Welcome to collection of draft armory precedents for the tenure of Shauna of Carrick Point. Which decisions were considered to be important enough to include has been determined by the editor, after discussion with the Laurel Queen of Arms and Wreath King of Arms. Not all decisions included are first-time precedents; I have included recent decisions restating several prior important precedents.
For each precedent below, I have quoted the relevant paragraphs from the decision. When there has been the need to delete text within a paragraph, I have indicated the deletion with an ellipses [...]. The source of this text is cited at the end of the decision. Citations take the form of the submitter's registered name (or submitted name for returned name submissions), the date of the LoAR, the status of the decisions (A-Accepted, R-Returned), and the kingdom. For complete and official decision discussions, please visit the Letter of Acceptance and Returns (LoAR) or Cover Letter referred to in each citation.
To make finding precedents easier, I am maintaining a similar category structure to the ones that were used during the previous two Laurel tenures. Decisions that fit multiple categories will be found in each category.
The following heralds are referred to by title:
| Black Stag - Zenobia
Naphtali |
Ounce - Teceangl Bach |
| Boar - Richenda du Jardin | Siren - Juliana de Luna |
At the end of each category, I have added a Return to Table of Contents link.
I have broken several categories into subcategories such as the Administrative and Rules for Submission Citations categories. Subcategory headers appear in a smaller font than category headers.
I have added a subcategory under Arrangement for arrangments of three charges.
I have broken the Bird category into subcategories according to general shape, per the Cover Letter of November 2003.
I have eliminated the Line of Division category. Any precedents pertaining to lines of division may be found under the Field Division category.
I am expanding the Rules for Submission Citations subcategories. These subcategories will be identified by rule number and heading text.
Administrative
Precedents
Administrative
see also Protected and Protectable Items
[Or, on a chief triangular gules a hawk close argent] While the miniature emblazon on the Letter of Intent more clearly shows a chief triangular, it is the full-size emblazon that we consider for registration. Also, significant discrepancies between the miniature and full-size emblazons are cause for administrative return, and such is the case here. [Gavin MacRobert, 05/04, R-West] <Ed. note: Returned for this and other reasons>
[Argent, on a bend vert between two sprigs of three holly leaves in pall vert fructed gules, a lion courant tail nowed Or] This was originally registered in April 1996 under the blazon Argent, on a bend vert between two sprigs of three holly leaves in pall fructed proper a lion rampant tail nowed Or. However, lions and other beasts follow a bend as if it were a fess, so this lion is properly blazoned as courant and we are now reblazoning it as such.
This month, Myrddin submitted a change of device; though the new emblazon has a more SCA-standard courant it is still effectively identical to his already-registered device. Thus our proper actions are to reblazon the original device and return the "change" that really isn't a change [...]. [Myrddin ap Maelgwn Coed Du, 05/04, A-Middle]
Administrative -- Devices for Consorts and Royal Heirs
None to date for this tenure
Administrative -- Generic Identifiers
None to date for this tenure
Administrative -- Permission to Conflict
None to date for this tenure
Administrative -- Registration Limit
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
[Per bend sinister azure and argent, on a dunghill cock contourny an annulet, all counterchanged] The question of offensiveness having been raised in commentary, consensus was that the combination of charges was not offensive in this instance. [Conall Cailech, 05/04, A-Ealdomere]
[Per bend azure, and gules semy of oak leaves, in sinister chief a trefoil knot interlaced with an annulet Or] Questions were raised in commentary about the identifiability of the motif a trefoil knot interlaced with an annulet. We note the recent registrations of a triquetra braced with an annulet (Aoife inghean ui hEaluighthe, July 2002) and a Bowen knot crosswise braced with an annulet (Fergus O'Fey, September 2001). This motif is very similar to those motifs, and is therefore also acceptable. The depiction of this motif in this submission was identifiable as such, so we are registering it. [Fiachra mac Domhnaill, 05/04, A-Middle]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
[Per pale dovetailed sable and argent, two roses counterchanged argent and gules, both slipped and leaved vert] This conflicts with Brianna of Wessex: Per bend wavy argent and gules, two roses counterchanged. There is one CD for changing the field. Brianna's field forces her roses into their arrangement; likewise Sadb's roses are forced into their arrangement since one of her roses shares a tincture with half the field. As the move is forced, and slipping and leaving are not worth difference, there is not a CD for either. [Sadb Constance, 04/04, R-Calontir]
