included. The explanatory text is in English and also includes
historical and genealogical information about the people in the
roll: Bruce A. McAndrew, The Balliol Roll (New England
Historic Genealogical Society, Boston, 2002, no ISBN).
- Traité d'Heraldique is not a facsimile roll of arms,
but an excellent discussion of heraldry (in French), with a
particular focus on heraldry from the 13th to 15th C. It
addresses some questions about frequency of use of charges and
tinctures in various countries by providing statistics. The
illustrations include good black and white photos and
redrawings of period heraldry. This book appears to have
recently gone out of print but was widely available in
bookstores through 2001 and is still available new or used in
some bookstores: Michel Pastoureau, Traité d'Héraldique
(second edition, Picard, Paris 1993, ISBN 2-7084-0413-X; ISSN
0242-7249).
Where can you find period rolls of arms and
armorials?
Libraries: Most heraldic books can be obtained via
inter-library loan if you have their publication information. You
may also consider seeing whether your local librarian or academic
librarian would be willing to order books on rolls of arms for
their library. It may be helpful to remind your librarian that
these books are both of historical and artistic interest.
Web Sites: Most Web sites are poor sources for period
rolls of arms. As noted above, most Web sites do not use period
heraldic art. For example,
http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org/Armoriaux/index.html uses
modern heraldic clip art and geometric stylizations in its
depictions of period rolls of arms, giving a very modern
appearance to these coats of arms. Other Web sites include some
period artwork but are not always clear about the date of the
artwork. For example, the International Civic Arms site
(http://www.ngw.nl/indexgb.htm) gives dates for when the civic
heraldry was originally granted, and will sometimes date an
illustration. However, the International Civic Arms site does not
always date its illustrations, and the illustrations may
significantly post-date the date of the grant. This observation
is not a criticism of the site; it just reflects the purpose of
the site. If a city has used the same coat of arms since they
were granted in the 14th C, and the Web site designer chooses to
illustrate that coat of arms with a 19th C drawing, the
illustration is still an accurate depiction of that city's arms.
But it doesn't help an SCA artist gain an understanding of 14th C
heraldic art.
Stores and Publishers: No formal endorsement of these
stores or publishers is implied by the following list. Neither
the SCA Sovereigns of Arms nor Laurel Clerk are employed in any
capacity by these stores or publishers.
- Used Book Web sites: Some used book Web sites are
http://www.abebooks.com/ and Amazon's used books (was
http://www.bibliofind.com/).
- The Amazon empire: Amazon has a good selection of heraldry
books in print, even from smaller publishers like Leopard d'Or.
Don't forget to check all the countries, particularly
http://www.amazon.co.uk/ (Great Britain), http://www.amazon.fr/
(France) and http://www.amazon.de/ (Germany).
- Heraldry Today: This is an English new and used
bookstore with a huge selection. They will maintain a "want
list" for books that are not currently in stock and will notify
you when the book is in stock. Their Web site only shows a
small selection of their stock; if you want to know if they
have a book in stock, you should send them a letter or e-mail
and inquire: http://www.heraldrytoday.co.uk/,
[email protected], or Heraldry Today, Parliament
Piece, Ramsbury, Wiltshire, SN8 2QH, U.K.
- Auction Websites: Ebay and similar sites have both new
and used books.
- Publishers: Sometimes it is desirable to order books
directly from the publisher, rather than going through a
bookstore. Some noteworthy small specialty publishers are:
- Leopard d'Or: These are French publishers of
facsimile documents and heraldic articles. Their publications
include a number of small rolls of arms with black and white
redrawn artwork and French explanatory text, such as the
Armorial Lalaing and the Armorial des Rois de
l'épinette de Lille. They also have some blazon-only
editions of period rolls of arms. Their works are readily
available in French bookstores. Their contact information is:
8 rue Duco�edic - 75014 PARIS France - T�l. : 01 43 27 57 98,
Fax: 01 43 21 40 03.
- Heraldry Society of Scotland: The Society publishes
some good sources on period heraldry, including the Scots
Roll and a good pamphlet on medieval flags:
http://www.heraldry-scotland.co.uk/Homepage.htm, or Mrs E.
Sharp, THE HERALDRY SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND, 44 Seaview Terrace,
EDINBURGH, EH15 2HE, Great Britain. - Editions du Gui:
These are French publishers of high-quality limited edition
facsimile documents: http://www.editions-du-gui.fr/ or
Editions du Gui, Z.A. les marais-1079, route d'Annecy, 74410
SAINT-JORIOZ, FRANCE.
- Casa Editrice Orsini de Marzo: These are Italian
publishers of high-quality limited edition facsimile
documents: http://www.orsinidemarzo.com/index.asp or Casa
Editrice Orsini de Marzo, Via Cernaia 11-I-20210 Milano MI,
Italy.
[03/2003,
CL]
PIERCED
[Or semy
of apples gules, a Celtic cross vert] This device conflicts
with Morgana Swansdottir, Or, a Celtic cross equal armed,
quarterly pierced and throughout vert. There is one CD for
adding the semy of apples. While we give a CD for a standard
cross throughout versus a cross couped, for most crosses (such as
crosses fleury) we do not give such difference for couped versus
throughout. The quarter piercing in Morgana's cross is very small
and the visual distinction it gives is lost with the other
piercings in the center of a Celtic cross. Therefore, there is no
difference for the type of cross. [Muirgen of Applecross,
02/2002,
R-Calontir]
[(Fieldless) A reremouse displayed sable conjoined in chief to
a compass star pierced Or] The compass star was blazoned on
the Letter of Intent as pierced sable, but the piercing on
the colored emblazon is not black but white. A compass star Or
pierced argent would have inadequate contrast, as the piercing is
equivalent to a tertiary roundel. A compass star pierced Or
(which is to say, a compass star Or with an untinctured hole in
the center, through which the field shows) is not acceptable on a
fieldless badge per the LoAR of January 2000:
Current precedent is that we only allow the piercing of charges
on fieldless badges when those charges were found pierced in
period armory (thus disallowing omni-tinctured tertiary
charges). While a compass star is closely related to a mullet,
it is nevertheless a different charge, one not found in period
armory. Therefore we are not inclined to give it the benefit of
the doubt and allow it to be pierced as we would a mullet or
spur rowel.
[Argus Caradoc, 03/2002,
R-Meridies]
[trefoils Or pierced argent] The trefoils are drawn with
white piercings in the center of the yellow foil. This has
inadequate contrast by RfS VIII.2. A pierced trefoil should
follow the same contrast rules as a trefoil charged with a
roundel. Note that a standard pierced charge would have the
tincture of the underlying charge or field (in this case, the
blue chief) as the tincture of the piercing.
Please advise the submitter to draw the slip of the trefoil
thinner. Period trefoils could have prominent slips, but these
slips are so wide that they could almost be mistaken for another
foil. This depiction thus blurs the ability to clearly identify
the charge either as a trefoil or as a quatrefoil. [Gráinne
inghean Chonaill uí Eachadha, 03/2003,
R-Outlands]
[(Fieldless) A cinquefoil pierced purpure] We have
blazoned the cinquefoil as pierced because we believe that
it is standard SCA practice to blazon this detail. Piercing of
cinquefoils was likely due to artistic license in some portions
of our period, and is not worth difference. [Tatiana Pavlovna
Sokolova, 04/2003,
R-Outlands]
A question was raised in commentary about heraldic difference
between a rustre and a lozenge. A rustre is an uncommon charge in
comparison with lozenges and mascles, but one which is described
in late period. Hierosme de Bara's 1581 Le Blason Des
Armoiries pp. 46-47 depicts the lozenge, the rustre, and the
mascle. These are treated as distinct charges in the treatise.
Thus, these three charges are considered significantly different
under the provisions of difference in RfS X.4.e, which states,
"Types of charges considered to be separate in period... will be
considered different."
Note that by previous precedent, piercing is considered
equivalent to a tertiary charge unless it is drawn in a small
insignificant fashion: "After much thought, we decided that
piercing is worth a CD when drawn large enough to be equivalent
to adding a tertiary charge" (LoAR December 1999). By this
criterion, lozenges, rustres and mascles are also distinct from
each other. As an artistic note concerning the "lozenges with
holes in them" class of period charges, the roundel in the center
of the rustre in De Bara is by no means an insignificant
piercing, but is the size of a good-sized tertiary charge. It is
a bit larger proportionally than the (also significantly sized)
roundel in the center of the rustre illustrated in
Brooke-Little's An Heraldic Alphabet. As for mascles, they
have always been drawn with a sizeable central piercing
throughout their extensive period of use as a charge in heraldry.
For some examples, see Bedingfeld and Gwynn-Jones'
Heraldry p. 17 (from the Matthew Paris shields c.1244),
and p. 61 (from the 15th c. Fenwick roll). [Griffin de
Mohun, 09/2003,
A-Trimaris]
[(Fieldless) A mullet vert pierced argent] Conflict with
... Argent ermined vert, on a mullet vert a fox's mask
argent. There is one CD for changing the field. The piercing
here is identical to charging the mullet with a roundel argent,
so the difference between the argent fox's mask and the argent
piercing is effectively only changing the type of tertiary
charge. This is not sufficient difference for a CD per RfS
X.4.j.ii, because a mullet is not a "suitable" charge for
purposes of this rule, which states:
A charge is suitable for the purposes of this rule if
(a) it is simple enough in outline to be voided, and (b) it is
correctly drawn with an interior substantial enough to display
easily recognizable charges ... [cited as an example in the
rule] Gules, on a mullet of six points Or a cross crosslet
sable does not have a clear difference from Gules, on a
mullet of six points Or a pellet because the interior of a
correctly drawn mullet of six points is too small.
Note that both mullets of five points and mullets of
six points are period charges, and given the range of variation
with which these charges are drawn in period, a mullet of five
points is just as suitable (or unsuitable) for purposes of RfS
X.4.j.ii as a mullet of six points. [Lorccán hua
Conchobair, 11/2003,
R-Caid]
PILE and PILE INVERTED
see also FIELD DIVISION --
Chapé
When comparing per chevron armory with pile inverted
armory, the two items must be compared as if they both used a per
chevron field, and also as if they both used the charge of a pile
inverted. [Dun an Chalaidh, Shire of, 08/2001,
R-An Tir]
This is not a pile, because it issues from the top corners of the
shield. Nor is it chaussé, because it does not extend all the way
to base. Nor is it a chief triangular, because it is much too
deep. Nor is it a per chevron inverted field division, because it
does not issue from the sides of the field. As a result, this
must be returned. [Rickard of Gwyntarian, 10/2001,
R-Middle]
This is not a pile, because it issues from the top corners of the
shield. Nor is it chaussé, because it does not extend all the way
to base. Nor is it a chief triangular, because it is much too
deep. Nor is it a per chevron inverted field division, because it
does not issue from the sides of the field. As a result, this
must be returned. [Rickard of Gwyntarian, 10/2001,
R-Middle]
[a pile vs. a pile ployé] There is � nothing between ployé
and straight edges. [Rickard of Gwyntarian, 10/2001,
R-Middle]
[(Fieldless) A pile wavy couped argent] The pile was
blazoned on the LoI without the term couped. The submission form
clearly shows that the pile is couped. The pile does not
issue from the top of the badge form (as would a default pile);
it is cut off by a horizontal line in chief.
Due to the grandfather clause, the barony has the right to
register a fieldless badge using a pile which is not couped,
emulating its registered badge (Fieldless) A pile wavy Or
(for the Order of the Heart of the Sable Storm). In order to
register armory with such a blazon, the barony would need forms
which draw the pile issuant from the chief of the badge form,
like the form for the badge for the Order of the Heart of the
Sable Storm. Without using the grandfather clause, such a
registration would be illegal under RfS VIII.5: "Since there is
no field in such a [fieldless] design, it may not use charges
that rely on the edges of the field to define their shape, such
as bordures and orles, nor to cut off their ends, such as
ordinaries or charges throughout." [Namron, Barony of,
02/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
This device must be returned for non-period style. The original
blazon was Or, three piles inverted conjoined at the point
issuant from dexter chief gules, overall a sword sable.
However, that blazon did not correctly describe the armory. When
you blazon a pile as issuing from some portion of the shield, it
is the wide (base) portion of the pile that issues from that
portion of the shield, not the point of the pile. Here, all the
points are conjoined in dexter chief, so the piles are not
issuant from dexter chief. They would be better blazoned as
issuant from sinister base.
However, "issuant from sinister base" does not adequately
describe this design. The piles in this emblazon are spread too
widely along the periphery of the shield to be described in this
fashion. Piles issuant from chief (the default arrangement) have
their bases spread over less than half of the outline of the
shield, and usually less than a third of the outline of the
shield. The widest "spread" found in period armory is with the
outside piles issuant from the top corners of the shield, and
usually all three piles are issuant from some subsection of the
chief line. Piles issuant from dexter or sinister have their
bases spread over less than half the shield (all issuant from the
dexter or sinister side of the shield). In this emblazon, the
bases of the piles spread over substantially more than half the
shield. No evidence was presented, and none was found, for piles
depicted in this manner in period armory. Without such evidence,
this is not an acceptable depiction of piles issuant from
sinister base. [Gervais le marinier de Narbonne, 02/2002,
R-Outlands]
[Per chevron throughout argent and purpure, three dragons
segreant counterchanged] Some commenters suggested that this
be reblazoned using a charged pile inverted because the bottom
portion of the per chevron field is somewhat narrow. The width of
the bottom of a per chevron field varies significantly throughout
our period, as does the placement of the top of the line of
division (the "peak" of the per chevron line). In order to
maintain balance between the two tinctures of the field when the
top of the line of division is high on the shield, the bottom of
the line needs to be somewhat narrow. Otherwise, the basemost
tincture of the field division overwhelms the chiefmost. In a per
chevron throughout field, the peak is as high on the shield as it
can get, and therefore, one would expect to find a
correspondingly narrow bottom part of the field division.
In addition, the armorial design of Per chevron three [X]
counterchanged is overwhelmingly more likely in period than
the design of On a pile inverted between two [X] an [X].
The single pile inverted is vanishingly rare in period armory. As
a result, the most likely period interpretation of armory of this
sort would be as a per chevron field division. This
interpretation is strengthened by the fact that all three charges
[X] are the same type and posture, giving the perception
that they are a single charge group. [Cassandra Tantifer,
03/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
In the course of researching this submission it became apparent
that the SCA has had no consistent default arrangement for
charges on a pile. Based on Roger Pye's research (A Return to
First Principles: I - The Pile, Coat of Arms VII (49) pp. 4 -
6, January 1962), the default for charges on a pile should be
in pale. It was not until the reign of Henry VIII that we
find a group of charges on a pile arranged other than in pale:
specifically, a group of three charges on a pile arranged two and
one. [James of Nayland, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
[three piles in point azure gules and azure vs. three piles
palewise azure] There is no difference for changing the
tincture of one-third of the group of piles. There is no
difference for the change between piles and piles in point. Both
are found in period, but they appear to be artistically
interchangeable based on evidence from Brault's Early
Blazon and Humphery-Smith's Anglo-Norman Armory
II.
As an artistic note, the outside piles of three piles in point
may issue somewhat from the corners of the shield, rather than
entirely from chief. However, even when the outside piles issue
from the corners of the chief, they are mostly issuant from the
chief. The outside piles on this emblazon are mostly issuant from
the sides of the shield. Please advise the submitter to draw the
piles so that they issue primarily from the chief. [Azer
Cane, 04/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Per pale purpure and argent, a pile inverted throughout
counterchanged] Conflict with ... Per pale argent and
sable chapé ployé counterchanged. Finnguala's arms could as
easily be blazoned as Per pale argent and purpure chapé
counterchanged. Because "you cannot 'blazon your way out of'
a conflict" (LoAR of February 2000), these two pieces of armory
must both be compared as pile inverted throughout armory, and as
per pale and chapé (ployé) armory. As per pale and chapé armory
these conflict. There is one CD for changing the tincture of the
field, but not "complete change of tincture" by RfS X.4.a.ii.b,
since both fields share the tincture argent in common.
There is not a second CD for changing chapé ployé to
chapé. The family of Masbach/Muesbach is found at the end
of the 14th C in the Armorial Bellenville (see the Léon
Jéquier edition) and the armorial Gelre (see the Adam-Even
edition), using Per pale and chapé gules and argent or
Per pale and chapé argent and gules. In 1605 the same
family's arms are found in Siebmacher's Wappenbuch as
Per pale and chapé ployé gules and argent. General SCA
precedent has held that an enarched or ployé line is often an
artistic variant of a straight line in which the curvature of the
line is used to imply curvature of the shield. One recent
precedent regarding "chevron-like" objects or lines of partition
ployé did not give difference between straight and ployé:
[a chevron ployé vs. a chevron] Conflict ... there is
only a single CD for the type of the secondary charges.
[implying no CD for ployé vs. plain] (LoAR 4/00)
Based on the Masbach armory, it appears that chapé
ployéshould prove no exception to the general policy by which
ployé is given no difference from plain lines. We thus overturn
the following precedent:
[returning chapé ploye engrailed] While it is true that lines
[of division] could be enarched and also embattled, engrailed,
etc., the enarching was basically to show the curvature of the
shield. We do not believe that such is the case of a chapé
ployé. (LoAR 6/97 p. 12)
[Finnguala ingen uí Medra, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[Per pale sable and argent, a pile inverted throughout
counterchanged] Conflict with ... Per pale argent and
sable chapé ployé counterchanged. The armory in this
submission could also be blazoned as Per pale argent and sable
chapé counterchanged. Because "you cannot 'blazon your way
out of' a conflict" (LoAR February 2000), these must both be
compared as pile inverted throughout armory, and also as per pale
and chapé (ployéarmory. In either interpretation, these have no
difference. Under the chapé ployé interpretation, there is no
difference between chapé ployé and chapé (see the LoAR of April
2002 for a more complete discussion of this issue.) There is no
other difference between the two coats of arms. Under the pile
inverted interpretation, there is also no difference between the
two coats of arms. Per the October 2001 LoAR, there is no
difference between a pile and a pile ployé, and piles inverted
would appear to act similarly. [Michael vomme Harze,
05/2002,
R-Caid]
[Vert, three piles in point argent each charged in chief with
a flame azure] Conflict with ... Azure, three piles in
point argent each charged in chief with a key palewise wards to
base azure. There is a CD for changing the tincture of the
field. RfS X.4.j.ii.a states that "armory that has a group of
identical charges on an ordinary or other suitable charge alone
on the field is a simple case." No clause of RfS X.4.j.ii
considers armory using multiple charged primary charges to be a
simple case. Therefore there is no difference for changing the
type only of tertiary charge by X.4.j.ii.
The outer piles issue mostly from the chief, but slightly from
the sides of the shield as well. This is a standard period
depiction of three piles in point, and is acceptable. [Mary
Dedwydd verch Gwallter, 09/2002,
R-Caid]
Please note that the design of counterchanging a bordure over a
pile is considered "a weirdness" in the SCA - a single step from
period practice (per the LoAR of July 2001). One such step in
armory is acceptable, but more than one such step is considered
too far from period practice and reason for return. [Clef of
Cividale, 03/2003,
R-Calontir]
[Or, three piles in point gules surmounted by a galleon under
sail sable] Conflict with ... Or, three piles two from
chief and one from base gules overall a reremouse sable.
There is one CD for changing the type of the overall charge.
There is no difference for inverting less than half of the
primary charge group (only one of a group of three piles). Note
that piles in point are not given difference from piles issuant
from chief and palewise, so the tilting of the outermost piles is
not worth any posture or orientation difference: "[Three piles
in point and an overall charge, vs. 3 piles] 'Addition of the
overall charge is only one CVD' [This implies no difference
between piles and piles in point] (LoAR 4/91 p.13)." [Lucia da
Silva, 04/2003,
R-Caid]
[Argent, a pile inverted vert issuant from a ford proper]
The College had some questions about the way that the bottom of
the ford extends exactly across the bottom of the pile inverted.
As a general rule, we would expect a pile inverted to be somewhat
thinner and thus issue from the center of the ford, rather than
extend all the way across the ford. [Kateryne Segrave,
04/2003,
R-East]
[Per chevron throughout sable and vert, the line of division
"fimbriated", three laurel wreaths argent] This device has
identifiability problems. Because the three laurel wreaths are of
the same type and size, and because heraldic designs of the form
Per chevron [A] and [B], three [X] are overwhelmingly more
common in period than designs of the form [A], on a a pile
inverted [B] between two [X] an [X], the overwhelming visual
impression of this emblazon is of armory following the Per
chevron [A] and [B], three [X] design. However, the thin
white line in the middle of the field is not compatible with a
per chevron field interpretation. It is much too thin to be a
chevron between the laurel wreaths. It is too thick to be
considered simply an argent detail line dividing the field. It
cannot be fimbriation, because only charges may be fimbriated,
not field divisions. As a result of the identifiability issues,
this must be returned per RfS VII.7.a, which states in pertinent
part, "Any charge, line of partition, or field treatment used in
Society armory must be identifiable, in and of itself, without
labels or excessive explanation." [Druim Doineann, Shire
of, 05/2003,
R-An Tir]
... no difference between the wolf's teeth and the piles: "[piles
issuant from dexter vs wolf's teeth issuant from dexter] This
conflicts [with] nothing for the curved line in the wolf's teeth.
Just as we would give nothing for the enarching of three bars, we
give nothing for the enarching of the piles." (LoAR of December
1998, p. 12). [Nataliia Anastasiia Evgenova Sviatoslavina
vnuchka, 10/2003,
R-East]
[three piles palewise wavy] Note that three piles are
in point by default, so it is necessary to explicitly
blazon the piles as palewise. According to the
Pictorial Dictionary, "this [in point] was the medieval
default for multiple piles, due to their derivation from pinched
pallets. If multiple piles are palewise, instead of in point,
this should be explicitly blazoned." [Skári Skey, 11/2003,
A-Caid]
PLANT
[a carrot
proper] The carrot in this submission was drawn so that it
was predominantly orange. No evidence has been presented that a
period heraldic carrot proper would be of any particular color.
Period carrots could be white, red, or various shades of yellow
in period. The shades of yellow might include the color we now
call "orange", but that is not clear from the evidence which has
so far been presented. Regardless of the botanical propriety of a
period orange carrot, there is no one obvious color for a carrot
to take in period, and therefore there is no default tincture for
a carrot proper. This carrot cannot be explicitly blazoned with a
heraldic tincture, because orange is not an acceptable color for
use in heraldry unless it is used appropriately with a proper
charge. Therefore, this must be returned. [Randall
Carrick, 10/2001,
R-Outlands]
[two hazel sprigs] Some questions were raised about the
identifiability of the hazel springs. The submitter has provided
documentation that this sort of hazel is found in England.
[Cainder ingen hui Chatharnaig, 11/2001,
A-Middle]
[a vine vert flowered purpure] The vine has been
reblazoned from a morning glory vine to a default flowered vine,
as it does not have the morning glory's distinctive
trumpet-shaped flowers. [Fína ingen uú Scolaighe, 12/2001,
A-Lochac]
[(Fieldless) A bulb of garlic Or] This is clear of a badge
of Ammalynne Sternjekrakki Haraldsdottir, (Fieldless) A
sprouting yellow onion bendwise proper. The onion in
Amalynne's badge is clearly bendwise, and the garlic bulb here
clearly palewise. So there is a CD for changing the posture and
another for fieldlessness. [Esugenas maqqas Moridaci avvi
Cremutanni, 02/2002,
A-An Tir]
[Vert, a mandrake Or] This is clear of conflict with a
badge of Migel Gneuyle de Normandie, Gules, an old man statant
affronty maintaining sword and shield Or. The mandrake in
this submission is drawn with a more humanoid root than is found
in the Pictorial Dictionary, but it is compatible with
depictions of mandrakes in some period herbals. There is a CD
between a mandrake and a human figure: "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.
(LoAR September 1993, pg. 12)". A visual comparison with Migel's
badge shows no overwhelming visual similarity: Migel's man is in
a long robe, has no headgear, and has a long beard.
[Cairistiona nic Bheathain, 02/2002,
A-Lochac]
[Azure semy of seeblatter argent, a lily Or] This is clear
of conflict with .. Azure, a day lily plant with three
blossoms Or. There is one CD for adding the seeblatter and at
least another for changing a day lily plant to a lily flower. The
day lily plant is a mound of foliage with some lilies growing out
of it. There is a CD between a rose branch and a rose: there
should be at least a CD between a lily and a lily plant.
[Marion inghean uí Ruanadha, 03/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[(Fieldless) A cattail plant with two cattails argent]
Conflict with ... (Fieldless) A tuft of three cattails slipped
and leaved argent. There is a CD for fieldlessness. However,
both these pieces of armory are effectively cattail plants. The
exact number of cattails on a plant may be blazonable but is not
worth difference. This also conflicts with ... Vert, three
cattails slipped and leaved conjoined at the base argent.
That armory also appears to be a single cattail plant, resulting
in a similar analysis. [Iron Bog, Shire of, 05/2002,
R-East]
[mushrooms argent] This device does not conflict with
Johanna von Griffenhurst, Vert, an amanita muscaria mushroom
couped proper. Amanita muscaria (the Linnaean designation;
alias the fly agaric mushroom) has a white stem and gills and a
red or orange cap with white or yellowish warty dots on it.
Amanita muscaria is thus approximately half gules, and the
mushroom in Johanna's emblazon is drawn appropriately. Therefore,
there is a CD for changing the number of mushrooms and a second
CD for changing half the tincture of the mushrooms. We advise
people not to pick and eat this mushroom. [Cadhla Ua
Cellacháin, 09/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
There is a second CD between a holly sprig and a holly leaf. A
sprig has multiple leaves and the outline is notably different
from a single leaf. [Alyna of the Ilex, 09/2002,
A-Calontir]
[a sprig reversed vert fructed purpure] The sprig was
originally blazoned as a sprig of broad-leafed sage. Some
commenters indicated that the broad-leaved sage was a modern
cultivar. Without proof that this is a period plant, its type
should not be explicitly blazoned. Moreover, sage does not set
fruit, so a fructed sprig would not be appropriate for sage.
[Robin McLaran of Nordenhalle, 09/2002,
A-East]
[(Fieldless) On an escallop argent, in saltire two violets
slipped and leaved proper] Conflict with a badge of Etain
Winterbourne, (Fieldless) On an escallop argent, a violet
plant vert, flowered purpure. In general there is a CD
between a violet plant (a bushy tuft of leaves issuing some
smaller flowers), and a violet slipped and leaved (a flower
accompanied by a single insignificant leaved stalk.) However, in
these emblazons, both pieces of armory appear to have charged the
escallop with some violet flowers issuing from a tuft of leaves.
Under RfS X.5 an "overwhelming visual resemblance" between two
pieces of armory may be cause for a return for conflict. Such an
overwhelming similarity is present between these two pieces of
armory. [Gabriella d'Asti, 10/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Vert, a fern frond argent] The default SCA fern frond has
a long triangular shape with fine horizontal cuts. The stem of
the frond is at the center of the base of the triangle. The
charge therefore is very similar in outline to that of a standard
heraldic fir or pine tree. Because a fern frond has not been
demonstrated to be a period charge, its type difference from
other charges is determined, per RfS X.4.e, on solely visual
grounds. There is too strong a resemblance between a heraldic fir
tree and a fern frond to allow difference on solely visual
grounds. Therefore, this conflicts with ... Vert, a fir tree
eradicated ermine. There is only one difference, for changing
the tincture of the charge.
Note that there are many shapes of fern fronds found in nature.
If a decidedly different shape of fern frond from the default is
desired by a submitter, the type of fern must be blazoned
explicitly. The acceptability of such alternate sorts of fern
will be determined in the standard manner for any new charge.
[Mathias ap Morgan, 11/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
The sprig was originally blazoned as mistletoe. Mistletoe
has small oval shaped leaves and berries. This sprig has the
classic spiky leaves of a holly plant, and we have reblazoned it
accordingly. [Katherine de Hay, 01/2003,
A-Calontir]
[an ear of wheat] Please advise the submitter to take
greater care in drawing the ear of wheat, clearly separating the
kernels and drawing the "wheat beard& (the thin hair coming
out of the tip of each kernel). As drawn, this comes dangerously
close to being interpreted as a feather. [Simon Caspar Joder
von Steffisburg, 01/2003,
A-East]
[Three linden leaves conjoined in pall inverted] Conflict
with David the Ironlivered, Azure, a sprig of three poison oak
leaves sable, veined and fimbriated argent. There is one CD
for fieldlessness. The sprig in David's device consists of three
oval-shaped leaflets, one to chief, one to dexter and one to
sinister, with a slip issuant to base.
There is not sufficient difference in the arrangement or
orientation of the leaves due to the slight angling of the two
basemost leaves in Emelyne's badge to give a CD. There is no
difference for removing the slip or for removing the fimbriation
or the artistic details of the leaf veining in David's device.
There might be a CD for the type difference between an
oval-shaped leaf and a card-pique shaped linden leaf when the
leaves are used as single charges. However, the conjoining of the
leaves into near-identical sprigs diminishes the visual
difference too much for there to be a type CD given between them.
[Emelyne le Tresor, 01/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[an ivy vine embowed vert overall on a bend] There were a
number of possible visual interpretations of the vine or vines in
this armory. This armory shows one piece of vine in the basemost
part of the shield. The vine is mostly bendwise but curves
towards sinister chief at the top, where it conjoins to the bend.
In the chiefmost part of the field, there are two pieces of vine,
the chiefmost of which is more or less fesswise and issuing from
the bend at the dexter end, and the basemost of which is embowed
to sinister chief with both ends issuing from the bend.
The most obvious interpretation to those who were used to doing
artwork using 13th to 15th C vinework was that there was a single
ivy vine that is embowed, forked somewhere under the bend, with
the basemost fork spiralling downwards and inwards (so the main
vine would have the shape of a 'C', with the fork forming a
smaller 'c'). We note that a standard heraldic vine is a single
length of vine, and the extensive fork in this vine is not
compatible with standard heraldic depictions of vine. We also
note that this interpretation was not at all obvious to the
majority of viewers who did not partake of artwork using 13th to
15th C vinework on a regular basis.
Other people viewed this as two vines, one on either side of the
bend, but this is not the case; in such an emblazon, there would
not be two pieces of vine showing in the chief portion of the
field, and none of the vine would conjoin to the bend. Others
viewed this as some sort of "semy of ivy vines", but strewn ivy
vines would be depicted with a large number of detached pieces of
vine. Others interpreted this as a single vine passing back and
forth over the field and filling the field (and called that 'semy
of vine'), but no documentation has been provided for a period
heraldic design consisting of one vine filling the field by
passing back and forth over the field.
As a consequence, this design cannot accurately be reproduced
from a blazon and is thus not acceptable by RfS VII.7.b.
[Marcus de la Forest, 01/2003,
R-Calontir]
[a dandelion plant vert with three flowers, the centermost in
profile, the outer flowers affronty, Or slipped gules] The
dandelion plant was originally blazoned as proper. Since
it can be blazoned entirely using heraldic tinctures, we have
done so. This is particularly important because the College was
not sure whether the flowers of the dandelion were meant to be
the yellow-petalled flowers (as depicted here) or the argent
"puffball" seed phase of the dandelion.
The device conflicts with Ewan of Balquhidder, Argent, a three
headed thistle proper and a bordure purpure. Ewan's
three-headed thistle is drawn very naturalistically. Both plants
are dominated by a tuft of spiky leaves at the base of the plant.
Both plants have three flowers issuing to chief. Chardonne's
dandelion plant shows the dandelions both in the affronty flower
posture and in a profile flower posture. In the latter case, the
dandelion in profile is drawn with green bunch of sepals at the
base of the flower and a tuft of petals issuing from the sepals
to chief, approximating some depictions of thistles. Because the
only notable visual difference between the two emblazons on first
viewing is the changed tincture of the bordure, these are in
conflict by RfS X.5.
This does not conflict with ... Argent, a bulrush slipped and
leaved within a bordure vert. There is substantial (X.2)
difference between these two plants. A bulrush has long thin
spiky leaves and a cylindrical "cattail" head. A dandelion plant
has long wide serrated/spiky leaves and round flowers. The two
are very visually distinct.
This does not conflict with ... Argent, a pimpernel gules,
slipped and leaved, within a bordure vert. A pimpernel is
effectively a cinquefoil and there is substantial (X.2)
difference between a cinquefoil slipped and leaved and a
dandelion plant. [Chardonne de Lyon, 01/2003,
R-East]
... there is a CD between a single dandelion flower slipped and
leaved, as shown here, and a dandelion plant. [Chardonne de
Lyon, 01/2003,
R-East]
[a bean plant] The bean plant was documented from a 14th C
manuscript. It is a good stylization of the plant, clearly
showing the bean pods and the leaves of the plant. The emblazon
is also identifiable as a bean plant to those staff members who
are familiar with period Western European beans. [Sabine de
Creuequoer, 03/2003,
A-Middle]
[in cross four clusters of three holly leaves conjoined in
pall with one leaf outwards and fructed at the point of
conjunction proper] ... we had difficulty with blazoning the
holly as depicted here. Each holly cluster has three leaves in
pall, and each cluster has one of those three leaves pointing
outwards (so that the clusters are radially disposed.) We were
unable to come up with a clear blazon for this, and the College
did not feel these could simply be blazoned as holly sprigs with
the exact depiction left to the artist. On resubmission, the
submitter should either provide a clear blazon for these sprigs
or should draw them in a fashion which may be blazoned clearly.
[Amie Sparrow, 07/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[Per pale sable and vert, a sprig of ash Or] This does not
conflict with a badge for the Barony of Bjornsborg, A sprig of
alamosa palewise Or, slipped argent. There is one CD for
fieldlessness. The sprig of alamosa is very similar in appearance
to a small alder twig with Or leaves and an argent twig. There is
one CD for the significant change in shape between the oval
leaflet of the ash sprig and the more card-piqued shape leaflet
of the alamosa. There is no difference for changing less than
half the tincture of the sprig. [Baldric of Falkonmore,
02/2004,
A-Atlantia]
POSITION
see also ARRANGEMENT -- Forced
Move
[(Fieldless) A phoenix rising from an estoile of
eight rays Or] Conflict with ... Per chevron argent and
vert, in base a phoenix Or. There's one CD for the change to
the field but nothing for position on the field versus a
fieldless badge. [Eiríkr Mjoksiglandi Sigurðarson and Astridr
Selr Leifsdóttir, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
[Azure, three crescents one and two horns to center Or]
Conflict with ... Sable, three crescents one and two conjoined
at the horns Or. There is one CD for changing the field.
There is not a CD between a given group of charges conjoined and
another group of charges in the same arrangement which are not
conjoined. [Selim ibn Murad, 12/2001,
R-Atenveldt]
[Purpure, on a tower argent masoned a dog rampant sable]
This conflicts with a badge of Aelfric se Droflic, (Fieldless)
On a tower argent, an acorn sable. The dog was blazoned "in
base" on the Letter of Intent, and it is indeed drawn somewhat
towards the base. However, the charge is drawn large enough to
fill much of the same space taken by the acorn in Aelfric's
badge. Therefore the placement change is not significant enough
to contribute towards X.4.j.i. difference. This is effectively
change in type only of tertiary charge on a complex-outlined
charge, and not worth a CD by RfS X.4.j and its subsections.
[Gemma Meen, 01/2002,
R-An Tir]
[Per chevron azure and vert, a chevron and in base a cross
clechy argent] This also conflicts with ... Per chevron
azure and vert, a chevron and a chief embattled argent. There
is one CD for changing the type of secondary charge to a cross
from a chief. RfS X.4.g only allows difference to be gotten for
changes to charge placement or arrangement if the change "is not
caused by other changes to the design". The placement change here
is caused by the change of type of secondary charge from a chief,
which has a mandatory placement. Therefore, there is not a second
CD for changing the arrangement. [Áine inghean uí
Ghríobhtha, 01/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Gules, in bend three escallops argent] Conflict with ...
Per fess azure and vair ancient, three escallops in chief
argent. There is one CD for changing the field. However,
there is not a second CD for the change in the arrangement of the
escallops. The change in the arrangement is caused by the change
in the field. One could not put three escallops argent in bend on
a per fess azure and vair ancient field, because the the
bottommost and centermost argent escallops would be placed wholly
or in part on the vair portion of the field, with which they have
inadequate contrast. According to RfS X.4.h [Ed: should be
X.4.g], "Changing the relative positions of charges in any
group placed directly on the field or overall is one clear
difference, provided that change is not caused by other changes
to the design." [Laurence of Damascus, 08/2002,
R-An Tir]
[Per chevron gules and sable, in base a dragon passant Or]
This does not conflict with ... Per fess indented azure and
gules, a wyvern passant Or. There is one CD for changing the
field and a second for the unforced move of the dragon to base.
While it is true that the dragon, in order to fill the space,
extends slightly into the upper half of the shield, the fact that
the dragon is entirely below the per chevron line of division is
an unmistakable visual cue that the charge is, indeed, in base.
[Alex the Scribe, 09/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[lymphads vs dhows reversed] As noted in the LoAR of July
2001, "There is ... nothing for the change in the type of ship,
[or] for reversing a ship." [Jan van Antwerpen, 10/2003,
R-East]
[Quarterly gules and sable, three bendlets argent]
Conflict with Ysfael ap Briafael, Per bend bendy vert and
argent and vert. Ysfael's device could alternately be
blazoned as Vert, three bendlets enhanced argent, and was
originally submitted under that blazon. Ysfael's registration in
the LoAR of December 2000 stated, "Originally blazoned as
three bendlets enhanced, the blazon above more closely
describes the emblazon." When considering Ysfael's device under
the alternate blazon of Vert, three bendlets enhanced
argent, and comparing it to Tigernach's submission, there is
one CD for changing the field, but the second CD must come from
the change of location of the bendlets from enhanced.
Our original inclination was to give a second CD for enhancing
the bendlets under RfS X.4.g. However, evidence indicates that,
in period, armory using three bendlets enhanced was not distinct
from armory using three bendlets in their default location on the
field. We thus should not give difference between these
designs.
The Dictionary of British Arms (DBA) volume two gives very
few coats of arms using three bendlets enhanced (on p. 117). Most
of these coats are also found belonging to the same family but
with the three bendlets in their default position (on pp.
114-116): the arms of Byron, Argent, three bends [enhanced]
gules, Greeley, Gules, three bends [enhanced] Or, and
Mawnyse/Mauvesin, Gules, three bends [enhanced] argent.
For one of these families, there is scholarship which explicitly
states that the coat with the three bendlets enhanced is a
later version of the coat with three bendlets, rather than
a distinctly different, cadenced, coat. Woodward's A Treatise
on Heraldry British and Foreign discusses the arms of Byron
on p. 132, stating, "What appears to have been the original coat
of Biron viz., Argent, three bendlets gules, is now borne
with the bendlets enhanced (Fr. haussés) i.e. placed
higher in the shield, as in the arms of the poet, Lord
Byron."
The difference between three bendlets and three
bendlets enhanced is thus similar to the difference between
crosses bottony and crosses crosslet. We give no
difference between these crosses because, as discussed in the
LoAR of August 2002, "It is important to recall that the cross
bottony and the cross crosslet are both used to represent the
same charge throughout our period's heraldry. The bottony form is
found predominantly in earlier artwork, and the crosslet form
predominantly in later artwork." The evidence in DBA and Woodward
suggests that three bendlets and three bendlets
enhanced are both used to represent the same armory
throughout our period's heraldry. Just as the cross crosslet
became distinct from the cross bottony after our period, three
bendlets enhanced became distinct from three bendlets after our
period. [Tigernach Mag Samhradh�in, 11/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Animate
Charges
see also BLAZON
This category contains precedents relating to animals, plants,
and monsters. If a precedent applies to both animate and
inanimate charges, it will be found under POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- GENERAL.
An examination
of the development of the various heraldic eagles shows that the
direction of the wingtips of a displayed eagle is entirely a
matter of artistic license. To avoid incorrectly limiting the
submitter's ability to display the arms in reasonable period
variants, we will no longer specify "elevated" and "inverted"
when blazoning displayed birds. [Robert Michael McPharlan,
08/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
The unicorn is in an acceptable rampant posture. The bendwise
posture of the body is quite common in later period armory
especially when, as here, the tail balances the body and fills
the remaining space to sinister. [Katarina Kittmann,
08/2001,
A-Atlantia]
The question of the difference between passant and courant has
had mixed answers over the history of the College of Arms.
Unfortunately (because these are lovely arms) it appears that
there should not be a CD between passant and courant, and thus
these arms are in conflict. [Ingilborg Sigmundardóttir,
08/2001,
R-Caid] [Ed: see the LoAR
for further discussion]
... we have not for some time given difference between a fish and
a fish embowed in the same posture. [Marina Jensdatter,
08/2001,
R-Caid]
[... a falcon contourny argent] Conflict with ...
Azure, a falcon close contourny argent. There is only one
CD for changes to the field. It also conflicts with ... Per
chevron argent and azure, in base a falcon counter-close
argent. There is one CD for the field but nothing for the
forced move of the bird to base. [Ailill Lockhart,
09/2001,
R-Atenveldt]
There is no CD for the difference between passant and courant,
per the August 2001 LoAR. [Elspeth Colquhoun, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
[Or, five birds volant two one and two sable] This device
conflicts with ... Or, six ravens close sable. There is
one CD for posture for volant versus close. [Robert of
Gresewode, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
[Azure, a fess between two greyhounds courant and a spiral
hunting horn Or] This is clear of the arms of de la Pole,
Azure, a fess between three leopard's faces Or (important
non-SCA armory). There is one CD for changing the type of
secondary charges. There is another for changing the orientation
of the upper half of the charge group. Leopard's heads do not
have to be affronty; they can be in profile. Greyhounds can be in
an affronty posture. Therefore, per the following precedent,
there is a posture CD.
[Purpure, a bend sinister between two falcons rising wings
addored Or] This is clear of ... Purpure, a bend
sinister between two glaive heads addorsed Or; for the type
of secondaries, as well as a CD for orientation. (This CD is
granted because both charges have the ability to be addorsed,
and the falcons are not.)(LoAR 9/00)
[James of Leycester, 10/2001,
A-Meridies]
[three mice dormant] This is a good example of
identifiable dormant, since the mouse heads with their
identifying ears are largely against the high contrast field,
rather than the low contrast mouse bodies. [Gwenddolynn ni
hAilleachaín, 10/2001,
A-Merdies]
[a bear statant] Since all four of the bear's feet are
down, this is technically a statant posture, even though this
posture is part of a natural quadruped's walking process.
[Matheus de Bera, 10/2001,
A-Merdies]
[A bear passant bendwise sable] Conflict with the City of
Berlin, Argent, a bear rampant sable. There is one CD for
the change of field. Rampant animals often have a bendwise body
posture, so rampant may often look much like passant bendwise.
There seems to be no period pattern of use of passant bendwise
animals other than those animals which lay on a bend. Therefore
this bear cannot be given difference for posture from a bear
rampant. [Tirloch of Tallaght, 10/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[a bend sinister between a cat dormant bendwise sinister
contourny and a cat dormant inverted bendwise sinister] The
inversion of the lower cat is reason for return per the following
precedent: "By precedent we do not register inverted animals
unless they are part of an arrangement in annulo. [Eiríkr
Þorvaldson, 10/00]" [Saxsa Corduan, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
The seals are not in a recognizable posture. They are neither
erect nor sejant nor naiant and cannot accurately be blazoned.
Charges must be reproducible from the blazon in order to be
acceptable. [Séighín inghean Giolla Eáin, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
Conflict ... There is one CD for fieldlessness, but nothing for
the posture change from rampant to sejant erect guardant.
[Judith Maryse, 10/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[three unicorns couchant] There were some suggestions in
the commentary that these unicorns were not in a standard
couchant posture, and perhaps might be better blazoned as lodged.
Lodged is just a synonym for couchant used when blazoning deer
and their close relatives, and there is no difference in the way
lodged and couchant are drawn. The slight bend in one foreleg is
an acceptable artistic variant for any animal in this posture,
although it is found most often with a long-legged animal such as
a deer. [Myfanwy ferch Rhiannon,11/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a fox sejant contourny its sinister paw elevated vs. a vixen
sejant guardant contourny] The small posture changes are not
worth a CD. [Paraskova Chemislava, 11/2001,
R-Meridies]
... nothing for changing the posture to segreant from sejant
erect, and nothing for changing the type of charge. [Lecelina
O'Brien of Mountshannon, 12/2001,
R-Artemisia]
[Ermine, a lion dormant...] ... the posture of the lion
blurs the distinction between couchant and dormant. The head
should clearly be raised and alert (as in couchant) or should
rest on the forepaws and sleep (as in dormant). [Rurik
Levushka Ul'ianov, 12/2001,
R-Atenveldt]
[a pegasus salient] Ginevra's pegasus was originally
blazoned with its wings elevated and addorsed. This is the
default for a salient winged quadruped and may thus be omitted
from the blazon. [Ginevra da Ravenna, 01/2002,
A-West]
[passant vs. sejant] When quadruped postures are used to
blazon two-legged monsters, the difference between some of these
postures becomes blurred. While there is a CD between a sejant
quadruped and a statant quadruped, there is no clear distinction
between a wyvern statant and a wyvern sejant. Both legs are down,
and the angle of the body and disposition of the tail is variable
in both postures. Nor is there a clear distinction between a
wyvern passant and a wyvern statant or sejant. The passant
wyvern has one leg raised, as opposed to both legs on the ground
as in the other two postures. Current precedent does not give
difference between these postures: "[a wyvern passant vs. a
dragon sejant] As a wyvern passant can be equally
blazoned as a wyvern sejant, there is no CD for posture,
thus there is only a single CD for the tincture of the wyvern."
(LoAR 10/00).
This precedent for wyverns apparently follows our precedents for
birds, which give no difference for raising one leg of a bird
close or rising, interpreting it as unblazonable artist's license
(LoAR April 1992). Continental sources such as Siebmacher and
Gelre uphold this interpretation of bird postures, but it is
harder to find evidence of wyvern postures. One example of a
wyvern passant in Siebmacher (die Wörmb, f. 144) is blazoned
modernly in Rietstap's Armorial Géneral (under Wurmb)as
dragon ailé d'or, la patte dextre levée ("A winged dragon,
the dexter paw raised"), but this is a modern blazon, and only
one example. A counterexample showing a wyvern passant wings
displayed is also in Siebmacher (v. Breidenstein gen. Bredenbach,
f. 130). This is modernly blazoned in Rietstap as the first
quarter of Breidbach-Bürresheim, Argent a dragon gules
(not mentioning the raised foreleg). Again, this is only one
example. Without clear evidence that period heralds would have
considered passant and statant as distinct postures for wyverns,
the existing precedent stands. [Ramiro the Sicilian,
01/2002,
R-Caid]
[wolf's heads erased ululant] This seems a good time to
remind the College that the blazon term ululant,
indicating that the animal has its head up and is howling, is not
a period blazon term: "While we allow wolves and foxes to be
ululant, the head posture is an SCA invention. It is
possible that had the head posture been introduced today we would
not allow it. Allowing ululant wolves is a step beyond period
practice; allowing anything but canines to use the position is
two steps beyond period practice and therefore grounds for
return" (LoAR December 2000). [Wülfer Drachenhand,
02/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
The raven was originally blazoned with its dexter talon
raised. This detail has been ruled unblazonable in the past:
"A bird passant, that is to say, with one leg raised, is
considered an unblazoned variant of close" (LoAR February
1996, p. 1). Quite a few period birds close are drawn with one
leg raised to some degree, especially massive birds such as
cocks, hens and swans. Perhaps this is because the bird better
fills the space at the bottom of the shield when drawn with one
leg raised. [Branwen of Werchesvorde, 02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[a standing seraph gules] This does not conflict with
Jussi of Ylitalo, Or, an angel statant to sinister arm
extended sable, head and hand argent. There is a CD for
changing the tincture of the angel. Jussi's angel is statant to
sinister with its wings addorsed. The standing seraph is in its
default affronty position, with its six wings in their default
posture (the top two displayed and elevated, the middle two
displayed and out to the side, and the bottom two crossed over
the body). Thus, there is a CD for changing the posture, just as
there would be between a bird displayed and a bird rising to
sinister wings addorsed. [Henry of Three Needles, 02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[dolphins naiant in annulo one and two] Her previous
blazon was Azure, three natural dolphins naiant in annulo, a
chief wavy argent. This reblazon locates the dolphins
explicitly. Since charges in annulo are clockwise by default, it
also defines the dolphins' posture. [Isabelle d'Avallon�
02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[a bird displayed wings inverted] The bird was originally
blazoned as a raven. However, it is not in a posture used
by ravens in period. It has a very eagle-like stylization of the
wings and it lacks any other distinguishing features of a raven.
It therefore cannot be identified as a raven and must be blazoned
as a bird. [Thorfinn of Deodar, 02/2002,
A-Calontir]
Per the August 2001 LoAR, there is no posture difference between
courant and passant. [Charlotte Cartier,
02/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
Changes to head posture of a beast are not worth difference by
RfS X.4.h: "A change of posture must affect the orientation of
the charge, or significantly change its appearance. Changes in
the position of the head, for instance, are not significant".
[Charlotte Cartier, 02/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[a dolphin hauriant] Conflict with Isabelle d'Avallon,
Azure, three natural dolphins naiant in annulo one and two, a
chief wavy argent. There is a CD for changing the number of
primary charges. There is no second CD for posture, because the
posture of Úna's dolphin is too similar to that of one of
Isabelle's dolphins.
The posture match of the dolphin in Isabelle's arms and the
dolphin in Úna's arms is not exact; Úna's dolphin is haurient,
and Isabelle's dexter base dolphin is haurient to sinister.
However, there is no difference between a fish haurient and a
fish haurient to sinister, paralleling the analogous ruling
concerning urinant: "[A dolphin urinant contourny proper]
Conflict with... a dolphin urinant vert... There is... nothing
for reversing the fish in this position. (LoAR May 1992 p.22)."
Recall that with a palewise fish, it is not easy to tell which
way the fish is facing. It is easier to tell which way a fish is
facing when it is embowed, but the precedent cited applies
specifically to dolphins, which are generally depicted with some
sort of embowing, so presumably this was taken into account when
the precedent was written. [Úna Baróid, 02/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[Vert, in pale a stag courant inverted and a stag courant to
sinister argent] These stags were originally blazoned as
courant in annulo widdershins, legs outward, argent.
However, these are not clearly in annulo as they are not
embowed enough to make a circle. Such a posture may not be
possible for stags with their legs outwards, since in order to
truly make a circle, the stags would need to be drawn with
extremely arched backs. Such a depiction is likely non-period
style. In any case, animals in annulo are expected to have their
legs inwards and their identifiability and period style are
hampered by this posture.
We have precedent against animals which are almost, but not
really, in annulo:
[A coney courant and another courant contourny inverted
conjoined at the paws argent] The rabbits were originally
blazoned as conjoined in annulo. However, the beasts were not
drawn in annulo, where the two animals are embowed, but were
drawn as courant and courant inverted. By precedent we do not
register inverted animals unless they are part of an
arrangement in annulo. (LoAR October 2000)
This is clear of conflict with ... Vert, two
stags combattant argent. There is one CD for the difference
in arrangement between in fess (as with two animals
combattant) and in pale. There is also a CD for changing
the posture, for the change between rampant/rampant to sinister
and courant inverted/courant to sinister. [Katrín
Þorfinssdóttir, 02/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[cinquefoil vs. garden rose bendwise sinister] There is no
posture difference for the flower in chief, because the slip and
leaf are not considered to be worth difference. The flowers
themselves are radially symmetrical, and thus you cannot get
difference for making one of them bendwise sinister. [Katrein
Adler, 02/2002,
R-Outlands]
[Azure, a bend sinister between an owl close affronty and a
goblet argent] The device conflicts with ... Azure, a bend
sinister between a winged unicorn countersalient and a batwinged
manticore couchant argent and with ... Azure, a bend
sinister between a unicorn couchant reguardant contourny and
another couchant reguardant argent. In each case there is but
a single CD, for the change in type of the secondary charges.