[Per saltire argent and azure, six mullets argent] Conflict with Domenica Farnese: Gyronny vert and azure, a mullet of six points within eight mullets of six points in mascle argent; with Robin Arwood: Per fess gules and vert, five mullets in saltire argent; and with Seitse: Vert, mulletty pierced argent. In each case there is a CD for changing the field, but none for number of charges, as six is not different from five or more. Nor is there a CD for arrangement against either Domenica or Robin, as their arrangements are not reproducible on this field, this submission's mullets being forced into the azure quadrants. Comparing against Seitse's mullets the following precedent applies:
[mullets vs mullets pierced] Current research seems to indicate that mullets and mullets pierced (or spur rowels) were used interchangeably in period. As a consequence, no difference is currently granted between them. [May 1996, Ret-Atlantia, Agnes Daunce]
So there is no CD for not piercing the mullets in this case. [Tatiana Laski Krakowska, 04/04, R-Atenveldt]
[Azure, two fire arrows crossed in saltire argent enflamed gules fimbriated Or, surmounted by an urga argent] The arrows, except for the flames, are argent. Thus, as noted by Ounce, this conflicts with Gillian Olafsdottir d'Uriel: Azure, three staves crossed at the nombril point argent. The urga is essentially a staff, so X.2 does not apply, leaving just one CD for changing the type of two of three charges in a sheaf and nothing for the enflaming nor the point where the charges cross. Ounce is also correct in that this conflicts with Loran Redbow: Azure, three fire-arrows bendwise sinister in bend argent, enflamed proper. There's a CD for arrangement but nothing for changing type of one of three charges in the group (as we are not comparing groups of three arranged two and one).
In addition there is a problem with the use of an urga. This would be the initial registration of the charge. Several commentors noted the need for documentation, but Siren said it best:
While I think we might be slightly more lenient on this sort of artifact, no evidence has been presented that (1) this resembles a modern urga or (2) that an urga is a period object. Brickbat tells us that pictures exist; sharing them with the College, or at least with Wreath would allow a judgement of whether this resembles a modern urga. Brickbat asserts that a modern legend mentioning an urga "given the nature of folklore and legend, [she] would hazard to say was being told to period listeners." However, extensive research by social scientists, ethnomusicologists, and students of literature make it clear that many "ancient and traditional" stories have roots that are very shallow. As an example from folk music, Scarborough Fair only dates to the turn of the century, and Tam Lin only to the 18th century.
Thus, the existence of a modern legend is not sufficient for registration. Further documentation for an urga as a period artifact will be needed in order to register an urga as a charge. [Asha Batu, 05/04, R-Atenveldt]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
[Or, in annulo six hurts, the one in chief replaced by a roundel gules charged with a portcullis Or] The change of color, and charging with a tertiary, of a single charge that is a member of a larger group is a motif we have only found in period as an augmentation. This therefore violates RfS XI.4: "Armory that uses charges in such a way as to appear to be arms of pretense or an unearned augmentation of honor is considered presumptuous." (Emphasis added.) As an administrative note, if the submitter has been granted an Augmentation of Arms and wishes to register the augmentation, the augmentation must be submitted as a separate action on top of the armory being augmented.[Eleanor of Orkney, 04/04, R-Lochac] <Ed - Returned for this and other reasons>
None to date for this tenure
Base
see alsoMount and Mountain
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
[Per bend sinister azure and argent, a bear statant contourny and a dolmen counterchanged] This was an appeal of a return made in kingdom by the then Blue Tyger for conflict with Arthur FitzRobert of Wiverneweald: Per bend azure and argent, a bear statant and a mullet of six points counterchanged. The submitter, supported by Eastern Crown and the East Kingdom College, is correct. This is technically clear of Arthur's armory, with one CD for the field (per bend vs. per bend sinister division), one CD for type of half the (only) charge group (mullet vs. dolmen), and a third CD for posture/orientation of half the charge group (bear statant [to dexter] vs. bear statant to sinister). [Arthur Bayn, 05/04, A-East]
None to date for this tenure
[Azure, a cat sejant ermine and on a chief argent a cat s'elongeant sable] The lack of detail on the primary cat reduces its identifiability below the point of comfort. The cat on the chief is in a posture for which registration has not been attempted since the 1970's. This s'elongeant posture certainly blurs the distinction between passant/statant and couchant, two posture categories between which we give a CD. Barring evidence that this posture was used in period armory, s'elongeant is hereby declared unregisterable. [Miriel Gard of Yale, 04/04, R-Caid]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