There is no other difference for changing posture. A goblet can
neither face dexter, sinister, nor be affronty. An owl affronty
has been ruled to be equivalent to an owl close (and thus
therefore, also to an owl close and contourny): "The 'blobbiness'
of the owl's body, and the fact that the owl is guardant in all
cases, leads me to conclude that there is no visual difference
for turning the owl's body affronty" (LoAR of October 1992).
Therefore there is no meaningful posture difference for turning
the charges in chief (which are contourny) to this owl affronty,
as the owl affronty is equivalent to an owl contourny. [Ambra
Biancospina, 04/2002,
R-Middle]
There is no difference between a panther rampant and panther
passant bendwise. [Grecia de Caunteton, 04/2002,
R-Middle]
[a frog tergiant inverted] This device uses a frog in the
tergiant inverted posture. The SCA has general precedents against
registering inverted animate charges unless they are part of a
radially symmetrical group such as in annulo. These
precedents are on the grounds that such inverted animals are
generally not readily identifiable, and they are not found in
period heraldry. However, the SCA also has a registration
tradition of allowing animals which are usually found in a
tergiant posture to be registered in the tergiant inverted
posture. We were asked by the submitting kingdom to rule on the
acceptability of the tergiant inverted posture when considering
this submission.
There is very little period evidence for tergiant inverted
animals in heraldry. No evidence was presented by the College. We
were only able to find two instances of period or near-period
tergiant inverted animals after the Wreath meeting, both of which
used scorpions. There is a tergiant inverted scorpion as the
crest of Sir William Sharington/Sherrington c. 1547 in
Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry, p. 104. This crest
is a very unusual depiction of the Sherrington scorpion
crest/badge: in the town of Lacock (where the Sherrington family
was granted the old abbey as a home by Henry VIII), there are
period displays of their armory in the Abbey/Sherrington home and
in the town church, and the scorpion seems always to be in the
default tergiant posture. Guillim's Display of Heraldrie
second edition p.215 gives the arms of Cole, Argent, a
cheueron, Gules, betweene three scorpions reversed, sable.
The emblazon shows the scorpions in what the SCA would call the
tergiant inverted posture. The second edition, published
in 1632, is not in our period, but is in our grey area. The
combination of a perhaps-erroneous emblazon of a crest with a
slightly post-period emblazon of armory is not clear evidence of
period practices for scorpions, and is certainly not compelling
evidence for a general period use of the posture tergiant
inverted.
A significant number of commenters felt that inverting a tergiant
charge which is commonly found as tergiant (such as a tergiant
scorpion or a frog) does not hamper the identifiability of the
charge so much as to render it unidentifiable, and they felt that
it should be acceptable. The frog in this submission certainly
retains its identifiability very clearly in the inverted posture.
As a result, inverting a tergiant charge is acceptable as long as
it does not otherwise violate any basic heraldic principles,
including the requirement for identifiability. Because of the
lack of period evidence for tergiant inverted charges, the
posture will be considered a clear step from period practice
(also known informally as a "weirdness") for any charge that
cannot be found in this posture in period. We explicitly decline
to rule at this time on whether scorpions tergiant inverted
should be considered a "weirdness". [George Anne, 05/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
There is no posture difference between birds naiant and birds
close. However, there is another CD for changing the type of bird
from a swan naiant to a falcon close. [Falco de Jablonec,
06/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
[a pegasus salient vs. a unicornate pegasus salient wings
displayed] There is a second CD for changing the posture.
While there is no difference between rampant and salient, there
is a CD between a creature with its wings displayed and one with
its wings addorsed. [Philip Cloonagh, 07/2002,
A-Trimaris]
[a rabbit sejant erect affronty paly argent and azure] The
identifiability of the rabbit is unacceptably compromised by the
combination of the unusual sejant erect affronty posture and the
paly tincture of the rabbit. While there is period armory
depicting animals in multiply divided tinctures such as barry and
checky, the period animals so tinctured are in their most
identifiable postures. Sejant erect affronty is not such a
posture. In addition, period examples of sejant erect affronty,
such as the crest of Scotland, are generally drawn with the
forepaws displayed. Such a rendition is more identifiable than
the depiction in this emblazon, where the forepaws lie entirely
on the rabbit's body. [Tieg ap Gwylym, 07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[(Fieldless) A hare-headed man argent statant to sinister
vested azure cocking a crossbow proper] The commentary was
secondarily concerned with the difficulty of blazoning the
posture of the creature. He is holding the crossbow so that it is
inverted and against the "ground". He has put one hind foot
behind the bow (presumably, in a stirrup) to hold the bow down
while he pulls the bowstring back (which is to say, upwards).
This is a reasonable natural posture for a period person to have
taken while cocking a crossbow, but it is not clear whether it is
an acceptable heraldic posture. We have used this term in the
blazon above, but decline to rule at this time on whether it is
an acceptable heraldic posture. [Bright Hills, Barony of,
07/2002,
R-Atlantia]
[an ape affronty bendwise, arms embowed-counterembowed]
The posture of the ape cannot be reproduced from this blazon or
any other blazon we were able to determine. The overall art style
was also generally felt to be obtrusively modern. This was
partially due to the generally modern stylization of the art, and
partially due to the similarity of this ape to some modern pop
icons, such as the "monkeys" from the Barrel of Monkeys game (see
http://www.yesterdayland.com/popopedia/shows/toys/ty1003.php)
[Angus John Macleod, 07/2002,
R-Calontir]
[Azure, in chevron two wasps statant respectant within a
bordure argent] The previous device submission was returned
for using rampant insects. Those insects had their bodies
palewise with their limbs extended forward and outwards in a more
or less rampant fashion. This emblazon clearly uses statant
wasps. Even though their bodies are, as noted in the blazon,
tilted in chevron, they do not appear to be rampant, and they are
drawn differently from the wasps in the previous submission. This
redrawing meets the objection of the previous return.
The SCA has registered many insects statant, as well as other
arthropods statant (such as scorpions), even when the insect or
arthropod has only been documented as tergiant in period
heraldry. Without an extensive change in policy concerning the
acceptability of insects or arthropods statant, this may be
registered. [Robert Pine, 08/2002,
A-Atlantia]
This is clear of conflict with Cigfran Myddrael Joserlin the
Raven, Argent, a raven rising reguardant, wings disclosed,
proper, in dexter claw a sword gules. There is a CD for
changing the field. The wings of Cigfran's raven are effectively
displayed. There is a second CD for changing the posture of the
bird from rising, wings displayed to rising, wings
addorsed. [Bj{o,}rn Þorkelson, 08/2002,
A-Middle]
[Per bend azure and argent, an eagle striking to sinister,
wings elevated and addorsed, Or and a Lebanon cedar proper]
The previous blazon was Per bend azure and argent, an eagle
rising to sinister, wings elevated and addorsed, Or and a Lebanon
cedar proper. The submitter's request for reblazon asked that
we change the eagle's posture to striking. Striking
is an SCA blazon term describing a hawk terminating its dive by
braking with its wings and extending its claws down in order to,
with luck, send some smaller animal into the afterlife. It is
different from stooping, which depicts the hawk in the
midst of the dive. Striking is similar to the period
posture rising and no difference is given between these
postures, but the SCA has continued to use striking when
the posture seems appropriate. The eagle here is drawn in a
posture that is at least somewhat characteristic of
striking and we may therefore accede to the submitter's
request. [Jamal Damien Marcus, 09/2002,
A-Caid]
[Ermine, a hawk striking wings displayed sable tailed and in
chief three triquetras gules] Conflict with Malutka sep
Srebnitska, Ermine, a turkey vulture [Cathartes aura]
displayed, dexter wing erect, sinister wing inverted, proper.
There is one CD for adding the triquetras.
There is no type difference between a turkey vulture and a hawk.
The turkey vulture is a New World bird, which is not a period
heraldic charge. Per RfS X.4.e, when determining difference from
a non-period charge, difference is determined by a visual
comparison. A visual comparison shows that there is insufficient
difference between a turkey vulture and a hawk to give difference
on solely visual grounds.
There is no difference between the visually similar postures of
displayed dexter wing erect and striking wings displayed. There
is no difference for changing tincture, as less than half the
charge has changed in tincture. Malutka's turkey vulture is black
with a red head, and Morgan's hawk is black with a red tail. The
head and the tail combined make up less than half the tincture of
these birds. [Morgan mac Máeláin, 09/2002,
R-Caid]
[Azure, three quail and a bordure argent] This does not
conflict with ... Azure, three swallows migrant within a
bordure argent. There is one CD for the change in posture
from close to migrant ... [Catalina of Tir Ysgithr,
10/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[a bee rising] Rising is not a defined posture for
insects. These bees are seen in profile with their wings addorsed
and their bodies hovering in intermediate postures between
bendwise and palewise. Their posture cannot be blazoned, and
therefore, this device must be returned.
Note that the SCA accepts bees in a statant posture (horizontal
body, legs down, wings addorsed). The SCA also accepts bees which
are statant in a clearly defined bendwise or bendwise sinister
posture. However, it is not acceptable to rotate a statant bee 90
degrees to a "palewise" posture. The resulting posture, with a
vertical body, and legs extended to dexter, is equivalent to the
previously forbidden "rampant" posture for bees and similar
insects. [Patrick Olsson, 10/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[an angel statant to sinister] The angel was originally
blazoned as a seraph contourny. Seraphim in period
heraldry consist of a human head cabossed conjoined to six wings.
The top two pairs of wings are displayed and the bottom pair
crosses beneath the head. The SCA has an invented charge of a
"standing seraph", which is a standing gowned human with six
wings (the top two pairs displayed and the bottom pair crossed
over the body). Since the angel in this emblazon is a standing
human with two addorsed wings, it is a standard angel and should
be blazoned as such.
Angels are affronty by default and so contourny is not a well
defined term: the angel must be r[e]blazoned as statant
contourny. Because an angel is a humanoid monster, the term
statant is understood to mean "standing as a human does":
it is not necessary to blazon an angel as statant erect.
(And it is not period heraldic practice, nor is it respectful, to
emblazon an angel statant as an animal would be statant, down on
all fours.) [Rivenvale, Shire of, 10/2002,
R-Middle]
[Azure, a bend sinister between an eagle rising wings addorsed
and a dragonfly Or] Conflict with ... Azure, a bend
sinister between a cat sejant guardant and a dove close Or.
There is one CD for changing the type of the secondary charges.
There is no additional difference for changing charge posture.
There is not a meaningful posture comparison either between birds
and cats (per the charges in chief) or between birds and insects
(per the charges in base). We do allow meaningful posture
difference between groups of unlike charges if both groups can be
said, for example, to have a meaningful addorsed posture versus a
respectant posture, but that is not possible in this armorial
comparison. [Domhnall Dubh Ó Ruairc, 11/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[(Fieldless) A bee statant proper] In the SCA, a bee
statant has its wings addorsed by default, as in the
August 2002 registration of Robert Pine's device.
This badge does not conflict with Aideen the Audacious,
(Fieldless) A bumblebee fesswise proper. There is one CD
for fieldlessness. Aideen's bumblebee is in its default tergiant
posture, and then rotated fesswise. There is a CD between a bee
tergiant fesswise and a bee statant. Both postures show the bees
with fesswise bodies, but a bee tergiant fesswise has wings
visible on both sides of the bee's body, while a bee statant only
has wings visible on the chiefmost side of the body. This
difference is worth a CD, analogous to the difference between a
bird rising wings displayed and a bird rising wings addorsed.
[Catríona nic Theàrlaigh, 12/2002,
A-An Tir]
The frog is neither in the default (palewise) tergiant posture,
nor is it clearly bendwise tergiant. Because this is an
intermediate and unblazonable posture it must be returned by RfS
VII.7.b. [Sláine O'Connor, 12/2002,R-Atenveldt]
[a swan naiant affronty wings displayed head to sinister]
The swan was originally blazoned as displayed, which would
show the legs and tail of the swan and would show the breast of
the swan straight towards the viewer. This emblazon shows a swan
swimming in a posture halfway between affronty and to sinister.
As a result, it is in trian aspect and it is not acceptable,
because it cannot be blazoned accurately. [Alianor atte Red
Swanne, 02/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[A hawk striking maintaining in its talons a compass star
sable] Conflict with ... Argent, a raven rising regardant
wings disclosed proper, maintaining in the dexter claw a sword
gules. There is a CD for changing the field. There is no
difference between a hawk and a raven (see the discussion in the
January 2002 cover letter). There is no difference in posture
between these birds except for the head position, which is
insufficient for posture difference by RfS X.4.h. There is no
difference for changing the maintained charge. [Ricart
Berenguer Falcón, 03/2003,
R-Meridies]
[a sea serpent erect] Please advise the submitters to draw
the serpent erect correctly. Its tail should be to base, rather
than twisting upwards and overlapping the serpent's body. The
current rendition obscures the identifiability of the serpent's
posture, although it does not obscure it so much that it may not
be registered. [Krakafjord, Shire of, 04/2003,
A-An Tir]
We have reblazoned the cats from herissony to
statant, as their backs are not arched enough to be
blazoned herissony. [Garrett Fitzpatrick, 04/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[On a mullet of eight points sable a bird Or] The badge
conflicts with ... Or, on a mullet of six points sable, a
griffin segreant contourny Or. ...
Note that there is no meaningful posture comparison between birds
and griffins. If there were, we would expect the change from a
griffin rampant to an eagle displayed to be a change in both type
and posture. This clearly has not been the case in the SCA, which
has seen this as a type-only comparison. And appropriately so:
the postures taken by these creatures in period heraldry are very
different and are generally not directly comparable. As an
example: the most common postures for eagles in period heraldry
are close (standing with wings folded) and displayed (the bird's
chest and tail facing the viewer, wings expanded, head to dexter,
legs spread to either side of the tail). Griffins, by contrast,
are virtually never found in period heraldry with their wings
folded (like a close eagle). Nor are they found in a displayed
posture (like a displayed eagle).
Because there is no meaningful posture comparison between a bird
and a griffin, we have only changed the type of the tertiary
charge in this comparison. "There is nothing for change of type
only of tertiary charge on a sun or multipointed mullet, as this
shape is not simple for purposes of RfS X.4.j.ii" (LoAR February
2002). [Brenna of Storvik and Gauss Magnússon, 04/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[an owl contourny] Conflict with Ayslynn MacGuraran,
Azure, a snowy owl affronty proper grasping in its dexter
talon three roses Or, slipped and leaved vert, and in its
sinister talon two of the same, within an orle Or. There is
one CD for changing the field. "There is not a CD between an owl
close guardant and an owl close affronty" (LoAR of
October 2000). The same applies to an owl close guardant
contourny (as in this submission) and an owl close affronty (as
in Ayslynn's device). There is no difference for removing the
small held charges. [Marko Evanovich Panfilov, 04/2003,
R-Outlands]
[a lion dormant vs. a lion couchant guardant] There is no
difference for the minor posture changes to the lion (affecting
only the head). [Sesildi Garces de Leon, 04/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[two carp naiant tergiant] We are not aware of period
heraldry using fish tergiant. However, period heraldry uses fish
in a wide variety of orientations and arrangements. These fish
tergiant maintain their identifiability as fish. The tergiant
posture is thus one step from period practice ("a weirdness"),
but since this submission only contains one "weirdness", it is
stylistically acceptable. [Nonna the Midwife, 05/2003,
A-Middle]
[Argent, a bend sinister azure between two ravens sable]
Conflict with Malleta MacKessock, Argent, a bend sinister
azure between a rose sable barbed and seeded proper and a natural
panther rampant to sinister sable. There is a CD for changing
the type of the secondary charges. There is no additional CD for
changing the charge posture.
The November 2002 LoAR stated: "There is not a meaningful posture
comparison either between birds and cats (per the charges in
chief) or between birds and insects (per the charges in base)." A
similar analysis holds when comparing Bran's armory with
Malleta's: there is not a meaningful posture comparison between
birds and cats, or between birds and roses.
The November 2002 ruling continued, stating:
We do allow meaningful posture difference between groups of
unlike charges if both groups can be said, for example, to have
a meaningful addorsed posture versus a respectant posture, but
that is not possible in this armorial comparison.
Note that the November 2002 precedent ended in a
fashion that was unclear at best. Here is a clarification of that
ruling:
We do allow meaningful posture difference between groups of
charges which would otherwise not have comparable postures when
the following conditions apply:
- both groups consist of charges which have the ability to be
addorsed or respectant
- one group is addorsed or respectant (both charges face in
opposide directions) and the other group is not (both charges
face in the same direction)
So, while it is is not possible to compare the
posture of a bird and a cat, it is possible to compare the
posture of two cats rampant addorsed versus two doves close, and
see that the cats are facing in opposite directions and the doves
are facing in the same direction. This ruling affirms a ruling in
the LoAR of September 2000:
[Purpure, a bend sinister between two falcons rising wings
addorsed Or] This is clear of ... Purpure, a bend
sinister between two glaive heads addorsed Or; there is a
CD for the type of secondaries, as well as a CD for
orientation. (This CD is granted because both charges have the
ability to be addorsed, and the falcons are not.)
[Bran mac Conchobair, 05/2003,
R-An Tir]
[Vert, a dove rising wings addorsed Or] We have reblazoned
the dove from volant wings addorsed to rising, as
its somewhat bendwise body posture and legs "planted on the
ground" are indicative of the rising posture. A bird volant
wings addorsed would have a fesswise body posture and the
legs would be tucked up as with a bird in flight.
The device conflicts with Conall Ó Cearnaigh, Vert, a hawk
striking within a bordure embattled Or. There is one CD for
removing the bordure. "There is ... nothing for the difference
between striking and rising" (LoAR January 2001). Per the Cover
Letter for the LoAR of January 2000 (which should be read in its
entirety for a full discussion of the interaction between bird
posture and type difference), "In the future I will be more
likely to grant difference between different types of birds when
they are (a) different in period, (b) in a period posture, (c)
drawn correctly, and (d) there is some visual difference." Hawks
and doves would be considered different in period when in their
default postures. However, Conall's striking hawk is not in a
period posture, and Sarah's rising dove is not in a standard
period posture for doves. Sarah's dove is drawn with the dove's
heraldic attribute of a tuft at the back of the head. However,
Conall's hawk is also drawn with a tuft or crest at the back of
its head. The body shapes and beak shapes of the two birds as
depicted in their emblazons are not as distinct as one would
expect for good depictions of either type of bird. After visually
comparing the two emblazons, it was the strong opinion of the
people present at the Wreath meeting that there was not much
visual difference between these two birds. As a result, we cannot
give additional difference for changing the type of bird.
[Sarah nic Leod, 07/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[two cats rampant] The submitter blazoned the cats as
rampant, but Kingdom reblazoned them as sejant
erect. These cats are in an acceptable period depiction of
rampant, and so we have returned the blazon to the original form.
Each cat has its body positioned palewise, with its dexter
foreleg pointing towards dexter chief, its sinister foreleg and
dexter hindleg pointing to dexter, and its sinister hindleg
pointing towards dexter base, so that all four legs are separated
from each other. A number of period depictions of rampant animals
and monsters resemble these cats, although as a general rule,
rampant animals are usually drawn so that their sinister hindlegs
point to base or even a bit towards sinister base. For discussion
of this issue (with illustrations) see the Proceedings of the
Knowne World Heraldic & Scribal Symposium (Trimaris A.S. XXIX
1994), "On the Origins and Development of the Sejant Erect
Posture" by Zenobia Naphtali, particularly pp. 19-20.
This distinction between rampant and sejant erect
is an issue of correctly re-creating the emblazon, not of
difference. No evidence has yet been presented that the
rampant and sejant erect postures would have been
considered distinct in period: in fact, it does not appear that
the sejant erect posture was described in period blazon
(as discussed further in the 1994 article cited above). Thus,
period practice appears to agree with the visually-based
precedent in the LoAR of June 1992 (symposium), which stated: "By
SCA precedent, there's no difference between rampant and
sejant erect. The only real change is the placement of a
hind leg." [Caoilfhionn inghean Amhlaoibh, 08/2003,
A-Caid]
[two peacocks respectant Or] Peacocks are close by
default, with their tails extending behind them, and closed up
(rather than being fanned out). The SCA has blazoned some
peacocks close as pavonated to base (indicating that the
tail points downwards), but the exact orientation of the tail of
a peacock close is an artistic choice rather than a heraldic
distinction. A peacock close could legitimately be drawn with the
tail pointing straight behind the peacock, to base, or even
somewhat towards the chief, as long as the tail is not fanned
out. The exact orientation of the tail of a peacock close thus
does not need to be explicitly blazoned and is not worth
difference. A peacock in his pride, which is affronty with
its tail fanned out and held up behind its body, must be
explicitly blazoned. There is a posture CD between a peacock
close and a peacock in his pride.
... there is no difference between a default peacock and a
peacock pavonated to base ... [A'ishah bint Rashid
al-Andalusi, 08/2003,
R-Caid]
A dragon contourny is rampant to sinister, so again, there is no
difference between rampant to sinister and salient
contourny. [Erich von Drachenholz, 08/2003,
R-Caid]
There is no difference between statant and courant, because the
evidence which has so far been obtained indicates that these
postures were interchangeable in period.
The LoAR of August 2001 stated: "There is a significant amount of
evidence implying that courant and passant were used
interchangeably in English armory. There are multiple cases with
the same or very similar coats of arms belonging to people of the
same surname, using variously passant and courant postures...
[details of family armory snipped] Of the families mentioned
above, only one of them had a version of the coat of arms where
the beasts took a posture outside of the passant/statant or
courant groups." Because the specific ruling in that LoAR
compared passant and courant, most of the text of that ruling
specifically discussed passant and courant. Nonetheless, the
ruling does mention the statant posture, and indicates that the
research showed that statant was effectively equivalent to the
passant posture for purposes of this discussion (by mention of
the "passant/statant" posture group). Statant should thus not be
given difference from courant, because it was interchangeable
with courant in period - just as passant was interchangeable with
courant in period. There are previous precedents that give
difference between statant and courant based on 20th C visual
perceptions regarding the way the charge looks when the legs are
moved. For example, "We feel that the second CVD can be gained
from the change from courant to passant [sic - should be statant
as in blazon], as it changes dramatically the position of all the
legs. (Much as a CVD is granted for the change from statant to
couchant, which effectively only removes the legs)" (LoAR
November 1990). The currently applicable rules concerning
difference are based primarily on what period people would have
used to indicate cadency. The rules only use visual difference as
a criterion for difference when period practices cannot be used:
when period difference practices for certain armorial elements
have not yet been determined by SCA scholarship, or when period
difference practices cannot apply (as, for example, when a charge
is not a period charge, but is SCA-compatible).
Statant and courant postures were both period postures, and per
the August 2001 LoAR, could be interchangeable in period.
Interchangeable postures would not have been used for cadency and
we thus should not give difference between them. The current
philosophical basis of the rules requires that past precedents
which are based on 20th C visual perceptions should be overruled
by precedents based on evidence concerning period cadency
practices. New evidence indicating that the difference between
courant and statant would not have been interchangeable in period
could, of course, be used to overrule this finding, but no such
evidence has yet been presented to, or found by, this office.
[Alexandra Scott de Northumberland, 09/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[a reremouse dormant pendant from a branch] The reremouse
is hanging upside down and has its wings wrapped around its body
in a natural sleeping posture. This posture is not registerable
by previous precedent: "[a reremouse dormant dependent from an
annulet] The bat was not dormant, but was rather in
its natural sleeping posture. We know of no examples of this
posture in period heraldic depictions of bats, and for good
reason: this posture eliminates any identifiable aspects of the
bat. Therefore the device violates VIII.4.c, Natural Depiction:
... Excessively natural designs include those that depict
animate objects in unheraldic postures ... and VIII.3,
Armorial Identifiability" (LoAR August 2000). [Sebastian
Goulde, 09/2003,
R-Middle]
Please recall that the rising posture, according to a number of
sources, needs to have the wings explicitly blazoned as either
addorsed or displayed. The SCA has at times
registered birds rising wings addorsed simply as
rising, but this pattern has not yet been so clearly
established that we wish to define it as a default at this time.
[Erik von Winterthur, 10/2003,
A-An Tir]
The mermaids were originally blazoned as respectant. We
understand the temptation to use the term respectant:
mermaids were often drawn in period so that they are slightly in
trian aspect and they can thus face each other to a small extent,
as these mermaids do. The LoAR of July 2001, ruling on an earlier
submission of this device, stated, "The device originally
blazoned the mermaids as respectant, but that implies that their
bodies are in profile as well. There is no way to indicate in the
blazon that the tails are symmetrical; the direction of the tail
is normally artistic license and not blazoned." We agree with the
previous ruling and have removed the term respectant from
the blazon. [James of Riverhold, 10/2003,
A-Calontir]
[a dragon in annulo] The dragon is not drawn in a period
or identifiable posture. Its head is tergiant, but the body is
not. Even in the period insignia of the Society of the Dragon
(which uses as part of its insignia a dragon in a posture that is
similar to in annulo) the dragon's head is in profile.
This dragon's tergiant head is not very identifiable on its own,
and is further obscured by its overlap with both the dragon's
tail and one of its foreclaws. The wings of the dragon and its
hind legs overlap its body to a significant extent so that they
also lose their identifiability. The problems with the
identifiability mandate a return under RfS VII.7.a, and the
non-period posture mandates a return under RfS VII.2.
[Elysabel Lengeteyll, 10/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[goats clymant] Some commenters suggested that
clymant was not a correct blazon and that these goats
should be reblazoned as salient. This is an erroneous
suggestion, as clymant may be used as a synonym for either
salient or rampant goats. Parker's A Glossary of Terms used in
Heraldry defines clymant as "salient, applied to the
goat", and, under goat, he notes that "[clymant] may be
used for either salient or rampant." It is thus acceptable to use
the term clymant to refer to a goat which is either
rampant or salient.
It is important to note that there is no consistent period
distinction between rampant and salient for beasts
or monsters. Heraldic treatises and dictionaries define these
terms as generally upright postures (with the body ranging from
palewise to bendwise), but the treatises are not in
agreement on other specifics of the definitions of these
postures, such as whether the beast's legs are together or apart.
In period treatises, one often finds salient depicted with
a more bendwise (rather than palewise) body posture than
rampant, perhaps to give the impression of leaping.
Otherwise, there are no consistent trends. Most of the other
trends for these postures follow the general trends in the
drawing of the rampant posture. In early depictions of rampant
animals, the body is usually palewise, while in later depictions,
the body is usually bendwise - these postures evolved to best fit
the shield, which widened from the kite shape (in the 12th C),
through the heater shape, to the broad-based shape (in the 16th
C).
The SCA defines both rampant and salient as upright
postures, where the beast's body ranges from palewise to
bendwise. The SCA defines the salient posture with
the hind legs together and the rampant posture with the
hind legs apart. In the rampant posture the front legs are
always apart, while in the salient posture the front legs
may be either together or apart.
Because of the period interchangeability of salient and rampant,
the SCA will register a beast in a posture that is somewhat
ambiguous as to whether it is rampant or salient,
as long as the beast is clearly not in any other posture (such as
courant) and the beast is adequately described by the
chosen blazon term. [Christophe de Lorraine, 11/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[three dragons each involved in annulo inverted] Each of
these dragons is inverted: on its back with its paws in the air.
"The College has judged inverted creatures to be unacceptable
style, barring documentation of this practice in period heraldry"
(LoAR of September 1993, p. 21). The College has not yet found,
or been presented with, documentation for animals in this
involved in annulo inverted posture. The device must
therefore be returned.
We note that the ruling in the October 2000 LoAR stating, "By
precedent we do not register inverted animals unless they are
part of an arrangement in annulo", does apply to the armorial
design found in this submission. This submission consists of
three dragons in an arrangement two and one, not an
arrangement in annulo. The precedent refers to an
arrangement in annulo without specifying the posture of the
animals in that arrangement. For example, Three dragons
courant in annulo would be in an arrangement where the three
courant dragons would be running in a circle, feet towards the
center of the shield. As a result, the bottommost dragon in the
group must perforce be inverted. The precedent makes clear that
such an arrangement in annulo is acceptable, even though
one of the animals in such an arrangement is inverted. [Avice
Greylyng, 11/2003,
R-East]
[a rose branch fesswise] The branch was blazoned on the
LoI as fesswise reversed. However, there is no clear way
to determine which end of any branch is up. Therefore we have
simply blazoned the branch as fesswise. [Owen
Blakshepe, 12/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
Wyverns and dragons are variants of the same charge in period,
and they thus have a meaningful posture comparison. See the Cover
Letter for the July 2003 LoAR for more discussion of meaningful
posture comparisons (also known as "comparable postures").
[Ríoghnach de Fae, 01/2004,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a dragon couchant] The dragon was originally blazoned
with its wings elevated and inverted, which is a
contradiction in terms. The wings are addorsed, which is
the default for a winged quadruped couchant. In the past, we have
sometimes blazoned wings as either elevated (wingtips to
chief) or inverted (wingtips to base), but the distinction
between elevated and inverted is not a period heraldic difference
but a mere artistic choice. This is most apparent in displayed
eagles, as noted in the LoAR of August 2001, "An examination of
the development of the various heraldic eagles shows that the
direction of the wingtips of a displayed eagle is entirely a
matter of artistic license. To avoid incorrectly limiting the
submitter's ability to display the arms in reasonable period
variants, we will no longer specify 'elevated' and 'inverted'
when blazoning displayed birds."
The winged quadrupedal monsters, such as griffins and dragons,
appear to follow the same pattern as birds. We therefore will not
distinguish elevated and inverted wingtips when
posturing those monsters. [Kateline Conteville, 01/2004,
A-East]
[Per fess argent and vert ermined argent, a sea-serpent
ondoyant and issuant from the line of division azure] A
number of commenters expressed concerns about the posture of the
serpent. They cited a precedent concerning a sea-serpent ondoyant
emergent, an SCA invention which is described in the Pictorial
Dictionary under Sea-Serpent:
[Per fess azure and Or, three flanged maces palewise in fess
argent and a sea-serpent emergent ondoyant to sinister
vert.] While there is perhaps a precedent for the
peculiarly fragmented partial sea-serpent in Caid in the
armoury of the Barony of Calafia, this is an old one. The
serpent emerging from thin air does not seem to be a period
charge and the effect here is to have three charges in fess in
chief with another three non-identical fragments in base [the
three separated pieces of the sea-serpent] (LoAR of June 1990).
We believe that the stylistic problem with
ondoyant emergent serpents is that they incorporate two
steps from period style (also known colloquially as "two
weirdnesses"). The serpent is broken into "non-identical
fragments" (one step from period style) that are disassociated
from each other because they are "emerging from thin air" (the
second step from period style). Armory incorporating two steps
from period style is not registerable.
A serpent ondoyant and issuant from a [line of division],
however, is only one step from period style (colloquially, "one
weirdness"). Period armory is replete with animals issuant from
lines of division or from charges. In some of these cases, there
is even a small degree of fragmentation of the charge: the tail
of a demi-lion issuant from a line of division may sometimes be
separated from the rest of the demi-lion. The fact that a
serpent ondoyant and issuant from [a line of division] is
broken into three or more "non-identical fragments" when it
emerges from the line of division is still one step from period
style. However, these fragments are associated with each other by
the line of division from which they all issue, so this design
does not have the second step from period style, that of
disassociation by "emerging from thin air." Armory with only one
step from period style may be registered. [Isabel
McThomas, 01/2004,
A-West]
[a natural tiger displayed] The tiger was blazoned on the
LoI as statant erect affronty, but no evidence was
presented, and none was found, indicating that this is a period
posture. Note that statant erect is a rare posture in
period that is used almost exclusively for bears, and sejant
erect affronty is an even rarer posture in period. Because
these two postures are so rare, we do not believe that statant
erect affronty can be reasonably extrapolated to be a
period-compatible posture. None of the commenters who discussed
the armorial style of this submission were comfortable with
considering the posture of this tiger to be period style. We
therefore will not be registering this posture now or in the
future.
Much of the commentary suggested that the tiger is in the
displayed posture, so we have blazoned it using that term.
However, displayed is also not an appropriate posture for
wingless quadrupeds. Per the LoAR of July 1995, p. 2, "The bear
was blazoned as statant displayed in the LoI, but there
was a consensus among the commenters that displayed is an
avian posture inappropriate for beasts (as, for example,
rampant is a quadrupedal posture inappropriate for
birds)."
Note that the bear in the July 1995 submission referenced in the
precedent above was in fact registered and blazoned with the
statant erect affronty posture, rather than being
reblazoned as displayed and returned for non-period style.
However, the College has benefited from much research and
learning during the years since that ruling, and its opinions
have changed. In fact, al-Jamal, who was the Laurel who wrote the
July 1995 ruling, commented on the current submission as follows:
"Okay, I suppose it can be argued that it is only one step from a
period leonine posture (sejant erect affronty), but that posture
is very rare, and this one has not been noted in period heraldry,
and is effectively 'displayed', a bird posture. I'm against it."
[Aedan MacEwan, 01/2004,
R-An Tir]
This serpent was blazoned as erect, but an erect serpent
has its body fully palewise. The front half of this serpent is
palewise and the back half of the serpent is mostly fesswise with
the very end of the tail reflexed up over its back. No evidence
was presented that this is a period posture for a serpent, nor
was evidence presented for a term that would clearly blazon this
posture. This submission is thus in violation of RfS VII.7.b,
"Reconstruction Requirement - Elements must be reconstructible in
a recognizable form from a competent blazon." [Kate
Galleghure, 01/2004,
R-East]
The only difference in posture between a dolphin urinant and a
dolphin urinant to sinister is the way its head is facing, which
is not worth difference by RfS X.4.h: "[A dolphin urinant
contourny proper] "Conflict with... a dolphin urinant vert...
There is... nothing for reversing the fish in this position"
(LoAR of May 1992, p. 22). [Geoffrey Athos von Ulm,
02/2004,
R-Atlantia]
POSTURE/ORIENTATION --
General
see also BLAZON
This category contains precedents that apply to both animate
and inanimate charges. Precedents relating specifically to
animate charges will be found under POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- ANIMATE CHARGES and those
relating to inanimate charges will be found under POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- INANIMATE
CHARGES.
[three fleurs-de-lys vs. three ash leaves
stems to center] When a group of charges has a visually
obvious palewise posture, and a visually obvious top and bottom,
there can be a CD between three palewise charges and three
charges which are radially disposed. [Ysabel la Serena de
Lille, 11/2001,
A-Artemisia]
[Argent, on a bend gules between a cart proper and a warhammer
reversed sable handled of wood proper a chain throughout
argent] Conflict with ... Argent, on a bend gules a cat
sejant affronty palewise argent. There is one CD for adding
the secondary charges, but nothing for changing the type only of
the tertiary charge, since this device is not simple under RfS
X.4.j.ii. There is no meaningful posture comparison between a
chain and a cat. Thus, the palewise orientation of the cat does
not cause this to be considered change of type and orientation of
the tertiary charge. Such a change, if present, would be a CD
under RfS X.4.j.i. [Alaric Grümper, 01/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
From Wreath: Clarification and Explication of Some Rulings on
Posture
First, a clarification of terms which appears to be necessary
given recent commentary: when we speak, in general, of rulings on
posture, these rulings are understood to apply both to
postures for animate charges (like a lion rampant) and
individual orientation of animate or inanimate charges (like a
snail bendwise or a sword palewise). This usage
follows the general definition in RfS X.4.h, which is called
"Posture Changes" though its explanation explicitly addresses
"changing the posture or individual orientation of charges."
The term posture may be used to refer to both inanimate
and animate charges. It is idiomatically correct to say "the
sword is in a palewise posture", and it is also correct to
say "the lamb is in a passant posture." The term
orientation is usually used to refer to the major
orientations that are described as [ordinary]wise, as well
as inverting charges (turning them upside down) or reversing them
(turning them right to left). So it is also idiomatically correct
to say that "the sword is in a palewise orientation."
Some questions have been received concerning some of the recent
rulings on posture, particularly the rulings on the return of the
joint badge of Brenna of Storvik and Gauss Magn�sson in April
2003 and the device of Bran mac Conchobair in May 2003. We here
hope to clarify these rulings and our current policies concerning
posture.
We were faced with the need to make a large number of difficult
rulings in late 2002 and early 2003 in which posture played a
role. Each of these rulings hinged on whether two CDs should be
given for a given charge group (for changing the type and posture
of the charge group) or if only one CD should be given (for
changing just the type of the charge group). The pertinent rule
on posture changes, RfS X.4.h, reads:
Posture Changes -Significantly changing the posture or
individual orientation of charges in any group placed directly on
the field, including strewn charges or charges overall, is one
clear difference.
Changing the posture of at least half of the charges in a group
is one clear difference. Changing a sword fesswise to a
sword palewise, or from a lion rampant to a lion
passant, is one clear difference. Multiple changes to the
posture or orientation of the same charges may not be counted
separately, so a lion passant bendwise is one clear difference
from a lion couchant to sinister. Changes of posture or
orientation of separate charge groups may each be counted. A
change of posture must affect the orientation of the charge, or
significantly change its appearance. Changes in the position of
the head, for instance, are not significant, nor is the change
from statant to passant, which essentially moves only one leg.
Changing from passant to couchant, however, visually removes the
legs from the bottom of the charge and is considered
significant.
All the rulings which we found to be difficult included a
substantial change of type in the charge as well as a (possible)
interpretation of a change in posture. RfS X.4.h is very good in
explaining how to give difference between the posture of
identical types of charge: the examples compare lions to lions,
and swords to swords. RfS X.4.h is ominously silent on the matter
of how to compare the posture of two very different types of
charges: there are no examples which discuss how we might compare
lions to swords.
While considering these difficult rulings, we found to our
chagrin that past rulings on these issues and recent commentary
on the pertinent submissions were often quite inconsistent from
submission to submission, month to month, and commenter to
commenter. It was also particularly difficult to refer to
previous precedent. In cases where Laurel felt that there were
obviously two CDs (for type and posture), the submission was
often accepted without any discussion from Laurel. In cases where
Laurel felt that there was obviously only one CD for changing the
type of charge, the ruling would generally not refer to posture
at all, but would simply mention that only the type of charge had
changed. Neither of these types of ruling are generally
incorporated into precedent, as they appear to be routine
applications of the rules. Lastly, because the charge types were
substantially different, this issue often was masked when the
charges were primary and the armory was simple under RfS X.2, as
the substantial difference in type alone would then be sufficient
to remove conflict. The issue would only arise concerning
secondary or tertiary charges, or in complicated armory which is
often clear of conflict for other reasons. Despite these
obstacles, we have attempted to codify a consistent - and usable
- policy for future decisions. It is generally agreed that
certain very different types of charge do not have any sort of
meaningful posture comparison. When two charges do not have a
meaningful posture comparison, no posture difference is given
between charges of these different types.
Animate and inanimate objects are not generally considered to
have a meaningful posture comparison. When comparing lions with
swords, we do not give posture difference between these charges -
even when we compare the "sort of fesswise" lion passant
to a sword palewise, or the "sort of palewise" lion
rampant to a sword fesswise.
Very different sorts of compact inanimate charges - for example,
pheons and crescents - are not generally considered to have a
meaningful posture comparison. A pheon in its default
posture has its shaft to chief, and a crescent in its
default posture has its horns to chief. However, we do not give
posture difference between a pheon and an increscent - even
though that comparison could be viewed as changing the type of
charge from pheon to crescent, and then rotating the crescent
ninety degrees.
Some substantially different types of charge may be meaningfully
compared for their overall orientation, but the inversion or
reversing of the charge is not meaningful. This is generally
agreed to be the case for inanimate objects which are not compact
("long skinny" objects). We would give a posture CD between an
axe fesswise and an arrow bendwise, because the
charge has had a major change to its overall orientation. However
we would not give a posture CD between an axe fesswise and
an arrow fesswise reversed because the overall orientation
of the charge is the same (fesswise), even though the arrow is
reversed. After all, in this comparison, the "pointy end" of each
weapon is to dexter - but the arrow is reversed and the axe is
not. It is hard to compare inversion or reversal for this sort of
charge.
Different types of quadrupeds (which may also be winged) are
generally agreed to have meaningful posture comparisons, even
when there is substantial type difference between these
quadrupeds. Griffins and wolves are compared with the standard
quadruped posture comparisons. Therefore, a griffin
passant has a CD for type and a CD for posture when compared
to a wolf rampant.
The point where heralds start to disagree - and where past
rulings cease to be consistent - is when the rulings compare
animate charges which have very different sorts of overall
anatomy and which have very different postures in general use.
Quadrupeds (winged or not), animal or bird heads, birds, and
insects all have very different sorts of anatomy from each other,
and are found in markedly different sorts of postures. These
posture comparisons have, so far, been ruled on in a fashion
which is influenced by what the standard period (and SCA)
postures are for the charges, but which does not seem clear
enough to codify an ongoing SCA practice for such charges.
Let us consider, for example, a cat and a bee. Cats in the SCA
are found in postures which face to dexter, to sinister, and
affronty. The SCA gives difference between these three general
orientations for all quadrupeds. Bees in period are invariably in
the tergiant posture (which is not found for cats), but bees in
the SCA are allowed to be postured as statant to dexter or to
sinister - and when so postured, are given difference from bees
tergiant. When comparing a cat sejant and a bee tergiant, should
we consider them to have a posture change (from a profile
orientation to an affronty orientation)? Most rulings have not
given such a posture difference, but only type difference.
Similarly, when comparing quadrupeds and birds in their very
different postures, the rulings have generally not given
difference for posture between a lion rampant and an
eagle displayed, even though it is possible to interpret
the changes to their postures as a shift from a profile
orientation to an affronty orientation.
The change between full animal postures and animal head postures
is particularly vexing. If we give a CD for posture change
between a lion passant and a lion's head erased contourny
(because the first is facing dexter, and the second is facing
sinister), how should we give difference between a lion passant
reguardant and a lion's head erased contourny (where both of the
faces are looking to sinister, but the overall body posture of
the lion is facing to dexter)? The answer is by no means
intuitive, especially when one considers that RfS X.4.h does not
give difference between a lion passant and a lion passant
reguardant because, by the text of that rule, "changes in the
position of the head, for instance, are not significant".
After consideration of the many cases on which we have had to
rule (some of which, we admit, we handled without writing express
precedents on the issue), we adopted the following policy:
Quadrupeds, insects, birds, and heads do not have comparable
postures, because of the very different sorts of postures these
charges hold in heraldry. When two types of charge do not have
comparable postures, we do not give posture difference between
them. This lack of posture difference applies to all the possible
postures the charges might take. Because a quadruped is not
comparable to a insect, bird, or animal head, a lion rampant is
given no posture difference from a bee tergiant, a raven close
contourny, or a lion's head bendwise couped.
That being said, we continue to uphold the ruling by Elsbeth
Laurel which noted that, even though two types of charge may not
have comparable postures, two groups of charges may be comparable
for purposes of determining whether the groups are facing in the
same direction, or are respectant/addorsed. Please see the ruling
on the device of Bran mac Conchobair in the May 2003 LoAR for
more discussion of this issue. The short relevant excerpt from
that ruling reads:
We do allow meaningful posture difference between groups of
charges which would otherwise not have comparable postures when
the following conditions apply:
• both groups consist of charges which have the ability to be
addorsed or respectant
• one group is addorsed or respectant (both charges face in
opposide [sic] directions) and the other group is not (both
charges face in the same direction)
So, while it is is not possible to compare the
posture of a bird and a cat, it is possible to compare the
posture of two cats rampant addorsed versus two doves close,
and see that the cats are facing in opposite directions and the
doves are facing in the same direction.
[07/2003,
CL]
We have received the occasional comment asking whether the
charges in an orle of [charges] are conjoined by default.
They are not. By default an orle of [charges] is an
unnumbered group of charges (generally, eight or more charges)
that are arranged in orle. Each individual charge is in its
default posture unless otherwise blazoned. The arms of the
Valence family (sometime earls of Pembroke) are, perhaps, the
best-known example of this sort of design in real-world armory.
Their arms are protected as important non-SCA arms as Barruly
argent and azure, an orle of martlets gules.
In a charge group blazoned as An orle of [charges] in
orle, the charges are arranged in orle and the
postures of the charges tilt so that they follow each other.
Thus, an orle of fish naiant would all be in the default
naiant (fesswise) posture, but an orle of fish naiant in
orle swim head to tail. [Olivia de Calais, 09/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Inanimate
Charges
see also BLAZON
This category contains precedents relating to objects. If a
precedent applies to both animate and inanimate charges, it will
be found under POSTURE/ORIENTATION --
GENERAL.
[Azure, four ermine spots in cross bases
to center argent each charged with a roundel azure] This does
not conflict with ... (Fieldless) A cross of four ermine spots
conjoined argent. There is a CD for fieldlessness, and
another for the orientation of the ermine spots.
A question was raised in commentary about whether it was
reasonable to give an orientation CD for inverting an ermine
spot. The vast majority of ermine spots, and all the ermine spots
which use a three-roundel "clasp" artistic motif (as with this
submission), are not symmetrical about the horizontal axis. (In
many renditions of ermine spots, the three roundels, or voided
billet, at the top of the spot represent a stylized clasp, as
would have been used to hold an ermine tail or skin to an
underlying garment or less expensive fur.) As a result, there is
a CD for posture between an ermine spot and an ermine spot
inverted. [Constance de Montbard, 09/2001,
A-An Tir]
[Five crescents conjoined in annulo horns outward argent]
This is clear of conflict with ... Purpure, six crescents in
annulo argent. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There is
another CD for changing the posture of the group, since over half
the charges have changed their posture from palewise to some
other orientation. There is no difference between charges in
annulo and charges in annulo which are also conjoined, although
the conjoining must be blazoned when present. There is also no
difference between five and six charges, by RfS X.4.f. [Caid,
Kingdom of, 01/2002,
A-Caid]
[a longship inverted] "We do not allow inverted animate
charges in SCA heraldry except when in recognized orientation,
such as in annulo" (LoAR February 1999, p. 10). The situation
with constructed items is more complex. Some constructed items,
such as arrows and swords, are found in a variety of orientations
in SCA and real-world armory. These charges generally have simple
outlines, which enhances their identifiability in unusual
orientations. However, not all constructed items are found in a
wide variety of orientations. Ships are consistently depicted
with the keel to base in heraldry. When inverted, a ship loses
its identifiability to an unacceptable degree. [Háls
Styrkársson, 01/2002,
R-Middle]
[Per fess azure and argent, a compass star throughout and a
bordure counterchanged] This is clear of conflict with ...
Per bend sinister azure and argent a compass star within a
bordure counterchanged. There is one CD for changing the
field tincture, another CD for changing the tincture of the
primary charge (the compass star), and a third CD for changing
the tincture of the bordure. There is nothing in the Rules for
Submission which calls for considering conflict with a rotated
version of the entire armory. Nor is there visual confusion
between these two armories when they are displayed in their
correct orientations. [Garrett O'Doherty, 02/2002,
A-Caid]
[Gules, in pall inverted three feathers conjoined at the quill
argent] This is clear of conflict with ... Gules, two
merlin feathers in pile, points crossed in nombril point,
argent. There is one CD for the number of charges and another
for posture, since all the feathers have changed in posture.
[Nakano Zenjirou Tadamasa, 02/2002,
A-Calontir]
[Gules, three axes argent] This is clear of conflict with
Wolfram von Eschenbach, Gules, two axes addorsed argent hafted
proper (important non-SCA arms). There is one CD for changing
the number of axes. The question was raised whether there is a
second CD for changing the orientation of one of Wolfram's axes.
If one looks at Wolfram's arms and counts the orientation change
before the number change then one half of the group is changed
and there is a CD for it. If one counts the number change first
then only one of three charges has changed orientation and so no
CD is granted. (A similar analysis can be made moving in the
other direction, from Sefferey's submission to Wolfram's
arms.)
The Rules for Submission give no indication that one class of
change is to be considered before another. Precedent
superficially appears to favor the less generous reading. As
Palimpsest noted, "Consider the return of the submission of
Leonia Dubarry in the January, 1993 LoAR. This compared three
charges 2&1 vs in chief two charges. Laurel wrote in part,
'To sum up: the change from three charges 2&1 to two charges
in chief cannot count a second CD for placement on the field,
because two charges can't be 2&1' While it is true that two
charges can't be 2&1, it is also true that three charges can
be in chief. This leaves the implication that the less generous
interpretation prevails." Consulting the 1993 text, however,
shows that Laurel also adduced examples of the change from three
charges 2 & 1 to two charges in chief being used as a cadency
step in period. These examples of cadency forced Laurel to apply
the less generous interpretation. In Sefferey's case, there is no
reason to believe that the change from two axes addorsed to three
axes all with blades to dexter is but one cadency step. Therefore
we can give the submitter the benefit of the doubt and grant the
second CD. [Sefferey of Wessex, 02/2002,
A-Meridies]
[Azure, a bend sinister between an owl close affronty and a
goblet argent] The device conflicts with ... Azure, a bend
sinister between a winged unicorn countersalient and a batwinged
manticore couchant argent and with ... Azure, a bend
sinister between a unicorn couchant reguardant contourny and
another couchant reguardant argent. In each case there is but
a single CD, for the change in type of the secondary charges.
There is no other difference for changing posture. A goblet can
neither face dexter, sinister, nor be affronty. An owl affronty
has been ruled to be equivalent to an owl close (and thus
therefore, also to an owl close and contourny): "The 'blobbiness'
of the owl's body, and the fact that the owl is guardant in all
cases, leads me to conclude that there is no visual difference
for turning the owl's body affronty" (LoAR of October 1992).
Therefore there is no meaningful posture difference for turning
the charges in chief (which are contourny) to this owl affronty,
as the owl affronty is equivalent to an owl contourny. [Ambra
Biancospina, 04/2002,
R-Middle]
[on a chief gules three recorders palewise argent] Long
thin charges such as arrows, swords and recorders default to the
fesswise posture when placed on a chief or a fess. Thus, even
though all these charges are palewise by default when on the
field, it is also necessary to blazon them as palewise when they
are on a chief.
It is an incorrect oversimplification to state that "charges on
an (ordinary) are oriented (ordinary)-wise by default". A
crescent or fleur-de-lys charged on a fess is in its default
palewise posture, not fesswise. If a saltire were charged with a
cross crosslet, the cross crosslet would be in its default
palewise (or crosswise) posture, not saltirewise.
A more complicated rule of thumb, but one which recreates period
practice with greater accuracy, would be:
(1) Charges on a bend are bendwise by default, and charges on a
bend sinister are bendwise sinister by default.
(2) Charges on any other ordinary have the same default for
such a charge on the field (which is generally palewise.) This
statement has the following exceptions.
(2a) "Long thin" charges such as arrows tilt to follow the
ordinary on which they lie.
(2b) When charging an ordinary such as a chevron, saltire, or
pall, which has some diagonal arms, the charges may all be
drawn using the same default for the charge on the field. They
may also be drawn with the centermost charge in the default
posture but the outermost charges tilted to follow the arms of
the charge. (There is a fair amount of evidence indicating that
the difference between these two forms of emblazon may be
purely artistic in period. However, the SCA has so far always
blazoned this distinction and given corresponding difference
for changing the posture of the charges.)
Once again we are reminded that while blazon is a
type of technical language, the people who developed it in the
Middle Ages weren't computer programmers, and the people
listening to it weren't computers, so blazon also partakes of
natural language. [Gunnarr skáld Þorvaldsson, 06/2002,
A-Ealdormere]
[Sable, a valknut inverted argent] The Letter of Intent
asked us to rule on whether the valknut should continue to be
registered. As noted in the LoAR of September 1993, the valknut
is a period artistic motif which was not used in period heraldry.