[Azure, a bend sinister vert fimbriated Or] This conflicts with Richard Andreivitch of Rus, Azure, on a bend sinister Or an estoile sable, and with Denis Flaxenhelm, Azure, on a bend sinister Or, a goblet upright sable. Per the LoAR of June 2002 and Laurel precedent before and after that date, an ordinary voided or fimbriated can also be interpreted as an ordinary charged with another of the same type. Under this interpretation, Thomas's submission must also be treated as Azure, on a bend sinister Or a bendlet sinister vert. Using this blazon, there is only one CD between Thomas's submission and the two registered armories for changes to the tertiary charges. [Thomas van Lubeck, 05/04, R-Meridies]
None to date for this tenure
[Per bend sinister azure and argent, on a dunghill cock contourny an annulet, all counterchanged] The question of offensiveness having been raised in commentary, consensus was that the combination of charges was not offensive in this instance. [Conall Cailech, 05/04, A-Ealdomere]
[Purpure, an eagle Or within a bordure erminois] Originally blazoned as a raven, the bird on this device looks more like an eagle and is in the typical posture for an eagle, as opposed to that of a raven.We have reblazoned it accordingly. [Parmen Volchkov, 04/04, A-Calontir]
None to date for this tenure
Blazon
see also Posture/Orientation
[Per pale azure and purpure, a triskelion with a roundel at each point, a chief Or] The picture is not blazonable as drawn; either the roundels should be firmly attached to the endpoints of the triskelion, or they should be in some other blazonable position per RfS VII.7.b ("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"). [Juliana Macnayre, 04/04, R-Calontir]
[Gules, a ram's head erased within nine lozenges in annulo argent] No adequate blazon could be found for the position of the lozenges, violating RfS VII.7.b: "Elements must be reconstructible in a recognizable form from a competent blazon.... elements that cannot be described in such a way that the depiction of the armory will remain consistent may not be used." The submitted blazon would result in all the lozenges being palewise, which does not match the emblazon. [Temur Khana, 04/04, R-Atenveldt]
None to date for this tenure
[Argent, two goblets in fess vert within a bordure vert semy-de-lys argent] As drawn, the charges on the bordure cannot be identified at any reasonable distance; guesses included ermine spots and quatrefoils as well as fleurs-de-lys. This must be returned for a redraw to make the fleurs-de-lys more identifiable. Making them larger is the primary need. To that end, increasing the size of the bordure a little could help. Drawing fewer fleurs-de-lys would definitely help; the typical number for semy on a bordure ranges from 8 to 16, though larger numbers have been deemed acceptable in the past as long as identifiability was maintained. [Madelina de Lindesay, 04/04, R-Ansteorra]
[Paly vert and argent, on a bend sinister purpure a compass star palewise argent] We have reblazoned the tertiary charge's position to match the emblazon. This is clear of Seonaid Fitzalan: Vair en point, on a bend sinister purpure three caltrops argent. There is one CD for the change of field. The other CD must come from differences to the tertiary charge(s). While there is not substantial difference between a caltrop and a compass star, they are sufficiently distinct in appearance to allow for a significant difference between them. That, plus the change in number from one to three, is enough for a CD by RfS X.4.j.i. [Eleanor of Orkney, 04/04, A-Lochac]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
This is clear of Eva van Oudeachterkol's badge for Embla Willsdottir: Vert, an elm leaf in bend sinister environed of a cartouche voided argent. There is one CD for type between this submission's mirror and Eva/Embla's cartouche voided. There is at least one more CD for the leaves. If we consider Eva/Embla's badge as Vert, on a cartouche vert fimbriated a leaf bendwise sinister argent with the leaf as a tertiary charge, there is a CD for changing the type and orientation. If we considered this submission as Vert, an oak leaf within a mirror voided argent then there would be two separate CDs for type and orientation.[Ailís inghean Mhuirghein, 05/04, East]
Castle
and
Tower
see also
Chess
Piece
[Per pale sable and argent, a tower broken counterchanged and on a base Or two laurel sprigs bases crossed in saltire vert] Barring evidence of period armorial towers or castles being "broken" in such a manner as this, this "broken tower" motif is not registerable. [Saint Basil the Great, College of, 04/04, R-Lochac] <Ed - Returned for this and other reasons>
Charge -- Maintained and Sustained
[(Fieldless) A lion's head cabossed Or sustaining in its mouth a holly branch fructed proper] What the lion has in its mouth is truly a holly branch and not just a sprig as blazoned on the LoI. (Irreverent comment from the peanut gallery: "Ouch?") The holly branch is just big enough to be regarded as co-primary with the lion's head, which brings this submission clear of the various possible conflicts featuring cat's faces as the sole primary charge; in each case there is one CD for number of primary charges and another for fieldlessness.