It was incorporated into SCA heraldry and has been registered
infrequently but steadily thereafter. The September 1993 argument
in favor of the valknut's registration appears to continue to
hold true. It is identifiable when inverted, just as a triangle
is identifiable when inverted. [Esteban de Quesada,
06/2002,
A-Lochac]
[Or, three piles in point gules surmounted by a galleon under
sail sable] Conflict with ... Or, three piles two from
chief and one from base gules overall a reremouse sable.
There is one CD for changing the type of the overall charge.
There is no difference for inverting less than half of the
primary charge group (only one of a group of three piles). Note
that piles in point are not given difference from piles issuant
from chief and palewise, so the tilting of the outermost piles is
not worth any posture or orientation difference: "[Three piles
in point and an overall charge, vs. 3 piles] 'Addition of the
overall charge is only one CVD' [This implies no difference
between piles and piles in point] (LoAR 4/91 p.13)." [Lucia da
Silva, 04/2003,
R-Caid]
[two caravels] Conflict with ... Per pale azure and
argent, in fess a ship reversed and a ship both under sail
counterchanged. There is one CD for changing the field. There
is no difference for changing the type of the ship per the LoAR
of April 2000: "By long standing precedent, there is not a CD
between two types of ship ..." There is no difference given for
the change of posture due to reversing one of the ships per the
LoAR of February 2000: "... there is a CD for the field, but by
long standing precedent nothing for reversing a ship."
[Desiree de Colecestra, 05/2003,
R-An Tir]
[Per bend sinister gules and azure, in fess a roundel between
an increscent and a decrescent argent] This device does not
conflict with ... Per fess engrailed sable and argent, a
roundel between a decrescent and an increscent argent There
is a CD for changing the field. There is also a CD for changing
the posture of two of the three charges: each of the crescents
has been reversed. (Alternately, you can see it as a change of
arrangement of the charges, by swapping the outermost two
charges.)
Some commenters mentioned that this arrangement of a roundel and
crescents is not typical of period armory, and we concur, but
this armorial design is registerable as long as the charges
maintain their identifiability: "While we will reluctantly
register the arrangement of an increscent, roundel and decrescent
if they aren't conjoined, the conjoining makes them
unidentifiable as well as non-period" (LoAR September 1997 p. 23)
[Elizabeth Karlsdotter, 12/2003,
A-Drachenwald]
The estoile was blazoned on the Letter of Intent as
fesswise, which was presumably intended to describe the
fact that the estoile does not have a point to chief. It is not
necessary to blazon the exact orientation of either a mullet of
six points or an estoile (which by default has six rays). The
orientation of such charges appears to an artistic preference,
not a heraldically significant choice. For example, in Iberian
armory mullets of six points often do not have a point to chief,
but in French armory they often do have a point to chief.
[Stromgard, Barony of, 03/2004,
A-An Tir]
PRETENSE or
PRESUMPTION
see also PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION
-- Crests and Supporters and COPYRIGHT
and TRADEMARK
[on a lozenge argent a fleur-de-lys
gules] As per the rules change in the cover letter to the
June 2001 LoAR, the fact that the charged shape is not an
escutcheon means that this is not an inescutcheon of pretense. An
inescutcheon charged with a single charge also avoids the
appearance of an inescutcheon of pretense. While this armory is
evocative of the city of Florence, whose arms are Argent, a
fleur-de-lys gules, it is acceptable. [Alethea of
Shrewsbury, 08/2001,
A-Lochac]
[Azure, eight pheons in annulo shafts to center argent] A
question was raised in commentary about whether this was overly
reminiscent of the "Chaos shield" insignia, which is a major item
of insignia in Michael Moorcock's Melniboné books. The Moorcock
insignia is described with the arrows conjoined in the center, as
if they compose an eight-armed cross. The separation of the
pheons here should be sufficient to avoid an overwhelming
reference to that insignia. [Alessandra di Fióre, 08/2001,
A-Meridies]
[Or crusilly sable, a chevron gules] One commenter noted
that Papworth gives the arms of Richard de Holebroc in the 13th C
as Or crusily and a chevron gules. There is one CD for the
change of the tincture of the strewn charges. However, no
evidence was presented that Richard de Holebroc's arms are
protectable in the SCA, and no suggestion was made that they
should be so considered. There are no Holbrooks (in any obvious
spelling variant) listed under their own heading in the 1911
Encyclopedia Britannica, and the small number of Holbrooks in
Encarta (there are no Holebrocs) could not be this armiger.
It is true that, aside from minor spelling variants, the
submitter and Richard de Holebroc share the same surname.
However, the obscurity of Richard de Holebroc and his arms
removes any problem of presumption due to the combination of name
and arms. In order to be presumptuous, the submitter's name and
arms combination must imply that he possesses status or powers
which he does not possess. It is not presumptuous to appear to be
related to an obscure real-world armiger. The presence of a CD
between the two pieces of armory also removes any possible
presumption due to the combination of name and arms which are not
protected by the SCA. See the cover letter for a general
discussion of presumption due to the combination of name and
arms. [Brienus Holebroc, 10/2001,
A-Meridies]
[Vert, three hounds courant on a chief argent three hunting
horns vert] The combination of the submitter's name and
device is presumptuous, as it implies that the submitter is a
real-world Scottish clan chief. For a general discussion of name
and arms presumption, see this month's cover letter.
The Hunter of Hunterston is the chief of the name and arms of
Hunter in Scotland. The original matriculation of the arms of
Hunter of Hunterston, in the Lyon Ordinary, is Vert three dogs
of the chase courant argent collared Or on a chief of the second
three hunting horns of the first stringed gules. Those arms
have no CDs from this submission. The dogs' collars are not worth
difference, nor is there difference for changing the tincture of
the stringing on the horns. While it is true that the arms of the
Hunter of Hunterston were later modified to Or three hunting
horns vert stringed and viroled gules, this does not change
the fact that the Hunter of Hunterston retains an interest in the
first matriculation, and that other members of the family
continue to cadence from the first matriculation.
The arms of a Hunter clan chief are not so well known that they
must be protected in the SCA. While these arms could be
registered to someone whose name did not refer to Hunter of
Hunterston, the combination of the Hunter surname with these arms
causes the submitter to appear to be a real-world clan chief, and
this is presumptuous. To avoid presumption, the submitter may
either difference his arms so that they are one CD from the arms
born by a Hunter clan chief, or he may change his name so that it
does not refer to the Hunter of Hunterston. [Kieran Hunter
, 10/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[Per pale Or ermined purpure and purpure, a feather
argent] This was pended from the July 2001 LoAR for
consideration of a number of real-world badges, associated with
the English royal family or their close associates, which use a
single white feather as a major design element. The College of
Arms did not find a clear pattern suggesting that such a badge
design would be presumptuous, nor did the College find any
particular real-world white feather badge that appeared to be, in
its own right, important enough to be protected in the SCA.
Therefore, this may be registered. [Hrefna karlsefni,
11/2001,
A-Atenveldt]
[Quarterly argent and azure, in sinister chief three arrows
inverted in fess argent] The device violates RfS XI.3,
Marshalling: "Such fields may only be used when no single portion
of the field may appear to be an independent piece of armory. No
section of the field may contain an ordinary that terminates at
the edge of that section, or more than one charge unless those
charges are part of a group over the whole field". Quarterly is
one of the fields that may only be used when no single portion of
the field may appear to be an independent piece of armory. Here,
there are multiple charges in one quarter, and the charges are
not part of a group over the whole field. [Ale Snepil,
12/2001,
R-Drachenwald]
[in sinister base a wyvern in annulo argent] The charge in
base here is evocative of the insignia of the real-world Society
of the Dragon. The submitter's byname also implies membership in
that Society. According to Boulton, Knights of the Crown
p. 352,
We know that Vlad II, Prince of Wallachia, was received into
the Society [of the Dragon] in January or February 1431, and
was thereafter known as "Dracul" 'the Dragon'; his son Vlad
Draculea 'the Dragon's Son', was the historic Dracula.
Some members of Laurel staff inquired whether this
submission was therefore presumptuous.
At the most general level of consideration, please note that
there are no existing precedents which state that the implication
of membership in a real-world chivalric order is a reason for
return for presumption. Such a membership is not apparently a
sufficient claim "to status or powers that the submitter does not
possess" (RfS I.3) to require return for presumption, nor is it
likely to "cause offense to a significant segment of the Society"
(RfS I.3). In the case of this particular submission, presumption
was not raised as an issue in primary commentary, but only at the
Wreath meeting and during subsequent LoAR proofreading.
Therefore, it is probably safe to say that "a significant segment
of the Society" is not bothered by this implication.
It has not been demonstrated that members of any medieval
chivalric order would incorporate charges from that order's
insignia into their arms to show their membership in the order.
Therefore, any possible pretense in this submission would have to
be implicit in the byname alone. This byname is grandfathered to
the submitter from his previous registration.
The "twitch factor" is lessened further when one notes the charge
in base is only similar to the insignia of the Society of the
Dragon, not identical to it. Boulton's Knights of the
Crown indicates that the insignia of the Society of the
Dragon is always tinctured Or (not argent, as here). The dragon
or wyvern of the Society of the Dragon is always associated with
a red cross, which is either charged on the back of the dragon or
found elsewhere in the insignia. There is no red cross on this
armory. [Ugo Dracul, 01/2002,
A-Caid]
[Per pale argent and sable, a human footprint sable and two
roundels in pale argent within a bordure vert] The device
raised questions about marshalling. RfS XI.3 states: "Armory that
appears to marshall independent arms is considered presumptuous."
Without the bordure, this would be returned for the appearance of
impalement, which is the display of two coats, side by side, to
show marital affiliation or tenure in an office.
Armory can avoid the appearance of marshalling by adding "charges
overall that were not used for marshalling in period heraldry"
(RfS XI.3.a). In late period, a bordure may be added to some
kinds of marshalled coats of arms as a mark of cadency: an
individual who bore quartered arms as his personal arms might
have a child who bore the quartered arms within a bordure. The
child's arms would still be marshalled. Thus, adding a bordure
will not remove the appearance of marshalling from quartered
arms.
However, impaled arms show marriage or tenure in an office. In
period, a second generation would not generally inherit the
impaled arms in that form. The component arms of two married
people might be inherited in a quartered form by a child, but
would not be inherited in an impaled form.
Bordures in impaled arms traditionally cut off at the line of
division. If one impaled the hypothetical arms Argent, a cross
fleury within a bordure gules and Gules, a lion within a
bordure argent, the resultant impaled armory would appear to
be Per pale argent and gules, a cross fleury and a lion within
a bordure counterchanged. As a result, armory using a per
pale line of division, a bordure, and different types of charges
on each side of the line of division will look like marshalled
arms if the bordure changes tincture at the line of division. It
may also look like marshalled armory if the bordure is a solid
tincture but has good contrast with both halves of the field. The
hypothetical arms Argent, a sword within a bordure sable
and Or, an eagle within a bordure sable would combine when
impaled to armory which would appear to be Per pale argent and
Or, a sword and an eagle within a bordure sable. Thus, the
only case in which a bordure may remove the appearance of
impalement from armory which would otherwise appear to be impaled
is if the bordure is a solid tincture and if it has poor contrast
with one half of the field. That is the case with this device.
[Pegge Leg the Merchant, 03/2002,
A-An Tir]
[A lozenge Or] We do not register fieldless badges which
appear to be independent forms of armorial display. Charges such
as lozenges, billets, and roundels are all both standard heraldic
charges and "shield shapes" for armorial display. The SCA has
never protected armory consisting of plain tinctures, except for
two examples that are particularly famous: the (important
non-SCA) arms of Brittany, Ermine, and the (important
non-SCA) flag of Libya, Vert. If we do not protect, and
have never protected, the arms Or, we should not be
concerned about the possible appearance of a display of Or
by using a single lozenge Or as a fieldless badge. This is
parallel to our practices concerning inescutcheons of pretense.
To quote RfS XI.4, Arms of Pretense and Augmentations of Honor,
"Similarly, an augmentation of honor often, though not
necessarily, takes the form of an independent coat placed on an
escutcheon or canton. Generally, therefore, a canton or a single
escutcheon may only be used if it is both uncharged and of a
single tincture." This rule demonstrates that an uncharged
escutcheon shape in a single plain tincture does not appear to be
a display of an independent coat of arms.
Therefore, a "shield shape" which is also a standard heraldic
charge will be acceptable as as a fieldless badge in a plain
tincture, as long as the tincture is not one of the plain
tinctures that is protected armory in the SCA. This explicitly
overturns the precedent "We do not normally register fieldless
badges consisting only of forms of armorial display, such as
roundels, lozenges and delfs in plain tinctures, since in use the
shape does not appear to be a charge, but rather the field
itself" (LoAR January 1998).
Note that this does not change our long-standing policy about
such "shield shape" charges used in fieldless badges if the
tincture is not plain (thus, divided or with a field treatment),
or if the charge is itself charged. Such armory will continue to
be returned for the appearance of an independent form of armorial
display. [Solveig Throndardottir, 04/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Azure, on a chevron between three bees Or three fleurs-de-lis
azure] This device combines the tinctures azure and Or (the
tinctures of the French royal and Napoleonic imperial arms), the
traditional fleurs-de-lys of France, and the Napoleonic bee.
However, fleurs-de-lys and armory in azure and Or are all
relatively common in period, and not even particularly idiomatic
of French armory. Bees are not very common in period but they are
found, and are not particularly used in French armory. There is
nothing about this particular charged chevron design which would
contribute to presumption. Therefore, while (as some commenters
noted) this is evocative of things French, it is not
presumptuous. [Santin Westmerland of Ravenstonedale,
04/2002,
A-Caid]
[Per bend sinister Or and azure, a fleur-de-lis and a bee
counterchanged] This badge combines the tinctures azure and
Or (the tinctures of the French royal and Napoleonic imperial
arms), one of the traditional fleurs-de-lys of France, and the
Napoleonic bee. However, fleurs-de-lys and armory in azure and Or
are all relatively common in period, and not even particularly
idiomatic of French armory. Bees are not very common in period
but they are found, and are not particularly used in French
armory. There is nothing in particular about this per bend
sinister armorial design which would contribute to presumption.
Therefore, while (as some commenters noted) this is evocative of
things French, it is not presumptuous. [Santin Westmerland of
Ravenstonedale, 04/2002,
A-Caid]
[Per chevron raguly sable and argent, two death's heads and a
Roman numeral two counterchanged] The device is presumptuous
of non-human powers or status when combined with the submitter's
name: specifically, presumption to the identity of the
mythological Gemini twins, Castor and Pollux, who are
represented or personified by the constellation Gemini.
Current precedent states:
For those names that are well documented as period human names,
that also happen to be the names of gods, one armorial allusion
to the god will no longer be considered excessive. (LoAR August
1992 p.17)
The device contains two allusions to the
constellation Gemini. The Roman numeral two very closely
resembles the astrological sign for Gemini, a strong allusion.
(The crossbars on the astrological sign for Gemini are drawn
slightly embowed towards the center of the sign, and the
crossbars of the Roman numeral two are generally drawn straight
across, but the visual resemblance is remarkable). The two skulls
are also suggestive of twins, a less strong allusion but an
allusion nonetheless. The August 1992 precedent indicates that
two allusions to a supernatural entity is excessive. As a result,
the combination of the name and the armory is not acceptable by
RfS XI.2. [Gemini de Grendel, 05/2002,
R-West] [Ed.: Registstered on appeal 03/2003,
see below]
[(Fieldless) A delf azure] As noted in the April 2002
LoAR, "A 'shield shape' which is also a standard heraldic charge
will be acceptable as a fieldless badge in a plain tincture, as
long as the tincture is not one of the plain tinctures that is
protected armory in the SCA". Since Azure is not protected
armory in this SCA, a fieldless badge consisting of a delf
azure is acceptable, and does not appear to be an independent
display of arms. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, 06/2002,
A-Trimaris]
[Per pale azure and gules, a roundel and a cup all within a
bordure embattled Or] This resembles impaled arms, which are
forbidden by RfS XI.3. Per the LoAR of March 2002, "The only case
in which a bordure may remove the appearance of impalement from
armory which would otherwise appear to be impaled is if the
bordure is a solid tincture and if it has poor contrast with one
half of the field." (Please see that LoAR for a detailed
explanation of the ruling). This submission appears to depict the
impalement of the arms Azure, a roundel within a bordure
embattled Or with the arms Gules, a cup within a bordure
embattled Or, and is thus not acceptable. The fact that this
is an embattled bordure rather than a plain bordure does not
affect the logic behind this ruling. Moreover, there is an
explicit precedent from July 2000 stating that "embattling a
bordure is insufficient to remove the appearance of marshalling
for impaled arms." [Gerrard Carpentarius, 06/2002,
R-Ealdormere]
[Per pale ermine and vert, in sinister a lion's head cabossed
Or] Many commenters mentioned that this appeared to be the
impalement of the arms of Brittany (Ermine) and the armory
Vert, a lion's head cabossed Or. RfS XI.3 states: "Armory
that appears to marshall independent arms is considered
presumptuous.... Divisions commonly used for marshalling, such as
quarterly or per pale, may only be used in contexts that ensure
marshalling is not suggested." The rule continues, in RfS XI.3.b,
to state that "Such fields may only be used when no single
portion of the field may appear to be an independent piece of
armory.... Charged sections must all contain charges of the same
type to avoid the appearance of being different from each
other".
RfS XI.3.b was later refined by Laurel ruling, indicating that
even when "charged sections ... all contain charges of the same
type" there may be an appearance of marshalling if the uncharged
quarters are complex fields. See the return of Quarterly Or
and lozengy azure and Or, in bend two ravens contourny sable
(LoAR of October 1992, Aric Thomas Percy Raven):
After much soul-searching, I must agree with the commenters who
saw an appearance of marshalling in the device. Rule XI.3.b
states that quarterly may be used only "when no single portion
of the field [appears] to be an independent piece of armory."
In general, complexity in any of the quarters makes it look
like independent armory; for example, XI.3.b explicitly cites
the use of multiple charges in a quarter as unacceptable. The
motif Quarterly X and Y, in bend two [charges] is
allowable when the uncharged quarters are plain tinctures; we
don't protect plain tinctures. But when the uncharged quarters
are complex fields, we lose that rationale; and the complexity
then begins to make it look like an independent coat. This,
beneath all the subtext, is exactly what XI.3.b is meant to
prevent.
After similar soul-searching, and considering the
strong reactions of the College to this submission, we rule as
follows:
When considering armory using a field division commonly used for
marshalling, if every uncharged portion of the field is a plain
tincture that the SCA protects as "important non-SCA arms", then
those uncharged portions of the field will appear to be displays
of independent coats of arms, and the armory will appear to be
marshalling.
Quarterly azure and ermine, in bend two mullets Or has the
appearance of marshalling Azure, a mullet Or with
Ermine, the protected "important non-SCA arms" of
Brittany. In this case, every uncharged portion of the field
appears to be a display of the arms of Brittany. Quarterly
azure and ermine, in dexter chief a mullet Or does not have
the appearance of marshalling, because not every uncharged
portion of the field appears to be a display of arms. This armory
includes an uncharged quarter of azure, which is not
protected in the SCA as "important non-SCA arms." This armory
simply appears to be arms using a quarterly field with a single
charge in dexter chief.
Quarterly azure and vert, in bend two mullets Or does not
have the appearance of marshalling. The flag of Libya,
Vert, is a plain tincture protected as an "important
non-SCA flag". Only arms would be used in marshalling in the real
world, not flags or badges. There is only an appearance of
marshalling when the protected plain tincture represents
"important non-SCA arms". [Murdoch Bayne, 08/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Per pale pean and vert, in sinister a bear rampant all within
an orle Or] Impaled armory using an orle often cuts off the
orle at the line of division, just as impaled armory using a
bordure cuts off the bordure at the line of division. One famous
example is in the arms of Balliol College, Oxford. The College
was founded by Dervorguilla of Galloway, Lady of Balliol. The
arms currently used by the College are the arms which she used to
seal the Statutes of the College in 1282. These arms shown on her
seal are impaled arms, impaling the Galloway arms of Azure, a
lion rampant argent and the Balliol arms of Gules, an orle
argent. This information is from the Oxford University web
site at
http://web.balliol.ox.ac.uk/official/history/crest/index.asp. The
same coat is discussed in J.P. Brooke-Little's An Heraldic
Alphabet under impale.
Therefore, just as the addition of a bordure would not remove the
appearance of impaled armory (c.f. the LoAR of February 1994),
neither does the addition of an orle. The orle, rather than
looking like a charge added overall, merely creates the
appearance of impaling two devices, each with an orle. This
appears to be Pean, an orle Or impaling Vert, a bear
rampant within an orle Or, and as such must be returned per
RfS XI.3.b [Sáerlaith Beirre, 08/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
The submitter's arms are identical to the real-world arms of the
English barons variously surnamed Wahall, Wodall, or Odell. Some
English heraldic sources, including Brault's Aspilogia III
and Papworth, confirm that the arms in this submission are indeed
Wahull arms. A particular baron of an equivalent first and last
name, Saiher de Wahull, may have borne this coat of arms in the
early 13th C, according to Woodhull and Stevens, The Woodhull
Family in England and America, published in 1904 and
available on the World Wide Web at
http://www.geocities.com/riegel/other/woodhull1.html.
The SCA has always encouraged its members to create personae that
were compatible with the Middle Ages and Renaissance but did not
duplicate the identity of any particular real-world person.
However, our Rules for Submission currently only forbid
presumption in cases where (to quote from RfS I.3.b) the
presumption would "thereby cause offense to a significant segment
of the Society".
There seems to be no evidence that the name or arms of this
family are in any way prominent in generally available sources.
The arms are not found as an example in the standard heraldic
texts, and these barons do not appear, in any of their many
spellings, in the Encyclopædia Britannica. Searches on the web do
eventually find some bucket shop heraldry sites that combine
these arms with some variant of the surname, but most of the Web
"hits" for this name are for genealogical research or information
pertaining to the town of the same name. These are quite
special-purpose sites that would not be known by "a significant
segment of the Society". While many of the members of the College
of Arms were not comfortable with the fact that the submitter's
persona appears to be a member of a real-world family of some
prominence, none of the members of the College, with their
specialized heraldic knowledge, said that they had recognized the
name/armory combination in this submission before reading
Crescent's citation from Papworth. Therefore, it cannot be said
that "a significant segment of the Society" would find the
combination of this name and these arms to be offensive.
Some members of the College cited the ruling in the cover letter
for the October 2001 LoAR in support of returning this submission
for presumption based on the combination of names and armory.
That precedent stated (in pertinent parts):
In the vast majority of cases, an SCA Alan Smith could bear the
exact same arms as a real-world, but unprotected, Alan Smith.
This is true even if the real-world armiger is found in a
standard heraldic source such as Papworth's Ordinary of
British Armorials, Burke's Peerage or Fox-Davies'
A Complete Guide to Heraldry. In order for there to be
presumption, it must be demonstrated that a significant number
of SCA members would find that the name and arms combination
claimed "status or powers the submitter does not possess". In
some cases, a significant number of SCA members will recognize,
and find presumptuous, a combination of real-world name and
arms, even if the use of the name or arms alone would be
innocuous. Such possible cases of presumption will have to be
determined, as they have been so far in the College of Arms, on
a case by case basis.
In Kieran Hunter's submission, it was ruled that there is
presumption in a case where the arms have no difference from
that of a Scottish clan chief, and the surname of the submitter
matches the clan chief's surname. While either the name or arms
could be registered alone, the combination implies a status
that the submitter does not possess, and is presumptuous.
The October 2001 Cover Letter specifically stated
that a listing in Papworth was not adequate proof of presumption
due to a name/armory combination. No evidence has been presented
or found indicating that "a significant segment of the Society"
would find the combination of the Wahull name and arms to be
presumptuous. Therefore, this name and arms combination is not
presumptuous for use in the SCA.
The specific case that was protected in the October 2001 Cover
Letter, that of a name and armory combination for a Scottish clan
chief, is in keeping with long-standing SCA precedents that
acknowledge the peculiar prominence of Scottish clan chiefs to a
"significant segment of the Society." Quoting from the LoAR of
March 1993, referring to bynames of the form [clan name] of [clan
seat/territory]: "[such a name's] use in the SCA represents a
direct infringement on actual nobility, and also appears to be a
claim to rank, either of which is grounds for return". This
precedent has been consistently upheld, most recently in November
2001 and in this LoAR (Ian of Mull, Calontir acceptances). At no
point has the precedent been changed to require that only certain
"famous" clan chiefs' name and clan seat locations are protected:
it has always been all the clan chiefs. [Saher de Wahull,
09/2002,
A-Caid]
[(Fieldless) A demi-cat erect maintaining on its left forearm
a targe argent] The Letter of Intent asked if there was a
problem with the combination of this badge and a version of the
MacBain surname. Way of Plean and Squire's Scottish Clan and
Family Encyclopedia, endorsed by the Convenor of the Standing
Council of Scottish Chiefs, gives the MacBain crest as A grey
demi-cat-a-mountain salient, on his sinister foreleg a Highland
targe gules, and the MacBain badge as A grey
demi-cat-a-mountain as in the Crest within a chaplet of boxwood
Proper.
In the Cover Letter for the March 1991 LoAR, it was ruled that
"It has been decided that we will NOT check for conflicts against
mundane crests". Therefore, we need only consider the MacBain
badge for possible pretense issues. The removal of the chaplet of
boxwood makes it clear that no identity is being presumed.
[Áedán mac Bheathain, 09/2002,
A-Outlands]
[Party of six pieces vert bezanty and paly or and azure]
Some commenters inquired whether the party of six pieces
field division was ever used for marshalling and, if so, whether
the armory in this submission would thus appear to be marshalled
arms. Note that RfS XI.3 is only concerned with divisions
"commonly used for marshalling", not divisions "which may rarely
have been used for marshalling." We have only found a few 16th C
English coats (and a few more post-period coats) with marshalling
in six pieces. Each such example uses a different coat in each of
the six pieces (such as the arms of Jane Seymour on p. 87 of
Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry, painted c. 1536).
No evidence has yet been presented that party of six was
"commonly" used for marshalling. No evidence has yet been
presented for party of six being used to marshal only two
separate coats (which might give an appearance like the armory in
this submission). Without new evidence, there seems no compelling
reason to add party of six pieces to the fields which the SCA has
found to have been "commonly used for marshalling". [Crystine
Thickpenny of Giggleswick, 09/2002,
R-Atlantia]
"The use of the white rose of York with the byname 'of York' has
been disallowed since the LoAR of 11 Nov 77" (LoAR of December
1992). The combination of a white rose with the name element "of
Yorkshire" appears to strike the same chords of presumption in
the College and in the populace as does the combination of a
white rose and the byname "of York". [Samuel of Yorkshire,
09/2002,
R-East]
[Argent, in base a heart gules and on a chief sable a pair of
armored arms embowed respectant each maintaining a dagger Or]
Some commenters felt that this device might be presumptuous in
combination with the submitter's originally-submitted Douglas
surname. A single well-known branch of the Douglas family is
protected in the SCA as important non-SCA arms under three
blazons, representing the armory of that branch of the family at
different times. The first blazon, Argent, on a chief azure
three mullets argent, was that branch's earliest coat. They
later added the heart, resulting in the protected arms Argent,
a heart gules and on a chief azure three mullets argent. They
then received an augmentation, resulting in the protected arms
Argent, a heart gules and on a chief azure three mullets
argent, for augmentation, the heart crowned proper.
However, there were a wide variety of Douglas arms in period, and
only one branch of the family has its arms protected as important
non-SCA arms. One large branch of the family uses a gules chief
and various differences deriving from those arms. In both the
blue- and red-chief branches of the Douglas family, one finds
various kinds of differences, including changing the number of
the mullets, indenting the chief, and changing the field
tincture. There is therefore no reason to believe that this
armory, with a sable chief, and a different type and tincture of
tertiary charge, is in the least presumptuous when combined with
the Douglas surname. The device alludes to the Douglasses, but
does not presume on them. [Wilham of Caer Galen, 11/2002,
A-Outlands]
[Per pale gules and argent, two dragons combattant and a
bordure embattled counterchanged] Some commenters mentioned a
possible issue of presumption due the combination of the name and
the device. According to their research, there is a story of
Merlin seeing a vision of a battle between red and white dragons
in a pool, symbolizing the struggle between the Saxons and the
Britons. Merlin was also known as Ambrose or Emrys. The LoAR of
August 1992 stated:
For those names that are well documented as period human names,
that also happen to be the names of gods, one armorial allusion
to the god will no longer be considered excessive.
This precedent has been extended to mythological
figures other than deities. Since Emrys is a period given name,
one allusion is not presumptuous, and may be accepted. [Emrys
Tudur, 01/2003,
A-Caid]
[on a bordure ... the words "In Diece von Albrecht von
Halstern"] The text on the bordure was intended to mean "in
service to Albrecht von Halstern." Unfortunately, the phrase as
submitted has severe construction problems, including using a
word, diece, which the College has been unable to document
as a German word.
Precedent holds:
"As blazoned, the words do not make a sensible phrase, but they
are not required to make sense, only to be non-offensive."
(LoAR July 2000)
However, we feel that a phrase used in armory should
consist of actual words. Without documentation that this is, at
worst, a poorly-formed German phrase, this may not be accepted.
...
In addition, the College had concerns about the fact that this
armory contains text using another SCA member's registered name
(Albrecht von Halstern) without permission from that SCA member.
Note that RfS I.3 states (emphasis added) "No name or armory will
be registered which claims for the submitter powers, status,
or relationships that do not exist." We decline to rule on
this issue at this time, as we would like to see more commentary
from the College on this topic. However, we strongly suggest that
any submitter whose armory contains text that is a registered SCA
name should obtain a letter of permission from the referenced
person or branch. [Beowulf fitz Malcolm, 02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[a gryphon ... maintaining a flag per fess gules and
sable] This armory uses a flag that appears to be a display
of Per fess gules and sable. According to precedent,
"[... sustaining a banner quarterly sable and gules, seme of
fraises Or] ... we do not allow a depiction of heraldic display
which conflicts with registered armory..." (LoAR September
2000).
The flag maintained by this griffin (Per fess
gules and sable) conflicts with the real-world flags of
Monaco and Indonesia (important non-SCA flags), Per fess gules
and argent. There is only one CD by RfS X.4.a for changing
the tincture of half the field of the flag.
Some members of the College noted that another piece of armory
with similar design was accepted without comment, and asked if
the September 2000 precedent had been overturned due to that
acceptance. Please note that registrations without comment do not
establish precedent. [Magdelena Drucker, 02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Per pale purpure and argent, two roundels, the dexter roundel
charged with the letter P, the sinister roundel charged with a
triskele, all counterchanged] This armory violates our rules
on marshalling. RfS XI.3 states "Divisions commonly used for
marshalling, such as quarterly or per pale, may only be used in
contexts that ensure marshalling is not suggested. Such fields
may only be used when no single portion of the field may appear
to be an independent piece of armory." This badge appears to be
impaling the arms Purpure, a roundel argent charged with a
letter P purpure with Argent, a roundel purpure charged
with a triskele argent. [Trimaris, Kingdom of,,
02/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[two death's heads and a Roman numeral two] The appeal is
correct that the pair of death's heads would not automatically
bring to mind twins, but when associated with the given name
Gemini the connection is made by many. The following
precedent is applicable in this situation.
[Cerridwen Maelwedd] Several commenters stated some concern
about the use of the name Cerridwen with a charge which could
be perceived as a moon. However, even had the crescent been a
moon, the standard in effect is excessive allusion, not just
allusion. To paraphrase Baron Bruce when he instituted this
more relaxed standard: One allusion to the name is not
considered excessive, two allusions may be, three or more is
probably right out. (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR January 1995, p. 1)
Combining the name, the pair of death's heads, and
the Roman numeral two (which strongly resembles the astrological
sign for Gemini) is highly allusive of both the constellation
Gemini and the myth of Castor and Pollux, but it is not
presumptuous. [Gemini de Grendel, 03/2003,
A-West]
[Per pale paly of four Or and sable, and Or, in sinister a
dragon gules] This has the appearance of marshalled armory,
impaling the coat Paly of four Or and sable and Or a
dragon gules. RfS XI.3 states, "Armory that appears to
marshall independent arms is considered presumptuous" (emphasis
added). The appearance of marshalling is so strong in this design
that it would be considered presumptuous, even if a few examples
of armory of this design were found that could clearly be
demonstrated not to be marshalled.
The submitter provided documentation showing some pieces of
German heraldry that the submitter felt showed analogous heraldic
designs without the implication of marshalling. However, three of
the six pieces of armory in the documentation used bars on the
upper or lower part of the field, rather than pallets on the
dexter or sinister side of the field. Marshalling by impalement
(with two coats of arms side by side) is not uncommon in period
heraldry, but marshalling by "imfessment" (with one coat of arms
over the other) is not common enough for the SCA to consider such
a design to give the appearance of marshalling. So the examples
using bars are not analogous to this submission, as they do not
give an appearance of marshalling by impalement. One of the six
examples showed a pale counterchanged in the center of the field
(overlying a per pale line of division) between two unlike
charges. This design also does not resemble two coats of arms set
side by side, and thus does not have a possible appearance of
marshalling by impalement.
The final two pieces of armory provided by the submitter are
analogous to this submission in their design. However, the
documentation did not demonstrate that these German coats were
not themselves marshalled arms. Some similarly designed armory in
Germany is known to depict marshalled arms. According to Jiri
Louda's European Civic Coats of Arms, the arms of the city
of Leipzig (unchanged since 1470), which have Or a lion
rampant sable to dexter and Or, two pallets azure to
sinister, "bear the Lion of Meissen and Landsberg pallets."
The arms of the city of Dresden, identical to those of Leipzig
except with sable pallets, are described in the same source as
follows: "The early 14th century arms show a black lion, the
armorial device of Meissen; the black pallets were originally
blue Landsberg pallets later altered to the colours of Saxony."
These civic arms show that in some cases of German arms with this
design, two coats of arms were indeed combined side by side to
make the resultant coat. [Ludwig Grün, 05/2003,
R-Meridies]
[A drakkar under sail gules its sail charged with a phoenix
Or] This submission raised the question about whether it was
possible to charge the sail of a ship in SCA armory. The
submitter quoted extensive past precedent which indicated that
charged sails on ships in period heraldry appeared to be displays
of independent coats of arms. The precedents then stated that a
charged sail, as a display of an independent coat of arms,
appeared to be an inescutcheon of pretense, and thus was not
registerable under the rules for that forbid use of inescutcheons
of pretense (now RfS XI.4). The submitter indicates that, due to
the most recent change to RfS XI.4, a charged sail would no
longer appear to be an inescutcheon of pretense and should thus
be acceptable.
The submitter is correct that under the current version of RfS
XI.4, a charged sail would not appear to be an inescutcheon of
pretense. However, this does not negate the research in the
previous precedents (and supported by the College of Arms when
they commented on this submission) which showed that charged
sails appear to be independent displays of armory.
Because a charged sail appears to be an independent display of
armory, it should be treated analogously to other armorial
elements which might appear to include an independent display of
armory. The most obvious analogous case is that of a flag or
banner used as an armorial element. Precedent states: "Charged
banners [even if only maintained] are checked for conflict
against already registered armory" (LoAR May 1999, p. 12).
Therefore, it seems appropriate to rule that a charged sail must
be checked for conflict against already registered armory.
The armory on this sail appears to be Gules, a phoenix Or.
This conflicts with .... Gules, a phoenix within a double
tressure Or, with one CD for removing the double tressure.
[Eiríkr Mj{o,}ksiglandi Sigurðarson, 06/2003,
R-Caid]
[Quarterly azure and argent, a cross moline throughout sable
between in bend a mullet and a bear's paw print argent] RfS
XI.3 states:
Divisions commonly used for marshalling, such as quarterly or
per pale, may only be used in contexts that ensure marshalling
is not suggested.
The rule continues in subsection (a):
a. Such fields may be used with identical charges over the
entire field, or with complex lines of partition or charges
overall that were not used for marshalling in period heraldry.
This piece of armory consists of a quarterly field
(a division commonly used for marshalling) which does not have
"identical charges over the entire field." This raises the
question of whether a cross moline throughout should be
considered a "charge overall that [was] not used for marshalling
in period heraldry." Precedent indicates that "crosses
throughout, crosses paty [sic: now called formy] throughout,
[and] crosses engrailed throughout were in marshalled arms [as
charges overlying the quarterly line of division]" (LoAR March
1994 p.10). Precedent also indicates that crosses couped (LoAR
March 1994 p.10) and crosses flory (not throughout) (LoAR June
2000) were not used in marshalled arms as charges overlying the
quarterly line of division.
The College generally felt that, based on the previous precedent
and the discussion of period marshalling in the commentary, the
following precedent should be set:
PRECEDENT: A cross throughout which overlies the line of
division on a quarterly field does not remove the appearance of
marshalling by quartering, even if the cross throughout is
treated with a complex line (such as engrailed) or has complex
ends (such as formy or moline.) A cross which is not
throughout, or which does not overlie the quarterly line of
division (such as a Tau cross), will remove the appearance of
marshalling unless evidence is presented that the cross under
discussion was used for marshalling in period heraldry.
Because the cross moline in this submission is
throughout and overlies the quarterly line of division, it does
not remove the appearance of marshalling by quartering in this
submission. [Dana the Quarrier, 06/2003,
R-Meridies]
[Azure, ... and in chief two fleurs-de-lis Or] There is no
pretense problem with the use of two Or fleurs-de-lys on an azure
field or charge. The strictures against the use of three or more
Or fleurs-de-lys on an azure design element is due to the period
practice of French augmentations that used the arms of France on
an armorial element such as a charge or field. These
augmentations were found using the ancient form of the French
arms, Azure semy-de-lys Or, or the modern form, Azure,
three fleurs-de-lys Or. An azure design element with only one
or two Or fleurs de lys does not presume on these period
augmentations. Per the LoAR of June 1995 p.13: "...It is thus the
use of three or more fleurs-de-lys Or on azure which is
restricted; not a single gold fleur on a blue field." [Davi
d'Orléans, 07/2003,
A-Caid]
[on a lozenge Or a catamount rampant sable] Note that a
lozenge charged with a single charge does not violate RfS XI.4,
"Arms of Pretense and Augmentations of Honor". As noted in the
August 2001 LoAR, "[on a lozenge argent a fleur-de-lys
gules] As per the rules change in the cover letter to the
June 2001 LoAR, the fact that the charged shape is not an
escutcheon means that this is not an inescutcheon of pretense. An
inescutcheon charged with a single charge also avoids the
appearance of an inescutcheon of pretense. While this armory is
evocative of the city of Florence, whose arms are Argent, a
fleur-de-lys gules, it is acceptable." This armory similarly
does not appear to display an inescutcheon of pretense of
Flanders, Or a lion rampant sable. [Gwineth
Llynllwyd, 10/2003,
A-East]
[Quarterly gules and Or, in sinister canton an eagle's wing
terminating in a hand grasping a sword sable] RfS XI.3.b on
marshalling states "Such fields [that are commonly used for
marshalling, such as quarterly] may only be used when no single
portion of the field may appear to be an independent piece of
armory... No section of the field may contain ... more than one
charge unless those charges are part of a group over the whole
field." The College was asked to determine whether this eagle's
wing terminating in a hand grasping a sword, a motif found in
German armory, was effectively a single charge (like a Paschal
lamb, which is considered a single charge even though the lamb
maintains a banner over its shoulder), or whether this motif was
to be considered a combination of "more than one charge."
Unfortunately, we did not receive much commentary on this issue.
Based on the commentary we have received, and the research we
were able to do after the meeting, it appears appropriate to rule
that the eagle's wing terminating in a hand is a single charge,
and the sword is a second charge. This submission is in thus in
violation of RfS XI.3.b.
The combination of the eagle's wing terminating in a hand and the
sword is not so common in period that it is clearly considered a
single charge (unlike a Paschal lamb). In addition, the eagle's
wing terminating with a hand has grasped objects other than a
sword in real-world and SCA heraldry. Leonhard's Das Grosse
Buch der Wappenkunst illustrates eagle's wings terminating in
hands grasping stalks of wheat as well as an eagle's wing
terminating in a hand and grasping a sword, both undated and both
on p. 204. The SCA has also registered the eagle's wing
terminating in a hand and grasping a charge other than a sword in
the device of Franz of Ratisbon, Per pale azure and Or, a
sinister eagle's wing terminating in a hand maintaining an axe
counterchanged. Unfortunately we were not able to address
specifically period practices in this discussion, as no period
examples of this sort of armory were adduced in commentary
(either on the appeal or on the original submission), and we were
not able to find any period examples in our limited research time
after the heraldry meeting. [Sebastian of Ventbarré,
01/2004,
R-Lochac]
[roses Or barbed vert seeded of a heart gules charged with a
cross sable] The charged roses were originally blazoned as
Luther roses. They represent a variantly tinctured version
of an important non-SCA badge used by Martin Luther (and
protected in the Armorial and Ordinary), (Fieldless) A rose
argent seeded of a heart gules charged with a Latin cross
sable. The Letter of Intent surmised that because the "Luther
rose" design was known in period (as evidenced by the Martin
Luther badge), this submission should not be considered in
violation of RfS VIII.1.c.ii, Layer Limit, which would otherwise
be violated for placing a charge (the cross) on another charge
(the heart) which does not lie directly on the field (but lies
wholly on the rose). They also surmised that this submission
likewise should not be considered in violation of RfS
VIII.2.b.ii, which would otherwise be violated for placing the
color cross wholly on the color heart.
The College was not able to find any evidence that this symbol of
Martin Luther's was found outside of uses by Martin Luther
himself and eventually, by the Lutheran church.
RfS VIII.6, Documented Exceptions, describes the cases in which
period armory may be used to justify a violation of the SCA Rules
for Submission. This submission does not meet the criteria of RfS
VIII.6.a, General Exceptions, which states, "In most cases the
documentation for a proposed exceptional armorial design element
should be drawn from several European heraldic jurisdictions." No
documentation was provided, or found, showing that, in period,
this Luther rose was used in several European heraldic
jurisdictions.
This submission also does not meet the criteria of RfS VIII.6.b,
Regional Style, which states,
Alternatively, a proposed exceptional armorial design element
may be documented as characteristic of a specific regional
armorial style...In such cases the submitted armory may
be registered provided that all of the following conditions are
met. (1) The submitter explicitly requests an exception to the
other sections of Part VIII (Compatible Armorial Style) on the
grounds that the submitted armory exemplifies a specific
regional style. (2) Documentation is adduced to show that
exceptional design element was not uncommon in the regional
style in question. (3) Documentation is adduced to show that
all elements of the submitted armory can be found in the
regional style in question.
The submitter has not indicated a particular
regional style exemplified by this armory, has not provided
evidence that this design element was "not uncommon" in any
regional style, and has not shown that "all elements of the
submitted armory can be found" in any regional style. The College
was also not able to shed light on these issues.
The College also was concerned that the Luther rose may be so
closely associated with Martin Luther and the Lutheran Church
that this submission might violate either RfS XI, presumption
(claiming "status ... that the submitter does not possess"), or
RfS IX.2, Offensive Religious Symbolism (for reason of excessive
religious symbolism). We are declining to rule on these issues at
this time as this submission has clear reasons for return under
RfS VIII.1.c.ii and RfS VIII.2.b.ii. However, these are serious
issues and should be addressed on resubmission, if the
resubmission continues to use the Luther rose design. [Brighid
Óg inghean Néill, 02/2004,
R-Outlands]
[(Fieldless) On a heart purpure, a compass star Or]
Precedent holds that a heart is a shape used for armorial display
(because of the heart-shaped escutcheons found in period): "While
blazoned on the LoI as (Fieldless) On a heart gules, a hare
salient contourny argent., since a heart is considered
standard shape for armorial display, the submission is considered
as Gules, a hare salient contourny argent. As such it
conflicts with..." (LoAR of May 1998, p. 26).
This submission has a similar problem. In this case, the armory
appears to be a display of Purpure, a compass star Or.
This conflicts with a large number of pieces of armory, including
(but not limited to) ... Azure, a compass star Or, (one CD
for changing the field), ... Purpure, a compass star within a
bordure embattled Or, (one CD for removing the bordure), and
the important non-SCA flag of Macedonia, Gules, a sun Or,
(one CD for changing the field, nothing for the difference
between a compass star and a sun).
The conflicts are not the only problem with this armory. The fact
that this fieldless armory does not appear to be a charged
charge, but appears to be an independent display of a different
piece of armory (because the heart is a shield shape), is in
itself a reason for return. Per the LoAR of April 2002 (which
upheld a significant number of prior precedents), "Note ... our
long-standing policy about such 'shield shape' charges used in
fieldless badges if the tincture is not plain (thus, divided or
with a field treatment), or if the charge is itself charged. Such
armory will continue to be returned for the appearance of an
independent form of armorial display." [Geoffrey Scott,
02/2004,
R-West]
PRETENSE or
PRESUMPTION -- Crests and Supporters
see also PRETENSE or
PRESUMPTION
[(Fieldless) A dragon sable, crowned Or and
sustaining a banner quarterly sable and gules all semy of fraises
Or] "This fieldless badge appears to be a supporter
maintaining a flag with arms on it. As we do not register
supporters, we cannot register this" (LoAR of November 1999, p.
13). [Colin Tyndall de ffrayser, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
[(Fieldless) A demi-greyhound rampant couped contourny argent
collared gules sustaining a torteau charged with an escarbuncle
argent] There were some concerns that this armory might
appear to be a display of a supporter holding an independent coat
of arms. Supporters by nature stand or balance on lower
extremities (hind legs, or a tail) on the compartment ("ground")
under the achievement. A demi-animal cannot do this. No evidence
has been presented, and none was found, for supporters in period
armory consisting of demi-animals. Therefore, a demi-animal
cannot be mistaken for a supporter. [Æthelmearc, Kingdom
of, 04/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[(Fieldless) A demi-cat erect maintaining on its left forearm
a targe argent] The Letter of Intent asked if there was a
problem with the combination of this badge and a version of the
MacBain surname. Way of Plean and Squire's Scottish Clan and
Family Encyclopedia, endorsed by the Convenor of the Standing
Council of Scottish Chiefs, gives the MacBain crest as A grey
demi-cat-a-mountain salient, on his sinister foreleg a Highland
targe gules, and the MacBain badge as A grey
demi-cat-a-mountain as in the Crest within a chaplet of boxwood
Proper.
In the Cover Letter for the March 1991 LoAR, it was ruled that
"It has been decided that we will NOT check for conflicts against
mundane crests". Therefore, we need only consider the MacBain
badge for possible pretense issues. The removal of the chaplet of
boxwood makes it clear that no identity is being presumed.
[Áedán mac Bheathain, 09/2002,
A-Outlands]
[Per pale azure and gules, a gauntlet argent sustaining the
dexter half of a spear fracted in chevron point to sinister
Or] The Letter of Intent noted that the charge group on the
device resembled the Carmichael crest, which (per Way of Plean
and Squire's Scottish Clan and Family Encyclopedia) is
A dexter hand and arm in pale armed and holding a broken spear
Proper. Some commenters wondered if this would be a
presumption problem in combination with the surname.
The September 2002 LoAR (Áedán mac Bheathain, Outlands
acceptances) stated:
The Letter of Intent asked if there was a problem with the
combination of this badge and a version of the [clan name]
surname. Way of Plean and Squire's Scottish Clan and Family
Encyclopedia, endorsed by the Convenor of the Standing
Council of Scottish Chiefs, gives the [clan name] crest as
[blazon] and the [clan name] badge as [blazon] as in
the Crest within a chaplet of boxwood Proper.
In the Cover Letter for the March 1991 LoAR, it was ruled that
"It has been decided that we will NOT check for conflicts
against mundane crests". Therefore, we need only consider the
[clan name] badge for possible pretense issues. The removal of
the chaplet of boxwood makes it clear that no identity is being
presumed.
In this case, the Carmichael badge is even less like
the Carmichael crest than was the case in the previous ruling, as
the crest and badge share no charges at all. The Carmichael badge
is, A horse of war Argent furnished Gules within a circular
wreath Azure and Gules.
It was suggested by some commenters that many Scottish clan books
display the clan crest in a strap and buckle, and that this form
might be familiar to the average SCA person, thus leading to
presumption due to a combination of the name and armory (even
though we do not generally protect crests). It is important to
note that the clan books in question invariably display these
crests within a strap and buckle. The insignia with the crest in
a strap and buckle would presumably be the design that might
cause a presumption "twitch" in the populace, not the design of a
crest without the strap and buckle. We also hope that those who
are so familiar with the contents of clan books that they might
perceive possible presumption would also be familiar with the
appropriate uses of clan crests and badges. It would not be
real-world Scottish clan practice for a clan chief to display the
clan crest on a field and use it as a device. Thus this is
neither a use of insignia heraldically suggestive of rank, nor is
it insignia which is so commonly seen by the populace as to cause
offense. It is allusive, but not presumptuous. [Adam
Carmychel, 01/2003,
A-Outlands]
PROPER
see also PROPER -- Brown
Precedent
A proper boar is brown by default according to
the Glossary of Terms, so this needn't be blazoned as a
brown boar. [Áedán of Windhaven, 08/2001,
A-Middle]
[Pily vert and argent, a boar statant contourny proper]
There was discussion in the commentary about whether these arms
conflict with the badge of Godfrey of Inwood, (Fieldless) A
boar statant contourny sable. Since there is a CD for the
field, the question becomes one of whether this brown boar should
be given a tincture CD from Godfrey's black boar. The boar as
drawn here is a clear brown and is far from being black, or from
closely resembling any other heraldic tincture. Current policy
appears to be a tacit assumption that a brown animal or object
proper is given tincture difference from any standard heraldic
tincture, as long as the particular shade of brown is drawn so
that it is not too close to a standard heraldic tincture.
[Áedán of Windhaven, 08/2001,
A-Middle]
[a weaver's slea proper] Some textile experts said that a
weaver's slea is wooden, and therefore, it is brown when proper.
[Emeline of Starkhafn, 09/2001,
A-Caid]
There does not appear to be a well defined proper for
ladybugs, and they can be found in various colorations when in
nature. Therefore, this bug has been blazoned explicitly.
[Morgan Skeene, 09/2001,
A-Calontir]
[a black-footed ferret proper] Reblazon to: Azure, a
black-footed ferret passant guardant Or marked sable and argent,
grasping in its dexter forepaw a rose argent, barbed, seeded,
slipped, and leaved proper. Her original blazon was Azure,
a black-footed ferret passant guardant proper, grasping in its
dexter forepaw a rose argent, barbed, seeded, slipped, and leaved
proper [Mustela nigripes]. Members of the College were
confused about what tincture a black-footed ferret proper might
be, citing various references to support interpretations of
either argent or Or. Inspection of her form shows that the ferret
is predominantly Or with a black mask, forefeet, and tail, and
white showing at the very bottom of the belly. The blazon has
been changed to reflect the predominant Or tincture. The term
black-footed has been retained in the blazon. We would not
currently specify a species to this level of detail in blazon,
but this term is grandfathered to the submitter. The Linnaean
species reference has been omitted, as it was only necessary due
to the use of Linnaean proper. The term black-footed
should specify the type of ferret sufficiently. [Megan
Glenleven, 10/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[a brown otter's head proper] The otter's head depicted
here was much too close to red in color to be considered a brown
otter's head, but was not red enough to reblazon as gules. This
is therefore a visually confusing tincture which must be
returned. Brown should be drawn distinctly from the heraldic
tinctures. [Edward de Molay, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
[a carrot proper] The carrot in this submission was drawn
so that it was predominantly orange. No evidence has been
presented that a period heraldic carrot proper would be of any
particular color. Period carrots could be white, red, or various
shades of yellow in period. The shades of yellow might include
the color we now call "orange", but that is not clear from the
evidence which has so far been presented. Regardless of the
botanical propriety of a period orange carrot, there is no one
obvious color for a carrot to take in period, and therefore there
is no default tincture for a carrot proper. This carrot cannot be
explicitly blazoned with a heraldic tincture, because orange is
not an acceptable color for use in heraldry unless it is used
appropriately with a proper charge. Therefore, this must be
returned. [Randall Carrick, 10/2001,
R-Outlands]
[two brown bear's heads proper] These arms have been
reblazoned to clarify the tincture of the bear. The Glossary of
Terms does not give a default tincture for a bear, and the
majority of brown bears proper in the SCA are blazoned as such.
As a result, we have altered the blazon to be specific. The
previous blazon was Argent, two bear's heads erased, addorsed,
and conjoined proper. [Charles the Bear, 12/2001,
A-Atenveldt]
Cornish choughs are black birds with red beak and feet, and so
this is a correctly tinctured proper Cornish chough's leg.
[Leona of Remington, 02/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[a pickaxe argent hafted ... proper] The pickaxe,
following the proper defined for axes in the Pictorial
Dictionary, has a haft of wood proper. [Óláfr Ljótarson af
Øy, 02/2002,
R-Meridies]
Camels may be brown as part of their natural color variations.
Just as we register brown wolves proper (even though natural
wolves are often grey) we may register brown camels proper, under
the criteria set forth in the cover letter for the October 1995
LoAR.
The original blazon was simply a camel. Since there is no
default proper tincture for a camel, it is necessary to specify
that this is a brown camel proper. [Aminah of
Nithgaard, 03/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Gules, in pale a woolly mammoth statant proper atop a hurt
fimbriated argent] The Laurel files did not contain a colored
emblazon for this very old submission, and so we were unable to
clarify the tincture of the mammoth in the blazon. [Aaron the
Mighty, 03/2002,
A-West]
A harp is of wood, and wood-colored when proper, as stated in the
Pictorial Dictionary. [Coletta Briant, 04/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
Élise's device, Argent, a pale purpure cotised vert between
two sprigs of lavender proper, is the defining example of
lavender proper in the SCA. Lavender proper has purple
flowers and green slips and leaves. [Élise da Nizza,
08/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[fire arrows inverted proper flighted] An arrow
proper, according to the Pictorial Dictionary, has a
brown shaft and black head. A fire arrow, when proper, is
enflamed near the head in proper flames. [Ád Fáid,
09/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[brown sparrows proper] It is only acceptable to blazon an
animal as a brown animal proper when that animal is
frequently found in a brown color in nature, as per the Cover
Letter of October 1995, which states in pertinent part in part
"... animals which are normally brown may be registered simply as
an {X} proper (e.g., boar proper, hare
proper). Animals which are frequently found as brown but also
commonly appear in other tinctures in the natural world may be
registered as a brown {X} proper (e.g., brown hound
proper, brown horse proper)"
Period Western European sparrows are not brown birds, but
distinctly marked birds. The male is about one-third brown with
the remainder marked in black and white. The less distinctive
female is half brown and half off-white. One typical species is
Passer domesticus, which is called the house
sparrow in both Europe and the United States. It is thus
appropriate to inquire as to how a bird with such natural
markings would be depicted in period heraldry when proper.
Documentation was neither provided nor found for sparrows proper
in period armory, so we have to draw conclusions based on other
similarly marked proper birds.
There is evidence that birds that are black and white in nature
are depicted as black and white birds when proper, even if their
markings in the heraldic depictions are not quite correct for the
species. The black and white stork with red legs and beak in the
arms of Die Dobrzinsky on f. 73 of Siebmacher (from Silesia) is
depicted very much like a European stork. There are two types of
European stork, the White Stork and the Black Stork. Both are
black and white birds with red beak and legs. Siebmacher's
depiction is closer to a White Stork. Rietstap's blazon for this
family indicates that the bird there depicted is intended to be a
stork proper (beaked and membered gules, although this would, as
stated, also be proper for a stork). Siebmacher also gives us the
arms of von Atzelndorf (from Meissen) on f. 156 using a black and
white bird. Atzel is the German word for magpie, and a
magpie is a black and white bird, so it seems logical to conclude
that the bird in these arms is meant to be a magpie. The
Siebmacher rendition does not do a good job of duplicating a
magpie's natural markings, but its proportions and general black
and white coloration are correct for a magpie. A more accurately
marked magpie proper may be found in the 15th C Milanese
Stemmaria Trivulziano, p. 67, in the arms of de Bertis.
The magpie there is black and white and the markings mostly
follow the natural markings of a magpie. The editors inform us
that the word berta means magpie (although it is not the
most common Italian word for that bird) and de Bertis thus has
canting arms.
Because birds that are black and white in nature appear to be
drawn black and white when proper in period heraldry, it is not
reasonable to assume that the partially brown and partially black
and white sparrow would be solid brown in period heraldry. The
female sparrow is a closer match, but is still not an "all brown
bird". Also, as a general rule, it is the more colorful member of
a species that is used to determine the proper coloration of a
species in heraldry, the peacock being the prime example of this
practice. Thus, unless evidence is provided for brown sparrows
proper in period armory, they may not be registered in the
SCA.
Note that some New World birds that are called "sparrows" in
modern terminology are mostly brown in their coloration, unlike
the Old World species. It does not seem appropriate to consider
species outside of Western Europe when considering the proper
tincture of an animal, unless the animal being considered is a
distinctly non-European animal, such as the turkey (which is
found in its proper coloration as the crest of Robert Cooke in
1556). [Líadan Arundel, 09/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
A fox proper in the SCA is "Red with black 'socks' and white at
tip of tail", according to the Glossary of Terms. [Piero
Antonio Volpe, 10/2002,
A-Atlantia]
The peacock feathers here are blazoned as proper. According to
the September 1993 LoAR, "A peacock feather proper is mostly
green, with an iridescent roundel near the end." The feathers in
this emblazon are sable with the eyes colored in azure, vert, Or
and purpure.
The "eyes" of the peacock feathers dwarf the rest of the feather.
Even though heraldic stylizations generally use a certain amount
of artistic exaggeration, the "eyes" of these feathers are too
disproportionate for these charges to be called peacock
feathers.
This submission must therefore be returned for redrawing. The
redrawing should rescale the feathers so that they are long
feathers with smaller eyes at the end, and the tincture of the
feathers should either be the previously defined proper for a
peacock feather or standard blazonable tincture(s). [Mary Rose
of Burgon, 10/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
The griffin was blazoned sable but was depicted brown, which is
not acceptable for griffins:
[returning a brown bull of Saint Luke] While we register
brown beasts proper if the animal is found naturally brown,
such as a brown rabbit, or a brown hound, this is not a beast,
but rather a monster, because of the wings and halo. Since
monsters do not have proper coloration, they cannot be brown.
(LoAR May 1998)
To clarify that precedent: monsters may have a
proper coloration, as long as it is a heraldically defined proper
coloration. An example of such a heraldically defined proper
coloration would be the proper tincture of a mermaid, defined in
the SCA Glossary of Terms as "Caucasian human with green tail and
yellow hair." However, a monster without a heraldically defined
proper coloration may not be "brown proper", even if the animals
which donated the component parts for the monster may be brown
when in nature. [Cynuise ó Cianáin of Bardsea, 11/2002,
R-Trimaris]
Here follow the SCA's standard depictions, attributes, and proper
colorations for some of the different varieties of people found
in period heraldry. The following definitions should allow the
SCA to recreate all the varieties of people found in period
emblazons, using the most common blazon term for each of these
varieties of people.
The proper tincture for varieties of people not described below
continues to be Caucasian proper, with hair color specified in
the blazon.
The Turk: The Turk is drawn with a large mustache. By
default he is bare-headed with a distinctive hairstyle (shaven
head except for a topknot). If the Turk is vested of a turban
it must be explicitly blazoned. When proper, he is Caucasian
with dark hair.
The Moor and the Blackamoor: The terms Moor and
Blackamoor will both be used to blazon the same sort of human.
He has Negro features, and is clean-shaven with short
curly/nappy hair. If the Moor or Blackamoor wears headgear,
such as a torse, it must be explicitly blazoned. When proper he
is dark brown, a tincture which classifies as a color (rather
than a metal), and his hair is black.
The Saracen: The Saracen has Semitic features, and is
bearded by default. His hair, when visible, is long and wavy.
He is depicted with headgear; usually this is a turban, but
sometimes it is a torse or a crown. The type and tincture of
the headgear must be explicitly blazoned.
Saracens in period heraldry may be found in two different
proper colorations. Saracens may be tinctured in a light shade,
roughly that of a suntanned Caucasian. This shade classifies as
a metal for purposes of contrast. Saracens may also be
tinctured in the same way as the Moor or Blackamoor, dark brown
with black hair. The light proper tincture appears to be more
common in period heraldry and also matches the defining SCA
Saracen's head in the 1978 registration of Athelas of the
Knife, reblazoned in the West section of this LoAR. Thus, a
default Saracen proper is a light tincture, the tincture
of a tanned Caucasian, and is considered heraldically
equivalent to a standard Caucasian tincture (although as an
artistic note, the period rolls using both standard Caucasians
proper and Saracens proper generally draw the Saracens proper
slightly darker than the Caucasians proper).
The SCA has not yet received a submission using the dark brown
version of a Saracen proper. This sort of Saracen proper would
need to be distinguished in blazon from the default Saracen
proper for reasons of contrast and reproducibility of emblazon.
Some commenters suggested that we might blazon such a charge as
a brown Saracen proper. This is not a mellifluous
blazon, but it has the virtue of clarity. The final decision on
what to term such a charge may be deferred until we receive a
submission with such a charge.
[12/2002,
CL]
[natural rainbow proper] The SCA charge of a natural
rainbow proper is tinctured (from chief to base) in red, orange,
yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet. The tinctures are
reversed in this emblazon, with the violet on the top and the red
on the bottom. The reversal of the tinctures makes this an
unacceptable variant of the natural rainbow, and is a reason for
return.
The natural rainbow is drawn with argent clouds by default, and
this rainbow is also drawn with argent clouds. The clouds have no
contrast with the argent portion of the field on which the
rainbow lies. This may well be a reason for return. However, in
some cases it is allowable for a charge to have some small
no-contrast details as long as the overall identifiability of the
charge is maintained. At this time, we decline to rule on whether
it is acceptable to have a natural rainbow with its proper argent
clouds on an argent field, as there was no clear College
consensus about whether this should be acceptable. It is
allowable to have a natural rainbow proper clouded in some
specified tincture, and we encourage the submitter to avoid this
question by resubmitting with a rainbow where the clouds have
some contrast with the underlying field. [Phillida Parker,
12/2002,
R-Ealdormere]
The thistle was originally blazoned as proper. Thistles,
when proper, have green leaves and slips. The "head" of the
thistle is comprised of a ball of sepals with a tuft of petals at
the top. The head of a thistle proper is drawn with the ball of
sepals tinctured in vert and the tuft of petals tinctured in
gules or purpure. (To quote Lions Blood, "Only the mohawk is
purple.") [Guendolen of Cumbria, 01/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[a brown vixen proper] The vixen was originally blazoned
as proper, which is defined in the SCA Glossary of Terms
as "Red with black 'socks' and white at tip of tail". The vixen
drawn here is brown with black feet, white chest, and white
tail-tip. This is not acceptable by the following precedent,
which requires that the brown fox proper be all brown:
A falcon proper will be considered to be all brown, not brown
head, wings and back, buff breast with darker spots, and a tail
striped with black; a hare proper will be considered to be all
brown, not brown with white underbelly and tail and pink ears.
This also appears to be more in keeping with period heraldic
practice. (Cover Letter for the October 1995 LoAR)
If period evidence is shown for a brown fox proper
with black socks and white at the tip of the tail (and on the
chest), we may reconsider the return. However, no evidence for
such a period heraldic depiction of a fox has been presented. We
can find find evidence for period foxes that are solid brown (for
example, the canting arms of Die Fuchsen in Siebmacher's 1605
Wappenbuch, fol. 62, Or a brown fox salient
proper). [Apollonia Voss, 01/2003,
R-East]
Baker's peels are wood-colored when proper. [Atlantia, Kingdom
of, 02/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[two brushes in saltire sable bristled "brown"] The
brushes in the Letter of Intent were blazoned as sable handled
proper. However, the brushes in the emblazon have sable
handles and brown bristles. There is no defined default tincture
for an artist's brush. Thus, this is not a reasonable depiction
of a proper brush. As the brush cannot otherwise be blazoned
accurately, it must be returned. [Dorothea Manuela Ponçe,
02/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[A tiger lily affronty proper] The tiger lily in this
emblazon is orange with brown markings. The defining tiger lily
proper in the SCA is in the device of Joselyn Allyne Reynard,
registered in May 1980, Ermine, a red fox couchant between two
tiger lilies, slipped and leaved, conjoined in annulo proper.
(Vulpes vulpes, Lilium tigrinum). Those tiger lilies are also
orange with black or brown markings. This emblazon also matches
the proper tiger lilies in the badge of Arianell merch Iestin of
Carmarthen, registered in July 1981, Sable, two tiger lilies
slipped and leaved, the stems tied in a Carrick bend knot,
between on a pair of flaunches argent two estoilles of eight rays
sable. A number of different species of lily have been called
tiger lilies, according to the College's research. These
different sorts of lilies are all orange in color with dark
striped or spotted markings. [Dananir bint Zang al Tabib,
05/2003,
A-Ealdormere]
[A wolf couchant sable] This does not conflict with a
badge of Thylacinus Aquila of Dair Eidand, (Fieldless) A
thylacine couchant gardant proper, orbed and langued gules.
There is one CD for fieldlessness and another CD for the tincture
of the beast. The thylacine proper in Thylacinus' emblazon is
predominantly tan in color. The College's researches also
indicate that this is the expected proper coloration for a
thylacine. [Rhys ab Idwal, 06/2003,
A-Middle]
[a brown sparrow proper] The sparrow drawn here is all
brown with a white stripe over its eye. The September 2002 LoAR
ruled that, without further documentation, brown sparrows
proper were not compatible with period heraldry and could not
be registered. The most pertinent portions of that ruling are
quoted here below, but please refer to the original ruling for
the full discussion:
It is only acceptable to blazon an animal as a brown animal
proper when that animal is frequently found in a brown
color in nature, as per the Cover Letter of October 1995, which
states in pertinent part in part "... animals which are
normally brown may be registered simply as an {X} proper (e.g.,
boar proper, hare proper). Animals which are frequently found
as brown but also commonly appear in other tinctures in the
natural world may be registered as a brown {X} proper
(e.g., brown hound proper, brown horse
proper)."
Period Western European sparrows are not brown birds, but
distinctly marked birds. The male is about one-third brown with
the remainder marked in black and white. The less distinctive
female is half brown and half off-white. One typical species is
Passer domesticus, which is called the house sparrow in both
Europe and the United States. It is thus appropriate to inquire
as to how a bird with such natural markings would be depicted
in period heraldry when proper. Documentation was neither
provided nor found for sparrows proper in period armory, so we
have to draw conclusions based on other similarly marked proper
birds....
...Because birds that are black and white in nature appear to
be drawn black and white when proper in period heraldry, it is
not reasonable to assume that the partially brown and partially
black and white sparrow would be solid brown in period
heraldry. The female sparrow is a closer match, but is still
not an "all brown bird". Also, as a general rule, it is the
more colorful member of a species that is used to determine the
proper coloration of a species in heraldry, the peacock being
the prime example of this practice. Thus, unless evidence is
provided for brown sparrows proper in period armory, they may
not be registered in the SCA.
[Amie Sparrow, 07/2003,
R-Atlantia]
Note that a generic bird does not have a defined proper
tincture. [Lachlan McBean, 08/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[a martlet volant "brown"] The martlet is tinctured in
brown, and was originally blazoned as proper. However, the
martlet is a heraldic (rather than natural) creature, and does
not have a defined proper tincture. Because brown may not be used
in SCA heraldry except as a proper tincture, this may not be
registered. [Tamar bas Reuven, 08/2003,
R-East]
This month, some questions were raised about the tincture of a
previously registered SCA brock proper. The tincture of a brock
(or badger) proper is not clearly defined in SCA or real-world
heraldic practice. We here state explicitly that the SCA has no
default proper tincture for brocks or badgers. In this LoAR, we
have reblazoned the few pieces of existing SCA armory that were
blazoned using brocks or badgers proper. [11/2003,
CL]
[Argent, a loon naiant contourny sable] The loon was
originally blazoned as sable marked argent, but it is
predominantly sable on the color emblazon. The depiction of this
loon on the mini-emblazon included details that closely resemble
the markings of the black and white bird that the Americans call
a Common Loon and the British call a Great Northern Diver, but
most of the details that would be white in a naturalistic
depiction of this species were tinctured sable in the color
emblazon. If we blazon this loon as sable marked argent,
it would likely be drawn by an artist as a naturalistic
loon/diver, and would then have too many argent markings against
the argent field to have acceptable contrast. We have thus
blazoned the loon as sable. Per the LoAR of March 2000,
concerning an orca proper (black and white) on an argent field,
"The argent portions of the orca cannot be placed on an argent
field." The same constraints apply to a Common Loon in its
natural colors. [Helga lómr, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
Note that SCA blazon always explicitly tinctures a ford. If the
tinctures of the ford are argent and azure (or the other way
around) it may be blazoned as proper. [Thomas Joseph de
Lacy, 11/2003,
A-Caid]
[sparrows proper] This submission violates some of the
provisions of RfS VIII.4.c. That rule states: "Proper is
allowed for natural flora and fauna when there is a widely
understood default coloration for the charge so specified. It is
not allowed if many people would have to look up the correct
coloration, or if the Linnaean genus and species (or some other
elaborate description) would be required to get it right. An
elephant, a brown bear, or a tree could each be proper; a female
American kestrel, a garden rose, or an Arctic fox in winter
phase, could not."
The College felt strongly that there was no "widely understood
default coloration" for sparrows. The members of the College
"would have to look up the correct coloration" in order to draw
the sparrow correctly. European sparrows all have complicated
markings that cannot be blazoned without "Linnaean genus and
species (or some other elaborate description)." Most male
European sparrows (the House, Tree, Italian, and Spanish
Sparrows) have white chests, black bibs, brown wings, back and
top of head, and brown or grey tails (with slight difference
between them in the particulars of the markings). The only male
European sparrow that don't match this general description is the
Rock Sparrow, which is white with grey streaks below and buff and
brown streaks above. The female sparrows are less elaborate in
their coloration but are still complicated to describe.
The sparrows as drawn in this submission are also not a correct
proper color for period European sparrows. The birds drawn in
this emblazon have dark grey breasts and rumps, which does not
match any of the European sparrow species described above.
[Líadan Arundel, 11/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[Vair en pointe, a bend Or and overall riding on a horse
salient gules a nude woman argent crined Or] The woman was
blazoned on the LoI as proper, but she is argent.
There is insufficient contrast between the half-argent complex
field and either an argent complex-outlined charge (as
emblazoned), or a Caucasian proper complex-outlined charge (as
originally blazoned). [Svana mjóbeina, 11/2003,
R-Meridies]
The damask roses proper are drawn as naturalistic pink
roses. [Cecily d'Abernon, 01/2004,
A-Atenveldt]
Based on period heraldry, naturalism, and the Pictorial
Dictionary, beavers proper are brown by default. [Adelicia
of Caithness, 02/2004,
A-Caid]
[a brown mouse rampant proper] We are glad to see a
submission including a mouse, as it gives us an opportunity to
modify, due to later developments, the statement in the December
2001 LoAR that "we've found no period examples of armory using
mice or rats." We've found some now. The Stemmario
Trivulziano, a 15th C Milanese armorial, has armory using
both mice and rats. The arms of di Francavila on p. 150 and da
Sorexina on p. 329 both include a mouse statant sable (blazoned
in modern Italian by Carlo Maspoli as "sorcio"). The canting arms
of di Topi on p. 354 also include a mouse (or rat) statant sable
(modernly blazoned as "topo", which word can mean either rat or
mouse). Canting rats (from the dialectical Italian "ratt" variant
of the more common "ratto") may be found in the arms of Ratazi on
p. 312, using a rat statant sable, and Ratanate on p. 308 using a
rat rampant sable.
Note that all these rats and mice are sable. There are no mice
proper in Stemmario Trivulziano - although there are a number of
other proper brown animate charges in this book including canting
dormice. Dormice are distinctly visibly different from mice or
rats, with bushy tails, and we do not believe that practices for
dormice can necessarily be extended to practices for mice. We
thus continue to uphold the Glossary of Terms entry in Table 3
stating that there is no default proper tincture for mice.
This leaves the question of whether a brown mouse proper should
be allowed. As noted in the LoAR of August 1995 and upheld since
then (including the extensive discussion in the Cover Letter for
the March 2002 LoAR), "Animals which are frequently found as
brown but also commonly appear in other tinctures in the natural
world may be registered as a brown {X} proper (e. g., brown hound
proper, brown horse proper)." Mice are commonly found in a brown
tincture in the natural world, so brown mice proper may be
registered. [Franz Belgrand die Mus, 03/2004,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Argent, an arched wooden double door inset into a stone
archway proper] The Pictorial Dictionary states that
"The door... may be inset into an arch or wall." This submission
insets the door into a stone archway proper. Unfortunately the
grey of stone proper (as defined in the SCA Glossary of terms)
classes as a metal, and has insufficient contrast with the
underlying argent field.
Note that the stone surrounding the door is, as drawn in this
submission, an intermediate grey which has insufficient contrast
with either argent or sable. This adds additional problems to the
depiction, in that the stone proper is not drawn as a correct
depiction of stone proper (which would class as a metal) but is
not dark enough to be considered an artistic variant of sable.
[Sudentorre, Canton of, 03/2004,
R-Atlantia]
PROPER -- Brown
Precedent
see also PROPER
From Wreath:
Concerning Brown
We asked some questions concerning "brown proper" in the August
2001 Cover Letter ("In a Brown Study"). There was a surprisingly
small amount of commentary on this issue tied directly to the
cover letter request for commentary. There was some additional
pertinent commentary on submissions which used brown proper
charges. Thanks to all who commented, and particularly to those
who provided further research on the issue from period armorial
sources.
There was general agreement that correctly drawn brown charges
proper should be given tincture difference from any heraldic
tincture, and so shall it be. Please remember that if the brown
is drawn in a shade close to a heraldic tincture, it will either
be reblazoned to the heraldic tincture or returned for redrawing,
as appropriate.
Commentary on the question of our general policies for brown
proper was more mixed. Some commenters explicitly supported the
policy which has applied since the cover letter for the October
1995 LoAR. The support was generally on the grounds that (quoting
Palimpsest's closing paragraph on the topic in his July 2001
LoC): "What is clear is that brown is used in period heraldry and
that the range of uses which the SCA will allow is roughly
comparable to the range of uses found in period. That ain't that
bad for a status quo."
Other commenters expressed concern that this policy might be
leading to an overuse of brown proper charges in SCA armory. To
determine whether this was the case, a tally was made of new
registrations made in the nineteen months between June 1999 and
December 2000 of armory using "brown proper" or selected armorial
elements which were either extremely rare in period, or not found
in period but allowed by the SCA. The tally did not include cases
where the armory was a change to existing armory already using
the armorial feature in question. The results: bordure
counterchanged over an ordinary throughout: 1; brown proper, 3;
masoned field treatment used to tincture something other than an
architectural charge: 5; pall inverted (as a charge only, not
including the field division), 5; natural dolphin, 9; and Per
bend sinister A and B, a bend sinister C (accompanied by
other charges), 9. The tally indicates that brown proper is not
being registered very frequently, and it is not being registered
more frequently than very uncommon period elements or non-period
but SCA-acceptable elements.
As a result, we are re-affirming the precedent from the Cover
Letter for the October 1995 LoAR:
PRECEDENT: Henceforward, and more in line with period heraldic
practice, animals which are normally brown may be registered
simply as an {X} proper (e. g., boar proper, hare proper).
Animals which are frequently found as brown but also commonly
appear in other tinctures in the natural world may be
registered as a brown {X} proper (e. g., brown hound proper,
brown horse proper).
This precedent does not, however, loosen the ban on "Linnaean
proper" (Cover Letter, May 13, 1991); proper tinctures for
flora and fauna which require the Linnaean genus and species to
know how to color them. For example, a falcon proper will be
considered to be all brown, not brown head, wings and back,
buff breast with darker spots, and a tail striped with black; a
hare proper will be considered to be all brown, not brown with
white underbelly and tail and pink ears. This also appears to
be more in keeping with period heraldic practice.
[03/2002,
CL]
PROTECTED and
PROTECTABLE ITEMS
[Or crusilly sable, a chevron
gules] One commenter noted that Papworth gives the arms of
Richard de Holebroc in the 13th C as Or crusily and a chevron
gules. There is one CD for the change of the tincture of the
strewn charges. However, no evidence was presented that Richard
de Holebroc's arms are protectable in the SCA, and no suggestion
was made that they should be so considered. There are no
Holbrooks (in any obvious spelling variant) listed under their
own heading in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and the small
number of Holbrooks in Encarta (there are no Holebrocs) could not
be this armiger. [Brienus Holebroc, 10/2001,
A-Meridies]
The arms of a Hunter clan chief are not so well known that they
must be protected in the SCA. While these arms could be
registered to someone whose name did not refer to Hunter of
Hunterston, the combination of the Hunter surname with these arms
causes the submitter to appear to be a real-world clan chief, and
this is presumptuous. To avoid presumption, the submitter may
either difference his arms so that they are one CD from the arms
born by a Hunter clan chief, or he may change his name so that it
does not refer to the Hunter of Hunterston. [Kieran Hunter
, 10/2001,
R-Atlantia]
Gillian's arms conflict with Iamys Huet's, found later in this
LoAR. Gillian is an SCA member, and therefore, her submission
takes precedence and may be registered without a letter of
permission from Iamys. She is unlikely to be surprised by these
events, as she has provided a letter of permission to conflict to
Iamys. [Gillian Kylpatrick, 11/2001,
A-Caid]
[regarding Eleanor Leonard's permission to conflict] Over
the years, there have been many requests for permission to
conflict made of and given by Eleanor. In 1991, Eleanor Leonard
presented the College of Arms with a blanket letter of permission
to conflict reserving only the specific ways she intended to use
the badge, so that she would not continue to be bothered by
requests for permission to conflict.
In the September 1991 LoAR Cover Letter, the relevant portion of
the letter was published with a call for discussion. In the
January 1992 Cover Letter, Da'ud ibn Auda, then Laurel, did not
accept it, giving reasons for not "customizing protection" that
included not wanting to complicate the Administrative Handbook,
the Armorial, and the lives of SCA heralds. It is true that there
would be problems with registering any arbitrary conditions a
submitter might impose. However, one simple blanket permission
was registered in 1997. The recent edition of the Administrative
Handbook now provides for two simple types of blanket letters of
permission in III.C.4, "Blanket Permission to Conflict", and
Appendix D has a template "Blanket Permission to Conflict".
Furthermore, even a more complicated blanket permission may be
worth accepting. We will consider such exceptional letters on a
case-by-case basis, balancing the costs of implementations of
letters versus the benefits to submitters. ...
Therefore, there is permission to conflict for any armory with a
primary charge that is not solidly one of the seven major
tinctures (argent, Or, azure, gules, purpure, sable, and vert).
As well, there is permission to conflict for any fielded armory
(not fieldless) where the field is not solidly one of those seven
major tinctures. [01/2002,
CL][Ed.: See the Cover Letter for the complete
discussion ]
[Argent semy of pine trees couped vert] This does not
conflict with the flag of Lebanon until 1920, Argent, a cedar
tree vert, as this flag was not the flag of a sovereign
nation. Flags of dependent territories are not automatically
considered important enough to protect. No evidence was
presented, and none was found, that the flag used by Lebanon in
this period was important enough to be protected by the SCA.
[Shaun of the Forrest, 01/2002],
R-Atenveldt]
The arms found here are not arms of dominion, so they may only be
protected under the Administrative Handbook provisions for
"Significant Personal and Corporate Armory from Outside the
Society" rather than "Armory of Significant Geographical
Locations Outside the Society". "Significant Personal and
Corporate Armory from Outside the Society" is protected on a case
by case basis, determined by a combination of the fame of the
owner and the fame of the armory.
These arms are found in at least one standard heraldic source:
Woodward's A Treatise on Heraldry, British and Foreign
gives these as the coat of arms of "Stephen Némanja the Czar of
Servia and Bosnia" [sic] on p. 251. The coat also appears to be
the basis of the modern arms of Montenegro, Gules, a
double-headed eagle Argent beaked, membered and tongued Or,
bearing an escutcheon: Azure, a lion passant Or on a champagne
Vert. Therefore, the arms have some degree of prominence on
their own. There was some slight disagreement between the
Medieval Serbia Web site
(http://solair.eunet.yu/~zeljkoj/e-families.htm), Adam S.
Eterovich's Croatian and Dalmatian Coats of Arms, and
Woodward concerning the exact details of the armory: whether or
not the eagle was crowned and the tincture of the arming and
crowning (whether argent or Or). These discrepancies may well be
due to artist's license rather than heraldic difference. We have
followed the description of the arms given in the standard
heraldic source in our blazon.
The Nemanjic dynasty has its own entry on britannica.com. They do
not have their own entry in the eleventh edition (1911)
Encyclopædia Britannica (which is one of the most complete
editions for European history), but they are mentioned copiously
in its article on Servia [sic], particularly Stefan Nemanja, who
founded the dynasty and the Kingdom of Serbia. The Nemanjic
dynasty ruled for over 200 years. The entries in the two editions
of the Britannica imply a considerable degree of prominence,
especially when one considers that the Britannica is less likely
to cover Eastern Europe with the detail in which it covers
Western Europe.
The historical prominence of the dynasty and the intrinsic
importance of the arms combine to make this coat worthy of
protection in the SCA. [Nemanji{c'}i, Kings of Serbia,
05/2002,
A-Nebuly Letter of Intent to Protect]
No evidence was provided, and none was found, that these arms
were the arms of dominion of Zeta or Montenegro. Therefore, these
arms would need to be protected on the grounds of "Significant
Personal and Corporate Armory from Outside the Society" rather
than "Armory of Significant Geographical Locations Outside the
Society". ...
The arms in this submission are not found in standard heraldic
sources, not even in Woodward's A Treatise on Heraldry,
British and Foreign, which makes a particular point of
covering the heraldry of all of Europe. The documentation
provided for the arms in the LoItP documented them from a
Medieval Serbia Web site
(http://solair.eunet.yu/~zeljkoj/e-families.htm). Nebuly provided
Wreath with a hard copy of the Web site contents. It should be
noted that we do not generally assume that presence of arms on a
medievally focused Web site is proof that the arms are
intrinsically well known: such Web sites are generally more
special-purpose than are standard references such as an
encyclopedia or general heraldic texts. Therefore, we do not
consider these arms to be well known on their own merits. The
arms must be protected solely based on the fame of the
Bal{sv}i{c'}i.
The Encyclopædia Britannica is often used as a touchstone for
general fame. While we are aware that the Britannica does not
have the same focus on Eastern Europe as it does for Western
Europe, it can still be used as a guideline. Neither the eleventh
edition (1911) Britannica (one of the most complete for the
history of Western Europe) nor britannica.com give entries for
the Bal{sv}i{c'}i or for Zeta. The 1911 Britannica mentions both
Zeta and the Bal{sv}i{c'}i in the section on Montenegro. The
family was a ruling dynasty for less than 70 years. The
britannica.com site does not mention the Bal{sv}i{c'}i in the
article on Montenegro or elsewhere. [Bal{sv}i{c'}i, Rulers of
Zeta (Montenegro), 05/2002,
R-Nebuly Letter of Intent to Protect]
[(Fieldless) A demi-cat erect maintaining on its left forearm
a targe argent] The Letter of Intent asked if there was a
problem with the combination of this badge and a version of the
MacBain surname. Way of Plean and Squire's Scottish Clan and
Family Encyclopedia, endorsed by the Convenor of the Standing
Council of Scottish Chiefs, gives the MacBain crest as A grey
demi-cat-a-mountain salient, on his sinister foreleg a Highland
targe gules, and the MacBain badge as A grey
demi-cat-a-mountain as in the Crest within a chaplet of boxwood
Proper.
In the Cover Letter for the March 1991 LoAR, it was ruled that
"It has been decided that we will NOT check for conflicts against
mundane crests". Therefore, we need only consider the MacBain
badge for possible pretense issues. The removal of the chaplet of
boxwood makes it clear that no identity is being presumed.
[Áedán mac Bheathain, 09/2002,
A-Outlands]
[(Fieldless) An escutcheon Or] One commenter asked whether
we should protect the "naval signal flag for the letter Q: Or",
and, if so, whether this badge conflicts with it. That commenter
also suggested that all the signal flags deserve protection.
As an administrative note, we expect that the members of the
College should provide documentation with any requests for the
SCA to protect particular pieces of real-world armory.
Unfortunately, this letter of comment does not provide any
documentation in support of this request for protection, either
for the specific signal flag for Q or for signal flags in
general.
We did some research and found that Whitney Smith's Flags
describes the International Signal Flags and Pennants on p. 86,
and shows a square Or flag representing the letter Q. However, it
is important to note that the contents of the signal flag listing
implies strongly that the shape of the signal flags is
significant, not just the armory on the flags. The signal flags
have a number of different shapes. Some flags which have
different shapes, but which otherwise "bear the same armorial
display", have different meanings: both the flags for the letter
T and the number 3 bear the same "armory" (Per pale gules and
azure, a pale argent), but they differ in shape (the letter T
flag is square, and the number 3 flag is a long pennant with the
tip couped flat.) None of the flags are shaped like escutcheons,
which is the shape of this fieldless badge.
The identity of armory does not depend on the shape on which the
armory is displayed. A period coat of arms or badge may be
displayed on many different shapes (or, in the case of a
fieldless badge, on no underlying shape at all) without losing
its identifiability. Signal flags do not have this
characteristic. We thus agree with Laurel's initial reaction that
"signal flags are not armory."
Signal flags do not appear to fall into any of the categories of
real-world insignia protected in the Administrative Handbook.
They are not Armory of Significant Geographical Locations Outside
the Society, Significant Personal and Corporate Armory from
Outside the Society, or Copyrighted Images, Trademarks, Military
Insignia, etc. They therefore do not requre protection in the SCA
Armorial and Ordinary under the current provisions of the
Administrative Handbook.
In addition, Laurel Clerk has done research showing that the
current "International" signal flags are neither an ancient nor a
universal system of vexillogical communications. At this time,
the definitions of signal flags do not fully agree between the
"International" signal flags, the NATO signal flags, and the U.S.
Navy's signal flags. The meanings of the signal flags have
changed significantly even in the past 50 years. The flag for the
letter "J", in 1951, also meant "I am going to send a message by
semaphore". In 1969 it meant "I am on fire and have dangerous
cargo on board; keep well clear of me." There is thus no
compelling reason to believe that the current signal flags have
some special status as insignia that should cause us to consider
adding them to the currently existing categories of protected
items. [Chandranath Mitra, 08/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
RAINBOW
[natural rainbow proper]
The SCA charge of a natural rainbow proper is tinctured (from
chief to base) in red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and
violet. The tinctures are reversed in this emblazon, with the
violet on the top and the red on the bottom. The reversal of the
tinctures makes this an unacceptable variant of the natural
rainbow, and is a reason for return.
The natural rainbow is drawn with argent clouds by default, and
this rainbow is also drawn with argent clouds. The clouds have no
contrast with the argent portion of the field on which the
rainbow lies. This may well be a reason for return. However, in
some cases it is allowable for a charge to have some small
no-contrast details as long as the overall identifiability of the
charge is maintained. At this time, we decline to rule on whether
it is acceptable to have a natural rainbow with its proper argent
clouds on an argent field, as there was no clear College
consensus about whether this should be acceptable. It is
allowable to have a natural rainbow proper clouded in some
specified tincture, and we encourage the submitter to avoid this
question by resubmitting with a rainbow where the clouds have
some contrast with the underlying field. [Phillida Parker,
12/2002,
R-Ealdormere]
[Per fess wavy azure and Or, a natural rainbow ...] The
natural rainbow is drawn correctly for a natural rainbow as
stated in the Pictorial Dictionary of Heraldry: "The
'natural rainbow proper', an SCA invention, has white clouds, and
seven colored bands, as found in nature: red, orange, yellow,
green, blue, indigo and violet." The order of the bands is given
from top to bottom. This submission thus addresses the main
reason for the previous return (in June 2001), which was that the
bands of the rainbow were in the opposite order on the previous
submission, starting with violet on top and ending with red on
the bottom. The redesign also addresses a concern raised in the
previous return, about whether the argent clouds of the rainbow
kept the entire natural rainbow from having sufficient contrast
with the underlying argent field.
However, as part of this redesign, the natural rainbow has moved
from lying entirely on an argent (metal) portion of the field to
lying entirely on an azure (color) portion of the field. The
natural rainbow is more than half color, and thus has
insufficient contrast with the underlying azure field per RfS
VIII.2.a.ii, since the rainbow is not "An element equally divided
of a color and a metal." In order to be such an evenly divided
element, the white clouds of the rainbow and/or the yellow band
of the rainbow would need to be disproportionally large. We thus
overturn the portion of the following precedent that states that
a natural rainbow is a neutral charge (as referred to in the
Pictorial Dictionary):
A natural rainbow proper shall consist of the same band between
two white clouds but with the natural spectrum, from gules in
chief to purpure in base. This type of rainbow would count as a
combined metal/color charge and thus be neutral. (Cover Letter
of 25 May 82)
[Phillida Parker, 01/2004,
R-Ealdomere]
RECONSTRUCTIBILITY
The seals are not
in a recognizable posture. They are neither erect nor sejant nor
naiant and cannot accurately be blazoned. Charges must be
reproducible from the blazon in order to be acceptable.
[Séighín inghean Giolla Eáin, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
[an ivy vine embowed vert overall on a bend] There were a
number of possible visual interpretations of the vine or vines in
this armory. This armory shows one piece of vine in the basemost
part of the shield. The vine is mostly bendwise but curves
towards sinister chief at the top, where it conjoins to the bend.
In the chiefmost part of the field, there are two pieces of vine,
the chiefmost of which is more or less fesswise and issuing from
the bend at the dexter end, and the basemost of which is embowed
to sinister chief with both ends issuing from the bend.
The most obvious interpretation to those who were used to doing
artwork using 13th to 15th C vinework was that there was a single
ivy vine that is embowed, forked somewhere under the bend, with
the basemost fork spiralling downwards and inwards (so the main
vine would have the shape of a 'C', with the fork forming a
smaller 'c'). We note that a standard heraldic vine is a single
length of vine, and the extensive fork in this vine is not
compatible with standard heraldic depictions of vine. We also
note that this interpretation was not at all obvious to the
majority of viewers who did not partake of artwork using 13th to
15th C vinework on a regular basis.
Other people viewed this as two vines, one on either side of the
bend, but this is not the case; in such an emblazon, there would
not be two pieces of vine showing in the chief portion of the
field, and none of the vine would conjoin to the bend. Others
viewed this as some sort of "semy of ivy vines", but strewn ivy
vines would be depicted with a large number of detached pieces of
vine. Others interpreted this as a single vine passing back and
forth over the field and filling the field (and called that 'semy
of vine'), but no documentation has been provided for a period
heraldic design consisting of one vine filling the field by
passing back and forth over the field.
As a consequence, this design cannot accurately be reproduced
from a blazon and is thus not acceptable by RfS VII.7.b.
[Marcus de la Forest, 01/2003,
R-Calontir]
[triquetras argent] The triquetras are not drawn
correctly. Triquetras are thin-line charges made of a single
interlaced strand, like a three-lobed knot. (The triquetra is
given no difference from a trefoil knot; it merely has more
pointed ends than the trefoil knot.) As with a knot, the
underlying field or charge shows through the loops made by the
strand of a correctly drawn triquetra. In this submission, the
triquetras are some sort of solid charge: both the strand making
up the triquetra and the inside of the triquetra's loops are
argent. Because these charges cannot be identified as heraldic
charges or recreated from a blazon, they must be returned by RfS
VII.7.a. [Davyd Robertson, 04/2003,
R-Trimaris]
This serpent was blazoned as erect, but an erect serpent
has its body fully palewise. The front half of this serpent is
palewise and the back half of the serpent is mostly fesswise with
the very end of the tail reflexed up over its back. No evidence
was presented that this is a period posture for a serpent, nor
was evidence presented for a term that would clearly blazon this
posture. This submission is thus in violation of RfS VII.7.b,
"Reconstruction Requirement - Elements must be reconstructible in
a recognizable form from a competent blazon." [Kate
Galleghure, 01/2004,
R-East]
REPTILE --
Lizard
[a natural salamander rampant] Some
commenters noted that the tertiary charge is not quite a natural
salamander: it lacks the webbed feet of a salamander and it has
slightly different proportions. They suggested that this be
blazoned as a lizard. When one considers the vast divergences
from standard heraldic or naturalistic depictions that we
routinely accept in the College of Arms as artistic variants, it
seems inappropriate to reblazon the type of this animal because
of its toes. We have therefore retained the submitter's blazon
for the tertiary charge. The submitter may wish to take the
commenters' advice in drawing the animal in the future so that it
is more clearly identifiable as a natural salamander. [Marcus
of Bartale, 06/2002,
A-Ealdormere]
[a newt statant] Conflict with ... Azure, a natural
salamander statant regardant queue forchy Or... There is ...
no difference between a two-tailed natural salamander and a newt,
which is a single-tailed natural salamander. [Santiago
Pescador, 10/2002,
R-East]
The lizard was originally blazoned as a gecko. The term
gecko has only been used once in SCA blazon. The word is
not a period Western European word - it derives from the Malay
(Southeast Asian) language, after the sound that the lizard
makes, and came into English in the 18th C. Because the term is
not period, and seems somewhat intrusively modern, we have
elected to use a more general blazon term. [Ed.: Reblazoned as
a lizard] [Richart de Saint Raphaël, 09/2003,
A-Trimaris]
REPTILE --
Snake
[two serpents entwined about a third
palewise] The entwined snakes are not identifiable. They
appear to be some sort of trident, or a variant of a caduceus or
a rod of Aesculapius. Because almost the full length of the
snakes' bodies are entwined, each snake's identifiability is
obscured by the other snakes. This must be returned for redesign.
Note that the most common snake postures in period are erect (and
wavy) and nowed (in a very loose knot). In both postures the
shape of the snake's body is clearly apparent. [Meredith
Stafford, 03/2002,
R-Drachenwald]
Because of the fishtail flukes at the end of the serpent's tail,
and because their device already uses the blazon term
sea-serpent, we have registered the charge as a
sea-serpent rather than a serpent as submitted.
Note that period serpents may be smooth-skinned, like a snake, or
may show dorsal spines or ridges, as with this creature. [Loch
Solleir, Barony of, 01/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[a pithon] This was originally blazoned as a
sea-python. Firstly, the bat-winged snake monster found in
this submission is blazoned as a pithon, and the
natural snake is blazoned as a python. Secondly,
this charge does not have a fish's tail, as one would expect from
a sea-pithon. The small detail at the end of the tail is not
large enough to require reblazoning this as a sea-pithon.
[Setembrina Bramante, 01/2004,
A-Northshield]
[Per fess argent and vert ermined argent, a sea-serpent
ondoyant and issuant from the line of division azure] A
number of commenters expressed concerns about the posture of the
serpent. They cited a precedent concerning a sea-serpent ondoyant
emergent, an SCA invention which is described in the Pictorial
Dictionary under Sea-Serpent:
[Per fess azure and Or, three flanged maces palewise in fess
argent and a sea-serpent emergent ondoyant to sinister
vert.] While there is perhaps a precedent for the
peculiarly fragmented partial sea-serpent in Caid in the
armoury of the Barony of Calafia, this is an old one. The
serpent emerging from thin air does not seem to be a period
charge and the effect here is to have three charges in fess in
chief with another three non-identical fragments in base [the
three separated pieces of the sea-serpent] (LoAR of June 1990).
We believe that the stylistic problem with
ondoyant emergent serpents is that they incorporate two
steps from period style (also known colloquially as "two
weirdnesses"). The serpent is broken into "non-identical
fragments" (one step from period style) that are disassociated
from each other because they are "emerging from thin air" (the
second step from period style). Armory incorporating two steps
from period style is not registerable.
A serpent ondoyant and issuant from a [line of division],
however, is only one step from period style (colloquially, "one
weirdness"). Period armory is replete with animals issuant from
lines of division or from charges. In some of these cases, there
is even a small degree of fragmentation of the charge: the tail
of a demi-lion issuant from a line of division may sometimes be
separated from the rest of the demi-lion. The fact that a
serpent ondoyant and issuant from [a line of division] is
broken into three or more "non-identical fragments" when it
emerges from the line of division is still one step from period
style. However, these fragments are associated with each other by
the line of division from which they all issue, so this design
does not have the second step from period style, that of
disassociation by "emerging from thin air." Armory with only one
step from period style may be registered. [Isabel
McThomas, 01/2004,
A-West]
This serpent was blazoned as erect, but an erect serpent
has its body fully palewise. The front half of this serpent is
palewise and the back half of the serpent is mostly fesswise with
the very end of the tail reflexed up over its back. No evidence
was presented that this is a period posture for a serpent, nor
was evidence presented for a term that would clearly blazon this
posture. This submission is thus in violation of RfS VII.7.b,
"Reconstruction Requirement - Elements must be reconstructible in
a recognizable form from a competent blazon." [Kate
Galleghure, 01/2004,
R-East]
RfS
X.4.j.ii
[(Fieldless) On a mullet of five greater and
five lesser points Or a griffin passant contourny sable]
"There's ...no difference between suns and multi-pointed mullets
--- which includes compass stars" (LoAR June 1993 p.18).
Therefore this badge has multiple conflicts. In each case, there
is one CD for fieldlessness. In all the cases, there is nothing
for change of type only of tertiary charge on a sun or
multipointed mullet, as this shape is not simple for purposes of
RfS X.4.j.ii. [Burke Kyriell MacDonald, 02/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[Or, on a tower pean a hawk's head erased Or] Conflict
with ... Or, on a tower per pale gules and azure, a compass
star Or. There is one CD for changing the tincture of the
tower but nothing for changing the type only of tertiary charge
by RfS X.4.j.ii, because a charged tower will not qualify for
this rule. According to X.4.j.ii, "A charge is suitable for the
purposes of this rule if (a) it it simple enough in outline to be
voided, and (b) it is correctly drawn with an interior
substantial enough to display easily recognizable charges."
Towers are not simple enough in outline to be voided. [Hawk's
Rest, Shire of, 07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Vert, three piles in point argent each charged in chief with
a flame azure] Conflict with ... Azure, three piles in
point argent each charged in chief with a key palewise wards to
base azure. There is a CD for changing the tincture of the
field. RfS X.4.j.ii.a states that "armory that has a group of
identical charges on an ordinary or other suitable charge alone
on the field is a simple case." No clause of RfS X.4.j.ii
considers armory using multiple charged primary charges to be a
simple case. Therefore there is no difference for changing the
type only of tertiary charge by X.4.j.ii. [Mary Dedwydd verch
Gwallter, 09/2002,
R-Caid]
Conflict ... because a nesselblatt is too complex to void, there
is no difference by RfS X.4.j.ii for changing the type only of
tertiary charge. [Adella de Tourlaville, 11/2002,
R-Outlands]
... RfS X.4.j.ii does not apply to charges on suns because of the
complex outline of the sun. Thus, there is no difference for
changing the type only of tertiary charge. [Nimenefeld, Canton
of, 01/2003,
R-Atlantia]
Mullets are not eligible for RfS X.4.j.ii per the following
precedent: "There is one CD for fieldlessness, but as the mullets
are not simple charges, there is no CD for changing the type only
of the tertiary. (LoAR June 1994, p.15). [Disa blat{o,}nn,
08/2003,
R-Caid]
[Per chevron argent and vert, two trefoils vert and a
dragonfly argent] Conflict with ... Per chevron argent and
vert, two oak leaves and a war-hammer counterchanged.
Precedent holds that there is significant, but not substantial,
difference between trefoils and oak leaves. Because the criterion
in RfS X.2 requiring that "the type of every primary charge is
substantially changed" is not met in this armorial comparison,
RfS X.2 cannot be used to clear the two pieces of armory of
conflict. Thus, there is only one CD for changing the type of the
charge group on the field under RfS X.4.e. The pertinent
precedent reads: "[oak leaves vs. trefoils as charges on a
chevron] Consensus among the commenters was that there was not
the substantial difference required by X.4.j.ii. to grant the
necessary second for the change to type of the tertiaries" (LoAR
May 1994 p.18). Note that, while this precedent applies to RfS
X.4.j.ii rather than RfS X.2, the same distinction between
substantial and significant type change is used in both sections
of the Rules for Submission. [Elena filia Dugalli,
09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[(Fieldless) A mullet vert pierced argent] Conflict with
... Argent ermined vert, on a mullet vert a fox's mask
argent. There is one CD for changing the field. The piercing
here is identical to charging the mullet with a roundel argent,
so the difference between the argent fox's mask and the argent
piercing is effectively only changing the type of tertiary
charge. This is not sufficient difference for a CD per RfS
X.4.j.ii, because a mullet is not a "suitable" charge for
purposes of this rule, which states:
A charge is suitable for the purposes of this rule if
(a) it is simple enough in outline to be voided, and (b) it is
correctly drawn with an interior substantial enough to display
easily recognizable charges ... [cited as an example in the
rule] Gules, on a mullet of six points Or a cross crosslet
sable does not have a clear difference from Gules, on a
mullet of six points Or a pellet because the interior of a
correctly drawn mullet of six points is too small.
Note that both mullets of five points and mullets of
six points are period charges, and given the range of variation
with which these charges are drawn in period, a mullet of five
points is just as suitable (or unsuitable) for purposes of RfS
X.4.j.ii as a mullet of six points. [Lorccán hua
Conchobair, 11/2003,
R-Caid]
From Laurel: RfS X.4.j.ii
After due consideration
and with the thoughtful advice of the College of Arms, we are
amending the Rules for Submission section X.4.j.ii. This change
is limited to X.4.j.ii and does not modify X.4.j.i. Thus, it only
redefines the cases in which substantially changing the type of a
group of charges on charges can give a clear difference. The main
purpose of this rules change is to simplify this rule and make it
easier to apply.
We are redefinining "simple case" to match the current phrasing
of X.2: "has no more than two types of charge directly on the
field and has no overall charges". In addition, we are removing
the term "simple" from X.4.j.ii, because it has been confusing to
use the term "simple" in two parts of the armory conflict rules
(RfS X.2 and RfS X.4.j.ii). There is one additional change:
X.4.j.ii no longer requires the the group of charges on a charge
to be composed of identical charges. But it does continue to
require that the type of the entire group of charges on a charge
be changed to grant a CD under this rule.
RFS X.4.j.ii is changed to read:
ii. For armory that has no more than two types of charge
directly on the field and has no overall charges, substantially
changing the type of all of a group of charges placed entirely
on an ordinary or other suitable charge is one clear
difference. Only the new submission is required to meet these
conditions in order to benefit from this clause. A charge is
suitable for the purposes of this rule if (a) it is simple
enough in outline to be voided, and (b) it is correctly drawn
with an interior substantial enough to display easily
recognizable charges.
Sable, on a pale argent three lozenges sable has one
clear difference from Sable, on a pale argent three ravens
sable. Or, on a heart vert a pheon argent has one
clear difference from Or, on a heart vert a cross moline
argent. Argent, on a fess azure between two pine trees
vert a spear argent has one clear difference from
Argent, on a fess azure between two pine trees vert a rose
argent. Or, on a chevron between two millrinds and a
lion passant gardant sable three escallops argent does not
have a clear difference from Or, on a chevron between two
millrinds and a lion passant gardant sable three crosses
crosslet argent because there are more than two types of
charges directly on the field. Gules, a lion rampant,
overall a bend argent semy-de-lis sable does not have a
clear difference from Gules, a lion rampant, overall a bend
argent billetty sable because there is an overall charge.