This is also clear of Tobias of Emerickeskepe: (Fieldless) A lion's head caboshed Or, sustaining in its mouth an oak wreath fructed proper. On that badge, the wreath is a full-circle wreath, easily worth a CD for type against a branch to go with the CD for fieldlessness. [Myrddin ap Maelgwn Coed Du, 05/04, A-Middle]
[Argent, a griffin segreant gules winged sable haloed Or maintaining a rapier all within a bordure sable] Conflict with Pomerania: Argent, a griffin segreant gules crowned Or. There is one CD for adding the bordure. The maintained rapier counts for nothing, nor do the halo or crown. As drawn and colored in this specific instance, the wings constitute considerably less than half the charge, so there is no difference for changing their tincture. [Wilhelm Smydele von Soelinge, 04/04, R-Aethelmearc]
[Ermine, on an egg gules a fleur-de-lys Or] The egg is a period charge: Woodward cites three examples, one of which (Jaworsky) is found in Siebmacher. [Magdalena Flores, 05/04, A-Outlands]
[(Fieldless) A rat sejant erect, paws resting atop a roundel sable] This violates RfS VII.7.b, Reconstruction Requirement. The relative sizes or the roundel and rat generated much discussion as to whether the roundel was sustained or maintained. The size is such that we cannot come up with a blazon that adequately describes this "so that a competent heraldic artist can reproduce the armory solely from the blazon." The roundel should be made either larger (so as to be co-primary) or smaller (to be maintained). In any case it will need to be checked for conflict again, and it would still be necessary to come up with a blazon that would guarantee reproducibility. [Amalric d'Acre, 05/04, R-Atenveldt]
[(Fieldless) A Maltese cross gules within and conjoined to an annulet sable charged with the words "Antiquity Camaradery Generosity" argent] Words that are used in armory must be period. As the earliest date that could be found for "Camaradery" in any spelling is late 17th century, this word is not allowable on armory barring evidence of its use in period. [Leifr Hrólfsson and Lucia de la Valette, 04/04, A-Drachenwald]
[Per fess argent and azure, a saltire engrailed counterchanged overall a sword inverted and in chief a rose gules] This violates RfS XI.2, Charge and Name Combinations, in accordance with the following precedent which we reaffirm at this time: "As one may not combine the White Rose of York and the name of York, it is forbidden to combine the Red Rose of Lancaster with the use of the name Lancaster." (29 Mar 1987, R-Outlands, Rebecca of Lancaster p. 21)
The overall sword lies overwhelmingly on the azure portions of the saltire and field, including the quillons and much of the hilt, greatly reducing its identifiability to the point where it violates 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 being obscured by other elements of the design." In addition, the saltire is not centered on the shield, being counterchanged across an abased per fess line, causing a jarring feeling of imbalance; raising the line of division and recentering the saltire would cause the sword to be only "half-overall," which is also grounds for return.
Removing the rose, raising the line of division, recentering the saltire, and elongating the sword so that it remain overall would fix the aforementioned style and presumption problems, though it would still need to be checked for conflict.[Michael of Lancaster, 04/04, R-An Tir]
[(Fieldless) A cross flory azure surmounted by a rose argent barbed vert] The rose is barely overall, which violates the precedents on overall charges in fieldless badges: "In cases where identifiability is maintained --- where one of the charges is a long, slender object, and the area of intersection small --- overall charges will still be permitted in fieldless badges." (15 January 1993 Cover Letter (November, 1992 LoAR), pg. 3) [Philip Williams of Aston, 03/04, A-Caid]
Charge --
Peripheral
see also individual peripheral
ordinaries: Base,
Bordure,
Chief,
and Tierce and Flaunch.