Gules, on a pale Or a crescent between two fleurs-de-lis
gules has a clear difference from Gules, on a pale Or
three mullets gules. However, it does not have a clear
difference from Gules, on a pale Or three crescents
gules, because the type of all of the tertiary charges has
not been changed.
Argent, a lion rampant gules charged with a cross crosslet
Or does not have a clear difference from Argent, a lion
rampant gules charged with a heart Or because the lion is
too complex in outline to be voided. Gules, on a mullet of
six points Or a cross crosslet sable does not have a clear
difference from Gules, on a mullet of six points Or a
pellet because the interior of a correctly drawn mullet of
six points is too small.
As a new submission, Argent, a lion rampant and on a chief
gules three fleurs-de-lis argent does not conflict with
Argent, a lion rampant between three mullets and on a chief
gules three crosses crosslet argent, even though the latter
does not meet the conditions of this rule. The new armory has
only two types of charges directly on the field, so there is
one clear difference for substantially changing the type of the
tertiary charges; the second is for removing the mullets (see
RfS X.4.b). If, however, the second armory were new and the
first already registered, the second armory would conflict with
the first; as there are more than two types of charges directly
on the field, there would be just one clear difference for
adding the mullets.
[12/2003,
CL]
ROGACINA
[a
rogacina crossed and fourchy] A rogacina is a stylized
Polish charge, which is generally described by this name in
reputable books on Polish heraldry. The charge resembles a broad
arrowhead inverted with a complicated shaft. The shaft is
straight (rather than tapering, as in many depictions of a
broadarrow), may be crossed, and may have a complex end. In the
15th C Grand Armorial Équestre de la Toison d'Or, the
Polish section has a number of coats of arms using variants of
the rogacina, showing that this was a common charge in 15th C
Poland. Two of the coats have the version of the rogacina found
here, with a crosspiece and a simply forked foot. One version has
no crosspiece and ends the foot in an arc (the top half of an
annulet). One version has two crosspieces and a plain foot, one
version has no crosspiece and a triply forked and elaborate foot
that Pastoureau and Popoff describe as representing the tail of
an eagle, one version has a single crosspiece and ends in a foot
like the blades of an anchor, and one version has an oddly forked
and downwards curving foot that cannot easily be described.
Because this charge is so common in period Polish armory it seems
appropriate to blazon it using the Polish term. The number of
crossings (if any) and the style of the foot should be blazoned
explicitly.
This sort of rogacina has previously been registered twice using
a Western blazon approximation by Aron Nied{z'}wied{z'}, with
both registrations in the LoAR of November 1999, (Fieldless)
In pale a cross couped between and conjoined to two chevronels
couped sable, and (Fieldless) In pale a cross couped
between and conjoined to two chevronels couped Or.
[Angharad Rhos Tewdwr of Pembroke, 12/2003,
A-Middle]
ROUNDEL
[three
groups of three roundels each two and one] This was
originally submitted with a blazon of three sparks rather
than an explicit combination of roundels. However, the
Pictorial Dictionary notes that the spark was only found
in groups, rather than as an isolated charge. Brault's Early
Blazon second edition bears out this interpretation. The
singular noun estencele means either a small mullet or
means spark, i.e a cluster of three or four small dots.
However, this latter use is referenced to the entry for
estencelé, which only discusses the strewn use of such sparks.
The fact that sparks are only used in groups is also indicated in
an article by H. Stanford London (Coat of Arms, vol. II,
No. 11, July 1952, p. 111). Absent evidence for explicitly
enumerated sparks in period armory, they will not be allowed.
[Margareta vanden Velde, 11/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[Per chevron azure and sable, issuant from the line of
division a plate] There is no type difference between a plate
and a plate with a notch taken out of the bottom because it
issues from the per chevron line of divsion. [Líadan
Bregh, 02/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[An astrolabe] Conflict with ... Barry argent and
sable, a moon in her plenitude azure. There is a CD for
changing the field, but no difference between a moon in her
plenitude and an astrolabe. Moons in their plenitude are
equivalent to roundels. "[The] astrolabe... conflicts with... [a
roundel, with] nothing for the internal diapering of the primary
(similar to the conflict between a moon in her plenitude and a
plate.)" (LoAR June 1992 p.15). [Trimaris, Kingdom of,
06/2002,
R-Trimaris]
[An equatorium] Conflict with ... Barry argent and
sable, a moon in her plenitude azure. There is a CD for
changing the field, but no difference between a moon and an
equatorium. There is no difference between a moon and a roundel.
The same logic by which there is no CD between an astrolabe and a
roundel applies between an equatorium and a roundel. "[The]
astrolabe... conflicts with... [a roundel, with] nothing for the
internal diapering of the primary (similar to the conflict
between a moon in her plenitude and a plate.)" (LoAR June 1992
p.15). [Trimaris, Kingdom of, 06/2002,
R-Trimaris]
There is a ... CD between a moon and an armillary sphere. An
armillary sphere is not a solid roundel, like a moon or an
astrolabe, but is a largely openwork sphere. As noted in the LoAR
of June 1995, "[an] armillary sphere... amounts to another round
thing with openwork tracery." [Trimaris, Kingdom of,
11/2002,
R-Trimaris]
[celestial sphere] Conflict with ... Barry argent and
sable, a moon in her plenitude azure. The celestial sphere as
drawn in this submission is a solid blue roundel with internal
details, set on a small stand. The small stand is not a mandatory
part of the celestial sphere charge, as can be see in the flag of
Brazil, Vert, on a lozenge Or a celestial sphere azure marked
argent, which is drawn without the stand. There is no type
difference between two solid roundels with different sorts of
internal details. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, 11/2002,
R-Trimaris]
[terrestrial sphere] Conflict with ... Barry argent and
sable, a moon in her plenitude azure. There is a CD for
changing the field, but no difference between a moon in her
plenitude and a terrestrial sphere. The same logic by which there
is no CD between an astrolabe and a roundel applies between a
terrestrial sphere and a roundel. "[The] astrolabe... conflicts
with... [a roundel, with] nothing for the internal diapering of
the primary (similar to the conflict between a moon in her
plenitude and a plate.)" (LoAR June 1992 p.15). [Trimaris,
Kingdom of, 11/2002,
R-Trimaris]
[Per pale argent and sable, a tai-chi fesswise reversed proper
between two natural panther's heads erased respectant and a
natural panther's head cabossed all within a bordure embattled
counterchanged] The default SCA tai-chi is per fess
embowed counter-embowed argent and sable, per the Pictorial
Dictionary under roundel. This tai-chi is per pale embowed
counterembowed with the sable part to dexter: as a result,
this emblazon uses a tai-chi fesswise reversed proper.
The commentary voiced significant concern with the style of this
armory. Some of the concern was due to the original blazon's use
of counterchanged to describe the tai-chi. The commenters
noted that counterchanging the tai-chi over a per pale line would
add complexity by counterchanging over an additional straight
line of division running through the already bicolored tai-chi
and each of the tai-chi's two roundels. While such a design would
indeed be overly complex counterchanging, putting this tai-chi
fesswise reversed proper on a per pale argent and sable field has
acceptable complexity, contrast and identifiability.
The combination of the tai-chi, which is not a period heraldic
charge, and the relatively modern symmetry of the secondary
panther's heads led some commenters to ask whether this was
overly modern style. This submission is at the very limits of
acceptable modern style for the SCA, but it may be registered.
[Geoffrey Arkwright, 12/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
A correctly drawn goutte, with a long wavy tail, is substantially
different from a roundel. [Siobhan inghean ui Dhonnabhain,
01/2003,
A-East]
[Azure, a round clockface argent, numbered sable, hour-handed
of a salamander bendwise vert] Many commenters questioned the
use of a salamander as the hour hand of a clock. The submitter
has provided documentation from Time and Space, Measuring
Instruments from the 15th to the 19th Century, by Samuel Guye
and Henri Michel, showing a clock with a similar round face inset
into an octagonal locket. The clock has a salamander as a hand in
exactly this position (tail to the IIII). The clock dates to
1597, it is only 31 mm wide, it has a locket hanger, and we all
want one just like it. The salamander is in a reasonable tergiant
posture, so this design is stylistically acceptable.
Unfortunately the design conflicts with ... Azure, a plate
charged with a cauldron and a domestic cat in its curiosity
sable. There is one CD for the cumulative changes to the
tertiary charge group (counting the salamander as a tertiary
charge), but that is all. The round clock face is given no type
difference from a roundel; the other thin-line details on the
clock face are similar to the details of an astrolabe, and an
astrolabe also is not given type difference from a roundel.
[Lillian Taylor, 01/2003,
R-Calontir]
[roundels ermine] Please advise the submitter that, as a
general rule, ermine charges in period were drawn charged with
whole ermine spots, rather than having the spots cut off at the
edge of the charge. (This is different from the practice for
ermine fields, which commonly had the spots cut off at the edge
of the shield.) [Finn Folhare, 04/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a bezant] The bezant was originally blazoned as
charged with a Norseman's face. The "Norseman's face" is a
set of very stylized thin-line details. The "face" details are
drawn with lines so thin that they cannot be said to be a charge
upon the bezant. Because the "face" details are so thin and
insignificant, we can consider them to be purely artistic details
and blazon the charge in base simply as a bezant.
If the "Norseman's face" details were drawn more boldly, the
College felt that the details were not clearly identifiable as a
face or any other charge. Without documentation for this sort of
"face" as a heraldic charge (rather than a period artistic
design) the "Norseman's Face" will not be registered. Note RfS
VII.2, which states "Use of an element in period art does not
guarantee its acceptability for armory. Use of the Greek key
design, which was common in period decorative art, never carried
over into armory." [Birgir Bjarnarson, 07/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
There have been a number of requests in the commentary to modify
the gender used in referring to (for example) a sun in its
splendor or a moon in her plenitude. We allow suns to be either
masculine or neuter, and we allow moons to be either feminine or
neuter, and we will retain the submitter's blazon when feasible.
[10/2003,
CL]
[Per bend sinister gules and azure, in fess a roundel between
an increscent and a decrescent argent] This device does not
conflict with ... Per fess engrailed sable and argent, a
roundel between a decrescent and an increscent argent There
is a CD for changing the field. There is also a CD for changing
the posture of two of the three charges: each of the crescents
has been reversed. (Alternately, you can see it as a change of
arrangement of the charges, by swapping the outermost two
charges.)
Some commenters mentioned that this arrangement of a roundel and
crescents is not typical of period armory, and we concur, but
this armorial design is registerable as long as the charges
maintain their identifiability: "While we will reluctantly
register the arrangement of an increscent, roundel and decrescent
if they aren't conjoined, the conjoining makes them
unidentifiable as well as non-period" (LoAR September 1997 p. 23)
[Elizabeth Karlsdotter, 12/2003,
A-Drachenwald]
SALTIRE
[Sable, a saltire bretessed
argent] This does not conflict with a ... Sable, a saltire
formy argent. Contrary to some opinions espoused in the
commentary, couping an ordinary is only a significant change
(worth a CD) rather than a substantial change (clear by RfS X.2).
We would only give a CD between a saltire bretessed and a saltire
bretessed and couped. However, just as it seems appropriate to
give X.2 (substantial) difference between the very different
period charges of a cross formy (which is couped by default and
has splayed ends) and a cross bretessed (which is throughout by
default and treated with an embattled line), it is also
appropriate to give X.2 difference between similarly treated
saltires. [Nikolai Toranovich, 01/2003,
A-An Tir]
SCHNECKE
[Gules, a schnecke issuant
from sinister chief argent and on a chief Or three fleurs-de-lys
azure] There is a precedent concerning the combination of the
schnecke with other charges:
[Purpure, a schnecke issuant from sinister chief argent
charged with a rose gules, slipped and leaved vert, in dexter
chief and in base two fleurs-de-lys argent] We know of no
period examples of schneckes with secondary or tertiary
charges, we find the use of both in this device to be two steps
beyond period practice. We may allow secondary or
tertiary charges with a schnecke, but we doubt that the use of
either is period practice. (LoAR November 2000)
It is true that schneckes are generally found as
single unaccompanied charges, as noted in the precedent. However,
it is also true that the same part of the world which engendered
armory using schneckes also was known to use charged chiefs as
signs of feudal allegiance. Therefore it seems to be at most one
step from period practice to add a charged chief to armory using
a schnecke which is otherwise alone on the field. The precedent
continues to stand in the case from which it arose: a schnecke
surrounded by a secondary charge group and itself charged with a
tertiary charge group. [Anita de Challis02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[Argent, a schnecke issuant from sinister chief azure, on a
base wavy gules a fish naiant argent] The schnecke here is
much too small. It extends less than halfway across the field,
when this charge is generally centered. This is in itself a
reason for return.
In addition, there were questions raised about the propriety of a
schnecke when combined with a charged base wavy. Previous
precedent disallows a schnecke from being used in combination
with secondary and tertiary charges: "[Purpure, a schnecke
issuant from sinister chief argent charged with a rose gules,
slipped and leaved vert, in dexter chief and in base two
fleurs-de-lys argent] We know of no period examples of
schneckes with secondary or tertiary charges, we find the use of
both in this device to be two steps beyond period practice. We
may allow secondary or tertiary charges with a schnecke,
but we doubt that the use of either is period practice." (LoAR
November 2000). We are not aware of period examples of the use of
bases wavy with a schneke, nor of a general pattern of addition
of charged bases wavy to armory in those portions of Europe which
used the schnecke. Without documentation supporting this pattern
of armory, it will be considered two steps from period practice,
and not acceptable. [Fionnghuala inghean ui Fhallamhain,
02/2002,
R-Calontir]
No evidence was presented, and none was found, for schnecke (or
triply parted schnecke type fields) with a large charge overlying
the center of the field. Because such an overlying charge
obscures the already unusual underlying charge, unless
documentation is presented it will be considered, at best, a
weirdness. [Yang Mun, 04/2002,
R-Trimaris]
[a schnecke issuant from sinister chief and in canton an
annulet] A schnecke should fill most of the field. This
schnecke is constrained almost entirely in the sinister chief
quarter of the field. This needs to be redrawn in order to be
acceptable, which will require drawing the annulet somewhat
smaller. [Rayne of Skye, 02/2003,
R-Caid]
[a schnecke issuant from sinister chief] Please advise the
submitter to draw the schnecke so that it is more centered on the
field. The curl of the schnecke should extend both above and
below the center point of the field. [Rachel of Sandy
Stream, 08/2003,
A-Caid]
SEMY
[Argent goutty
de sang, a laurel wreath vert] The device is clear of
conflict with the Barony of Coeur d'Ennui, Argent, a laurel
wreath vert within eight boars' heads couped in annulo gules.
There is one CD for the type of secondary charges and another for
arrangement. This is clearly a group of strewn charges rather
than charges in annulo, as can be seen from the gouttes in the
middle of the laurel wreath. [Campofiamme, Stronghold of,
10/2001,
A-Drachenwald]
[Sable semy-de-lys argent] Conflict with Geoffrey de la
Brugge, Sable, in pale two fleurs-de-lys argent. There is
only one CD, for changing the number of charges. [Bohémond le
Sinistre, 10/2001,
R-Outlands]
[Per bend sinister azure and purpure semy of mullets argent, a
bend sinister and in canton a mullet argent] Because strewn
charges are not always disposed with geometric precision on the
field, this design is confusingly close to Per bend sinister
azure mullety argent and purpure mullety argent, a bend sinister
argent. As a result of this ambiguity, this submission is
being returned under the prior precedents against using two
different sizes of the same type of charge on the field:
[returning a mullet of four points throughout ... between
four mullets of four points ... ] This is being returned
for violating the long-standing precedent of using two
different sizes of the same charge on the field. (LoAR 3/98 p.
15)
[Catherine Abernathy, 10/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[Per fess sable mullety Or and azure, a dance and in base a
sun Or] The device does not conflict with ... Per fess
gules mullety Or, and vert, a dance and in base a terrestrial
sphere Or. There is one CD for the change to the field. There
is another CD for the change in type of the charge group in base,
which is a different charge group from the semy group in chief.
By current precedent, the semy charges must be in a separate
group from all other charges (LoAR 7/2001, Giraude Benet).
[Wolfgang Dracke, 11/2001,
A-Artemisia]
[Per bend sable bezanty and vert, in base a hare rampant
reguardant Or] This does not conflict with Cornwall, Sable
bezanty (important non-SCA arms). There is one CD for the
changing the field. There is a second CD for adding the rabbit,
because the rabbit is not in the same charge group as the
bezants. By current precedent, the semy charges must be in a
separate group from all other charges (LoAR 7/2001, Giraude
Benet). [Rilint Neufang, 11/2001,
A-West]
[Per chevron gules semy of compass stars argent and ermine, a
wolf and a bear combattant argent] Only one of the strewn
compass stars is clearly identifiable: the rest of the strewn
charges are obscured significantly by other elements of the
design. This is a reason for return under RfS VIII.3, Armorial
Identifiability: "Elements must be used in a design so as to
preserve their individual identifiability. Identifiable elements
may be rendered unidentifiable by significant reduction in size,
marginal contrast, excessive counterchanging, voiding, or
fimbriation, or by being obscured by other elements of the
design." [Sergei Bolotnikov, 03/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[an octofoil within eight octofoils in annulo] This
submission was blazoned on the Letter of Intent as Per bend
sinister argent and azure all semy of octofoils
counterchanged. The blazon term semy refers to a group
of charges strewn evenly on the field. Such strewing is not
always done with geometrical precision, especially when there are
other charges on the field around which to strew the charges.
Still, a correctly drawn semy group of charges appears to be
evenly strewn about the field. The overall effect of this
submission is not that of evenly strewn charges, but charges in a
specific arrangement. We have therefore restored the blazon from
the previous submission, which had an identical emblazon. We also
uphold the previous reason for return: "Size is not the only
thing that determines a primary charge. We were unable to devise
a way to describe arrangement of the charges in a way that did
not imply that they were a primary charge surrounded by a
secondary group. Such arrangements cannot use the same type of
charge" (LoAR of September 2000). [Yin Mei Li, 04/2002,
R-Artemisia]
[Or goutty de sang] The gouttes are too numerous and too
small to be identifiable. There was a significant discrepancy
between the emblazon on the forms and the mini-emblazon on the
Letter of Intent. There are approximately 130 gouttes on the
form, and approximately 40 gouttes on the mini-emblazon. Forty
charges is a large number to have on the field compared to the
standard period depiction of a group of strewn charges (which
often has as few as ten charges on the field). As long as the
charges in a group of strewn charges maintain their
identifiability, they are acceptable regardless of the exact
number of charges in the emblazon. [Steffan von Hessen,
07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[a bordure sable crusilly plain] Some commenters suggested
that the bordure be blazoned as sable crusilly Or, but
such a blazon would be incorrect. The default crusilly is
of crosses crosslet. It is therefore necessary to specify that
this bordure is crusilly couped or crusilly plain.
[Cathal MacLean, 08/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[Argent mullety azure ...] The strewn mullets need to be
redrawn. Strewn charges need to be distributed evenly over the
field. While the strewing need not be done with geometrical
precision, the overall effect should be an even strewing of
mullets. Here, due to the small size of the mullets in
combination with their uneven placement, the mullets appear to be
an attempt to represent some particular constellation of stars.
This is reason for return, as noted in past precedent: "[The
submittor] must draw the upper portion of the field properly as
mulletty, i.e., more evenly distributed. As drawn now, the design
looks more like an attempt to depict a constellation ... which is
not permitted as a charge in Society heraldry." (LoAR 28 December
1986, p.9). [Dáire de Haya, 09/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
This submission adds an augmentation to her registered device.
The previous device blazoned the field as Per pale argent and
gules, goutty. We have reblazoned the field of her registered
device to Per pale argent and gules, all goutty to ensure
that both sides of the field are goutty. [Ysabella Celestina
Manrique de Palma, 10/2002,
A-Trimaris]
[Azure semy of compass stars, on a flame Or a crescent
azure] Please advise the submitter to have less overlap
between the compass stars and the flames. In period armory,
primary charges do at times overlap the surrounding strewn
charges. However, because of the complex outline of this (period
style) flame, and the fact that it is tinctured identically to
the strewn charges which it overlaps, the overlap compromises the
identfiability of both charge groups. [Finbarr Mathgamain mac
Conchobair and Aífe Fael ingen Brénainn, 08/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[Argent crusilly formy] The SCA has been fairly consistent
about reblazoning a group of more than eight charges that evenly
covers a field or underlying charge as a group of strewn charges.
We have thus reblazoned this device from the original blazon of
ten crosses formy to crusilly formy. We note that
should this device be drawn on another shape for heraldic
display, such as a rectangular banner or a round shield, the
submitter will quite likely find that a different number of
charges will fill the space better. [Christgaen von Köln,
08/2003,
A-Caid]
Seven charges on a stripe ordinary like a fess are too many to
explicitly enumerate, so the blazon has been changed from on a
fess ... seven compass stars to a fess ... semy of compass
stars. [Gabrielle von Strassburg, 09/2003,
A-Meridies]
[Or, semy of mullets of five greater and five lesser points
sable] This also conflicts with ... Or, five mullets in
annulo sable... When one considers a group of as few as five
charges, there is no difference between the arrangements in
annulo and semy, because in annulo is about as
close as one can come to strewing five charges evenly on an
entire field. This is similar to the ruling in the LoAR of
September 2000, which ruled, "[semy of fraises Or] Conflict with
... Azure, six roses, two, two and two, Or. There is not a
CD ... for arrangement." [Timothy of Glastinbury, 10/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
SHEAF
[Two arrows
in saltire surmounted by a double-bitted axe Or] Conflict
with the device of Michael of York, Gules, a sheaf of three
arrows bound by a serpent coiled to sinister guardant, all
Or. ... The arrangement of the charges has not changed: a
sheaf of three arrows consists of two arrows in saltire
surmounted by a third arrow. RfS X.4.e only gives a CD for
changing the type of a group of charges when at least half the
group has changed in type. Here only one-third of the group has
changed in type. The serpent binding the sheaf in Michael's arms
is effectively a maintained charge, and its addition or deletion
is not worth difference. [Conall of Twin Moons, 08/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[a bezant conjoined to in pale a sinister wing and a sinister
wing inverted argent all surmounting two lightning bolts crossed
in saltire] This armory consists of a single group of charges
(effectively, a sheaf of charges) consisting of three
separate types of charge: roundel, wings, and lightning bolts.
This is thus overcomplex by RfS VIII.1.a.
The odd arrangement of the wings and the bezant was commented on
by a number of College members. Usually a winged object is winged
with two displayed wings. Here the rotary nature of the wings'
arrangement is unusual, and required a somewhat convoluted blazon
as a result. We advise the submitter to consider designing the
winged roundel in a more conventional fashion on his
resubmission. [Jovinus Meridius, 04/2003,
R-Meridies]
[Vert, two arrows inverted in saltire Or surmounted by a tower
argent] Conflict with ... Vert, two swords in saltire Or
surmounted by a stone tower, the top enflamed, proper. Both
pieces of armory are effectively a single group (a sheaf) of
three charges. The only change to the group of three charges is
the change to two-thirds of the type of the charge group (swords
to arrows), which is one CD by RfS X.4.e. As an alternate
interpretation, if we consider the arrows and swords to be
respective primary charge groups, and the overall towers to be
respective overall charge groups, armory using an overall charge
is not eligible for RfS X.2 because it is not simple: "For
purposes of [RfS X.2], simple armory is defined as armory that
has no more than two types of charge directly on the field and
has no overall charges". Thus, there is one CD for changing the
type of primary charges (from arrows to swords) but no further
difference. [Nikolai of Trakai, 06/2003,
R-Middle]
Quoting from the LoAR of June 2001, "A sheaf is considered a
single charge, therefore there is [... a] CD for changing the
type of the secondary charges." Here, we have changed the type
but not the number of secondary charges: we have changed two open
books to an arrow-sheaf and a tulip-sheaf. [Bjorn Krom
Hakenberg, 07/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[a sheaf of wheat] The "sheaf of wheat" is a group of five
branches of indeterminate type, bound together at base and
surmounted at base by what appears to be a bunch of grapes. It is
neither a heraldic sheaf of three crossed charges, nor is it a
garb, the period heraldic term for a bundle of wheat or
other grain. It cannot clearly be described and thus needs to be
returned under RfS VII.7.b, which states in part, "Any element
used in Society armory must be describable in standard heraldic
terms so that a competent heraldic artist can reproduce the
armory solely from the blazon."[Ainbthen inghean Risdeig,
09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
SHELL
There is ... no
difference between an untenanted and a tenanted snail shell.
[Caera in Cridi Tréuin, 08/2002,
R-East]
[Argent, a whelk purpure] Conflict with a seal for the
Triton Principal Herald, (Tinctureless) A triton-shell trumpet
bell in chief. There is one CD for tincturelessness but no
difference between a triton shell and a whelk. (A triton-shell
trumpet is effectively just a triton shell with perhaps the very
tip of the shell snipped off.) The two shells are in the same
posture (palewise with the opening to chief). Although the
triton-shell trumpet in the emblazon for the Triton Principal
Herald in the files has a slightly spiralled shape, the standard
triton shell is shaped very much like the whelk in this emblazon,
as can be seen in an entry from the on-line Shell Encyclopedia
(http://www.gastropods.com/t/Shell_Charonia_tritonis_tritonis.html)
and the on-line Encyclopedia Brittanica
(http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=75359). [Lisette la
lavendière de Shelby, 12/2002,
R-Middle]
SHIP
The College of
Arms should recall that lymphads, by default, have the sails
furled and the oars in action. If the sail is unfurled, as here,
it must be blazoned. The state of the oars (which are omitted in
this emblazon) is too small a detail to require blazoning.
[Daniel Tremayne, 01/2002,
A-An Tir]
[a longship inverted] "We do not allow inverted animate
charges in SCA heraldry except when in recognized orientation,
such as in annulo" (LoAR February 1999, p. 10). The situation
with constructed items is more complex. Some constructed items,
such as arrows and swords, are found in a variety of orientations
in SCA and real-world armory. These charges generally have simple
outlines, which enhances their identifiability in unusual
orientations. However, not all constructed items are found in a
wide variety of orientations. Ships are consistently depicted
with the keel to base in heraldry. When inverted, a ship loses
its identifiability to an unacceptable degree. [Háls
Styrkársson, 01/2002,
R-Middle]
[(Fieldless) A sail fastened to its mast and hanging from its
yardarm azure] Some commenters noted that the SCA has not yet
registered a sail without an associated ship. We usually expect
to receive documentation for such a first registration of a
charge. While no documentation was provided, the sail (which is
drawn with an attached mast and yardarm) is clearly identifiable
as a sail. Parker's A Glossary of Terms found in Heraldry,
under "Ship", mentions that sails of ships, sometimes with
attached masts and yardarms, are found in armory. Papworth gives
the arms of Lecawell, Argent three sails of ships fastened to
their yardarms gules, taken from Glover's Ordinary. This roll
is dated 1584 according to Brault's Aspilogia III. This
therefore appears to be a standard heraldic charge formed in a
standard manner with at least one period example. It may
therefore be registered. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, 06/2002,
A-Trimaris]
[Per bend gules and argent, two rapiers in saltire argent and
a caravel proper sailed Or] The ship, like most ships, has
sails which are roughly half the charge. The ship, therefore, is
equally divided of a color (the dark brown wood proper of the
hull) and a metal (the Or of the sails). RfS VIII.2.a.ii provides
that "Good contrast exists between ... an element equally divided
of a color and a metal, and any other element as long as
identifiability is maintained." The ship is acceptably
identifiable, and therefore, has good contrast with its
underlying field. [Damian of Ered Sûl, 07/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[(Fieldless) A caravel in full sail proper sails argent]
Conflict with ... (Fieldless) A drakkar under sail proper,
bearing a sail argent charged with three pallets gules. The
sail is equivalent to a sail paly argent and gules. As a result,
there is one CD for fieldlessness, but no difference for changing
what is, at most, only one-fourth of the tincture of the ship
(one half the tincture of the sail.) There is also no difference
between a caravel and a drakkar per the LoAR of April 2000, which
stated specifically in the case of a caravel versus a drakkar,
"By long standing precedent, there is not a CD between two types
of ship." [Roderick Conall MacLeod, 11/2002,
R-outlands]
[Sable, a dhow Or sailed argent issuant from a ford proper and
in chief a decrescent and an increscent Or] Some commenters
inquired if this armory was overly pictorial armory per RfS
VIII.4.a, "Pictorial Design", which states, in part, "Design
elements should not be combined to create a picture of a scene or
landscape. For example, combining a field divided per fess
wavy azure and Or with a sun and three triangles Or, as well
as a camel and two palm trees proper to depict the Nile Valley
would not be acceptable." It is important to remember that
heraldry reminiscent of simple landscapes is not uncommon period
armory. The "landscape" in this armory is similar to period
armorial designs, and is much simpler than the example given in
RfS VIII.4.a.
In particular, period civic armory often includes designs where a
ship or a building issues from a ford or similar charge depicting
water in base. Jiri Louda's European Civic Coats of Arms
gives the history of many civic coats of arms along with
illustrations. The arms of Paris in the 13th C were Gules, a
lymphad issuant from a base wavy argent, and Charles V added
a chief azure semy-de-lys Or in 1358. A piece of civic
armory even more reminiscent of a landscape was granted to
Cambridge in 1575, Gules an arched bridge throughout, in chief
a fleur-de-lys Or between two roses argent barbed and seeded
proper, in base three lymphads sable sailing atop a ford
proper. [Achmed ibn Yousef, 05/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[two caravels] Conflict with ... Per pale azure and
argent, in fess a ship reversed and a ship both under sail
counterchanged. There is one CD for changing the field. There
is no difference for changing the type of the ship per the LoAR
of April 2000: "By long standing precedent, there is not a CD
between two types of ship ..." There is no difference given for
the change of posture due to reversing one of the ships per the
LoAR of February 2000: "... there is a CD for the field, but by
long standing precedent nothing for reversing a ship."
[Desiree de Colecestra, 05/2003,
R-An Tir]
[A drakkar under sail gules its sail charged with a phoenix
Or] This submission raised the question about whether it was
possible to charge the sail of a ship in SCA armory. The
submitter quoted extensive past precedent which indicated that
charged sails on ships in period heraldry appeared to be displays
of independent coats of arms. The precedents then stated that a
charged sail, as a display of an independent coat of arms,
appeared to be an inescutcheon of pretense, and thus was not
registerable under the rules for that forbid use of inescutcheons
of pretense (now RfS XI.4). The submitter indicates that, due to
the most recent change to RfS XI.4, a charged sail would no
longer appear to be an inescutcheon of pretense and should thus
be acceptable.
The submitter is correct that under the current version of RfS
XI.4, a charged sail would not appear to be an inescutcheon of
pretense. However, this does not negate the research in the
previous precedents (and supported by the College of Arms when
they commented on this submission) which showed that charged
sails appear to be independent displays of armory.
Because a charged sail appears to be an independent display of
armory, it should be treated analogously to other armorial
elements which might appear to include an independent display of
armory. The most obvious analogous case is that of a flag or
banner used as an armorial element. Precedent states: "Charged
banners [even if only maintained] are checked for conflict
against already registered armory" (LoAR May 1999, p. 12).
Therefore, it seems appropriate to rule that a charged sail must
be checked for conflict against already registered armory.
The armory on this sail appears to be Gules, a phoenix Or.
This conflicts with .... Gules, a phoenix within a double
tressure Or, with one CD for removing the double tressure.
[Eiríkr Mj{o,}ksiglandi Sigurðarson, 06/2003,
R-Caid]
[lymphads vs dhows reversed] As noted in the LoAR of July
2001, "There is ... nothing for the change in the type of ship,
[or] for reversing a ship." [Jan van Antwerpen, 10/2003,
R-East]
SPINDLE
[a
drop spindle inverted] Our textile pals were able to identify
the drop spindle on first glance. They also note that some styles
of period drop spindle have the whorl to chief, so a spindle with
the whorl to chief would not have been intrinsically
unrecognizable in a period context. However, the default drop
spindle in the SCA has its whorl to base, so we have blazoned
these as inverted. [Siobhán NicDhuinnshléibhe,
07/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[a sword and a drop spindle in saltire] The College was
unanimous in its opinion that the armory appears to be two swords
in saltire, until detailed inspection is performed. The lack of
identifiability of the spindle in this group is reason for
return. The threading of the drop spindle does not remove the
visual implication of a second sword. The problems with the
identifiability are exacerbated by the fact that the drop spindle
in this submission is extremely attenuated, with sword-like
proportions. A drop spindle generally has a much wider spindle
whorl in proportion to the length of the spindle (see, for
example, the picture in the Pictorial Dictionary). A drop
spindle with a wider spindle whorl, when loaded with thread,
would have a roughly triangular outline rather than a sword-like
outline. [Rory Daughton, 05/2002,
R-Atlantia]
[on a chief triangular Or in cross a full drop spindle and a
needle fesswise sable] The small tertiary charges, which
overlap each other and share the same tincture, lose their
identifiability. This is reason for return by RfS VIII.3. We also
advise the submitter that, as a general rule, a full drop spindle
has somewhat less yarn on it and the yarn makes more of a cone
shape. On resubmission, she may wish to resubmit with a more
standard drop spindle in order to enhance the identifiability of
the charge. [Kathleen O'Deay, 03/2003,
R-Middle]
STAFF
[a
wooden-handled jester's bauble proper hooded alternately purpure
and gules] The previous return (May 2000) was for stylistic
reasons but also addressed a possible conflict:
A number of commenters also felt it was in conflict with Einar
of Ironhold, Sable, on a pale Or, between two swords
inverted hilted Or and bladed argent, a staff sable. There
is a CD for the field, so the question was whether there was a
significant difference between a staff and a jester's bauble to
give a second CD for change of type and tincture of the
tertiary charges. Normally I am inclined to give a CD between a
jester's bauble and a plain staff, barring evidence that they
were not independent charges in period. However, it should be
noted that Sebastiana's jester's bauble was drawn so that the
staff part was unusually prominent. Any resubmission should
make the head of the bauble more prominent relative to staff.
In this emblazon, the jester's bauble has an
unmistakeable head. As a result, there is now a CD for the change
in field tincture and another CD for the type and tincture of
tertiary charge. [Sebastiana Gerynot Fanelli, 09/2001,
A-Atenveldt]
Please inform the submitter that the caduceus and rod of
Aesculapius may be registered by the general populace and are no
longer reserved to chirurgeons. [Meredith Stafford, 03/2002,
R-Drachenwald]
[two juggler's clubs and a juggler's club inverted crossed in
pall] The juggler's club has only been registered twice in
the SCA. The Pictorial Dictionary indicates that it is a 20th c.
invention and more recent scholarship supports this assertion. It
is thus unclear whether juggler's clubs are compatible with SCA
armory.
The clubs in this emblazon do not resemble any of the previously
registered juggler's clubs. They also do not resemble the default
SCA heraldic club, which is a rough wooden club. In addition,
this particular emblazon does not allow one to clearly identify
these items as three clubs of any sort; because of the way this
particular emblazon is drawn, the heads of the clubs are visually
disassociated from their handles.
Because these charges are not identifiable as drawn, and because
there is no evidence the charges here depicted are compatible
with SCA armory, this must be returned. [Andrew Roriksson,
04/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[staves ending in boat-hooks] The charges in this
submission are drawn as long staves. The heads of the staves are
made of a curved hook ending in a ball and a straight point
ending in a ball.
The documentation provided with the submission includes a coat of
arms from Denmark (taken from the late 16th C seal of the town of
Nex�) which uses a charge called a boat-hook. The charge
shown in the Danish arms does not include a staff, but appears to
be the head of an implement to which a staff should be attached
(much like a spear-head). As a result, we have blazoned the
charges in this submission as staves ending in boat-hooks
rather than, simply, boat-hooks as they were originally
blazoned.
In the documentation from the Danish arms, the curved part of the
boat-hook is pointed at the end, and the top of the
boat-hook ends in a pointed barb. The documentation also
includes an undated illustration set in 1597 showing the end of a
Willem Barents expedition. Lying on the ground is a staff which
has an end much like a boat-hook. The end of the staff is
slightly different from the boat-hook in the seal: both the
curved portion and the straight portion end in a simple point.
The implement is not described in the illustration or its
caption.
The documentation provided does not clearly support the form of
the boat-hook in this submission, with ball endings for the hook
and the point at the top of the book-hook. As the defining
instance of this charge, we would expect the emblazon to resemble
the documentation more closely. If the implement needs pointed
hooks and ends to work (like a sword needs a pointed end to
work), adding a ball to the end would be an unlikely artistic
variant. We would also like to see more documentation for this
charge in general.
We would not hesitate to give difference between a bill-hook
polearm and a staff. The visual difference between this charge
and a staff is similar to the difference between a bill-hook
polarm and a staff. If the boat-hook ends to these staves were
drawn prominently and according to the documentation, then the
staves ending in boat-hooks should have a CD from plain long
staves or similar objects. [Brandub Mag Oireachtaigh,
04/2003,
R-East]
[a rod of Æsculapius the rod proper and the snake vert and a
tower argent] The rod of Æsculapius is no longer clearly
perceived as a single charge when the rod is tinctured
differently than the snake. Instead, it appears to be a
combination of two distinct charges. As a result, this armory
appears to have a single group of charges using three types of
charge: rod, snake and tower. RfS VIII.1.a only allows a maximum
of two types of charge in one charge group. This is therefore
overly complex heraldry of the type colloquially known as
"slot-machine." [Bernward von Eppstein, 07/2003,
R-Drachenwald]
The archepiscopal staff is topped with a cross formy, as noted in
Parker's A Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry under
"crosier". [Wolfram von NÜrnberg, 03/2004,
A-Calontir]
STYLE
see also BLAZON and EMBLAZON and OBTRUSIVE
MODERNITY and WEIRDNESS
[Purpure, a chevron between three
grape leaves inverted within an orle Or] It is standard SCA
practice for an ordinary within an orle or double tressure to
stop at the inside of the surrounding charge, as per the reblazon
of Rouland Carre's arms in January 1991:
Rouland Carre. Device. Argent, on a bend cotised azure within
an orle gules, in chief a Latin cross argent.
The LoAR blazoned this as "cotised couped", which would
not have the bend throughout within the orle.
In the real world, both the "throughout" and the
"within and conjoined to" combinations of ordinaries and
orles/double tressures may be found, without a clear default.
David Lindsay of the Mount's 1542 roll of arms gives five
examples of ordinaries combined with double tressures flory
counterflory. There is support for both designs in this book:
with the ordinary throughout, and with the ordinary within and
conjoined to the double tressure flory counterflory. Both designs
are specifically found with chevrons. [Inigo Missaglia,
08/2001,
A-Caid] [Ed.: The emblazon has the chevron terminated at the
orle]
It may interest the College to know that examples of a chief
charged with a group of charges of dissimilar tincture and type
are known from the Tudor period in England. Thomas (Cardinal)
Wolsey's arms were Sable on a cross engrailed argent a lion
passant guardant gules between three (lion's) faces (azure or
sable?) on a chief Or a rose gules between two cocks sable
(per p. 80 of Gwynn-Jones and Bedingfield's Heraldry).
Another example of a chief using a tertiary group with mixed
types and tinctures is on p. 96 of the same book, from
Wriothesley's tenure as Garter Principal King of Arms. Designs
where a chief or other ordinary was charged with two different
types of tertiary (an A between two Bs all in the
same tincture) are rather common in Wriothesley's designs.
[Liuete Liana da Luna, 08/2001,
A-Caid]
[a dragon erminois] Some questions were asked about the
stylistic acceptability of an erminois animate charge. Erminois
is an uncommon period tincture, but one might expect that if
there are animate ermine charges, erminois would be similarly
acceptable. A quick scan through a book giving the arms of the
Aldermen of Aldersgate shows the arms of Mathew Phillipp in the
30th year of Henry VI: Sable a lion rampant ermine crowned
within an orle of fleurs-de-lys Or, and the arms of Rafe
Warren in the 20th year of Henry VIII: Azure on a chevron
argent between three lozenges Or three griffins heads erased
azure on a chief checky Or and gules a greyhound courant ermine
collared Or. (Note: this last example should not be used as a
general model for SCA armory, but it shows that ermine was a
reasonable tincture for animate charges, even a small tertiary
one.) [Armand Dragonetti, 09/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[a pole-axe gules overall in pale a wolf statant contourny and
a stag trippant] This submission is comprised of a primary
charge of an axe with an overall charge group of a wolf statant
contourny and a stag trippant. This is not technically "slot
machine" heraldry as it does not have a single charge group with
more than two types of charge. However, there seem to be no
period examples of an overall charge group comprised of two
different animals. Since overall charge groups are relatively
rare in period, and most of them are ordinaries, this seems to be
beyond the bounds of period style. [Eric Martel, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
[Per fess indented sable and argent, on a chief argent two
birds displayed heads to sinister sable, a base vert] This
has been returned for redrawing or redesign. The emblazon cannot
be clearly interpreted. This emblazon could also be interpreted
as Per fess sable and vert, a fess indented on the upper edge
and on a chief argent two birds displayed heads to sinister
sable. Note that neither armory using both a chief and a
base, nor armory using a fess indented only on the upper edge,
are standard period armorial design, so there is no obviously
correct interpretation. [Dietrich von Ravensburg, 02/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Vert, in pale a stag courant inverted and a stag courant to
sinister argent] These stags were originally blazoned as
courant in annulo widdershins, legs outward, argent.
However, these are not clearly in annulo as they are not
embowed enough to make a circle. Such a posture may not be
possible for stags with their legs outwards, since in order to
truly make a circle, the stags would need to be drawn with
extremely arched backs. Such a depiction is likely non-period
style. In any case, animals in annulo are expected to have their
legs inwards and their identifiability and period style are
hampered by this posture.
We have precedent against animals which are almost, but not
really, in annulo:
[A coney courant and another courant contourny inverted
conjoined at the paws argent] The rabbits were originally
blazoned as conjoined in annulo. However, the beasts were not
drawn in annulo, where the two animals are embowed, but were
drawn as courant and courant inverted. By precedent we do not
register inverted animals unless they are part of an
arrangement in annulo. (LoAR October 2000)
[Katrín Þorfinssdóttir, 02/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[A dragon sejant contourny barry engrailed vert and Or]
There were some concerns in the College that the engrailing would
not be identifiable due to the complex outline of the charge and
the internal details. The full-sized colored emblazon shows that
the engrailing is very obvious. This barry engrailed monster is
at most one step from period practice, since animate charges in
multiply divided tinctures were found in period armory. One of
the most famous examples is that of the arms of Hesse, Azure,
a lion rampant queue-forchy barruly argent and gules crowned
Or. Siebmacher's 1605 Wappenbuch gives a number of
other examples, including Truchess von Wellerswalde, Azure, an
eagle displayed barry argent and gules (f. 161), Schirau,
Azure, a unicorn rampant bendy gules and argent (f. 69)
and Badendorf, Azure, a lion lozengy argent and gules crowned
Or (f. 179). [Killian M'Cahall, 04/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[an octofoil within eight octofoils in annulo] This
submission was blazoned on the Letter of Intent as Per bend
sinister argent and azure all semy of octofoils
counterchanged. The blazon term semy refers to a group
of charges strewn evenly on the field. Such strewing is not
always done with geometrical precision, especially when there are
other charges on the field around which to strew the charges.
Still, a correctly drawn semy group of charges appears to be
evenly strewn about the field. The overall effect of this
submission is not that of evenly strewn charges, but charges in a
specific arrangement. We have therefore restored the blazon from
the previous submission, which had an identical emblazon. We also
uphold the previous reason for return: "Size is not the only
thing that determines a primary charge. We were unable to devise
a way to describe arrangement of the charges in a way that did
not imply that they were a primary charge surrounded by a
secondary group. Such arrangements cannot use the same type of
charge" (LoAR of September 2000). [Yin Mei Li, 04/2002,
R-Artemisia]
[Per pale and per chevron gules, Or, sable, and argent, three
crosses of Jerusalem counterchanged argent and sable] No
documentation has been presented, and none was found, for per
pale and per chevron of four tinctures. A prior ruling noted that
"No evidence has been provided for simple coats with fields
quarterly of three tinctures in period" (LoAR November 1989).
This was not clearly the sole reason for return of the armory
engendering the ruling but it contributed to the return. This
field is even farther from standard period practice, as per pale
and per chevron is far less common in period than quarterly.
Without documentation for a similar field in period, combined
with charges, this may not be accepted. [Seraphina
Sacheverell, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[Gyronny of sixteen argent and sable, a salamander statant
regardant gules enflamed Or and a bordure counterchanged sable
and Or] The submitter's previous submission, Gyronny of
sixteen sable and argent, a salamander statant reguardant gules
enflamed Or, was returned for conflict in January 2001. At
that time, Laurel cited precedent from June 1999 indicating that
gyronny of sixteen is only acceptable in "simple cases" unless
period evidence supports the submission in question. Concerning
Johannes' submission, Laurel ruled, "While the single charge on
the field is very complex, it is still only a single charge.
Therefore this use of gyronny is acceptable.".
The submitter has now resubmitted adding a counterchanged
bordure, which removes the previous conflict. In general, we
consider a single primary charge within a bordure to be a "simple
case" of armorial design. Adding a solid-tinctured bordure to the
submitter's previous armory would certainly appear to be a simple
case. However, the counterchanged bordure adds substantially to
the visual complexity of the device, which led the College to
question whether this submission should be considered a simple
case.
In this submission, all the charges maintain their
identifiability despite the visual complexity of the device.
While the salamander's identifiability is somewhat confused by
the field, it is no less identifiable than the salamander in
Johannes' previous submission, which Laurel ruled to be
stylistically acceptable. The counterchanged bordure is clearly
identifiable as well. This submission is therefore acceptable.
However, it is at the absolute limit of complexity for accepting
gyronny of sixteen without documentation showing that the overall
design of the armory is consistent with period practice.
[Johannes Vagus, 06/2002,
A-An Tir]
[three lemons fracted chevronwise] The lemons fracted
chevronwise are drawn as two lemon halves conjoined in
chevron, with the cut part of the lemon opened to base. A number
of commenters felt that the fracted lemons could not be
identified as lemons. The commenters also raised questions about
whether the term fracted was appropriate for a lemon.
The previous return of this badge was predominantly for conflict
(which has been cleared by the addition of the bordure). However,
the previous return also indicated that this treatment of the
lemons was problematic, stating: "We would also like to see
evidence of lemons or other fruit depicted this way in period
heraldry." (LoAR of December 2000). Because no evidence was
presented, as requested in the previous return, for this sort of
treatment of lemons or fruit in period heraldry, and because the
charges are not clearly identifiable as lemons, this must be
returned per RfS VIII.3. [Beatrice Domenici della Campana,
08/2002,
R-An Tir]
[a chevron abased] The chevron abased here is too far to
base to be acceptable without documentation for such a design in
period. Overly enhanced ordinaries have been a reason for return
for many years as non-period style: "These bendlets are enhanced
so much to chief that the style becomes unacceptably modern"
(LoAR January 1992). Overly abased ordinaries suffer from the
same problem.
In the particular case of this chevron, this design could also be
interpreted as a voided point pointed. Points pointed may not be
voided per RfS VIII.3, which states that "Voiding and fimbriation
may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the
center of the design." [Muirgius mac Con Mara hui Ségdai,
11/2002,
R-Trimaris]
[Per pale argent and sable, a tai-chi fesswise reversed proper
between two natural panther's heads erased respectant and a
natural panther's head cabossed all within a bordure embattled
counterchanged] The default SCA tai-chi is per fess
embowed counter-embowed argent and sable, per the Pictorial
Dictionary under roundel. This tai-chi is per pale embowed
counterembowed with the sable part to dexter: as a result,
this emblazon uses a tai-chi fesswise reversed proper.
The commentary voiced significant concern with the style of this
armory. Some of the concern was due to the original blazon's use
of counterchanged to describe the tai-chi. The commenters
noted that counterchanging the tai-chi over a per pale line would
add complexity by counterchanging over an additional straight
line of division running through the already bicolored tai-chi
and each of the tai-chi's two roundels. While such a design would
indeed be overly complex counterchanging, putting this tai-chi
fesswise reversed proper on a per pale argent and sable field has
acceptable complexity, contrast and identifiability.
The combination of the tai-chi, which is not a period heraldic
charge, and the relatively modern symmetry of the secondary
panther's heads led some commenters to ask whether this was
overly modern style. This submission is at the very limits of
acceptable modern style for the SCA, but it may be registered.
[Geoffrey Arkwright, 12/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[(Fieldless) An anchor fouled of its cable argent enfiling a
coronet bendwise sinister Or pearled argent] There is a high
degree of overlap between the coronet and the anchor and its
cable. This is not acceptable style for overall charges on a
fieldless badge for reasons of identifiability and non-period
style. The same stylistic constraints which apply to charges
surmounted by overall charges also apply to charges enfiled by
other charges.
The orientation of the coronet is neither clearly bendwise
sinister nor clearly palewise. This is not blazonable and
therefore a reason for return under RfS VII.7.b. There are also
contrast problems with this emblazon. The argent pearls on the
coronet overlap the argent anchor, giving no contrast at those
points. [William the Mariner, 04/2003,
R-An Tir]
[(Fieldless) An annulet sable overall a dragon segreant
argent] The dragon has a high degree of overlap with the
underlying annulet, which is not acceptable style for fieldless
badges. Moreover, an overall charge should extend significantly
past the outlines of the underlying charge, which is not the case
in this armory. [Alden Drake, 04/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[Sable, a dhow Or sailed argent issuant from a ford proper and
in chief a decrescent and an increscent Or] Some commenters
inquired if this armory was overly pictorial armory per RfS
VIII.4.a, "Pictorial Design", which states, in part, "Design
elements should not be combined to create a picture of a scene or
landscape. For example, combining a field divided per fess
wavy azure and Or with a sun and three triangles Or, as well
as a camel and two palm trees proper to depict the Nile Valley
would not be acceptable." It is important to remember that
heraldry reminiscent of simple landscapes is not uncommon period
armory. The "landscape" in this armory is similar to period
armorial designs, and is much simpler than the example given in
RfS VIII.4.a.
In particular, period civic armory often includes designs where a
ship or a building issues from a ford or similar charge depicting
water in base. Jiri Louda's European Civic Coats of Arms
gives the history of many civic coats of arms along with
illustrations. The arms of Paris in the 13th C were Gules, a
lymphad issuant from a base wavy argent, and Charles V added
a chief azure semy-de-lys Or in 1358. A piece of civic
armory even more reminiscent of a landscape was granted to
Cambridge in 1575, Gules an arched bridge throughout, in chief
a fleur-de-lys Or between two roses argent barbed and seeded
proper, in base three lymphads sable sailing atop a ford
proper. [Achmed ibn Yousef, 05/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[a bend abased and cotised argent] No documentation was
presented for ordinaries which are both abased and cotised.
Abased ordinaries are so rare in period armory that this
treatment appears to be too far a departure from period heraldic
style to be acceptable without documentation. [Arabella
Mackinnon, 06/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[ermine field] The ermine spots in the full-sized emblazon
had identifiability problems. The spots were very numerous and
small, and many of the spots were hampered further in their
identifiability by being partially obscured by the chevron
engrailed and the Maltese crosses. This lack of identifiability
can be a reason for return under RfS VIII.3, which states in
pertinent part "Identifiable elements may be rendered
unidentifiable by significant reduction in size ... or by being
obscured by other elements of the design."
Unfortunately, because there was a significant discrepancy
between the artwork in the full-sized emblazon and the
mini-emblazon provided to the College of Arms in the Letter of
Intent, we were unable to get the College's input on this
armorial style problem. The mini-emblazon illustrated the ermine
field with 20 ermine spots, none of which were obscured by other
charges in the armory. The full-sized emblazon shows 60 full or
partially obscured ermine spots, each of which was much smaller
proportionally than the ermine spots on the mini-emblazon.
Usually we would rely heavily on the College's input to determine
whether the ermine spots were in fact too unidentifiable to be
registered under RfS VIII.3, or whether the submission's
identifiability was sufficient to enable it to be registered,
with an artistic note to the submitter to draw fewer, larger, and
less obscured ermine spots. [Genevieve de Calais, 06/2003,
R-West]
[Gules, three bendlets abased argent each charged with a
bendlet azure] Her previous armory submission was very
similar to this but was blazoned as using bendlets abased
azure fimbriated argent. That submission was returned for
using fimbriated charges that were not in the center of the
design, which is forbidden by RfS VIII.3. The submission is
blazoned as using bendlets each charged with a bendlet, and is
proportioned acceptably for that blazon.
Per the LoAR of February 2000, "In this case the blazon can make
a difference: while you cannot 'blazon your way out of' a
conflict, you can 'blazon your way out of' a style problem." In
the colored-in full-sized emblazon, the bendlets are identifiable
as bendlets (rather than part of a complicated bendy field), and
are not debased so far as to be unregisterable. [Ann
Busshenell of Tylehurst, 10/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[Argent, two daggers in chevron sable each distilling
gouttes] The gouttes in this emblazon are too large to be
merely considered artistic license and omitted from the blazon,
and they cannot be blazoned in a manner that reproduces the
emblazon. This submission therefore violates RfS VII.7.b, which
states, "Elements must be reconstructible in a recognizable form
from a competent blazon."
The gouttes are not drawn in a fashion that one would expect
given the blazon on the Letter of Intent, which states that the
daggers are distilling the gouttes. One would expect such
distilled gouttes to be small gouttes which drip from the
point of the dagger and are placed close to the point of the
dagger. These gouttes are too far from the tips of the daggers to
be distilled from the daggers.
The arrangement of the gouttes could not otherwise clearly be
blazoned. To attempt to describe this emblazon: there are two
vertical columns of gouttes, each column of two gouttes each
(making a total of four gouttes). In each column, the top goutte
is about one-fourth of the field below the tip of the dagger, and
the lower goutte another one-fourth of the field below that. The
dexter column of gouttes is a bit higher on the field than the
sinister column. The group of four gouttes is not arranged in an
heraldic arrangement such as two and two or one two and
one. The gouttes are thus in an unblazonable arrangement.
[Bora Gan, 11/2003,
R-An Tir]
[Argent, a scorpion fesswise contourny gules and a chief
double enarched and on a point pointed sable a sheaf of arrows
inverted Or] Combinations of chiefs and bases of any sort are
rare in period. The combination of the non-period chief doubly
enarched and the vanishingly rare charged point pointed leads to
issues of field-ground reversal. It is difficult to determine if
the scorpion is placed on some oddly-shaped central argent charge
on a sable field, or if the armory consists of a red scorpion on
an argent field between an unlikely combination of sable
peripheral charges.
The combination of tinctures and types of charge in this device
add to eight. RfS VIII.1.a states "As a rule of thumb, the total
of the number of tinctures plus the number of types of charges in
a design should not exceed eight [or the armory will be
considered overly complex]." The College felt strongly that in
this armory, the combination of the complexity and the
aforementioned style issues pushed the armory past the limits of
registerable style. [Geoffroi FitzGeorge, 01/2004,
R-An Tir]
The bordure also must be returned for redrawing. While it was
blazoned on the Letter of Intent as rayonny, the repeats
are drawn in a fashion that is not clearly either rayonny,
indented, or wavy-crested. Each repeat is small, roughly
triangular, and very slightly curved. Rayonny repeats should be
longer, thinner and more markedly wavy, indented repeats should
be triangular with straight sides, and wavy-crested is a line of
division which significantly post-dates 1600 and thus is not
acceptable for SCA use. In addition, the repeats are too small
and numerous to be registered. [Theron Andronikos,
02/2004,
R-Atlantia]
[roses Or barbed vert seeded of a heart gules charged with a
cross sable] The charged roses were originally blazoned as
Luther roses. They represent a variantly tinctured version
of an important non-SCA badge used by Martin Luther (and
protected in the Armorial and Ordinary), (Fieldless) A rose
argent seeded of a heart gules charged with a Latin cross
sable. The Letter of Intent surmised that because the "Luther
rose" design was known in period (as evidenced by the Martin
Luther badge), this submission should not be considered in
violation of RfS VIII.1.c.ii, Layer Limit, which would otherwise
be violated for placing a charge (the cross) on another charge
(the heart) which does not lie directly on the field (but lies
wholly on the rose). They also surmised that this submission
likewise should not be considered in violation of RfS
VIII.2.b.ii, which would otherwise be violated for placing the
color cross wholly on the color heart.
The College was not able to find any evidence that this symbol of
Martin Luther's was found outside of uses by Martin Luther
himself and eventually, by the Lutheran church.
RfS VIII.6, Documented Exceptions, describes the cases in which
period armory may be used to justify a violation of the SCA Rules
for Submission. This submission does not meet the criteria of RfS
VIII.6.a, General Exceptions, which states, "In most cases the
documentation for a proposed exceptional armorial design element
should be drawn from several European heraldic jurisdictions." No
documentation was provided, or found, showing that, in period,
this Luther rose was used in several European heraldic
jurisdictions.
This submission also does not meet the criteria of RfS VIII.6.b,
Regional Style, which states,
Alternatively, a proposed exceptional armorial design element
may be documented as characteristic of a specific regional
armorial style...In such cases the submitted armory may
be registered provided that all of the following conditions are
met. (1) The submitter explicitly requests an exception to the
other sections of Part VIII (Compatible Armorial Style) on the
grounds that the submitted armory exemplifies a specific
regional style. (2) Documentation is adduced to show that
exceptional design element was not uncommon in the regional
style in question. (3) Documentation is adduced to show that
all elements of the submitted armory can be found in the
regional style in question.
The submitter has not indicated a particular
regional style exemplified by this armory, has not provided
evidence that this design element was "not uncommon" in any
regional style, and has not shown that "all elements of the
submitted armory can be found" in any regional style. The College
was also not able to shed light on these issues.
The College also was concerned that the Luther rose may be so
closely associated with Martin Luther and the Lutheran Church
that this submission might violate either RfS XI, presumption
(claiming "status ... that the submitter does not possess"), or
RfS IX.2, Offensive Religious Symbolism (for reason of excessive
religious symbolism). We are declining to rule on these issues at
this time as this submission has clear reasons for return under
RfS VIII.1.c.ii and RfS VIII.2.b.ii. However, these are serious
issues and should be addressed on resubmission, if the
resubmission continues to use the Luther rose design. [Brighid
Óg inghean Néill, 02/2004,
R-Outlands]
[a bull's head cabossed gules, maintaining from the dexter
horn a coronet sable] Clarion summarized the issues with the
device submission rather well: "I have not seen any period
examples of a crown being placed on an animal head this way, and
given its unbalanced appearance am not willing to support it
without such documentation. Administratively, we do not allow
alternates to be considered in submissions, although the primary
reason for that restriction (to avoid having to do multiple
conflict checks) does not apply in this case."
The stylistic issue with the crown is sufficient reason for
return. It is not clearly period style. The crown hanging at an
odd angle from the horn is not blazonable (and thus, is not
registerable under RfS VII.7.b). [Darius Tigres
Jaxarticus, 02/2004,
R-Outlands]
[seven roundels two three and two argent, the centermost
Or] There was much commentary regarding the style of the
device. The group of roundels is in a clearly blazonable (albeit
not standard) heraldic arrangement. While it is one step from
period style (a "weirdness") to tincture only one of these
roundels differently from the others in the group, it is not so
far from period style to be a bar to registration. Note the
following precedent from the LoAR of September 2000:
[an octofoil within eight octofoils in annulo] Size is
not the only thing that determines a primary charge. We were
unable to devise a way to describe arrangement of the charges
in a way that did not imply that they were a primary charge
surrounded by a secondary group. Such arrangements cannot use
the same type of charge. The problem could be solved by
arranging them in a diamond (1,2,3,2, and 1) or in a square
(3,3, and 3).
In this September 2000 precedent, it was made clear
that if the charges could be arranged so that they were clearly
all in the same charge group, the design would be registerable.
[Bull Pitte, Shire of, 03/2004,
A-Calontir]
SWORD
[Per pale
gules and sable, nine scimitars points to center conjoined
argent] The swords as drawn do not appear to be scimitars or
any other sort of heraldic sword. These must be documented as a
period sort of sword to be acceptable. [Moyai-Nidun,
10/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[a rapier] The type of hilt of a rapier may be specified
in the blazon, but is not required to be specified in the blazon.
This emblazon shows a swept-hilted rapier rather than the more
standard cup-hilted rapier, but the submitter blazoned it simply
as a rapier, and we have used the generic term in our
blazon as well. [Robert Watson, 09/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
We have changed the blazon from a sword enflamed to a
sword with the blade lying on a flame. A sword enflamed would
have tiny spurts of flame issuant from the entire sword
(including the hilt) while in this emblazon the blade (and only
the blade) is completely surrounded by flames. A previous
precedent has noted: "The sword loses its identifiability against
the 'flames' of the same tincture. (One commenter noted its
resemblance to a chain saw.)" (LoAR November 1994, p.17). This
submission has an analogous problem and must therefore be
returned for unidentifiability per RfS VIII.3. [Þórðr
Tjorvason, 01/2003,
R-Calontir]
The sail-hilted main gauche in this submission would be
the defining registration of this charge in SCA heraldry.
Defining instances of charges require slightly higher standards
of documentation than registrations of previously registered
charges. This policy has been upheld consistently for over 10
years but one of the clearest statements of the policy is in the
LoAR of August 1995:
A registration of this submission would apparently be the
first, and therefore defining, instance of such a charge.
Especially in the case of charges not registered previously,
the College requires documentation that the charge (a) has been
used in period armory or (b) is compatible with similar charges
in period armory, and (c) has a standardized depiction which
would make reproducability [sic] from the blazon possible. We
need such documentation here.
The sail-hilted main gauche was not
documented with the submission. Since the sail-hilted main gauche
is a weapon, it would be "compatible with similar charges in
period armory", as a wide variety of period weapons are found in
period armory. However, the College was not able to find evidence
that the charge has either "been used in period armory" or "has a
standardized depiction which would make reproducability [sic]
from the blazon possible." The earliest mention of a sail-hilted
main gauche that the College could find was in 1635, which is in
our pre-1650 "grey area". However, the College could not find an
illustration showing that even a "grey area" sail-hilted main
gauche would be drawn in a standardized form, or that this
depiction matches such a form.
The College felt that this charge was not recognizable as any
variant of a dagger, and felt that it more closely resembed a
drop spindle. We thus were not able to reblazon this as a dagger,
which would be a more generic form of the weapon.
Because the submission has not been documented suitably for a
defining instance of a charge, and because we cannot provide a
blazon which will correctly re-create this emblazon, we cannot
register this submission. [Séamus mac Inneirghe, 05/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[Sable, a hanging balance atop a sword argent] The hanging
balance is not depicted correctly. The balance should have pans
hanging by chains at each end of the arm of the balance. Instead,
the emblazon shows all the space between the chains and over the
pans as argent (in addition to the argent chains and pans). As a
result, this submission more closely resembles two bags hanging
from a yoke than a hanging balance. The artwork needs to be
redrawn to clearly depict either a hanging balance, or two bags
hanging from a yoke.
Please note that there is a conflict problem with this submission
as well. A hanging balance atop a sword resembles a standing
balance so closely that it is not given difference from a
standing balance. The LoAR of January 1998 noted that a hanging
balance resting atop a vertical "stand-shaped" charge can be
given no difference from a standing balance: "[Gules, a
double-bitted axe inverted and balanced on its haft a set of
scales Or.] This conflicts with ... (Fieldless) A standing
balance Or., with one CD for the field." The same problem
applies to this design. Thus, if the hanging balance were redrawn
correctly, this would conflict with ... Sable platy, a
standing balance argent. There would be one CD for removing
the plates, but no difference between the hanging balance atop
the sword and the standing balance. [Cathal the Black,
09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
... no difference for the small tincture change between a sword
argent and a sword proper. [Engelbert the Pious, 12/2003,
R-Middle] [in pale a hanging balance and a sword inverted
Or] In this emblazon, the hanging balance and the sword
inverted are so close to each other that they are almost
conjoined. This emblazon resembled a standing balance so closely
that this submission is in visual conflict under RfS X.5 with ...
(Fieldless) A standing balance Or.
Note that precedent has previously held that a hanging balance
resting atop a vertical "stand-shaped" charge can be given no
difference from a standing balance without invoking RfS X.5, in
cases where the hanging balance was conjoined to the
"stand-shaped" charge. The LoAR of January 1998 noted that:
"[Gules, a double-bitted axe inverted and balanced on its haft a
set of scales Or.] This conflicts with ... (Fieldless) A
standing balance Or., with one CD for the field." This
precedent was reaffirmed in the LoAR of September 2003 where a
hanging balance atop a sword was given no difference from a
standing balance. [Tigernan Fox, 01/2004,
R-East] ... there is no tincture difference given between a
proper sword and an argent sword. [Artúr hua Láegaire,
02/2004,
A-Atlantia]
SYMBOL
The Eye of
Horus is an abstract symbol or combination of symbols whose
meaning was not understood by Europeans in the SCA period. Unlike
the Eye of Horus, the occasional word or letter found in medieval
and Renaissance heraldry were part of the languages and symbolic
iconography of Europe. Nor is this symbol a reasonable heraldic
depiction of an eye; a heraldic eye is a solid charge where the
Eye of Horus is depicted as a thin line. As such, this belongs to
the category of artistic designs which are not compatible with
heraldry.
It was not clear to us whether the Eye of Horus was considered a
single abstract symbol (such as a letter) or a combination of
symbols (such as a word). If this is a single abstract symbol, it
may not be registered as the only charge in a piece of armory.
"Current precedent disallows the registration of solitary
abstract symbols (July 2000 LoAR)" [Sebastian Blacke,
08/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[a quaver] The musical note drawn here is a lozenge with a
vertical stem rising from the sinister end. While this is the
standard SCA form in the Pictorial Dictionary, further
research has not been able to show this form of musical note as a
period musical note. It continues to be registerable, but
submitters should be advised that the standard form of such a
note would have the stem rising from the top point of the
lozenge. To quote from previous precedent:
According to the PicDic, 2nd ed., # 520, "A musical note
is ... commonly represented as a lozenge or an ovoid roundel
with a vertical stem at one end." The 'musical note' here is
not a period form, but a modern (post-period) one. This one
neither matches the semiminim note in the Pictorial Dictionary
(a lozenge shape with a vertical line from the sinister corner;
this version has been superseded by newer research) nor the
form the newer research has shown (a lozenge shape with a
vertical line from the top corner). (LoAR 3/98 p. 16)
For those interested in the "newer research"
mentioned in this LoAR, the documentation for that submission's
form of musical note was from Willi Apel's The Notation of
Polyphonic Music 900-1600, fifth edition. The analysis
indicating that the current standard form of SCA musical note is
not found in period musical notation was provided by Magister
Klement St. Christoph. [Alicia of Granite Mountain,
01/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[Per fess vert and sable, on a fess argent between the Arabic
words "Allah Akbar" Or and a scimitar fesswise argent a bow
sable] The words "Allah Akbar" in the device are not written
in a standard Arabic form: a diacritical marking is misplaced.
For examples of this phrase, see
http://www.islaam.org/Taqwaa/taqwaa.html or
http://members.lycos.co.uk/islaam/. Because we do not know what
the altered writing means, it has the potential to either be
nonsensical or offensive. The phrase "Allah Akbar" means roughly
"God is Most Great". The phrase is acceptable if spelled
correctly. [Mu'Alim Rami Kathoum ibn Abdul Majeed,
07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
This armory does not violate the long-standing strictures against
registering a single abstract symbol. A tau cross is a standard
heraldic charge in its own right. [Timothy Brother,
11/2002,
A-Artemisia]
The defining example of an SCA heraldic chi-rho is in the device
of Basilius Phocas, Gules, a chi-rho argent within an orle of
bezants. It shows the proportions we would expect of a
chi-rho in normal iconography; the chi (x-shaped part) is wider
than, but not as tall as, the rho (p-shaped part). In this
emblazon the chi-rho is not, in fact, throughout (as originally
blazoned) since the top of the rho does not touch the top of the
field. Thus, the chi is taller than the rho. In addition, the rho
is extremely elongated, making it difficult to identify as a rho
or any other heraldic charge. The chi appears to be a saltire and
has lost its identifiability as part of a chi-rho symbol. On the
whole the combination of chi and rho has lost its
identifiability, and must therefore be returned by RfS VIII.3.
[Jovianus Skleros, 11/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[on a chevron ... the phrase "Non Sibi Sed Todo"] Some
commenters noted that no documentation had been presented for
words on a chevron. Phrases on bordures, including Latin phrases,
are rare but not unknown in Spanish and Italian heraldry. Phrases
in Arabic are not at all uncommon in Islamic heraldry,
particularly on fesses. As a result, putting a Latin phrase on a
chevron seems to be at most one step from period practice, and is
certainly consistent with SCA armorial practices. [Quintin
Wynn, 01/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[on a chief wavy argent the Norse runes tyr, urus, sig, isa,
and isa] No translation was provided for the word on the
chief. The SCA requires that a translation be provided for any
phrases used in armory:
Secondly, a translation of the Arabic [used on the device
submission] is required by Laurel precedent and the
Administrative Handbook. (LoAR April 1999, p. 20)
Please inform the submitter that a translation of the text [on
the bordure] should be included with the submission. (LoAR July
2000, p. 4)
[Ævarr inn víðf{o,}rli, 01/2003,
R-Caid]
[on a bordure ... the words "In Diece von Albrecht von
Halstern"] The text on the bordure was intended to mean "in
service to Albrecht von Halstern." Unfortunately, the phrase as
submitted has severe construction problems, including using a
word, diece, which the College has been unable to document
as a German word.
Precedent holds:
"As blazoned, the words do not make a sensible phrase, but they
are not required to make sense, only to be non-offensive."
(LoAR July 2000)
However, we feel that a phrase used in armory should
consist of actual words. Without documentation that this is, at
worst, a poorly-formed German phrase, this may not be accepted.
...
In addition, the College had concerns about the fact that this
armory contains text using another SCA member's registered name
(Albrecht von Halstern) without permission from that SCA member.
Note that RfS I.3 states (emphasis added) "No name or armory will
be registered which claims for the submitter powers, status,
or relationships that do not exist." We decline to rule on
this issue at this time, as we would like to see more commentary
from the College on this topic. However, we strongly suggest that
any submitter whose armory contains text that is a registered SCA
name should obtain a letter of permission from the referenced
person or branch. [Beowulf fitz Malcolm, 02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[an ankh with its lower limb surmounted by four bars
couped] The submitter provided evidence that the ankh with
the four crossbars had a particular hieroglyphic meaning in
ancient Egypt. The submitter also provided evidence there was
some Egyptian artwork extant in our period which used this design
as the head of a staff in representations of the god Ptah. Thus,
this design might have been seen by medieval and Renaissance
viewers of the ancient Egyptian artwork.
No evidence was presented that hieroglyphs, as a class, are
appropriate for heraldic use. They cannot be considered as
acceptable charges analogous to letters or other abstract
symbols, as their text meaning was not known during the Middle
Ages and Renaissance. They may have been known as artistic
designs, but as noted in RfS VII.2, "Use of an element in period
art does not guarantee its acceptability for armory. Use of the
Greek key design, which was common in period decorative art,
never carried over into armory."
This charge combination must therefore be accepted, or not, on
its own merits as a heraldic design element. An ankh (or crux
ansata) is accepted for use in SCA heraldry, even though it is
not a period heraldic charge, as it is a straightforward variant
of a Latin cross. However, crossing the basemost leg of a crux
ansata four times changes the charge so much that it is no longer
an acceptable variant of a period cross. The charge is too far
from period practice to be accepted as a Compatible Armorial
Element under RfS VII.6, given the evidence known to the College
at this time. Without documentation showing such a charge used in
heraldry, it may not be accepted for registration. [Lucius
Alexandrinus, 02/2003,
R-Caid]
[Argent, a chi-rho gules] A chi-rho is functionally a
single abstract symbol. Although most two-letter combinations
would not be so considered, the chi-rho has, through long use in
religious symbolism, achieved an independent identity as a single
abstract symbol. "Current precedent disallows the registration of
solitary abstract symbols" (July 2000 LoAR, reaffirmed in August
2001). [Artus Quintus, 02/2003,
R-West]
[Per chevron azure and argent, a Norse sun cross argent]
Per previous precedent, this submission consists of a single
abstract symbol and thus may not be registered: "The Norse sun
cross is also the symbol for Earth, and by precedent symbols
cannot be registered as the sole charge. This ruling was applied
to Norse sun crosses in April 1994 (pg. 15, s.n. Barony of
Bonwicke)" (LoAR September 2000). [Curwinus Trevirensis,
07/2003,
R-Atlantia]
... this musical note appears to be a modern form of musical
note, which may not be registered without documentation. It is a
modern "eighth note", with a straight stem ending in a flag that
is bendwise embowed-counterembowed. The note itself is an oval
bendwise sinister. [Siegfried McClure, 09/2003,
R-Atlantia]
The rune was originally blazoned as a Rad rune. According
to Metron Ariston, "It should be noted that the term Norse Rad
rune is paradoxical as the usual Norse name for the rune is
reið or reiðr while the Old English term is
rad. Therefore, it is either a Norse reið rune or an Old
English rad rune!" On resubmission, the submitter should blazon
the rune in a fashion which clearly matches the intended culture
of the rune. [Rúnólfr orðlokarr Úlfsson, 11/2003,
R-Meridies]
[on a plate the Chinese character osho] No documentation
was presented showing that this character was a period Chinese
character. In addition, Chinese characters often represent entire
words or phrases and thus may have intrinsic meaning. No
documentation was provided by the submitting Kingdom or the
College for the meaning associated with this character. As noted
in the LoAR of July 2002, "Because we do not know what the ...
writing means, it has the potential to either be nonsensical or
offensive." [Wang Ao, 01/2004,
R-Northshield]
TIERCE and
FLAUNCH
... a correctly drawn gusset (as per the PicDic)
issues from the top corner of the shield (just under the chief).
A properly drawn gusset also does not extend all the way to the
bottom of the field. It should be possible to have a dexter and a
sinister gusset on one shield and see some field between them.
[Cáemgen mac Olcain, 08/2001,
A-West]
Please advise the submitter to draw the flaunches issuing from
the top corners of the shield rather than from the chief. We have
seen an increasing number of flaunches drawn as issuant from
chief in the last few years. Please help educate your submitters
and heralds on how to correctly draw flaunches�or educate your
always-learning Laurel staff by providing period examples of this
artistic variant of flaunches. [Gaspar del Hoyo, 09/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Argent, a tierce gules] This device is in conflict with
... Argent, a mountain of three peaks issuant from base
gules. The SCA currently considers a mountain to be a variant
of a mount, which is a peripheral ordinary, as per the following
precedents:
Mountains, as variants of mounts, should be emblazoned to
occupy no more than the lower portion of the field. (Barony of
Blackstone Mountain, September, 1993, pg. 10)
[a wolf statant gules atop a mount vert] The wolf appears to be
neither on nor atop the mount; a blazon which more accurately
reproduces the emblazon is Argent, a mount vert, overall a wolf
statant gules. However, we do not register charges that overlap
peripheral ordinaries. [Bastian Wolfhart, 11/99, R-Middle]
A tierce is also a peripheral ordinary. Rule X.2
does not apply between these devices, as neither device has a
primary charge. Therefore, there is only one CD for difference of
type of charge group on the field. We encourage the College to
research whether, under some circumstances, mountains and mounts
may be considered a primary charge in their own right. After all,
unlike a bordure, chief or base, a mount and its variants may be
couped and centrally placed on the field. [Charles le
Grey, 09/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
[a sinister tierce sable semy-de-lis Or] The SCA does not
register charged tierces. "Based on the consensus of those
commenting on this issue, the College will ban the use of charged
gores and charged gussets, matching the ban on charged
tierces. Uncharged gores, gussets and tierces will continue
to be registerable." (emphasis added). (Cover Letter for the
November 1991 LoAR, p. 2) [Alianor atte Red Swanne,
01/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[a tierce purpure goutty d'Or] The SCA does not allow
charged tierces: "On and after June 1, 1991, the College will no
longer register charged sides or tierces." (CL 3/8/91 p.1)
[Kajsa Nikulasdotter, 02/2003,
R-Calontir]
[Argent, a tierce gules] Conflict with ... Argent, a
quarter gules. RfS X.4.a.i and X.4.a.ii lists the quarter as
a peripheral charge for purposes of those rules. Peripheral
charges may not be considered primary charges, so there is one CD
for changing the type of peripheral charge, but not sufficient
difference under RfS X.2.
Note that the only listing of peripheral charges in the Rules for
Submission is in RfS X.4.a. Previous precedents have used these
definitions in a wider sense than for that specific rule. So,
even though we are here considering the question of what is a
peripheral charge (and therefore not primary) for purposes of RfS
X.2 rather than RfS X.4.a, it seems appropriate to be guided by
the listing of peripheral charges in RfS X.4.a. [Charles the
Grey of Mooneschadowe, 06/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
Per the LoAR of September 2001, "Please advise the submitter to
draw the flaunches issuing from the top corners of the shield
rather than from the chief." Unfortunately, the flaunches in this
emblazon are drawn in a fashion that is so far from the standard
depiction of flaunches that they may not be registered without
redrawing. As drawn here, the flaunches each issue from the
chief, with each flaunch issuing from about one-fourth of the
width of the shield in from the corners of the shield. The
flaunches have an unusually shallow curve as well, and the
overall effect is to create armorial ambiguity: it is not clear
whether this emblazon depicts purpure flaunches on an argent
field, or whether it depicts an oddly ployé argent pale on a
purpure field. [Liadan Chu, 11/2003,
R-Ealdormere]
Per the LoAR of September 2001, "Please advise the submitter to
draw the flaunches issuing from the top corners of the shield
rather than from the chief." Unfortunately, the flaunches in this
emblazon are drawn in a fashion that is so far from the standard
depiction of flaunches that they may not be registered without
redrawing. Please advise the submitter that the flaunches must be
drawn from the top corners of the shield in order to be
registered. [Wilhelm von Wolfsburg, 12/2003,
R-Middle]
TINCTURE
see also CONTRAST
It is also
important to note that the Crayola-marker orange used to tincture
this charge classes as a color rather than a metal. It thus
cannot be used as a charge on a purple chief. [Randall
Carrick, 10/2001,
R-Outlands]
The College should please keep in mind, while performing
stylistic analysis and conflict checking, that ermine spots which
are part of an ermine(d) tincture are not strewn charges. They
are just part of the tincture, like the lozenges in lozengy or
the delfs (squares) in checky are part of a tincture. [Tófa
Asgeirsdóttir, 11/2001,
R-Middle]
[Quarterly azure and argent, an estoile of eight rays
counterchanged] This is clear of conflict with Lochlann Niall
MacGhille Fhionnain, Quarterly azure and argent, in pale a
pegasus courant to sinister and a sun counterchanged. There
is one CD for removing the pegasus. There is another CD for
changing half the tincture of the estoile/sun. The estoile in
this submission is quarterly argent and azure, and the sun
in Lochlann's (because of its placement on the field) is per
pale argent and azure. [Jennifer of Greyhope, 01/2002,
A-Middle]
The "Or" tincture is colored in a distinct orange color, which is
not a valid variant of Or. [Asbjørn Pedersen Marsvin,
01/2002,
R-Caid]
[Per bend sinister Or and vert, a Lacy knot
counterchanged] Conflict with the protected badge of the Lacy
family (important non-SCA armory) (Tinctureless) A Lacy
knot. There is one CD for fieldlessness but no difference for
tincture of charge versus a tinctureless charge. [Bertrand de
Lacy, 02/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Azure, a fess argent between a violin fesswise reversed Or
and a phoenix argent issuing from flames proper] Conflict
with ... Azure, a fess argent between two crosses gurgity
Or. There is a CD for changing the type of the secondary
group. However, over half the charge group is Or in Jacquelinne's
arms, since the violin is Or and one quarter of the phoenix is
also Or. By RfS X.4.d, "Changing the tinctures or division of any
group of charges placed directly on the field, including strewn
charges or charges overall, is one clear difference. Changing the
tincture of at least half of the charges in a group is one clear
difference". Therefore, since less than half of the tincture of
the secondary "group of charges placed directly on the field" has
changed, there is not a second CD for tincture changes.
[Jacquelinne Sauvageon, 02/2002, R-Meridies]
[Per bend sinister argent and azure, two cinquefoils
counterchanged] This is clear of conflict with Gerelt of
Lockeford, Per bend argent and azure, in bend two roses
counterchanged. There is one CD for the change to the field.
There is also a CD for changing the tincture of the roses. Each
rose in Gerelt's arms is half azure and half argent. Each of
these roses is a solid tincture. Therefore, half the tincture of
each rose has changed. [Katrein Adler, 02/2002,
R-Outlands]
[Chevronelly inverted argent and azure ... a bordure compony
gules and argent] Precedent does not allow a compony ordinary
to share a tincture with an underlying plain field:
[Per pale, a pale compony counterchanged] The use of a
compony ordinary that shares a tincture with its field has been
disallowed since at least the LoAR of July 85; the precedent
was confirmed Sept 87, April 89, and Aug 90. This submission is
an excellent illustration of the reason for the ban: the visual
appearance is not of a pale, but of a group of billets
straddling the field division. The lack of identifiability is
sufficient reason for return. We suggest making the pale a
solid tincture. (LoAR August, 1993, pg. 20)
Because of the identifiability issues, this must be
returned for violating RfS VII.7.a. If documentation can be
provided for this practice in period armory, we can then consider
whether the identifiability issues should be overridden based on
a documented exception. [Ivak Marzik, 02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[a sun "pink"] The sun is drawn in a non-heraldic
tincture. While it was blazoned as purpure, the sun is bright
pink on its disk and in half of its rays, and purple in the
remaining rays. Bright pink is not an acceptable heraldic
tincture, as it is not a standard period variant of any of the
heraldic tinctures, and it specifically blurs the distinction
between gules and purpure. This may not be accepted by RfS
VII.7.a. [Elinor Larke le Dauncer, 04/2003,
R-Middle]
TOOL --
Astronomical
[An astrolabe] Conflict with ...
Barry argent and sable, a moon in her plenitude azure.
There is a CD for changing the field, but no difference between a
moon in her plenitude and an astrolabe. Moons in their plenitude
are equivalent to roundels. "[The] astrolabe... conflicts with...
[a roundel, with] nothing for the internal diapering of the
primary (similar to the conflict between a moon in her plenitude
and a plate.)" (LoAR June 1992 p.15). [Trimaris, Kingdom
of, 06/2002,
R-Trimaris]
[An equatorium] Conflict with ... Barry argent and
sable, a moon in her plenitude azure. There is a CD for
changing the field, but no difference between a moon and an
equatorium. There is no difference between a moon and a roundel.
The same logic by which there is no CD between an astrolabe and a
roundel applies between an equatorium and a roundel. "[The]
astrolabe... conflicts with... [a roundel, with] nothing for the
internal diapering of the primary (similar to the conflict
between a moon in her plenitude and a plate.)" (LoAR June 1992
p.15). [Trimaris, Kingdom of, 06/2002,
R-Trimaris]
There is a ... CD between a moon and an armillary sphere. An
armillary sphere is not a solid roundel, like a moon or an
astrolabe, but is a largely openwork sphere. As noted in the LoAR
of June 1995, "[an] armillary sphere... amounts to another round
thing with openwork tracery." [Trimaris, Kingdom of,
11/2002,
R-Trimaris]
[celestial sphere] Conflict with ... Barry argent and
sable, a moon in her plenitude azure. The celestial sphere as
drawn in this submission is a solid blue roundel with internal
details, set on a small stand. The small stand is not a mandatory
part of the celestial sphere charge, as can be see in the flag of
Brazil, Vert, on a lozenge Or a celestial sphere azure marked
argent, which is drawn without the stand. There is no type
difference between two solid roundels with different sorts of
internal details. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, 11/2002,
R-Trimaris]
[terrestrial sphere] Conflict with ... Barry argent and
sable, a moon in her plenitude azure. There is a CD for
changing the field, but no difference between a moon in her
plenitude and a terrestrial sphere. The same logic by which there
is no CD between an astrolabe and a roundel applies between a
terrestrial sphere and a roundel. "[The] astrolabe... conflicts
with... [a roundel, with] nothing for the internal diapering of
the primary (similar to the conflict between a moon in her
plenitude and a plate.)" (LoAR June 1992 p.15). [Trimaris,
Kingdom of, 11/2002,
R-Trimaris]
TOOL --
Textile
see also SPINDLE
[a weaver's
slea proper] Some textile experts said that a weaver's slea
is wooden, and therefore, it is brown when proper. [Emeline of
Starkhafn, 09/2001,
A-Caid]
[A loom weight pendant from a hank of yarn] This shape of
loom weight is easily recognized by weavers. The identifiability
is enhanced by the hank of yarn; loom weights without associated
yarn are unlikely to be identifiable as loom weights. Marta
Hoffman's The Warp-Weighted Loom indicates that loom
weights in period were found in a variety of shapes. This loom
weight is an oval disk with a small hole near the top. Other
varieties include pyramidal and annular. This form is now the
default loom weight for the SCA. Other loom weight shapes will
need to be specified in blazon. [Barbara atte Dragon,
10/2001,
A-Middle]
Crochet hooks have not yet been registered in the SCA. Defining
instances of charges should be provided with documentation, and
no documentation was provided with these charges. In this case
there is some doubt whether crochet is a period craft, so
documentation is all the more important. While some suggested
that these could be blazoned as "shepherd's crooks", the curve at
the top is not sufficient to allow such a reblazon. This must
therefore be returned for documentation of the crochet hooks.
[Kolfinna Knýtir, 05/2002,
R-Outlands]
The armory needs to be returned for redrawing. These lace bobbins
appear to be a modern form of bobbin. Our lace experts indicate
that period lace bobbins have handles which have a somewhat
elongated pear shape, as seen in the Pictorial Dictionary.
The bobbin in this submission has a rectangular or cylindrical
handle. These bobbins differ enough in form from the documented
forms that, without documentation for them as a period form of
lace bobbin, they cannot be registered. [Valdís Osborne,
09/2002,
R-An Tir]
[a needle] The needle was originally blazoned as eyed
of a goblet Or. This is not a standard shape for the eye of a
needle. It is not, however, clear that there is only one possible
shape for the eye of a period needle: the eyes of lacers are
shaped differently than the eyes of standard sewing needles. The
charge continues to be recognizable as a needle as it is drawn,
and it is only under the closest scrutiny that the odd eye shape
may be observed. Therefore, we are blazoning this charge simply
as a needle and leaving the eye shape as an apparently
non-period, but relatively innocuous, artist's choice.
[Siobhán de Bhulbh, 10/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
TREE
[Per fess wavy
azure and barry wavy argent and vert, a tree blasted Or]
Conflict with ... Vert, a tree blasted throughout Or.
There is only one CD for changing the field. [Moyai-Nidun,
10/2001,
R-Trimaris]
There is a CD between a default tree and a crequier. Because
early heraldic depictions of trees were sometimes drawn much like
a crequier, with one large leaf at the end of each branch, it
does not seem appropriate to give X.2 difference between these
charges. [Lilias de Cheryngton, 12/2001,
R-East]
[A tree within and conjoined to an annulet Or] This is
clear of conflict with al-Barran, Barony of, (Fieldless) A
Russian thistle (tumbleweed) bush within an annulet Or. There
is one CD for fieldlessness, and another for the difference
between the tumbleweed bush and the tree. The bush has no
discernable trunk and most closely resembles a slightly shaggy
bezant. [Gyldenholt, Barony of, 01/2002,
A-Caid]
[Argent semy of pine trees couped vert] Conflict with ...
Argent, a pine tree proper. There's one CD for the number
of trees but no difference for changing less than half the
tincture of the trees (the tincture of the tree trunk) from vert
to wood-brown. [Shaun of the Forrest, 01/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[an oak tree couped proper] Some commenters suggested that
this tree be blazoned simply as a tree, rather than the
oak tree provided in the submitter's blazon. The tree in
this submission has a round shape, but it is drawn without acorns
and without distinctly shaped leaves. It is not drawn with any
features which would identify it as some sort of tree other than
an oak (such as maple leaves, or fruit). The default round-shaped
tree is an oak tree. Therefore, this is an acceptable emblazon
for an oak tree, and it seems reasonable to keep the submitter's
preferred blazon term. [Bethoc of Ravenswood, 03/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
... no difference between a tree and a tree blasted: "There is no
CD between a tree eradicated and a tree blasted and eradicated,
as noted in the August 1994 LoAR... This is because there are
period depictions of trees with only a few leaves." (LoAR July
2000) [Kenric of Rohan, 03/2002,
R-Meridies]
[Azure, an oak tree blasted and couped argent] Conflict
with the ... Purpure, an oak tree blasted and eradicated
argent, fructed Or. There is one CD for changing the field.
There is no difference for changing eradicated to couped, and no
difference for adding fructing to a tree. [Cecilia
Attewode, 04/2002,
R-East]
[Per fess engrailed azure and argent, an oak tree eradicated
gules within a bordure sable] The College of Arms unanimously
found that the identity of the line of division was obscured by
the overlying tree, rendering it unidentifiable. Such
unidentifiability is unacceptable by RfS VIII.2. In this
emblazon, the tree branches and leaves overlie the majority of
the line of division. Often, a tree on a per fess field will only
have the narrow trunk overlie the line of division, which would
help the line of division maintain its identifiability. However,
because the top part of the field has low contrast with the tree,
such a drawing might have other identifiability problems, since
the majority of the identifying portion of the tree (the branches
and leaves) would lie on the low contrast portion of the field.
While redrawing may solve the identifiability problem with the
line of partition, swapping the field tinctures so that the red
tree branches lie mostly on the white parts of the field would
improve the general identifiability of the armory substantially.
[Ethne an Locha, 05/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
... no difference between a tree vert and a tree proper. The
trunk and branches of a tree proper are less than half the
tincture of the charge. [Johan de Foderingeye, 06/2002,
R-Ealdormere]
[Per pale vert and argent, a weeping willow
counterchanged] This does not conflict with Wolfgang von
Valkonberg, Per pale vert and argent, a blasted tree atop a
mount counterchanged. There is one CD for removing the mount.
There is a CD between a willow tree and a standard round shaped
tree, just as there is a type CD between a pine tree and a
standard round shaped tree. Wolfgang's blasted tree is drawn in
the standard shape for a blasted tree. [Aleyn More,
09/2002,
A-Caid]
The tree in base was blazoned as a yew tree. Yew trees
have more diverse shapes than some conifers, but generally take a
conifer's tall and roughly conical shape when left to grow
naturally. In any case a heraldic yew tree is expected to conform
to a coniferous depiction. The tree in this submission has the
round shape of a generic tree. We have thus blazoned it simply as
a tree. [Antony Martin of Sheffeld, 10/2002,
A-East]
[Vert, a fern frond argent] The default SCA fern frond has
a long triangular shape with fine horizontal cuts. The stem of
the frond is at the center of the base of the triangle. The
charge therefore is very similar in outline to that of a standard
heraldic fir or pine tree. Because a fern frond has not been
demonstrated to be a period charge, its type difference from
other charges is determined, per RfS X.4.e, on solely visual
grounds. There is too strong a resemblance between a heraldic fir
tree and a fern frond to allow difference on solely visual
grounds. Therefore, this conflicts with ... Vert, a fir tree
eradicated ermine. There is only one difference, for changing
the tincture of the charge.
Note that there are many shapes of fern fronds found in nature.
If a decidedly different shape of fern frond from the default is
desired by a submitter, the type of fern must be blazoned
explicitly. The acceptability of such alternate sorts of fern
will be determined in the standard manner for any new charge.
[Mathias ap Morgan, 11/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[a tree blasted and couped argent] Conflict with ...
Purpure, an oak tree blasted eradicated argent, fructed
Or. There is one CD for changing the field. There is no
difference for adding fructing. There is no difference for the
tincture change implicit in adding fructing of a different
tincture, as this affects much less than half the charge's
tincture. There is also no difference between a couped tree and
an eradicated tree. [Christiane zer Buche, 11/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[Per pale argent and vert, a tree, the sinister side blasted,
... all counterchanged] Trees which are half blasted and half
not blasted are stylistically unacceptable:
[Returning [Fieldless] A tree issuant from a mount couped
per pale vert and Or, the sinister half blasted.] [T]he
style of the badge, combining as it does what are essentially
two variants of a single charge, is not good style and is
sufficient grounds for return ..." (LoAR of May 1994)
[Meadhbh MacNeill, 12/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
The tree was originally blazoned as an ash tree, but it
was not clearly identifiable as that sort of tree. We have thus
reblazoned it to a generic tree. [Donnan of Whispering
Wude, 04/2003,
A-East]
[a linden tree eradicated proper] Conflict with ...
Argent, a tree eradicated vert. ... The SCA has
consistently not given difference for the tincture change between
a tree vert and a tree proper (vert with a brown trunk). There is
no type difference between a linden tree and a default
round-shaped tree, as a linden tree has roughly the same shape as
an oak tree, which is the model for the default heraldic tree.
[Karl von Lindenheim, 05/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[a linden tree eradicated proper] One commenter asked if
the charge in this device should have been blazoned as a
crequier. The charge drawn in this submission is a linden
tree, not a crequier. The SCA considers trees and crequiers to be
distinct charges, and worth difference from each other:
The créquier is sufficiently different from any other kind of
tree to be considered a different charge, and its stylization
is more than consistent enough for it to be unlikely to be
mistaken for any other kind of tree. (Not to mention the fact
that we regularly give a CD between radically different types
of trees; for example, fir trees and oak trees.) All things
considered, I have no problem granting at least a CD for a
créquier versus any other tree. (LoAR January 1996)
In this submission, the linden tree is drawn so that
the leaves are only at the ends of each twig (one leaf per twig
end, multiple twigs per tree branch). This is not an uncommon way
of drawing an early period heraldic tree. The charge's
proportions clearly show that it is a tree, not a crequier. The
branches and leaves are at the top of the charge, the thick trunk
is all that shows in the center of the charge, and the
substantial root structure is at the bottom of the charge.
A crequier is also drawn with linden leaves, but the resemblance
to a tree generally ends there. The classic crequier is as
depicted on plate XXIX of Woodward's A Treatise on Heraldry
British and Foreign, in the heraldic atlas at
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/glossary/pics/380.jpg, and as
found in the 14th C Armorials Bellenville and Gelre. It has a
distinct, candelabra-like form: it has a thin center stem and a
small number of horizontal or slightly rising branches,
distributed evenly throughout the charge. Each branch proceeds,
without any further branching into twigs, to end in one single,
very large, linden leaf.
Note that there do exist some more tree-like depictions of a
crequier, as shown on p. 344 of Woodward's A Treatise on
Heraldry British and Foreign, but even those depictions have
the branches issuing throughout the majority of the height of the
charge. It is not clear whether the charge on p. 344 of Woodward,
which has multiple twigs per branch, would be blazoned by the SCA
as a crequier, or as a tree, due to the SCA's need to preserve
the distinction between different charge types. [Karl von
Lindenheim, 05/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[Per pale argent and azure, an oak branch fructed
counterchanged] Conflict with Daniel of Glenmor, Per pale
argent and azure, a pine tree counterchanged. Precedent
indicates that a tree branch is not significantly different from
a tree of the same type: "Conflict with ... Argent, an oak
branch eradicated gules, with one CD for the addition of the
flaunches, but by prior precedent nothing for the difference
between a branch and a tree" (LoAR of March 1994,
p. 17). In this emblazon, it is certainly apparent that the
branch approximates a tree in shape. Because the oak branch in
this submission is effectively an oak tree, the comparison
between Johan's and Daniel's devices is effectively a comparison
between an oak tree and a pine tree. As a result, there is one CD
for significant change in type of tree between oak and pine, but
not substantial difference under X.2. [Johan de
Foderingeye, 06/2003,
R-Ealdormere]
... no difference between a pine tree proper and a cypress tree
proper. [Uilliam Ó Cléirigh, 07/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[a hurst of five oak trees] Parker's A Glossary of
Terms used in Heraldry and Woodward's A Treatise on
Heraldry, British and Foreign each cite a number of pieces of
armory using a hurst, and none of the provided blazons explicitly
describes the number of trees in the hurst. The SCA has blazoned
hursts without enumerating the trees more often than otherwise.
The fact that the number of trees in a hurst is not usually
specified in blazon strongly implies that the number of trees in
a hurst does not contribute to difference. Even on visual
grounds, there is not significant visual difference between
hursts with different numbers of trees.
Thus, this device conflicts with Blaine de Navarré, Purpure,
two trees conjoined in fess argent. There is one CD for
changing the field. Blaine's device is effectively a hurst of two
trees and is not worth difference from this hurst. [Dorio of
the Oaks, 10/2003,
R-East]
TREE
BRANCH
[Argent, a cat sejant erect guardant azure
between two rose branches in chevron inverted conjoined in base
sable] This submission was listed in the Letter of Intent as
a device and augmentation. However, this is a simple new device
registration. The original blazon referred to a wreath of roses
around this cat, but a wreath of roses is circular (or nearly
so.) The emblazon here shows rose branches, and we have therefore
so blazoned them.
The design of two rose branches in a "V" shape is close to many
SCA depictions of a rose wreath. Thus the only persons who may
use such a design without presumption are those who are entitled
to bear a rose wreath. The submitter is a countess and Lady of
the Rose and is thus entitled to such a wreath. [Judith
Maryse, 10/2001,
A-Trimaris]
This does not conflict with Rosalia O Brogan, Argent, two rose
branches in saltire vert, each with a rose gules, and on a chief
sable three butterflies Or. The rose branches in Rosalia's
device are drawn correctly so that they are predominantly
branches (ending in a small rose). The charges in this
submission, originally also blazoned as rose branches, are drawn
as roses slipped and leaved: the roses are at least half the
visual weight of the charge. There is a CD between roses and rose
branches, and another CD by RfS X.4.j.ii for changing the type
only of tertiary charge on the chief. We acknowlege that there is
a decided visual similarity between these two devices, but it is
not quite enough to be a conflict under RfS X.5. The submitter
also has a letter of permission to conflict with Rosalia O
Brogan, rendering the issue moot. [Abigail O Brogan,
02/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[in saltire a rose branch vert flowered in chief azure and a
branch proper] This armory uses two different types of branch
in a single charge group. No evidence has been presented, and
none has been found, for two different types of branch in a
single charge group in period armory. Just as we have previously
disallowed two types of swords, or two types of fish, in the same
charge group because it obscures the identifiability of each
charge and is not period style, this also may not be accepted
without supporting documentation. [Malcolm Aikman,
03/2002,
R-Caid]
There is a CD for changing a rose to a rose branch...
[Margarita de la Fuente, 12/2002,
A-Ealdormere]
The blazon has been changed ... to indicate that this is a rose
branch (where the main part of the charge is the branch and
leaves), rather than a rose slipped and leaved (where the main
part of the charge is the rose). [Elennar Linwen, 12/2002,
A-East]
[a branch Or] The branch was originally blazoned as a
mulberry branch. However, the College uniformly felt that
this was not recognizable as a mulberry branch due to the shape
of the leaves and the fact that the fructing, while present, was
too small to be seen at any distance. We have thus reblazoned it
as a branch.
We advise the submitter that the standard branch in heraldry has
one main stem rather than the naturalistic forked structure found
in this emblazon. [Katheryn Schlegel, 01/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[Per pale argent and azure, an oak branch fructed
counterchanged] Conflict with Daniel of Glenmor, Per pale
argent and azure, a pine tree counterchanged. Precedent
indicates that a tree branch is not significantly different from
a tree of the same type: "Conflict with ... Argent, an oak
branch eradicated gules, with one CD for the addition of the
flaunches, but by prior precedent nothing for the difference
between a branch and a tree" (LoAR of March 1994,
p. 17). In this emblazon, it is certainly apparent that the
branch approximates a tree in shape. Because the oak branch in
this submission is effectively an oak tree, the comparison
between Johan's and Daniel's devices is effectively a comparison
between an oak tree and a pine tree. As a result, there is one CD
for significant change in type of tree between oak and pine, but
not substantial difference under X.2. [Johan de
Foderingeye, 06/2003,
R-Ealdormere]
[a rose branch fesswise] The branch was blazoned on the
LoI as fesswise reversed. However, there is no clear way
to determine which end of any branch is up. Therefore we have
simply blazoned the branch as fesswise. [Owen
Blakshepe, 12/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
The branches were originally blazoned as borage slipped.
However, a borage flower, which is found frequently in period
artwork, is a five-petalled flower with thin pointed petals and
long sepals (barbs). These branches end in a group of small blue
dots, which might be intended as a cluster of borage flowers but
are unidentifiable as such. We have thus blazoned the charges on
the chief as branches, as they are predominantly green
stems with green leaves. [Giovanna Giovannelli, 03/2004,
A-Middle]
TRIDENT
The
Ukranian trident head is a folk art design that was not found in
period armory, but is allowed in SCA heraldry. Ukranian folk art
does not include a design depicting a full trident with the
Ukranian stylized head. While we could blazon this as A
Ukranian trident head ensigning a staff vert, it seemed
simpler to blazon it as a Ukranian trident. [Forgotten
Sea, Barony of, 04/2002,
A-Calontir]
[a Ukrainian trident head] The Ukrainian trident head
diverges substantially from the depiction of the charge in the
Pictorial Dictionary. It is missing some significant
internal structure and has a somewhat different overall outline.
The changes to the outline led some commenters to question
whether it resembled a crown, indicating that the changes in the
artwork have compromised its identifiability. Since the Ukrainian
trident head is not a period heraldic charge, but a folk art
design that has been incorporated into SCA armory, it is
particularly important that it be drawn correctly in order to be
acceptable. [Bohdan Medvíd, 05/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[a three-armed candelabra] This does not conflict with a
... (Fieldless) A trident Or. Both three-armed candelabra
and tridents are period heraldic charges. A candelabra much like
this one, where the outside arms form a U-shaped arc with the
center arm palewise, is found in the arms of von Krage on fol.
151 of Siebmacher. Tridents are found in the same book. A
similarly-outlined trident is found in the arms of von der Gabel
on fol. 149. A more angularly-outlined trident is found in the
arms of von Ebnet on fol. 114. Because the charges appear to be
distinct in period, and have some visual difference between them,
there is a CD between them. [Uilliam of Bronzehelm,
11/2002,
A-Artemisia]
The trident was not drawn identifiably. It is drawn solely with
right angles. The shaft and all three arms/tines of the trident
are of the same uniform width. The tines of the trident have
blunt squared-off ends, which lack the barbs which allow the
trident to function. The charge is, in general, too stylized and
geometric a depiction to be perceived as a trident. This thus
violates RfS VII.7.a, which requires that "Elements must be
recognizable solely from their appearance." [Ragna
Eyverska, 03/2004,
R-Middle]
TRIQUETRA
[A triquetra inverted per
pall argent vert and sable] A triquetra is, by nature, made
of thin lines. Because of its thin-line nature, it is very
difficult to tell exactly how the the charge is divided into its
three tinctures when it is divided in pall. Because the division
is not clear, this must be returned by RfS VII.7.a. [Elena
verch Gwalchmai, 04/2003,
R-Caid]
... there is no difference between a triquetra and a trefoil
knot. The triquetra has pointier ends than the trefoil knot, but
this slight change is insufficient to give type difference
between these two charges. [Donnan of Whispering Wude,
04/2003,
R-East]
[triquetras argent] The triquetras are not drawn
correctly. Triquetras are thin-line charges made of a single
interlaced strand, like a three-lobed knot. (The triquetra is
given no difference from a trefoil knot; it merely has more
pointed ends than the trefoil knot.) As with a knot, the
underlying field or charge shows through the loops made by the
strand of a correctly drawn triquetra. In this submission, the
triquetras are some sort of solid charge: both the strand making
up the triquetra and the inside of the triquetra's loops are
argent. Because these charges cannot be identified as heraldic
charges or recreated from a blazon, they must be returned by RfS
VII.7.a. [Davyd Robertson, 04/2003,
R-Trimaris]
TRISKELE and
TRISKELION
[A triskele within and conjoined to an
annulet argent] The triskele in this armory is drawn
unacceptably. It has corners in the middle of each arm, as if
each arm of the triskele ended in a scythe blade and handle, with
a sharp angle where the "blade" joined the "handle". A triskele
should be drawn with smoothly curved arms.
Please advise the submitter that the 'negative space' between the
arms of the unusually-drawn triskele and the annulet is
reminiscent of the comma-shaped design elements found in Japanese
mon known as tomoe. Tomoe are not considered compatible with
European heraldry and are not considered acceptable for use in
the SCA (for more details, see the LoAR of November 1992, p. 15,
Atlantia returns, Takeo Niro). [Morien ap Rhys of Cardiff,
11/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
The SCA has previously registered one triskelion of
spirals, for Sorcha ar Menez, Vert, a triskelion of
spirals argent between in cross four mullets pierced Or. The
SCA does not have a defined charge of a spiral, and spiral
ends are not standard for other charges (such as crosses).
However, the SCA has an established and wide-ranging pattern for
registering triskelions of objects, or triskelions ending in
objects. As a result, we are reluctant to refuse further
registrations of this charge (as suggested by some of the
commentary). The triskelion of spirals may continue to be
registered, but as one step from period style (a "weirdness"). As
this submission does not include any other steps from period
style, it may be registered. [Ellisif �unnkárr, 12/2003,
A-West]
TROUSERS of
NOBILITY
The items blazoned here as a "pair of drinking
horns" were on the Letter of Intent as "trousers of nobility."
While the latter blazon is found in books on the insignia of the
Arabs, the SCA has consistently blazoned the charges as a pair of
drinking horns. Since the submitter's form blazoned these as
drinking horns, we have blazoned them in this fashion, although
we are willing to consider adding the phrase "trousers of
nobility" to SCA blazon. [Ali al Ahmed Abdullah, 01/2002,
A-Middle]
The drinking horns were originally blazoned as trousers of
nobility, which is the standard English description for these
Arabic charges. The SCA has previously blazoned these charges as
pairs of drinking horns. The commentary was in favor of
keeping the standard SCA blazon. [Scheherazade al-Zahira,
01/2003,
R-East]
VISUAL COMPARISON
This section is organized by the owner of the registered
armory in question. A list of the names is included in the
index.
[Gules, in pale a woolly
mammoth statant proper atop a hurt fimbriated argent] The
Laurel files did not contain a colored emblazon for this very old
submission, and so we were unable to clarify the tincture of the
mammoth in the blazon. [Aaron the Mighty, 03/2002,
A-West]
[Gules, a sheaf of arrows within an annulet argent]
Conflict with Aeddan Ivor, Gules, a sheaf of three arrows
argent fletched vert marked sable, a chief embattled argent.
There is one CD for changing the chief to the annulet under RfS
X.4.e. However, there is no additional difference for changing
the tincture of the arrows. The head and fletching of arrows are
together considered half the tincture of the arrow (per the LoAR
of January 1992, p. 6), but the fletching alone is not half the
tincture of the arrow. Therefore, since less than half the
tincture of the arrow has changed, there is no difference per RfS
X.4.d. Note that Aeddan's fletching is indeed vert marked
sable, the sable markings are not elsewhere on the arrow.
[Ichijou Jirou Toshiyasu, 02/2004,
R-Atlantia]
Conflict with Aengus mac Coll, Vert, a stag's head cabossed
argent, orbed and attired of flames proper, resting on its head a
chalice Or. There is a CD for changing the field but no
difference for changing the tincture of the attires, which are
less than half the tincture of the stag's head. There is no
difference for removing the small maintained chalice. [Kunrad
Eisenhart, 02/2002,
R-Meridies]
[(Fieldless) A bee statant proper] This badge does not
conflict with Aideen the Audacious, (Fieldless) A bumblebee
fesswise proper. There is one CD for fieldlessness. Aideen's
bumblebee is in its default tergiant posture, and then rotated
fesswise. There is a CD between a bee tergiant fesswise and a bee
statant. Both postures show the bees with fesswise bodies, but a
bee tergiant fesswise has wings visible on both sides of the
bee's body, while a bee statant only has wings visible on the
chiefmost side of the body. This difference is worth a CD,
analogous to the difference between a bird rising wings displayed
and a bird rising wings addorsed. [Catríona nic
Theàrlaigh, 12/2002,
A-An Tir]
[Per pale Or and gules, a sun in splendor counterchanged]
Conflict under RfS X.5, "Visual Test", with Ajax Thermopylokles,
Per pale Or and gules, a Gorgon's head cabossed
counterchanged. The particular stylization of the gorgon's
head in Ajax' armory leads it to be visually very similar to a
sun in splendor. The snakes are evenly arrayed radially about the
gorgon's face, rather than just issuant from the top of the head
as one might expect of a gorgon with snakes for hair. The
gorgon's face is also very stylized, more like a mask than a
face. Thus the face resembles the disk of a sun more than one
might expect of a standard woman's face. Overall the visual
similarity is so overwhelming that we have no choice but to call
conflict under RfS X.5. In ordinary circumstances we would expect
there to be X.2 difference between a variant of a human head and
a sun. [Liudmila Vladimirova doch', 09/2002,
R-Caid]
[A tree within and conjoined to an annulet Or] This is
clear of conflict with al-Barran, Barony of, (Fieldless) A
Russian thistle (tumbleweed) bush within an annulet Or. There
is one CD for fieldlessness, and another for the difference
between the tumbleweed bush and the tree. The bush has no
discernable trunk and most closely resembles a slightly shaggy
bezant. [Gyldenholt, Barony of, 01/2002,
A-Caid]
[A landscape (in pale sky azure, snow-capped mountains argent,
hills vert, prairie proper, and a wheat field proper) and on a
chief argent a cross gules] The Middle Kingdom LoI of August
29, 1997 (redated to September 2 due to postmark), proposed
protection of the arms of the Canadian provinces and other items
as important non-SCA armory. However, the arms of the province of
Alberta were incorrectly listed as being identical to the arms of
the province of Saskatchewan. The January 1998 LoAR protected the
arms of Alberta (incorrectly) and Saskatchewan (correctly) as
Vert, three garbs in fess and on a chief Or a lion passant
guardant gules. (These items were listed under the "Society
for Creative Anachronism" sections on the LoAR.) This action is
intended to rectify this error.
This armory posed some difficult questions regarding blazon:
-
The arms of Alberta are not stylistically compatible with
pre-1600 heraldry, and are thus not easily described by SCA
blazon.
-
The arms of the Province are not depicted or described
consistently between the standard armorial sources and the
Provincial governmental sources. In particular, there is
variation in the tincture of the "prairie proper" and, to a
lesser extent, variation in the tincture of the "wheat field
proper" although this last is generally tinctured close to
Or.
-
It was difficult to locate an official blazon in the
standard heraldic references or appropriate governmental web
pages for the Province of Alberta.
We are fortunate to have benefited by the efficiency and
kindness of the Canadian Heraldic Authority. The Chief Herald of
Canada, Robert D. Watt, provided the following information:
The most definitive information we have here is found on page
209 of Conrad Swan's, (now Sir Conrad Swan) landmark study
entitled 'Canada: Symbols of Sovereignty' (University of
Toronto Press, 1977). In the chapter on Alberta, Sir Conrad
notes that the arms were assigned by Royal Warrant on 30 May
1907 and were blazoned as follows: 'Azure, in front of a range
of snowy mountains proper a range of hills Vert, in base a
wheat field surmounted by a prairie both also proper, on a
chief Argent a St. George's cross.' The reference he gives is
College of Arms 175.127. As he was York Herald at the time of
writing and had full access to the records of the College, I
believe it is fair to assume that this blazon can be considered
absolutely accurate.
The real-world official blazon of the province of
Alberta is not clearly comprehensible from the perspective of SCA
blazon. It uses the term surmounted in a different way
than we do. It also assumes that the reader is aware that a St.
George's cross is, by definition, a cross (throughout) gules. We
have elected to reblazon the armory for the SCA, as we generally
do with important real-world armory when it is necessary. We have
left in the ambiguous proper tinctures for the wheat field
and the prairie, as this ambiguity seems to be part of the
definition of the armory. By blazoning this armory, exclusive of
the chief, as a landscape, we hope to make it clear for
future researchers that this armory is distinct from most
heraldic treatments (aside from issues of purely visual
conflict). The landscape is not, for example, equivalent to a
variant of a barry field, or some combination of bars, but it is
an excellent example of an overly pictorial design per RfS
VIII.4.a, that could not be registered to a new SCA submitter.
[Alberta, 02/2004,
A-Society for Creative Anchronism]
Conflict with Alyanora of Vinca, Argent, a periwinkle
proper. Periwinkles are effectively cinquefoils and given no
type difference from cinquefoils. There is no tincture
difference: per the September 1996 LoAR, "The tincture of the
periwinkle is somewhere between blue [and] purple, and therefore
both azure and purpure flowers could potentially conflict with
it." [Tatiana Pavlovna Sokolova, 04/2003,
R-Outlands]
This does not conflict with Alyson of Islay, Per bend Or and
vert, a koala rampant guardant maintaining a branch of eucalyptus
proper. ... The branch of eucalyptus in Alyson of Islay's
device is truly a maintained charge, not a co-primary charge, and
is not worth difference. [Brian Mor O'Brian, 09/2002,
A-Caid]
Conflict with Andrew Castlebuilder, Per chevron purpure and
Or, overall an elephant [Elephas sp.] trumpeting passant proper,
on its back a carpet purpure, fimbriated Or, supporting a tower
argent, masoned sable. There is a CD for changing the field
but no difference for adding the tower. Towers are commonly found
on the back of elephants, and must be blazoned when present.
However, such towers are of much less visual weight than the
elephant, and are therefore equivalent to maintained charges. The
tower in Andrew's arms follows this pattern. [Dionello
Cristoforo dei Medici, 03/2002,
R-An Tir]
Conflict with Ayslynn MacGuraran, Azure, a snowy owl affronty
proper grasping in its dexter talon three roses Or, slipped and
leaved vert, and in its sinister talon two of the same, within an
orle Or. ... There is no difference for removing the small
held charges. [Marko Evanovich Panfilov, 04/2003,
R-Outlands]
... conflicts with Balthazar Thornguard, Sable, a sword
inverted argent, the blade enflamed proper. There is a CD for
the change in the field but, as drawn in Balthazar's arms, the
flames are not significant enough to be worth difference.
[Béla of the Kyrghiz , 10/2001,
R-Outlands]
[(Fieldless) A sea-urchin azure] Yes, this is a real
heraldic sea-urchin, a demi-urchin conjoined to a fish tail.
[Banbnat MacDermot, 07/2003,
A-Calontir]
Conflict with Barbara Fitzhugh de Brandhard, Azure, a sword
inverted proper entwined widdershins of a poppy proper. ...
There is no difference for removing the entwining poppy, per the
following ruling in the LoAR of December 2000 regarding the same
conflicting armory, "Conflict with Barbara Fitzhugh de Brandhard,
Azure, a sword inverted proper entwined widdershins of a poppy
proper. Traditionally, entwined charges are treated like
maintained charges unless both charges have equal visual weight."
Because the entwined charge is considered a maintained charge in
Barbara's device, its addition or deletion is not worth
difference. [Grimbrand Hundeman, 12/2003,
R-Calontir]
[(Fieldless) A horned man vested of a loincloth maintaining in
his dexter hand a sword inverted and in his sinister hand two
spears inverted crossed at the butts argent] Conflict with
Bari the Unfettered, Barry argent and gules, a naked man
manacled on each wrist, lengths of broken chain pendant, and a
length of broken chain at his feet, all proper. There's one
CD for fieldlessness. There is no difference for the changes to
the small held charges (including the chains in Bari's armory as
small held charges), and no difference for adding the horns to
the man's head. [William FitzHugh de Cambria, 12/2002,
R-Meridies]
[Gyronny sable and argent, a wyvern erect maintaining a sheaf
of arrows inverted and a bow within a bordure gules] Conflict
with Bela of Eastmarch, Gyronny sable and argent, a dragon
rampant gules, armed and webbed vert. As a general rule,
changing the tincture of a dragon's wings is considered to be
change of tincture of half the charge. However, the webs of the
dragon's wings are not the entire wing, and visual inspection of
the dragon in Bela's emblazon shows that it has particularly
small wings. Therefore, less than half the tincture of the charge
has changed, and so there is no additional difference for change
in tincture. [Ian Lindsay MacRae, 02/2002,
R-Outlands]
The device conflicts with Benson of Stannington, Per pale
azure and argent, a sword proper embrued. The embruing is a
small red detail on the tip of the sword. (As an artist's note,
the sword in Benson's device is in the center of the field, which
would not be allowed today for a predominantly white sword on a
half-white field). [William fitz Symon, 10/2002,
R-Lochac]
[Quarterly gules and azure, in bend sinister a Danish axe
sustained by a bear rampant contourny argent] This is clear
of conflict with the Barony of Bjornsborg, ...(Fieldless) A
bear statant erect reguardant contourny supporting a berdiche
blade to sinister argent. There is one CD for fieldlessness.
There is another CD for arrangement: the Bjornsborg bear and its
sustained axe are in the default arrangment for a statant erect
beast sustaining a polearm (in fess), while the charges in this
submission are in bend sinister. [Leifr Vagnsson, 09/2003,
A-Outlands]
[Per pale sable and vert, a sprig of ash Or] This does not
conflict with a badge for the Barony of Bjornsborg, A sprig of
alamosa palewise Or, slipped argent. There is one CD for
fieldlessness. The sprig of alamosa is very similar in appearance
to a small alder twig with Or leaves and an argent twig. There is
one CD for the significant change in shape between the oval
leaflet of the ash sprig and the more card-piqued shape leaflet
of the alamosa. There is no difference for changing less than
half the tincture of the sprig. [Baldric of Falkonmore,
02/2004,
A-Atlantia]
Conflict with Brendan mac Artuir ap Alan, reblazoned in the
Atenveldt section of this LoAR as Per bend gules and sable, a
sun Or held in sinister base by a cupped sinister hand in profile
fesswise couped proper, all within a bordure Or. The hand is
in profile, cups the sinister base portion of the sun, and
overlaps the sun. The hand is significantly smaller than the sun,
has a small outline impact and has low contrast with the sun, all
of which combine to make the hand function as an insignificant
maintained charge (even though the hand is technically the item
doing the holding, rather than the item being held). Therefore
there is one CD for changing the tincture of the sun, but no
other difference for removing the hand. [Gaston de Poitou,
01/2002,
R-Meridies]
This is clear of conflict with a badge of Cariadoc of the Bow,
(Tinctureless) A reflex bow reversed strung with a decrescent
and armed of an arrow fesswise. The decrescent is co-primary
in Cariadoc's badge, giving one CD for tincturelessness and
another CD for removing the decrescent. [Concordia of the
Snows, Barony of, 05/2002,
A-East]
[Azure, three owls within a bordure argent] This does not
conflict with Catalina of Tir Ysgithr, Azure, three quail and
a bordure argent. Per this month's Cover Letter discussion of
birds and substantial difference, owls are "regular-shaped" birds
and (European) quail are "poultry-shaped" birds. There is thus
substantial difference between "poultry-shaped" European quails
in a period posture (the default close posture) and
"regular-shaped" owls in a period posture (the default close
guardant posture).
The quails in Catalina's device are the new-world California or
Gambel's quails, with a comma-shaped feather topping their heads,
so their eligibility for substantial difference must be
determined on a case by case basis. Because the California quail
resembles a European quail very closely except for the
comma-shaped crest, it is as different from an owl as a European
quail would be - or even more so, since an owl does not have a
crest of this sort. Thus, it seems appropriate to give
substantial difference between California/Gambel's quails and
owls. These two pieces of armory are thus clear of conflict under
RfS X.2. [Megge de Northwode, 11/2003,
A-Atlantia]
This is clear of conflict with Cigfran Myddrael Joserlin the
Raven, Argent, a raven rising reguardant, wings disclosed,
proper, in dexter claw a sword gules. There is a CD for
changing the field. The wings of Cigfran's raven are effectively
displayed. There is a second CD for changing the posture of the
bird from rising, wings displayed to rising, wings
addorsed. [Bj{o,}rn Þorkelson, 08/2002,
A-Middle]
[Quarterly azure and argent, an annulet sable] Conflict
with Conrad Breakring, Argent, an annulet fracted on the
dexter side sable. There is one CD for changing the field but
nothing for fracting the annulet. The LoAR of February 1999, p.
10, gave no difference between a serpent involved (a serpent
biting its tail so that its body is in a circle) and Conrad's
annulet fracted: "[Or, a serpent involved sable] This
conflicts with Conrad Breakring of Ascalon, Argent, an annulet
fracted on the dexter side sable., with one CD for the
difference in the fields." This default annulet should resemble
Conrad's fracted annulet even more strongly than the fracted
annulet resembles a snake involved. [Guðrøðr of Colanhomm,
11/2003,
R-Drachenwald]
[Argent, a claymore inverted bendwise between two thistles
sable] This is clear of conflict with Corwin Breemore,
Argent, a sword bendwise inverted sable, its blade entwined
with a heather vine proper, between a raven's head erased close
and another reversed, both sable, beaked gules. There is one
CD for the change in type of the secondary charges. There is
another CD for adding the heather vine. Our botanists were
surprised to find that in 1982, when this was registered, there
existed a twining species of heather. Our armorists were
surprised to find how thriving the heather was, arguably
overpowering the sword. [Conchobar mac Eoin, 02/2002,
A-Outlands]
[Per pale argent and azure, an oak branch fructed
counterchanged] Conflict with Daniel of Glenmor, Per pale
argent and azure, a pine tree counterchanged. Precedent
indicates that a tree branch is not significantly different from
a tree of the same type: "Conflict with ... Argent, an oak
branch eradicated gules, with one CD for the addition of the
flaunches, but by prior precedent nothing for the difference
between a branch and a tree" (LoAR of March 1994,
p. 17). In this emblazon, it is certainly apparent that the
branch approximates a tree in shape. Because the oak branch in
this submission is effectively an oak tree, the comparison
between Johan's and Daniel's devices is effectively a comparison
between an oak tree and a pine tree. As a result, there is one CD
for significant change in type of tree between oak and pine, but
not substantial difference under X.2. [Johan de
Foderingeye, 06/2003,
R-Ealdormere]
Conflict with Daniel the Silent, Per chevron gules and Or,
three decrescents with flames issuant from the upper cusp of
each, counterchanged. ... The flames in Daniel's armory are
effectively maintained charges and their deletion is not worth
difference. [Caron Caleb, 10/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[Four swords in cross points to center proper and four oak
leaves in saltire stems to center all conjoined at the center
point gules] A question was raised as to whether this was in
visual conflict with a badge of the Barony of Darkwater for Order
of the Acorn Glade, (Fieldless) Four oak leaves in saltire
stems to center gules and four acorns conjoined in cross caps to
center Or. In this submission, the swords are co-primary
charges. In Darkwater's badge the acorns are secondary charges.
There is no visual conflict, and as noted in the commentary, the
two pieces of armory are technically clear of conflict. [Brice
Colquhoun, 12/2003,
A-Middle]
[Per pale sable and azure, a harp argent its forepillar
entwined of a rose vine proper and an orle argent] The rose
vine is prominent enough to blazon, although not enough to be
worth difference. [Diarmaid de Rossa, 08/2001,
A-An Tir]
The badge conflicts with Domenica Farnese, Gyronny vert and
azure, a mullet of six points within eight mullets of six points
in mascle argent. There is one CD for changing the field.
Domenica's mullets are all the same size and evenly fill her
escutcheon. Thus, the arrangement of the mullets in Domenica's
device is equivalent to a group of strewn charges. There is no
type difference between mullets of five and six points.
[Atenveldt, Kingdom of, 12/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
Conflict with Earl of Morris, Lozengy sable and gules, a hart
rampant argent. ... More than [one] commenter cited the
conflict above as being "important real-world armory" for
"the Earl of Morris." However, the Armorial and Ordinary,
and the Earl of Morris submission form, are clear that
this registration, originally from 1973 albeit reblazoned later,
is not real-world armory. It is just for some SCA guy named [Sir]
Earl. Please be precise in your citations. . [Áedán uí
Néill, 02/2004,
R-Atlantia]
[a bear rampant contourny gules] Conflict with Elfarch
Myddfai, Or, a bear legged of an eagle's legs rampant to
sinister gules. There is one CD for changing the field but no
difference for changing the type of the bear's feet. [Od
Barbarossa, 07/2002,
R-Calontir]
Conflict with Enawynne Olwen, Per bend vert and azure, a sword
proper surmounted by a horse's head couped argent gorged of a
collar Or, chased sable. ... The collar in Enawynne's armory
is sable with Or edges, and is at the very bottom of the horse's
neck, so that the bottom edge of the collar lies directly on the
field (unlike a usual collared head, where the collar lies
entirely on the neck, with neck showing above and below the
collar). In this emblazon, the gorging functions more like
fimbriation of the bottom edge of the horse's neck rather than a
tertiary charge on the neck. It also lacks visual significance.
This oddly placed collar is thus not worth difference for its
addition or removal. [Gareth Marcellus von Köln, 11/2003,
R-Caid]
[Argent, a mountain of three peaks vert enflamed at the peaks
gules] This also conflicts with the badge of the Barony of
Ered Sûl, Azure, a mountain of three peaks, issuant from base
vert, fimbriated and snow-capped argent. There is one CD for
changing the field, nothing for fimbriating the mountains,
nothing for the small tincture change in removing the "snow caps"
and nothing for the effectively maintained flames.
Please advise the submitter that a heraldic mountain is
considered a peripheral charge by the SCA, and these mountains
should therefore be lower on the field. [Angus Redberd,
09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[(Fieldless) On an escallop argent, in saltire two violets
slipped and leaved proper] Conflict with a badge of Etain
Winterbourne, (Fieldless) On an escallop argent, a violet
plant vert, flowered purpure. In general there is a CD
between a violet plant (a bushy tuft of leaves issuing some
smaller flowers), and a violet slipped and leaved (a flower
accompanied by a single insignificant leaved stalk.) However, in
these emblazons, both pieces of armory appear to have charged the
escallop with some violet flowers issuing from a tuft of leaves.
Under RfS X.5 an "overwhelming visual resemblance" between two
pieces of armory may be cause for a return for conflict. Such an
overwhelming similarity is present between these two pieces of
armory. [Gabriella d'Asti, 10/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
This does not conflict with a badge of Evan Mawr, Argent, a
vulture close affronty proper, head to dexter, perched on a
branch couped sable [Vultur gryphus]. ... The branch in
Evan's badge is small and thus should be considered a maintained
charge. [Tylar of Lochmere, 04/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[a dandelion plant vert with three flowers, the centermost in
profile, the outer flowers affronty, Or slipped gules] The
device conflicts with Ewan of Balquhidder, Argent, a three
headed thistle proper and a bordure purpure. Ewan's
three-headed thistle is drawn very naturalistically. Both plants
are dominated by a tuft of spiky leaves at the base of the plant.
Both plants have three flowers issuing to chief. Chardonne's
dandelion plant shows the dandelions both in the affronty flower
posture and in a profile flower posture. In the latter case, the
dandelion in profile is drawn with green bunch of sepals at the
base of the flower and a tuft of petals issuing from the sepals
to chief, approximating some depictions of thistles. Because the
only notable visual difference between the two emblazons on first
viewing is the changed tincture of the bordure, these are in
conflict by RfS X.5. [Chardonne de Lyon, 01/2003,
R-East]
[A lion's head argent jessant-de-lys Or] Unfortunately,
the visual comparison with Faoiltighearna inghean mhic Ghuaire,
Quarterly azure and vert, a wolf's head argent jessant-de-lys
Or, shows an unmistakeable visual similarity.
Faoiltighearna's wolf is drawn with a very shaggy face for a wolf
(though an acceptable one). Ariella's lion is drawn with an
un-leonine wedge shaped face-surrounded by a shaggy mane.
[Ariella Christine d'Ailles, 08/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
Conflict with the Barony of the Flaming Gryphon, badge for the
Order of the Gryphon's Plume, Ermine, a feather bendwise Or,
enflamed gules. The enflaming in the emblazon of the badge
for the Order of the Gryphon's plume is drawn as somewhat fuzzy
gules fimbriation, and like all fimbriation, is not worth
difference. [Daimhín Cinncaidhe, 12/2003,
R-Trimaris]
Conflict with Francois le Féroce, Per chevron vert and argent,
in chief two wings addorsed argent. ... The wings "addorsed"
are effectively displayed and separated, and are not different
from two similar wings conjoined into a vol. [Muirenn ingen
meic Martain, 08/2003,
R-Caid]
This also conflicts with a badge of Giesele Hildegaard of the
Mystic Dragon, Argent, a lion-tailed, fire-breathing sea
dragon erect purpure. ... On visual inspection, the
lion-tailed, fire-breathing sea dragon is
indistinguishable from a wyvern, when one considers the various
ways in which wyverns were drawn in period. Because the
lion-tailed, fire-breathing sea dragon cannot be
distinguished from a wyvern in any meaningful fashion, and
dragons are not given difference from wyverns, the dragon in this
submission obtains no difference from this monster. [Conn
Draca, 09/2003,
R-Meridies]
[Barry Or and azure, a cat sejant contourny sable] A
possible conflict was called with the arms of Giuliana Margherita
Bonaccolsi, Per chevron throughout azure and Or, in base a
domestic cat sejant contourny sable, on the grounds that
perhaps Giuliana's cat was not really in base, but was
centered on the field under the per chevron throughout line. A
visual inspection of Giuliana's form shows that the cat really is
in base. It's small and lies entirely under a hypothetical
per fess line. This is not a forced move, as one could place a
cat centrally on this field, either by having it overlap the blue
portions of the field, or by drawing a wider per chevron
throughout and moving the cat up (as the commenter had
conjectured). Therefore, there is one CD for the change in field
by X.4.a, and another for position of the cat on the field by
X.4.g. [Muirgel ingen Gilla Comgaill, 09/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
The devices conflicts with Graffico de Drell, Vert, entwined
about a chalice Or, a serpent head to sinister sable. As
noted in the LoAR of December 2002 [Ed.: Actually the December
2000 LoAR], "The serpent [in Graffico's device] is not
significant..." [Karchar the Blue-eyed, 07/2003,
R-Atlantia]
Conflict with Greer Jonsdottir, Argent, a frog rampant vert
spotted sable, a bordure embattled vert. ... There is no
difference for removing the spots on the frog, as they are
low-contrast markings that are not worth difference. [Rauf
Frogenhall, 11/2003,
R-Meridies]
[(Fieldless) On a flame proper, a heart argent] This does
not conflict with Grimn the Hele-Bourne, Sable, upon a flame
gules fimbriated Or, a skull argent. There is one CD for
fieldlessness. There is no difference for changing the type only
of charge on the flame, as a flame is too complicated to
fimbriate by RfS X.4.j.ii.
There is, however, a CD for the tincture change between a modern
flame proper (drawn with alternating tongues of gules and Or
flame), as in Dorren's submission, and a flame gules fimbriated
Or, as in Grimn's submission. While it is true that a flame gules
fimbriated Or is one way of drawing an "old-SCA-style" flame
proper, there is no evidence that Grimn ever intended the flame
in his device to be a proper flame. Even on the original 1976
form it was blazoned as a flame gules fimbriated Or. There
is therefore no reason to believe that Grimn's flame might be
drawn just like Dorren's as a matter of artistic license.
Similarly, there is no reason to believe that Dorren's modern
flame proper would ever be drawn in the old (and now disallowed)
SCA version of a flame proper, which might be depicted as
gules fimbriated Or. Therefore there is a CD between these
two flames, just as there would be a CD between a flame gules and
a flame paly Or and gules. [Dorren of Ashwell, 10/2002,
A-East]
[Sable, on a bezant a phoenix sable, a dexter tierce
dovetailed Or] The device is clear of conflict with Gwynaeth
Math o Ddylluan, Sable, a bezant charged with a raven on a
branch bendwise all sable. There is a CD for adding the
tierce. The branch and raven are equally-weighted tertiary
charges, so there is a second CD for changing the type and number
of tertiary charges. [Alessandra Giovanna dei Medici,
07/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[Argent, three irises purpure slipped and leaved vert]
Conflict under RfS X.5, "Visual Test", with Heather Rose of Glen
Laurie, Argent, three bouquets of three garden roses purpure
slipped and leaved vert. Ordinarily we would expect there to
be a CD for number of charges between a bouquet of three flowers
and a single flower, and also a CD for changing the type of
flower from a rose to an iris. However, on comparing these
emblazons they are visually very similar. The bouquets in
Heather's device each have one large purple flower and two
negligibly small purple flowers, so that the bouquets are
visually very close to a single flower slipped and leaved. In
addition, the roses in Heather's device and the irises in
Beatrice's device are both drawn indistinctly, so there is no
strong visual difference due to the types of flowers. On the
whole, the two pieces of armory resemble each other so strongly
that they are not clear of conflict under the Visual Test.
[Beatrice Villani, 10/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[issuant from a double horned anvil a dagger inverted
sable] Conflict with a badge of the Shire of Heatherwyne,
(Fieldless) Issuant from an anvil sable, three sprigs of
heather purpure, slipped and leaved vert. There is one CD for
fieldlessness. The items issuant from the anvils function as
maintained charges and are not worth difference. [Sindri
Jónsson, 09/2003,
R-Middle]
[mushrooms argent] This device does not conflict with
Johanna von Griffenhurst, Vert, an amanita muscaria mushroom
couped proper. Amanita muscaria (the Linnaean designation;
alias the fly agaric mushroom) has a white stem and gills and a
red or orange cap with white or yellowish warty dots on it.
Amanita muscaria is thus approximately half gules, and the
mushroom in Johanna's emblazon is drawn appropriately. Therefore,
there is a CD for changing the number of mushrooms and a second
CD for changing half the tincture of the mushrooms. We advise
people not to pick and eat this mushroom. [Cadhla Ua
Cellacháin, 09/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
This does not conflict with John FitzGerald de Clare, Gules, a
chevron embattled ermine between three Latin crosses bottony
argent, each enfiled bendwise of a county coronet Or. ... The
county coronets are large enough to be considered co-secondary
with the crosses, so there is a second CD for removing the
coronets. [Degan of Coventry, 11/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Vert, a rapier and in chief a billet argent] Conflict
with John of Gravesend, Vert, a sword palewise proper,
surmounted at the tip by a helm affronty argent. This appears
to simply be a change of secondary charge type, replacing the
helmet with the billet. The helmet in John Gravesend's device is
effectively a secondary charge conjoined to the tip of the sword.
There is no difference for removing the conjoining. [John
Gilson, 01/2004,
R-Artemisia]
Conflict with Kathleen Erin-go-Burne-the-Bragh, Vert, a
chalice argent containing flames Or. ... The flame in
Kathleen's cup is a maintained charge, and its deletion is not
worth difference. [Ysoria de Brai, 08/2002,
R-Atlantia]
... Katlin von Kappel, Per saltire sable and gules, four
fleurs-de-lys bases to center Or. ... The four fleurs-de-lys
in Katlin's device are placed by default into the four sections
of the per saltire field, which arranges the fleurs-de-lys in
cross. [Otelia d'Alsace, 08/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[(Fieldless) A peacock Or the tail marked gules] This is
clear of conflict with Kedivor Tal ap Cadugon, (Fieldless) In
pale a peacock close perched atop a hawk's bell Or. There is
one CD for fieldlessness and another CD for adding the co-primary
hawk's bell. [Sunnifa Eiríksdóttir, 10/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[Per pale gules and vert, in chief a hand in benediction
argent] A possible conflict was called against the arms of
Kenric Manning, Lozengy azure and Or, a hand argent. There
is a CD for changing the field, and Ihon's armory unquestionably
has the hand in chief. Kenric's form shows that the hand is
centered. Therefore there is a second CD for position of the hand
on the field, and these two armories are clear of conflict.
[Ihon Vinson MacFergus, 09/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[Ermine, a hawk striking wings displayed sable tailed and in
chief three triquetras gules] Conflict with Malutka sep
Srebnitska, Ermine, a turkey vulture [Cathartes aura]
displayed, dexter wing erect, sinister wing inverted, proper.
There is one CD for adding the triquetras.
There is no type difference between a turkey vulture and a hawk.
The turkey vulture is a New World bird, which is not a period
heraldic charge. Per RfS X.4.e, when determining difference from
a non-period charge, difference is determined by a visual
comparison. A visual comparison shows that there is insufficient
difference between a turkey vulture and a hawk to give difference
on solely visual grounds.
There is no difference between the visually similar postures of
displayed dexter wing erect and striking wings displayed. There
is no difference for changing tincture, as less than half the
charge has changed in tincture. Malutka's turkey vulture is black
with a red head, and Morgan's hawk is black with a red tail. The
head and the tail combined make up less than half the tincture of
these birds. [Morgan mac Máeláin, 09/2002,
R-Caid]
This submission is clear of the arms of Marynel of Darkhaven,
Purpure, a dragon salient Or, its neck embowed about an
edelweiss proper, with one CD for the change to the field and
another for removing the secondary edelweiss. In Marynel's arms,
the edelweiss doesn't touch the dragon but lies entirely on the
field. If the edelweiss were in chief, rather than within the
loop of the dragon's neck, it would be considered a secondary
charge without any discussion. Therefore, one cannot consider the
edelweiss to be a maintained charge. [Godwin of
Edington, 09/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
Conflict with Megwyn of Glendwry, Argent, a unicorn-headed
dragon, with lion's forepaws, segreant purpure, armed and orbed
Or, tail to base entwined about a garb sable. ... Prior
precedent notes that there isn't difference between a dragon and
a unicorn-headed dragon with lion's forepaws: "[A dragon vs. a
unicorn-headed dragon with lion's forepaws] The visual
similarities of the dragon and [the other] monster (changes to
head and forepaws only) are simply too great [for there to be a
CVD]" (LoAR January 1991 p.24). [Conn Draca, 09/2003,
R-Meridies]
Conflict with Metylda the Cunning, Argent, a fox's mask gules
between three quivers vert each containing two arrows sable.
... The arrows coming out of the quiver are effectively charges
maintained by the quiver and worth no difference for their
addition. [Tace of Foxele, 03/2003,
R-Calontir]
[Two arrows in saltire surmounted by a double-bitted axe
Or] Conflict with the device of Michael of York, Gules, a
sheaf of three arrows bound by a serpent coiled to sinister
guardant, all Or. ... The arrangement of the charges has not
changed: a sheaf of three arrows consists of two arrows in
saltire surmounted by a third arrow. RfS X.4.e only gives a CD
for changing the type of a group of charges when at least half
the group has changed in type. Here only one-third of the group
has changed in type. The serpent binding the sheaf in Michael's
arms is effectively a maintained charge, and its addition or
deletion is not worth difference. [Conall of Twin Moons,
08/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[(Fieldless) A cross patonce azure] This does not conflict
with Morgana Elisabetta Rosatti, (Fieldless) A cross fleury
azure irradiated Or. Irradiated charges, when drawn
correctly, are a CD from non-irradiated charges. Brooke-Little's
An Heraldic Alphabet, defines irradiated as
"Surrounded by rays of light. An irradiated charge is usually
shown as if it were charged on a sun." The irradiated cross here
is drawn appropriately, with very pronounced irradiation. There
is thus one CD for fieldlessness, and a second CD for the
irradiation. [Brigit Gilbertstoune, 11/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[a mountain Or] Conflict with Morna ó Monadh, Purpure a
mount of three hillocks Or. There is one CD for the field.
Morna's mount is drawn as a mountain of three peaks, and so there
is no other difference. [Jesmond Ravenlea, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
This also conflicts with Napoleon I, Azure, an eagle displayed
contourny grasping in both claws a thunderbolt Or. There is
one CD for changing the field but nothing for changing the head
posture only of the eagle and nothing for removing the small held
thunderbolt. [Egil Haraldsson, 05/2002,
R-Meridies]
Conflict with Neal Gyrfalcon, Purpure, perched atop the pommel
of a sword inverted proper a gyrfalcon contourny argent.
There is one CD for adding the quill pen in chief and no
difference for removing the small, insignificant (effectively
"maintained") gyrfalcon. [Jacquelin of Normandy, 04/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[Sable, an infant's arm couped at the shoulder fesswise
embowed Or maintaining an apple proper] This has been
reblazoned from Sable, an infant's dexter arm couped at the
shoulder Or, holding an apple proper, to indicate that the
arm is fesswise and embowed. As originally blazoned the arm would
appear to be palewise. The apple is roughly evenly divided
into vert, Or and gules portions, so the original tincture of
proper has been kept rather than reblazoning it in
heraldic tinctures. The apple is a small maintained charge, and
its addition, deletion or tincture change is not worth difference
by the heraldic policies of at least the past decade, so the
ambiguity in the blazon of the apple's tincture should not be a
problem when checking for conflict. [Piedro Vega y Garcia de
Barcelona, 05/2002,
A-East]
This is clear of conflict with Ram Nordlilja, Per chevron
sable and argent, two lilies slipped and leaved respectant and a
ram's head cabossed counterchanged. There is one CD for the
posture of the group. The lilies in Ram's device have their bells
fesswise, as one might expect from the term respectant in the
blazon. [Ella de Lille, 12/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[Or, a cock's head couped gules] This device conflicts
with a badge of Ranulf of the North Country, for Shasta
Provincial Mercenaries, also called the Gobbler Company,
(Fieldless) A turkey's head erased gules, beaked Or, wearing a
horned Viking's helmet Or. There is one CD for fieldlessness.
There is no difference between a turkey's head and a cock's head.
The difference in tincture of the charges is less than half the
charge. There is no difference for adding the helmet to the
bird's head. As stated in the December 2002 Cover Letter,
"Without period evidence to the contrary, and because of the
contrast problems inherent in the design of a crown on an
animal's head, it does not seem appropriate to give difference
for adding a crown to a charge consisting only of an animal's
head." The situation with this helmet is analogous. [Guillem
Gallo, 10/2003,
R-East]
[Per bend argent and vert, a single-horned anvil sable]
This does not conflict with a badge of Richard of Black Iron,
Argent, a single-horned anvil reversed sable, enflamed
proper. There is one CD for changing the field and another
for removing the significant enflaming of Richard's anvil. We
considered reblazoning Richard's armory as a flame proper charged
with an anvil sable, but the shape of the flame so generated
would be so unusual as to be unacceptable. Therefore we are
maintaining the current blazon. [Leonardo Giovanni,
09/2002,
A-East]
[a ram's head cabossed sable] Conflict with Riordan Robert
MacGregor, Quarterly purpure and argent, a ram's head caboshed
sable armed Or. ... The horns are less than half the ram's
head charge and therefore changing their tincture is also not
worth difference. [Kenrick Dryden, 04/2002,
R-Calontir]
Conflict with Robert Bloodaxe, Quarterly sable and vert, a
mullet of eight points argent charged with two axes in saltire
sable each distilling a goutte gules. The gouttes are so
small as to be heraldically insignificant. [Guy Rand
Gallandon, 01/2003,
R-Caid]
Conflict with Robert the Pilgrim, Azure, a fish haurient
vorant of a Latin cross, both Or. The cross is not large
enough for difference... [Marina Jensdatter, 08/2001,
R-Caid]
This does not conflict with Rosalia O Brogan, Argent, two rose
branches in saltire vert, each with a rose gules, and on a chief
sable three butterflies Or. The rose branches in Rosalia's
device are drawn correctly so that they are predominantly
branches (ending in a small rose). The charges in this
submission, originally also blazoned as rose branches, are drawn
as roses slipped and leaved: the roses are at least half the
visual weight of the charge. There is a CD between roses and rose
branches, and another CD by RfS X.4.j.ii for changing the type
only of tertiary charge on the chief. We acknowlege that there is
a decided visual similarity between these two devices, but it is
not quite enough to be a conflict under RfS X.5. The submitter
also has a letter of permission to conflict with Rosalia O
Brogan, rendering the issue moot. [Abigail O Brogan,
02/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[Paly azure and argent] Unfortunately, this beautiful
armory conflicts with Rolf Jarsson, Per pale azure and argent,
a pale counterchanged. Rolf's armory is visually too similar
to Paly of four azure and argent to be considered
different from that armory. There is no difference between
paly of four and the default paly (of six).
[Snorri Hallsson, 10/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
Conflict with Rosamond Tindomielle, Vert, a bend sinister Or
between a white oak and a lyre argent, entwined of a vine Or.
... The vine on the lyre is very insignificant and does not
contribute to difference. [Gabriel Kenrick, 07/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
This is clear of a badge of Rowena le Sarjent, Per pale gules
and sable, a sword inverted, the blade interlaced with two
annulets linked in pale argent. The annulets in Rowena's
badge are significant enough to be worth difference.
[Moyai-Nidun,10/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[A billet argent] This does not conflict with the badge of
Rowena of Jorvik, (Fieldless) A delf argent pierced two and
two. There is one CD for fieldlessness and another for the
sizeable piercing. As noted in the LoAR of December 1999, "After
much thought, we decided that piercing is worth a CD when drawn
large enough to be equivalent to adding a tertiary charge, as it
is done here; i.e. when it is clearly visible and takes up much
of the space available to it." [Timothy of Glastinbury,
08/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[A crescent azure] This does not conflict with a badge of
Tess of Ambergeen, Argent, a crescent voided azure. There
is a CD for the field. The voiding of Tess' crescent is drawn
distinctly and is equivalent to the addition of a tertiary
charge. [Griffin ap Rhys, 11/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
Conflict with Thalassa Ilona of Soilka, Purpure, a chevronelle
Or between in chief two scimitars fesswise conjoined at the point
proper and in base a flamed tulip proper. ... The flamed
tulip is a tulip with petals constituted of flames proper. ...
There is no difference between a single chevronelle and a
chevron; at this time we would blazon any single central
"chevronelle" as a chevron regardless of how narrowly it was
drawn, to be in keeping with period armorial practices.
[Aclina of Wyvern Heyghts, 02/2003,
R-Caid]
This badge does not conflict with Thomas Bordeaux, (Fieldless)
A demi-lion argent issuant from a cloud Or. There is one CD
for fieldlessness and a second CD for removing the co-primary
cloud. [Áedán mac Bheathain, 09/2002,
A-Outlands]
[Quarterly purpure and sable, a tree blasted and couped the
trunk transfixed by an arrow fesswise reversed Or] His
previous blazon, Quarterly purpure and sable, a tree blasted
the trunk surmounted by an arrow fesswise reversed Or,
implied that the arrow was an overall charge. The arrow appears
to be more of a maintained charge, and is being reblazoned
to reflect this. [Thomas Towlewardie, 02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[Or, a winged naked woman statant affronty wings displayed
azure crined argent] Conflict with Victoria of the Vales of
Barnsdale, Or, an insect-winged naked woman passant, wings
chased, azure. There is one CD for changing the posture of
the winged woman. There is no difference for changing the type of
the wings. The insect wings in Victoria's device are mostly Or
but have a significant amount of azure in their thick azure veins
and outlines. Over half of Victoria's winged woman is azure, and
therefore, there is no tincture difference from this submitter's
winged woman, which is almost all azure. [Faílenn de
Céarsaigh, 05/2002,
R-Æthelemearc]
[Per pale Or and gules, a roundel counterchanged] Conflict
with Vincenzo di Palermo, Per pale Or and gules, a sword
bendwise sinister surmounted by a roundel both per pale gules and
Or. Because the sword and the roundel are the same tinctures,
the only way to tell which charge surmounts the other is to look
at the fine internal detail lines. Vincenzo's arms are thus
heraldically equivalent to Per pale Or and gules a roundel
surmounted by a sword both per pale gules and Or. This armory
therefore only has one CD from Vincenzo's for removing the sword,
by RfS X.4.c. [Yehuda ben Maimon, 04/2002,
R-Middle]
Conflict with a badge of the Barony of Wastekeep, Azure, a
great helm, pendant therefrom a chain crescentwise argent, the
helm pierced through the eyeslot by an arrow fesswise reversed
Or. ... The chain and arrow through the helmet are equivalent
to maintained charges, and their deletion is not worth
difference. [Concordia of the Snows, Barony of, 05/2003,
R-East]
[Or, a vol within a bordure sable] Conflict under RfS X.5
with William Guiscard, Or, a pair of bat's wings, conjoined
and displayed, sable within a bordure countercompony vert and
argent. As drawn here, neither set of wings is drawn with
pronounced attributes of outline or internal detail, which
removes any possible difference based on the type of wings. This
leaves only the visual difference for the tincture of the
bordure, which is insufficient.
We note that bat- and bird-wings are artistically interchangeable
on monsters like dragons, but it is not clear whether different
types of wings may be granted difference when presented solely as
wings. [Úlfr Hákonarson and Maryam bint Wahib ibn Ahmad,
10/2003,
R-Middle]
[Azure, on a flame Or a pavilion gules] Conflict with
William of Sark, Sable, a flame proper. William's armory
is heraldically equivalent to Sable, on a flame Or a flame
gules. As a result, there is one CD for changing the field
but no other difference for changing only the type of tertiary
charge on a complex-outlined flame by X.4.j.ii. [Jacqueline
Kathryn Lyonnais, 04/2003,
R-Trimaris]
WEIRDNESS
see also STYLE
[two Wake knots
conjoined in pale] A Wake knot, as per the PicDic, is
fesswise by default. Two Wake knots in pale would be arranged
like these. However there is no guarantee that the loose ends
would tie up as neatly as in this badge. It is as likely that the
loose ends would stick out and the round parts would be
conjoined.
The fact that the loose ends do connect up with each other in an
unbroken interlace could imply that this is "knotwork". On the
other hand, the knots maintain their identifiability as Wake
knots, which are themselves a standard heraldic knot. The
conjunction may not be the only way to conjoin the knots, but it
is an acceptable way to do so.
A pertinent precedent on the topic is in the LoAR of November
1994, for the Middle Kingdom's Order of the Cavendish Knot,
[Fieldless] Four Cavendish knots conjoined in cross vert:
There was much commentary on the issue of whether the charge
runs afoul of our long-standing ban on knotwork; the consensus
here seems to be similar to that of several years ago when we
were considering three Wake knots conjoined in pall: "The
question is whether the conjunction of the knots diminishes
their identifiability to the point where they should not be
allowed. In this case, the answer seems to be 'no'. Note,
however, that this would not be the case were the knots not of
themselves clearly defined period heraldic charges, were the
knot itself complex or requiring modification in shape to
produce the conjunction (as would be the case with a Lacy knot)
or were the numbers so increased ... as to diminish the size
seriously." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR of 26 November
1989, p. 9)
It should be noted, however, that this badge is probably
pushing right to the limits of the allowance; an increase of
number would probably begin to reduce the identifiability of
the separate knots.
This conjunction of knots is a weirdness, but as
there is only one such weirdness, it is registerable.
[Nottinghill Coill, Barony of, 08/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[Azure, in chief three cups inverted in chevron Or and in base
three plates in chevron] The arrangement of the charges does
not match any period pattern. However, this is only one weirdness
and is thus registerable. [Ælfgar Greggor of Vulpine
Reach, 08/2001,
A-Merides]
[a hare passant gules breathing flames] Breathing fire is
(to put it mildly) an unusual attribute for a hare, and may be
considered a weirdness. [Maeve of Trimaris, 08/2001,
A-Trimaris]
... a delf ploye is not a simple delf. As far as we can tell it
is only used as a period charge in Mameluk heraldry, and is thus
somewhat of a weirdness in general Western style. [Tarvin,
Shire of, 08/2001,
R-Atlantia] [Ed.: Returned for style problems]
Honeycombed was defined as a weirdness in the LoAR of June 1999.
It is not a period field treatment, nor has it become entrenched
in SCA usage.
Remember that there are very few period field treatments.
Usually, when we invent a new armorial motif for use in our
heraldry, it is because the new motif is compatible with existing
period heraldry. For example, we would allow the registration of
a period weapon as a charge, because of the large variety of
weapons found in period heraldry. We do not have a similar period
pattern of a wide range of field treatments based on various
tessellations.
Hence, after the LoAR of April 2002, honeycombed will no longer
be registerable in the SCA. [Taliesin Brynderw, 09/2001,
A-Calontir]
[A holly branch bendwise sinister inverted vert fructed gules
enfiling a mullet voided Or] The design of a charge enfiling
a voided mullet is a weirdness, but it is not in itself
sufficient reason for return. It is a weirdness because of the
cumulative effects of the unusual voided charge (the voided
mullet), the unusual action of enfiling, and the fact that the
overlap implicit in the act of enfiling reduces the
identifiability of both charges involved. Charges which in their
standard period depiction include a large central hole (such as
laurel wreaths, annulets, and mascles) are not considered a
weirdness when enfiled. Charges with small central holes (such as
spur rowels and rustres), and voided charges where the usual form
of the charge is not voided (mullets) will be considered a
weirdness when enfiled.
The question of which charge in the heraldic ring-toss is
"enfiled" is one of the great heraldic cocktail party discussion
topics. The SCA has a precedent on the topic which is being
followed in this blazon:
[An arrow argent enfiling a serpent involved] The definition of
the term enfile has changed over the years. Boutell (English
Heraldry, 1902) equates it with "pierce": a sword passing
through a crown would enfile the crown. Brooke-Little (An
Heraldic Alphabet 1975) equates it with "encircle": a sword
passing through a crown would be enfiled by the crown. The
confusion is sufficient reason to avoid the use of the term,
but sometimes (as with this submission) it's hard to avoid.
Friar (Dictionary of Heraldry, 1987, p.137) agrees with
Boutell's definition; and that definition does follow more
naturally from the etymology of the word (from French fil,
"thread": beads are threaded on a string, crowns are enfiled on
[by] a sword). That is the definition used here.
[Evelyn atte Holye, 12/2001,
A-Ealdormere]
While redesigning, the submitter may also wish to consider that
the fess engrailed on the upper edge and invected on the lower is
not a period type of fess. Stylistically, the fess is at best a
weirdness. [Asbjørn Pedersen Marsvin, 01/2002,
R-Caid]
[Vert, a bend sinister argent ermined vert between three
ermine spots argent] When there are three or more ermine
spots on a stripe ordinary such as a bend or fess or chief, the
ordinary will be interpreted as ermined, as this is a standard
way of drawing an ermine stripe ordinary. It is also true that
small numbers of ermine spots on the field may be interpreted as
charges, rather than part of an ermined tincture. Three spots
around a bend sinister are so sparsely distributed that they can
only be interpreted as charges.
No documentation was presented, and none was found, for the
combination of ermine spots as distinct charges and ermine spots
as part of an ermined tincture in the same armory. Until
documentation for this combination is presented, this combination
will be considered a weirdness. [Edmund Sharpe, 02/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[Sable, on a bend sinister between a raven contourny and masks
of comedy and tragedy bendwise argent four thistles bendwise
purpure slipped and leaved vert] The device submission is not
by any means typical of period style. The combination of the
bendwise charges on the bend sinister and the bendwise charges
next to the bend sinister is unusual, implying to some degree
that the device might have been armory using a fess and rotated
forty-five degrees. This implication is not complete as one of
the secondary charges accompanying the bend sinister is clearly
palewise. Moreover, there is nothing in our rules for submission
stating that such armory is not acceptable style. It is, at
worst, a weirdness. [Meadhbha inghean Bhriain Mhuilleóir,
04/2002,
A-An Tir]
[an Oriental dragon tergiant embowed-counterembowed] There
is one CD between a winged dragon and a wingless dragon,
including Oriental dragons. This clears a number of possible
conflicts. An Oriental dragon in this posture is a weirdness, as
it combines a monster not found in period heraldry with a posture
not found for similar monsters in period heraldry. Such a
combination is well beyond period practice. A wingless dragon in
a standard heraldic posture would not be a weirdness. [Richard
of Wyvernwood, 04/2002,
A-Trimaris]
No evidence was presented, and none was found, for schnecke (or
triply parted schnecke type fields) with a large charge overlying
the center of the field. Because such an overlying charge
obscures the already unusual underlying charge, unless
documentation is presented it will be considered, at best, a
weirdness. [Yang Mun, 04/2002,
R-Trimaris]
... inverting a tergiant charge is acceptable as long as it does
not otherwise violate any basic heraldic principles, including
the requirement for identifiability. Because of the lack of
period evidence for tergiant inverted charges, the posture will
be considered a clear step from period practice (also known
informally as a "weirdness") for any charge that cannot be found
in this posture in period. We explicitly decline to rule at this
time on whether scorpions tergiant inverted should be considered
a "weirdness". [George Anne, 05/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Party of six pieces vert bezanty and paly or and azure]
We note that no evidence has yet been presented for armory using
a party of six field with more than one charge in each section of
the field. However, since the charged portions of the field
merely use multiples of a single type of charge, this is at worst
one step from period style ("a weirdness") and is not in itself a
bar to registration. [Crystine Thickpenny of Giggleswick,
09/2002,
R-Atlantia] [Ed.: Returned for conflict]
[a reremouse inverted] Bats inverted have been explicitly
allowed in the SCA in the past, as long as they are identifiable
(as is the case here):
While the inversion of the bat is unusual, it remains (even at
a distance) identifiable... Because of the bird-like nature of
the bat, we believe that it should be allowed a posture which
is not so very different from "migrant to base", which posture
has not been disallowed under the ban on "inverted creatures"
noted in the September 1993 LoAR. [The badge was registered]
(LoAR September 1994)
There is also a recent precedent concerning tergiant
animals which applies equally well to bats displayed:
A significant number of commenters felt that inverting a
tergiant charge which is commonly found as tergiant (such as a
tergiant scorpion or a frog) does not hamper the
identifiability of the charge so much as to render it
unidentifiable, and they felt that it should be acceptable. The
frog in this submission certainly retains its identifiability
very clearly in the inverted posture. As a result, inverting a
tergiant charge is acceptable as long as it does not otherwise
violate any basic heraldic principles, including the
requirement for identifiability. Because of the lack of period
evidence for tergiant inverted charges, the posture will be
considered a clear step from period practice (also known
informally as a "weirdness") for any charge that cannot be
found in this posture in period (LoAR May 2002).
We will accordingly consider a bat (displayed)
inverted to be a step from period practice ("a weirdness") unless
documentation is provided for bats inverted in period heraldry.
[Zhou Long Xi Xian Sheng, 10/2002,
A-Lochac]
[on a chevron ... the phrase "Non Sibi Sed Todo"] Some
commenters noted that no documentation had been presented for
words on a chevron. Phrases on bordures, including Latin phrases,
are rare but not unknown in Spanish and Italian heraldry. Phrases
in Arabic are not at all uncommon in Islamic heraldry,
particularly on fesses. As a result, putting a Latin phrase on a
chevron seems to be at most one step from period practice, and is
certainly consistent with SCA armorial practices. [Quintin
Wynn, 01/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
Some commenters asked whether this submission might have "too
many weirdnesses" to be acceptable. A "weirdness", according to
the Glossary of Terms, is a "break with the usual period style
provided that it is not overly obtrusive". While the use of a
Celtic cross in heraldry may be an SCA innovation, it is not
considered a weirdness, as similarly constructed crosses are
found in period heraldry. It is a reasonable extension of
practices found in period heraldry rather than a "break with the
usual period style." [Aindrea Mac Parthaláin, 01/2003,
A-Outlands]
Please note that the design of counterchanging a bordure over a
pile is considered "a weirdness" in the SCA - a single step from
period practice (per the LoAR of July 2001). One such step in
armory is acceptable, but more than one such step is considered
too far from period practice and reason for return. [Clef of
Cividale, 03/2003,
R-Calontir]
[a bend engrailed to base Or between two pineapples Or leaved
vert] Pineapples are new world flora and thus considered a
step from period style (a "weirdness"): "New World flora and
fauna... are a discouraged weirdness, but registerable" (LoAR of
August 1999). It appears that having a two-sided ordinary (like a
bend) with a complex line on only the lower side of the bend
should also be considered a "weirdness": "The only period
examples of treating one side of an ordinary which were noted was
that of embattling the upper edge of an ordinary" (LoAR of
November 1990 p. 15). As a result, the armory has two steps from
period style armory ("two weirdnesses") and is stylistically
unacceptable. [Pamela Gattarelli, 04/2003,
R-East]
[two crosses of Jerusalem each with its center cross a cross
crosslet] The charges around the bend are not standard
crosses of Jerusalem. Standard crosses of Jerusalem consist of a
cross potent between four smaller crosses couped. In these
crosses, the center cross is crosslet, not potent. While we are
not aware of any standard variants of the cross of Jerusalem in
period, it is relatively standard SCA practice to vary the
treatment of the end of a simple type of cross (such as a Celtic
cross fleury). A cross of Jerusalem is not a simple type of
cross, but the variant shown here is visually straightforward and
recognizable. Therefore, this variant of a cross of Jerusalem is
one step from period practice (a "weirdness"). Armory using only
one "weirdness" is stylistically acceptable. [Caranwyn
Silveroak, 05/2003,
A-East]
[two carp naiant tergiant] We are not aware of period
heraldry using fish tergiant. However, period heraldry uses fish
in a wide variety of orientations and arrangements. These fish
tergiant maintain their identifiability as fish. The tergiant
posture is thus one step from period practice ("a weirdness"),
but since this submission only contains one "weirdness", it is
stylistically acceptable. [Nonna the Midwife, 05/2003,
A-Middle]
[issuant from base three chevronels braced gules sable and
azure] The group of chevronels in three different tinctures
is considered a step from period practice (also known as a
"weirdness"):
Questions were raised regarding having ... three roundels in
three different tinctures. While we were unable, in a quick
look, to find an example of the same charge in three different
tinctures, the Dictionary of British Armory, 2 shows the arms
of Milo Fitzwalter of Glouster as Gules, two bends the upper Or
and lower argent., making the use of the same charge in three
different tinctures only one weirdness. (LoAR February 1998)
Because this armory is only one step from period
practice, it may be registered. [Timur al-Badawi, 07/2003,
A-Artemisia]
[tulip-poplar leaves] The LoI blazoned these leaves as
poplar leaves. Poplar is an Old World tree whose leaf has
a vague resemblance to a card-pique. These distinctly different
leaves appear to be those of the New World tulip poplar. The
tulip poplar (alias yellow poplar, tulip tree, [canary]
whitewood, et alii - Liriodendron tulipifera) is a tree
widely distributed throughout the eastern United States,
including areas where the United States was first settled by
Western Europeans, as noted in (among other places)
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_2/liriodendron/tulipifera.htm.
Some pictures of tulip poplar leaves may be found on the
following Web page concerning the Commonwealth of Kentucky, where
the tulip poplar is the state tree:
http://officialcitysites.org/statetree.php3?st=KY.
Because of its distribution, this tree was quite likely to be
known to Western Europeans in period, and this tree's distinctive
leaf may thus be registered as a charge in SCA armory. However,
such distinctively New World flora are discouraged in the SCA and
are considered one step from period heraldic practice (a
"weirdness") as noted in this ruling from the August 1999 LoAR,
"New World flora and fauna ... are a discouraged weirdness, but
registerable." [Viviana of Meridies, 11/2003,
A-Meridies]
The armadillo is a New World animal. The Oxford English
Dictionary dates the word "armadillo", referring to this animal,
to 1577 and 1594. Armadillos are also found in several regions
occupied by the Spanish long before the end of period. As
armadillos were known to Western Europeans in period they may be
registered, albeit as a step from period style (a "weirdness").
Per the LoAR of August 1999, "New World flora and fauna... are a
discouraged weirdness, but registerable." Armory with a single
step from period style may be registered, and there are no other
steps from period style in this device. [Drogo Rabenwald,
01/2004,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Per fess argent and vert ermined argent, a sea-serpent
ondoyant and issuant from the line of division azure] A
number of commenters expressed concerns about the posture of the
serpent. They cited a precedent concerning a sea-serpent ondoyant
emergent, an SCA invention which is described in the Pictorial
Dictionary under Sea-Serpent:
[Per fess azure and Or, three flanged maces palewise in fess
argent and a sea-serpent emergent ondoyant to sinister
vert.] While there is perhaps a precedent for the
peculiarly fragmented partial sea-serpent in Caid in the
armoury of the Barony of Calafia, this is an old one. The
serpent emerging from thin air does not seem to be a period
charge and the effect here is to have three charges in fess in
chief with another three non-identical fragments in base [the
three separated pieces of the sea-serpent] (LoAR of June 1990).
We believe that the stylistic problem with
ondoyant emergent serpents is that they incorporate two
steps from period style (also known colloquially as "two
weirdnesses"). The serpent is broken into "non-identical
fragments" (one step from period style) that are disassociated
from each other because they are "emerging from thin air" (the
second step from period style). Armory incorporating two steps
from period style is not registerable.
A serpent ondoyant and issuant from a [line of division],
however, is only one step from period style (colloquially, "one
weirdness"). Period armory is replete with animals issuant from
lines of division or from charges. In some of these cases, there
is even a small degree of fragmentation of the charge: the tail
of a demi-lion issuant from a line of division may sometimes be
separated from the rest of the demi-lion. The fact that a
serpent ondoyant and issuant from [a line of division] is
broken into three or more "non-identical fragments" when it
emerges from the line of division is still one step from period
style. However, these fragments are associated with each other by
the line of division from which they all issue, so this design
does not have the second step from period style, that of
disassociation by "emerging from thin air." Armory with only one
step from period style may be registered. [Isabel
McThomas, 01/2004,
A-West]
[on a bend sinister ... two hearts palewise alternating with
two lozenges palewise] It is not uncommon to find a group of
three charges on a stripe ordinary such as a bend, where the
centermost of the group is of a different type (and sometimes of
a different tincture) than the outer two. This design, using four
charges of two alternating types, appears to be one step from
period practice (also known as "a weirdness") but is not so far
from period practice to require return. [Marie Thérèse
Normand, 02/2004,
A-Atlantia]
[Party of six pieces per fess nebuly azure and Or, three frets
Or and three crabs azure] Party of six pieces was found with
more than one type of charge on the field - albeit infrequently.
Gwynn-Jones' Art of Heraldry (p. 103) illustrates arms
from c. 1558 that can be blazoned as Party of six pieces azure
and Or, three roundels barry wavy two and one argent and vert and
three lion's heads erased one and two gules. Anthony Wagner's
Historic Heraldry of Britain gives the arms of Thomas
Cromwell (d. 1540) as Party of six pieces Or and gules, three
fleurs-de-lys azure and three pelicans Or.
No evidence has been either presented to, or found by, this
office for party of six pieces with a complex per fess line
(although we grant that we had limited research time, after our
last meeting in office). A similar field was registered ... in
October 1996 without comment, Party of six pieces per fess
nebuly gules and ermine, three anvils argent and three falcons
close sable. The practice also seems a reasonable extension
of the not-uncommon period design of quarterly with a complex per
fess line. Party of six pieces with a complex per fess line of
division seems, at worst, a single step from period practice (a
"weirdness"). [Petronella Underhill, 03/2004,
A-Drachenwald]
WINGED
OBJECTS
[Azure, a heart gules winged argent] Many
commenters raised questions about contrast concerning this
device. Some asked if the charge could be considered to be
neutral (an element equally divided of a color and a metal): it
might be so considered because the wings are visually half the
charge. RfS VIII.2 states "Good contrast exists between: ... ii.
An element equally divided of a color and a metal, and any other
element as long as identifiability is maintained." However, the
winged heart does not have sufficient contrast with the field to
maintain identifiability, because the heart is the primary
identifying element of the charge, and the whole heart has poor
contrast with the field. These cases must be determined on a case
by case basis, and the consensus of the College was that the
winged heart was not sufficiently identifiable due to contrast.
[Mariana de Santiago, 03/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
In the SCA, winged objects such as winged swords, and
(presumably) winged skulls, have the wings displayed by default.
[Delphina the Mad, 07/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[a cherub's head] It is clear of conflict with ...
Azure, a lion's head, winged, erased and affronty, argent.
There is one CD between the two types of winged heads ...
[Bella da Firenze, 03/2003,
A-Meridies]
[a bezant conjoined to in pale a sinister wing and a sinister
wing inverted argent all surmounting two lightning bolts crossed
in saltire] This armory consists of a single group of charges
(effectively, a sheaf of charges) consisting of three
separate types of charge: roundel, wings, and lightning bolts.
This is thus overcomplex by RfS VIII.1.a.
The odd arrangement of the wings and the bezant was commented on
by a number of College members. Usually a winged object is winged
with two displayed wings. Here the rotary nature of the wings'
arrangement is unusual, and required a somewhat convoluted blazon
as a result. We advise the submitter to consider designing the
winged roundel in a more conventional fashion on his
resubmission. [Jovinus Meridius, 04/2003,
R-Meridies]
[Two wings conjoined in lure surmounted by a sword Or the
blade enflamed gules] Conflict with ... Gules, a winged
sword Or. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There is no
additional difference for enflaming the blade of the sword. There
is also no difference for whether the wingtips of the displayed
wings are elevated or inverted. We expect that the same policies
that apply to displayed wings on displayed birds should apply to
displayed wings on winged objects:
An examination of the development of the various heraldic
eagles shows that the direction of the wingtips of a displayed
eagle is entirely a matter of artistic license. To avoid
incorrectly limiting the submitter's ability to display the
arms in reasonable period variants, we will no longer specify
"elevated" and "inverted" when blazoning displayed birds. (LoAR
August 2001)
[Angels, Barony of the, 06/2003,
R-Caid]
[a winged owl's head cabossed] Some members of the College
did not find the owl's head as drawn here to be identifiable. We
note that this is a very stylized depiction of an owl's head,
without a clearly drawn beak or eyes.
Those members of the College who were able to identify the owl's
head all perceived this "winged owl's head cabossed" as a
depiction of an owl flying straight out of the shield towards the
viewer. While the SCA does register many winged objects, such as
winged swords, they generally cannot be perceived as anything
other than a winged object. When one adds wings to a bird's head
cabossed, one does not perceive a winged bird's head, but one
perceives an entire bird seen flying towards the viewer, which is
to say, a bird volant affronty. Previous precedent notes
that "The posture volant affronty has been ruled
unsuitable for use in heraldry on at least two occasions ... on
the grounds that it is "inherently unidentifiable"... in those
case[s] the returns involved birds... [This return was of a
demi-pegasus.]" (LoAR February 1998 p. 18). [Mora de
Buchanan, 08/2003,
R-Caid]
WINGS and VOLS
There
would be ... nothing for the difference between a pair of wings
conjoined into a vol, and a pair of wings which are in the same
posture but separated. [Margaret MacDuff, 09/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
[... a dexter pair of wings addorsed and a sinister pair of
wings addorsed argent] Each side of the field here has, not
one wing, but two. It shows two wings elevated and addorsed
couped. This is visually confusing, especially as drawn here, and
blurs the distinction between a single wing and a pair of wings.
We also are not aware of examples, outside of crests with a helm
shown in profile, showing a pair of wings elevated and addorsed
like this. On a crest, the wings are separated by the width of
the helmet, which helps with identifiability. Without
documentation for these visually confusing "double wings" as
period style, this must be returned. [Margaret MacDuff,
09/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
[Two wings conjoined in lure surmounted by a sword Or the
blade enflamed gules] Conflict with ... Gules, a winged
sword Or. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There is no
additional difference for enflaming the blade of the sword. There
is also no difference for whether the wingtips of the displayed
wings are elevated or inverted. We expect that the same policies
that apply to displayed wings on displayed birds should apply to
displayed wings on winged objects:
An examination of the development of the various heraldic
eagles shows that the direction of the wingtips of a displayed
eagle is entirely a matter of artistic license. To avoid
incorrectly limiting the submitter's ability to display the
arms in reasonable period variants, we will no longer specify
"elevated" and "inverted" when blazoning displayed birds. (LoAR
August 2001)
[Angels, Barony of the, 06/2003,
R-Caid]
[Or, a vol within a bordure sable] Conflict under RfS X.5
with William Guiscard, Or, a pair of bat's wings, conjoined
and displayed, sable within a bordure countercompony vert and
argent. As drawn here, neither set of wings is drawn with
pronounced attributes of outline or internal detail, which
removes any possible difference based on the type of wings. This
leaves only the visual difference for the tincture of the
bordure, which is insufficient.
We note that bat- and bird-wings are artistically interchangeable
on monsters like dragons, but it is not clear whether different
types of wings may be granted difference when presented solely as
wings. [Úlfr Hákonarson and Maryam bint Wahib ibn Ahmad,
10/2003,
R-Middle]
[Quarterly gules and Or, in sinister canton an eagle's wing
terminating in a hand grasping a sword sable] RfS XI.3.b on
marshalling states "Such fields [that are commonly used for
marshalling, such as quarterly] may only be used when no single
portion of the field may appear to be an independent piece of
armory... No section of the field may contain ... more than one
charge unless those charges are part of a group over the whole
field." The College was asked to determine whether this eagle's
wing terminating in a hand grasping a sword, a motif found in
German armory, was effectively a single charge (like a Paschal
lamb, which is considered a single charge even though the lamb
maintains a banner over its shoulder), or whether this motif was
to be considered a combination of "more than one charge."
Unfortunately, we did not receive much commentary on this issue.
Based on the commentary we have received, and the research we
were able to do after the meeting, it appears appropriate to rule
that the eagle's wing terminating in a hand is a single charge,
and the sword is a second charge. This submission is in thus in
violation of RfS XI.3.b.
The combination of the eagle's wing terminating in a hand and the
sword is not so common in period that it is clearly considered a
single charge (unlike a Paschal lamb). In addition, the eagle's
wing terminating with a hand has grasped objects other than a
sword in real-world and SCA heraldry. Leonhard's Das Grosse
Buch der Wappenkunst illustrates eagle's wings terminating in
hands grasping stalks of wheat as well as an eagle's wing
terminating in a hand and grasping a sword, both undated and both
on p. 204. The SCA has also registered the eagle's wing
terminating in a hand and grasping a charge other than a sword in
the device of Franz of Ratisbon, Per pale azure and Or, a
sinister eagle's wing terminating in a hand maintaining an axe
counterchanged. Unfortunately we were not able to address
specifically period practices in this discussion, as no period
examples of this sort of armory were adduced in commentary
(either on the appeal or on the original submission), and we were
not able to find any period examples in our limited research time
after the heraldry meeting. [Sebastian of Ventbarré,
01/2004,
R-Lochac]
There is no difference between a pair of wings and a pair of
wings conjoined. [Roland Grey, 03/2004,
R-Drachenwald]
WREATH
[Vert, a
bull's head caboshed Or, for augmentation, in chief a lance
fesswise argent dependent therefrom a pennant bearing Argent, a
pale gules, overall a dragon passant vert, in chief a laurel
wreath proper] The armory on the pennant isn't the Midrealm
arms, as stated on the LoI, because it does not include the
crown. It does include a laurel wreath, which may not be used in
personal armory, even in an augmentation (see Jan w Orzeldom,
Ansteorra returns, April 1992 LoAR). The arms of a branch without
either laurel wreath or crown may be used as an augmentation on
personal arms (see Jonathan DeLaufyson Macebearer, Ansteorra
returns, August 1988 LoAR). [Anna z Pernštejna, 09/2001,
R-Middle]
[Argent, a cat sejant erect guardant azure between two rose
branches in chevron inverted conjoined in base sable] This
submission was listed in the Letter of Intent as a device and
augmentation. However, this is a simple new device registration.
The original blazon referred to a wreath of roses around this
cat, but a wreath of roses is circular (or nearly so.) The
emblazon here shows rose branches, and we have therefore so
blazoned them.
The design of two rose branches in a "V" shape is close to many
SCA depictions of a rose wreath. Thus the only persons who may
use such a design without presumption are those who are entitled
to bear a rose wreath. The submitter is a countess and Lady of
the Rose and is thus entitled to such a wreath. [Judith
Maryse, 10/2001,
A-Trimaris]
... the laurel wreath is not drawn correctly. "A properly drawn
laurel wreath should not have sufficient room between its tips to
place another charge. [Darkstone, College of, 02/00, R-Middle]"
[Uma, Shire of, 10/2001,
R-Drachenwald]
It must also be returned for stylistic reasons. Laurel wreaths
must, by long standing precedent, be drawn in a circular, or
mostly circular, shape. V shaped laurel wreathes are not
acceptable. [Fiodnach Eoghan, Shire of, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[a tower sable ... environed in base with a laurel wreath
vert] The device must be returned for lack of a name to which
to register it. The armory had an additional problem which would
not allow it to be accepted. Laurel wreaths should not be drawn
with another charge between the tips of the wreath, except
possibly when the charge between the tips is very thin. "[A
laurel wreath and in chief a roundel] Second, the laurel wreath
is not closed (or even nearly so), and if it were, there would be
no room for a roundel. A properly drawn laurel wreath should not
have sufficient room between its tips to place another charge"
(LoAR 2/00). [Hawk's Rest, Shire of, 04/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
In addition, please advise the submitters to draw the laurel
wreath with leaves on both the inside and outside of the wreath,
rather than just on the outside of the wreath as drawn in this
emblazon. [Sandmörk, Canton of, 02/2003,
R-East]
[on a chief argent a wreath of hops] The wreath of hops,
due to its small size, is too difficult to distinguish from the
reserved charge of a laurel wreath, and thus may not be
registered. RfS VIII.3 states "Identifiable elements may be
rendered unidentifiable by significant reduction in size." While
this armorial element has not been rendered unidentifiable by the
small size of the charge, it has been rendered significantly less
identifiable: you can tell it is a wreath, but not what type of
wreath. The size of the charge is a direct result of the fact
that it is a tertiary charge on a chief: simply redrawing the
armory will not solve this problem.
We would expect that, when drawn as a more significant element of
the design, there would be a CD between a laurel wreath and a
wreath of hops as drawn in this submission (which consists of hop
leaves and hop cones.) There are a number of precedents which
give type difference between a laurel wreath and a wreath of some
other sort of plant, when the wreath is a more significant
element of the design. In the LoAR of December 1998, an oak
chaplet was ruled to be sufficiently distinct from a laurel
wreath, but in that armory the chaplet was a large peripheral
wreath encircling the primary charge on the shield. In the LoAR
of March 1999, a wreath of barberry was ruled to be sufficiently
distinct from a laurel wreath. In that case, the barberry wreath
was drawn as a tertiary charge on a mountain. The mountain was
almost as large as the bottom half of a per chevron line of
division, and the wreath was thus almost as large as the basemost
of a group of three co-primary charges, arranged two and one, on
a per chevron field. [Charles d'Alsace le Cervoisier,
12/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
APPENDIX A -- Some
birds and the postures in which they are found in period
English heraldry
Zenobia Naphtali, Wreath This originally
appeared as an attachment
to the 11/2003 Cover
Letter.
The following table of bird postures is derived from the BIRD
section of the Dictionary of British Arms (DBA), volume 2.
This section of the DBA lists the vast majority of all English
armory in our period that uses birds as primary charges.
The table is thus prescriptive, not proscriptive. Just because
a bird is not found in a particular posture in this table does
not mean that bird was never found in that posture in period - or
even in England, as the bird may be found in a different posture
when used as a secondary or tertiary charge.�Despite this table's
limitations, we hope that it will serve as a useful compilation
to assist with the bird difference rulings in the cover letter of
the January 2000 LoAR and the cover letter of the November 2003
LoAR. We expect that future research, and past research found in
SCA references such as precedents and the Pictorial Dictionary
of Heraldry, will augment the information in this table. We
encourage the College to undertake further research concerning
period bird types and postures, particularly in the heraldry of
areas other than England.
Note on Displayed:
Other than the roughly 20 pages of displayed eagles, there are
only two examples of displayed birds in the BIRD section of DBA.
One is a cock and the other a dove (albeit not "upon a billet
checky Or and gules"). This research thus supports the assertions
in the Cover Letters to the January 2000 and November 2003 LoARs,
which classify birds displayed (other than eagles) as
"vanishingly rare" and a step from standard period style (a
"weirdness").
Notes on Content:
-
Armory using "unidentified" birds has not been
included.
-
The categories of birds in the table reflect the
categories provided by the DBA.
-
The postures below do not explicitly describe
reguardant birds, or birds facing to sinister.
They do not distinguish between rising wings addorsed,
rising wings displayed, or rising without a
specified wing posture. See the Cover Letter for the November
2003 LoAR for these decisions.
-
Postures have been normalized per SCA blazon. For example,
birds statant or passant are listed as
close and birds passant wings addorsed are
listed as rising. To address some specific unusual
terms, the eagle soaring (per Parker's A Glossary
of Terms Used in Heraldry) has been listed as
rising. The cock crowing has (also per Parker)
has been listed as close, since the fact that the
cock's beak is open is not significant in SCA heraldry. Per
the Terminology section of the DBA, birds blazoned as
combattant are merely respectant: this term has
no other posture implication for birds in the DBA.
-
In some cases, we have not been able to clearly relate the
blazon term used in the DBA to a standard SCA blazon term.�
One swan is blazoned as pluming its feathers: it is
probably preening (with its beak touching its body or wing
feathers) but otherwise we cannot identify its posture.� One
swan is blazoned as threatening attack, which we
suspect (but cannot prove) to be a variant of rousant/rising.
One coat is blazoned as 3 hawks striking 3 birds, but
we do not know if this posture is the same as the SCA
striking posture.
Notes on Format:
-
Notations in [square brackets] are editorial comments.
-
Postures in (parentheses) indicate that the bird is its
default posture, which was not blazoned explicitly in the
DBA. The posture in parentheses is the expected default
posture. For example, none of the owls have explicitly
blazoned postures, so we have listed their posture as "(close
guardant)". When a bird is blazoned in its default posture,
and that expected default posture is also blazoned explicitly
in another blazon in the DBA, we have not included the
expected default posture in parentheses.
Bird |
Postures |
Blackbird, European |
[see Merle] |
Bustard |
Rising |
Cock [including Dunghill Cock, Moorcock] |
Close, Displayed [See Note on Displayed] |
Coot |
(Close) |
Chough |
[see Crow] |
Corbie |
[see Crow] |
Cormorant |
[see Duck] |
Crane |
[see Heron] |
Crow [including Chough, Corbie, Raven] |
(Close), Preying on [child], Rising |
Dove |
(Close), Displayed [See Note on Displayed], Rising,
Volant |
Duck [including Goose, Shoveler, Cormorant,
Spoonbill] |
(Close), Naiant [on water or ford in base] |
Dunghill Cock |
[see Cock] |
Eagle |
Close, Displayed [See Note on Displayed], Preying on
[child, bird], Preying on wings elevated [salmon], Rising,
Volant |
Falcon [including Hawk] |
Close, Preying on [bird], Rising, Striking [bird - See
Notes on Content] |
Finch |
(Close) |
Goose |
[see Duck] |
Gull |
(Close) |
Heron [including Crane, Stork] |
Close, Volant |
Lapwing |
Close |
Magpie |
(Close) |
Martlet [including Swallow] |
(Close), Rising |
Merle [a.k.a. European Blackbird] |
(Close) |
Moorcock |
[see Cock] |
Ostrich |
(Close), Rising |
Owl |
(Close guardant) |
Peacock |
Close, Rising, In his pride |
Pelican |
(Close), [Close and] Vulning herself, In her piety,
Rising and vulning herself |
Pheasant |
(Close), Rising [from ground] |
Popinjay |
(Close), Rising |
Raven |
[see Crow] |
Shoveler |
[see Duck] |
Sparrow |
(Close) |
Spoonbill |
[see Duck] |
Stork |
[see Heron] |
Swallow |
[see Martlet] |
Swan |
Close, Naiant wings displayed [on ford], Pluming its
feathers [see Notes on Content], Rising, Threatening attack
[See Notes on Content], Volant |
INDEX
ADMINISTRATIVE
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Comments and
Commenting
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Conflict
Tables
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Devices for Consorts
and Royal Heirs
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Generic
Identifiers
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Permission to
Conflict
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Registration Limit
AMPHIBIAN
Amphisbaena see MONSTER -- Dragon
and Wyvern
Angel see MONSTER --
Humanoid
ANNULET
Ape see BEAST --
Miscellaneous
Arachnid see ARTHROPOD --
Spider
Arch Top see ARCHITECTURE
ARCHITECTURE
Armadillo see BEAST --
Miscellaneous
Armillary Sphere see TOOL --
Astronomical
Armorials see Period Rolls of Arms
and Armorials (discussion)
ARRANGEMENT
ARRANGEMENT -- Conjoined
ARRANGEMENT -- Forced Move
ARROW and ARROWHEAD
ARTHROPOD -- Bee
ARTHROPOD -- Miscellaneous
ARTHROPOD -- Spider
Astrolabe see TOOL --
Astronomical
Astronomical Sign see SYMBOL
AUGMENTATIONS
AXE
Badger see BEAST -- Badger
BALANCE
Banner see FLAG and BANNER
Bar see FESS and BAR
BASE
Bat see BEAST -- Bat
Baton see BEND and BEND SINISTER
Bean Plant see PLANT
Bear see BEAST -- Bear
BEAST -- Badger
BEAST -- Bat
BEAST -- Bear
BEAST -- Beaver
BEAST -- Boar
BEAST -- Cat, Lion and Tiger
BEAST -- Deer
BEAST -- Dog and Wolf
BEAST -- Elephant
BEAST -- General
BEAST -- Goat
BEAST -- Miscellaneous
BEAST -- Mouse
BEAST -- Rabbit
BEAST -- Weasel
Beaver see BEAST -- BEAVER
Bee see ARTHROPOD -- Bee
BEND and BEND SINISTER
Bendy see FIELD DIVISION -- Bendy and
Bendy Sinister
Bendy Sinister see FIELD DIVISION --
Bendy and Bendy Sinister
BIRD -- Cock and Hen see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE
BIRD -- Corbie see BIRD --
Raven
BIRD -- Cornish Chough
BIRD -- Dove
BIRD -- Duck see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE
BIRD -- Eagle
BIRD -- Falcon and Hawk
BIRD -- Generic
BIRD -- Goose
BIRD -- Loon
BIRD -- Martlet
BIRD -- Miscellaneous
BIRD -- Owl
BIRD -- Peacock
BIRD -- Quail
BIRD -- Raven see also BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds
BIRD -- Sparrow
BIRD -- Swan see also BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE
BIRD -- Vulture
BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE
Bison see BEAST --
Miscellaneous
BLAZON
Boat-Hook see STAFF
Bobbin see TOOL -- Textile
BOOK
BORDURE
Bow see CROSSBOW and BOW
Bowed Psaltery see MUSICAL
INSTRUMENTS
Branch see TREE BRANCH
Brock BEAST -- Badger
Buffalo see BEAST --
Miscellaneous
Bugle Horn see MUSICAL
INSTRUMENTS
Butterfly see ARTHROPOD --
Miscellaneous
Camel see BEAST --
Miscellaneous
CANDELABRA
CANTING
CARD PIQUE
Carrot see PLANT
Castle see CASTLE and TOWER
Cat see BEAST -- Cat, Lion and
Tiger
Celestial Sphere see TOOL --
Astronomical
Chalice see CUP and CHALICE"
Chaplet see WREATH
Chapé see FIELD DIVISION --
Chapé
CHARGE -- Maintained and Sustained
CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
Aeolipile
Anvil
Arm
Baker's Peel
Beacon
Bell
Brazier
Brooch
Brush
Buckle
Candle
Card Pique
Carousel Horse
Chaine Shot
Chamfron
Closing Nail
Cloud
Crampon
Coffin
Deer's Attire
Eye
Eyeglass Frames
Eyeglasses
Escallop
Feather Fan
Flint
Furison
Glazier's Nail
Gusset
Hammer
Hawk's Hood
Hourglass
Irradiated Charges
"Lombardic griffin"
Maiden
Massacre
Mortar and Pestle
Nail
Palette
Paper
Paw Print
Penannular Brooch
Pickaxe
Pillar
Pipkin
Plow
Pot
Ribbon
Saltcellar
Saw
Scrouge
Spear Tip
Stirrup
Tail
Tanner's Bench
Tennis Racket
Thor's Hammer
Tooth
Trebuchet
Triangle
Valknut
Yurt
CHARGE -- Overall
CHARGE -- Peripheral
CHARGE -- Restricted or
Reserved
CHARGE GROUP
Checky see FIELD DIVISION -- Checky
and Party of Six
CHESS PIECE
CHEVRON and CHEVRON INVERTED see CHEVRON and CHEVRON INVERTED
CHIEF
Chimera see MONSTER --
Chimera
Chi-Rho see SYMBOL
Cinquefoil see FOIL
Claw see LEG and JAMBE
Clockface see ROUNDEL
Cock see BIRD -- Cock and Hen
COLLAR
COMET
Compass Rose see COMPASS STAR and
SUN
Compass Star see COMPASS STAR and
SUN
Complex lines of division with low contrast see IDENTIFIABILITY
COMPLEXITY
CONTRAST
COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK
Corbie see BIRD -- Raven
Cornish Chough see BIRD -- Cornish
Chough
CORONET and CROWN
COTISES
COUNTERCHANGING
COUPED and ERASED
COUPED and THROUGHOUT
Crane see BIRD --
Miscellaneous
Crequier see TREE
CRESCENT
Crests see PRETENSE or
PRESUMPTION -- Crests and Supporters
Crochet Hook see TOOL --
Textile
CROSS
CROSSBOW and BOW
Crown see CORONET and CROWN
CUP and CHALICE
DELF
Decescent see CRESCENT
Demi-Sun see COMPASS STAR and
SUN
DICE
DIFFERENCE -- Substantial
DOCUMENTATION
DOCUMENTED EXCEPTION
Dodo see BIRD -- Miscellaneous
Dog see BEAST -- Dog and Wolf
Dolphin see FISH and DOLPHIN
Dove see BIRD -- Dove
Dragon see MONSTER -- Dragon and
Wyvern
Dragonfly see ARTHROPOD --
Miscellaneous
Drop Spindle see SPINDLE
Duck see BIRD -- Duck
Dunghill Cock see BIRD -- Cock and
Hen
Eagle see BIRD -- Eagle
Elephant seeBEAST --
Elephant
Elfbolt see ARROW and ARROWHEAD
EMBLAZON
EMBLAZON -- Coloring Problems
Enfield see MONSTER --
Miscellaneous
ENFILE
Enflamed see
FLAMES and FIRE
Engrailed see LINES of DIVISION --
Jagged
Entwined charges see CHARGE
GROUP
Equatorium see TOOL --
Astronomical
Erased see COUPED and ERASED
Ermine see FUR
ERMINE SPOT see also FUR
ESCARBUNCLE
Estencele see ROUNDEL
ESTOILE
Eye of Horus see SYMBOL
Falcon see BIRD -- Falcon and
Hawk
FEATHER
Ferret see BEAST -- Weasel
FESS and BAR
FIELD DIVISION -- Barry
FIELD DIVISION -- Barry
FIELD DIVISION -- Bendy and Bendy
Sinister
FIELD DIVISION -- Chapé
FIELD DIVISION -- Checky and Party of
Six
FIELD DIVISION -- Cheveronelly
FIELD DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
FIELD DIVISION -- Paly
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Bend and Per Bend
Sinister
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Chevron and Per Chevron
Inverted
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Fess
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Pall and Per Pall
Inverted
FIELD DIVISION -- Quarterly
FIELD DIVISION -- Vêtu
FIELD PRIMARY ARMORY
FIELD TREATMENT -- Ermined see FUR
see also ERMINE SPOT
FIELD TREATMENT -- Honeycombed
FIELD TREATMENT -- Mailly and Other Field
Treatments
FIELD TREATMENT -- Masoned
FIELD TREATMENT -- Miscellaneous see
also FIELD TREATMENT -- Mailly and
Other Field Treatments
Field Treatment -- Semy see SEMY
FIELDLESS
FIMBRIATED and VOIDED CHARGES
Firevall see GRENADE and
FIREBALL
Firebird see MONSTER --
Phoenix
FISH and DOLPHIN
FLAG and BANNER
FLAMES and FIRE
Flaunch see TIERCE and FLAUNCH
FLEUR-DE-LYS
FLOWER -- Lily
FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
FLOWER -- Rose
FLOWER -- Thistle
FLOWER -- Trillium
FOIL
Foot see LEG and JAMBE
Footprint see LEG and JAMBE
Forced Move see ARRANGEMENT -- Forced
Move
Ford see BASE
Fox see BEAST -- Dog and Wolf
Fraise see FOIL
Frog see AMPHIBIAN
Fusil see LOZENGE
Generic Identifiers see ADMINISTRATIVE -- Generic Identifiers
Gerbil see BEAST -- Mouse
Glastonbury thorn blossom see FLOWER
-- Rose
Glove see HAND and GAUNTLET
Goat see BEAST -- Goat
Goose see BIRD -- Goose
Gore see TIERCE and FLAUNCH
Gorging or Gorged see COLLAR
Gorilla see BEAST --
Miscellaneous
GOUTTE
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE
GRENADE and FIREBALL
Griffin see MONSTER --
Griffin
GURGES
Gusset see TIERCE and FLAUNCH
Gyronny see FIELD DIVISION --
Gyronny
Hamster see BEAST -- Mouse
HAND and GAUNTLET
Hanging Balance see BALANCE
Hare see BEAST -- Rabbit
Harp see MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
HAT
Hawk see BIRD -- Falcon and
Hawk
HEAD -- Beast
HEAD -- Human
HEAD -- Monster
HEART
HELM and HELMET
Hen see BIRD -- Cock and Hen
Heron see BIRD --
Miscellaneous
Hieroglyphics see SYMBOL
Hippogriff see MONSTER --
Griffin
Hippopotamus see BEAST --
Miscellaneous
Horn see MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
Horse see BEAST --
Miscellaneous
House see ARCHITECTURE
HUMAN HUMAN
Hunting Horn see MUSICAL
INSTRUMENTS
Increscent see CRESCENT
IDENTIFIABILITY
Invected see LINES of DIVISION --
Jagged
Jambe see LEG and JAMBE
JAPANESE MON and CHARGES
Japanese Stream see JAPANESE MON and
CHARGES
Japanese Well-Frame see JAPANESE MON
and CHARGES
Jester's Bauble see STAFF
Juggler's Club see STAFF
Kendal Flower see FLOWER --
Rose
KNOTS
LABEL
Lace Bobbin see TOOL --
Textile
Ladybug see ARTHROPOD --
Miscellaneous
LEAF
Leech see MOLLUSK -- Snail
LEG and JAMBE
Lemming see BEAST -- Mouse
LIGHTNING BOLT
LIZARD
LINES of DIVISION -- Arrondi see LINES
of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
LINES of DIVISION -- Bretessed see LINES of DIVISION -- Square
LINES of DIVISION -- Dancetty see LINES
of DIVISION -- Jagged
LINES of DIVISION -- Dovetailed see LINES
of DIVISION -- Square
LINES of DIVISION -- Embattled see LINES
of DIVISION -- Square
LINES of DIVISION -- Enarched see LINES
of DIVISION -- Jagged
LINES of DIVISION -- Enhanced see LINES
of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
LINES of DIVISION -- Engrailed see LINES
of DIVISION -- Jagged
LINES of DIVISION -- Fleury see LINES of
DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
LINES of DIVISION -- Fusilly see LINES of
DIVISION -- Jagged
LINES of DIVISION -- Indented see LINES
of DIVISION -- Jagged
LINES of DIVISION -- Invected see LINES
of DIVISION -- Jagged
LINES of DIVISION -- Jagged
LINES of DIVISION -- Long
LINES of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
LINES of DIVISION -- Nebuly see LINES of
DIVISION -- Wavy
LINES of DIVISION -- Raguly see LINES of
DIVISION -- Square
LINES of DIVISION -- Rayonny see LINES
of DIVISION -- Long
LINES of DIVISION -- Square
LINES of DIVISION -- Trefly see LINES of
DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
LINES of DIVISION -- Urdy see LINES of
DIVISION -- Jagged
LINES of DIVISION -- Wavy
Lion see BEAST -- Cat, Lion and
Tiger
Lion-Dragon see MONSTER --
Miscellaneous
Lizard see REPTILE --
Lizard
Location see POSITION
Loom Weight see TOOL --
Textile
Loon see BIRD -- Loon
LOZENGE
Mailly see FIELD TREATMENT -- Mailly
and Other Field Treatments
Maintained see CHARGE -- Maintained and
Sustained
Mammoth see BEAST --
Elephant
Mandrake see MONSTER --
Humanoid
Martlet see BIRD -- Martlet
Marshalled Arm see PRETENSE or
PRESUMPTION
Mascle see LOZENGE
Masoned see FIELD TREATMENT --
Masoned and FIELD TREATMENT --
Mailly and Other Field Treatments
MAUNCH
Menorah see CANDELABRA
Mermaid see MONSTER --
Merfolk
Merman see MONSTER --
Merfolk
Mole see BEAST -- Mouse
MOLLUSK -- Snail
MONSTER -- Chimera
MONSTER -- Dragon and Wyvern
MONSTER -- Griffin
MONSTER -- Humanoid
MONSTER -- Mermaid and Merman see MONSTER -- Humanoid
MONSTER -- Merfolk
MONSTER -- Miscellaneous
MONSTER -- Panther
MONSTER -- Pegasus
MONSTER -- Phoenix
MONSTER -- Pithon
MONSTER -- Sea
MONSTER -- Winged
MOUNT and MOUNTAIN see also BASE
Mouse see BEAST -- Mouse
MULLET
MUNDANE ARMORY
Arab Nations, League of
Bal{sv}i{c'}i, Rulers of Zeta (Montenegro)
Campbell of Argyll (older arms)
Cunningham of Glencairn
Djuradj Brankovi{c'}, Despot of Serbia
Hunter of HUnterson
Lebanon
Mrnjav{cv}evi{c'}i, Kings of Serbia
Palestinian Authority
Puerto Rico
Stefan Vuk{cv}i{c'} Kosa{cv}a, Duke of S. Sava (Hercegovina)
Mushroom see PLANT
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
Musical Note see SYMBOL
Nebuly see LINES of DIVISION --
Wavy
Needle see TOOL -- Textile
NESSELBLATT
Newt see REPTILE --
Lizard
Nightingale see BIRD --
Miscellaneous
Norse Sun Cross see SYMBOL
Norse Serpent see MONSTER --
Miscellaneous
OBTRUSIVE MODERNITY
OFFENSE
ORIENTATION see POSTURE categories
Orle see CHARGE --
Peripheral
Ostrich see BIRD --
Miscellaneous
Overall see CHARGE --
Overall
Owl see BIRD -- Owl
Paly see FIELD DIVISION --
Paly
Panda Bear see BEAST -- Bear
Panther (heraldic) see MONSTER
-- Panther
Panther (natural) see BEAST -- Cat,
Lion, and Tiger
PALL and PALL INVERTED
Papellony see FIELD DIVISION --
Miscellaneous and FIELD
TREATMENT -- Mailly and Other Field Treatments and
FIELD TREATMENT -- Miscellaneous
Party of Six see FIELD DIVISION --
Checky and Party of Six
Paw see LEG and JAMBE
Peacock see BIRD -- Peacock
Pegasus see MONSTER --
Pegasus
Penguin see BIRD --
Miscellaneous
Period Rolls of Arms and Armorials
(discussion)
Permission to Conflict see ADMINISTRATIVE -- Permission to Conflict
and PROTECTED and PROTECTABLE
ITEMS
Pheon see ARROW and ARROWHEAD
Phoenix see MONSTER --
Phoenix
PIERCED
PILE and PILE INVERTED
Pile Inverted see PILE and PILE
INVERTED
Pithon see MONSTER --
Pithon
PLANT
Plum Flower see FLOWER --
Miscellaneous
Point see BASE
POSITION
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Animate Charges
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- General
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Inanimate Charges
PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION
PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION -- Crests and
Supporters
Pretzel see KNOTS
Prickly Pear Flower see FLOWER --
Miscellaneous
PROPER
Quail see BIRD -- Quail
Quarterly see FIELD DIVISION --
Quarterly
Quatrefoil see FOIL
Quill Pen see FEATHER
Rabbit see BEAST -- Rabbit
RAINBOW
Ram see BEAST -- Goat
Rapier see SWORD
Raven see BIRD -- Raven
Rayonny see LINES of DIVISION --
Long
Rebus see CANTING
RECONSTRUCTIBILITY
Registration Limit see ADMINISTRATIVE
-- Registration Limit
REPTILE -- Lizard
REPTILE -- Snake
Reremouse see BEAST -- Bat
RfS X.4.g see ARRANGEMENT -- Forced
Move
RfS X.4.j.ii
Rod of Æsculapius see STAFF
ROGACINA
Rolls of Arms see Period Rolls of
Arms and Armorials (discussion)
Rooster see BIRD -- Cock and
Hen
Rose see FLOWER -- Rose
Rose Branch see TREE BRANCH
ROUNDEL
Rue Flower see FLOWER --
Miscellaneous
Rune see SYMBOL
Russian Firebird see MONSTER --
Phoenix
Rustre see LOZENGE
Sail see SHIP
Salamander see REPTILE --
Lizard
SALTIRE
SCHNECKE
Scroll see BOOK
Sea Monster see MONSTER --
Sea
Sea-Dog see MONSTER -- Sea
Seahorse see MONSTER -- Sea
Sea-Lion see MONSTER -- Sea
Sea-Loat see MONSTER -- Sea
Sea-Serpent see MONSTER --
Sea
Sea-Tyger see MONSTER -- Sea
Sea-Unicorn see MONSTER --
Sea
Sea-Wolf see MONSTER -- Sea
Secretary Bird see BIRD --
Miscellaneous
Seeblatt see LEAF
SEMY
Shakefork see PALL and PALL
INVERTED
Shamrock see FOIL
SHEAF
Sheep see BEAST -- Goat
SHELL
SHIP
Simurgh see BIRD -- Peacock
Slug see MOLLUSK -- Snail
Snail see MOLLUSK -- Snail
Snake see REPTILE -- Snake
Snowflake see ESCARBUNCLE
Spark see ROUNDEL
Sparrow see BIRD -- Sparrow
Sphinx see MONSTER --
Miscellaneous
Spider see ARTHROPOD -- Spider
SPINDLE
Sprig see PLANT
Spur Rowel see MULLET
Squirrel see BEAST --
Miscellaneous
STAFF
Standing Balance see BALANCE
Standing Seraph see MONSTER --
Humanoid
Stork see BIRD --
Miscellaneous
Sun see COMPASS STAR and
SUN
Supporters see PRETENSE or
PRESUMPTION -- Crests and Supporters
Sustained see CHARGE -- Maintained and
Sustained
STYLE
Swan see BIRD -- Swan
SWORD
"Sword and dagger rule" see CHARGE
GROUP
"Sword-and-dagger rule" see CHARGE
GROUP
SYMBOL
Tai-Chi see ROUNDEL
Tankard see CUP and CHALICE
Teasel see FLOWER --
Thistle
Terrestrial Sphere see TOOL --
Astronomical
Thistle see FLOWER --
Thistle
Thoughout see COUPED and
THROUGHOUT
Thylacine see BEAST -- Dog and
Wolf
TIERCE and FLAUNCH
Tiger see BEAST -- Cat, Lion and
Tiger
TINCTURE
Tinctureless see TINCTURE
Tollgate see CASTLE and TOWER
TOOL -- Astronomical
TOOL -- Textile
Tulip see FLOWER -- Tulip
Turnpike see ARCHITECTURE
Turnstyle see ARCHITECTURE
Trademark see COPYRIGHT and
TRADEMARK
TREE
TREE BRANCH
Tressure see CHARGE --
Peripheral
TRIDENT
Trillium see FLOWER --
Trillium
TRIQUETRA
TRISKELE and TRISKELION
Triton Shell see SHELL
TROUSERS of NOBILITY
Turkey Cock see BIRD -- Cock and
Hen
Vine see PLANT
VISUAL COMPARISON
Aaron the Mighty
Aeddan Ivor
Aengus mac Coll
Aideen the Audacious
Ajax Thermopylokles
al-Barran, Barony of
Alberta
Alyanora of Vinca
Alyson of Islay
Andrew Castlebuilder
Ayslynn MacGuraran
Balthazar Thornguard
Banbnat MacDermot
Barbara Fitzhugh de Brandhard
Bari the Unfettered
Bela of Eastmarch
Benson of Stannington
Bjornsborg, Barony of
Brendan mac Artuir ap Alan
Cariadoc of the Bow
Catalina of Tir Ysgithr
Cigfran Myddrael Joserlin the Raven
Conrad Breakring
Corwin Breemore
Daniel of Glenmor
Daniel the Silent
Darkwater, Barony of
Diarmaid de Rossa
Domenica Farnese
Earl of Morris
Elfarch Barbarossa
Enawynne Olwen
Ered Sûl
Etain Winterbourne
Evan Mawr
Ewan of Balquhidder
Faoiltighearna inghean mhic Ghuaire
Flaming Gryphon, Barony of the
Francois le Féroce
Giesele Hildegaard of the Mystic Dragon
Giuliana Margherita Bonaccolsi
Graffico de Drell
Greer Jonsdottir
Grimn the Hele-Bourne
Gwynaeth Math o Ddylluan
Heather Rose of Glen Laurie
Heatherwyne, Shire of
Johanna von Griffenhurst
John FitzGerald de Clare
John of Gravesend
Kathleen Erin-go-Burne-the-Braugh
Katlin von Kappel
Kedivor Tal ap Cadugon
Kenric Manning
Malutka sep Srebnitska
Marynel of Darkhaven
Megwyn of Glendwry
Metylda the Cunning
Michael of York
Morgana Elisabetta Rosatti
Morna ó Monadh
Napoleon I
Neal Gryfalcon
Piedro Vega y Garcia de Barcelona
Ram Nordlilja
Ranulf of the North Country
Richard of Black Iron
Riordan Robert MacGregor
Robert the Pilgrim
Rolf Jarsson
Rosamond Tindomielle
Rosalia O Brogan
Rowena le Sarjent
Rowena of Jorvik
Tess of Ambergeen
Thalassa Ilona of Soilka
Thomas Bordeaux
Thomas Towlewardie
Victoria of the Vales of Barnsdale
Wastekeep, Barony of
William Guiscard
William of Sark
Vêtu see FIELD DIVISION --
Vêtu
Vulture see BIRD -- Vulture
Wall see FESS and BAR
Wasp see ARTHROPOD -- Bee
Wavy see LINES of DIVISION --
Wavy
Weasel see BEAST -- Weasel
Weaver's Slea see TOOL --
Textile
WEIRDNESS
Whelk see SHELL
Whirlpool see GURGES
WINGED OBJECTS
Winged Serpent see MONSTER --
Pithon
WINGS and VOLS
Wolf see BEAST -- Dog and Wolf
Wolf's Teeth see PILE and PILE
INVERTED
Wolverine see BEAST --
Badger
Word see SYMBOL
WREATH
Wren see BIRD -- Miscellaneous
Wyvern see MONSTER -- Dragon and
Wyvern
Yale see MONSTER --
Miscelleanous