see also Mount and Mountain
The motif of an orle indented on the inner edge is found in Italian armory, though some depictions of it might tempt us to blazon them as an orle of triangles conjoined, points inward...This is clear of Farquhar Finley Farquharson: Gules, a lion dormant within an orle of hearts Or. A visual check of Farquhar's armory shows the hearts to be palewise and clearly separated; thus against the various depictions of an orle indented on the inner edge there are separate CDs for number and type of charge(s). [Bella Lucia da Verona, 04/04, A-Lochac]
[Per saltire vert and sable, a Bowen knot crosswise within an orle Or] Conflict with Francesca Lucia Sammicheli: Purpure, a Bowen cross within a tressure Or. There is one CD for the field, but no CD for type between a Bowen knot crosswise and a Bowen cross. Likewise a single tressure is functionally identical to an orle, so there is no difference between them. [Gwynaeth Angharad of Glamorgan, 04/04, R-Ansteorra]
[Per fess azure and gules, four wolves' teeth issuant from sinister all within a bordure Or] Nobody present at the Wreath meeting was able to identify this as a combination of wolves' teeth and a bordure. Most thought it was some odd central charge (perhaps a modernish flame sideways?); others noted remarkable similarity to a modern corporate logo. Most of the commentary on this submission concerned identifiability problems as well. Using a combination of one peripheral charge issuant from another peripheral charge, especially of the same tincture, is something that will require extreme care to maintain identifiability. [Sundragon, Barony of, 04/04, R-Atenveldt]
Charge -- Restricted
or Reserved
None to date for this tenure
[(Fieldless) A lion gules marked on the hip with a lit grenade and sustaining a bec de corbin Or] The tertiary charge on the lion is not identifiable at any reasonable distance. Even as a tertiary charge, the grenade should be drawn large enough to be recognizable. Complex primary charges such as lions can be charged, but the space available for the tertiary charge will necessarily be small, so special care must be taken with the depiction. [Geoffrey de Boketon, 05/04, R-Meridies]
[Sable, on a compass star argent a Maltese cross azure and in base two swords inverted crossed at the tips argent] The device conflicts with Conner McAuliffe FitzJames, Sable, within a sun throughout argent, eclipsed azure, a goshawk displayed argent, which could also be blazoned as Sable, on a sun throughout argent, a roundel azure charged with a goshawk displayed argent. This emphasizes the quaternary nature of Conner's goshawk, and we ignore quaternary charges completely when checking for conflict. We give no CD between a compass star and a sun, nor for throughout vs. not-throughout for non-ordinaries. Since compass stars are not eligible for X.4.j.ii, there is no CD for type only between a roundel and a Maltese cross. Thus there is only one CD between this armory and Conner's for adding the secondary swords. [John the Wanderer, 05/04, R-Caid]
[Azure, a bend sinister vert fimbriated Or] This conflicts with Richard Andreivitch of Rus, Azure, on a bend sinister Or an estoile sable, and with Denis Flaxenhelm, Azure, on a bend sinister Or, a goblet upright sable. Per the LoAR of June 2002 and Laurel precedent before and after that date, an ordinary voided or fimbriated can also be interpreted as an ordinary charged with another of the same type. Under this interpretation, Thomas's submission must also be treated as Azure, on a bend sinister Or a bendlet sinister vert. Using this blazon, there is only one CD between Thomas's submission and the two registered armories for changes to the tertiary charges. [Thomas van Lubeck, 05/04, R-Meridies]
[Or, in annulo six hurts, the one in chief replaced by a roundel gules charged with a portcullis Or] The change of color, and charging with a tertiary, of a single charge that is a member of a larger group is a motif we have only found in period as an augmentation. This therefore violates RfS XI.4: "Armory that uses charges in such a way as to appear to be arms of pretense or an unearned augmentation of honor is considered presumptuous." (Emphasis added.) As an administrative note, if the submitter has been granted an Augmentation of Arms and wishes to register the augmentation, the augmentation must be submitted as a separate action on top of the armory being augmented.[Eleanor of Orkney, 04/04, R-Lochac] <Ed - Returned for this and other reasons>
[Argent, two goblets in fess vert within a bordure vert semy-de-lys argent] As drawn, the charges on the bordure cannot be identified at any reasonable distance; guesses included ermine spots and quatrefoils as well as fleurs-de-lys. This must be returned for a redraw to make the fleurs-de-lys more identifiable. Making them larger is the primary need. To that end, increasing the size of the bordure a little could help. Drawing fewer fleurs-de-lys would definitely help; the typical number for semy on a bordure ranges from 8 to 16, though larger numbers have been deemed acceptable in the past as long as identifiability was maintained. [Madelina de Lindesay, 04/04, R-Ansteorra]
[Per bend sinister azure and argent, a bear statant contourny and a dolmen counterchanged] This was an appeal of a return made in kingdom by the then Blue Tyger for conflict with Arthur FitzRobert of Wiverneweald: Per bend azure and argent, a bear statant and a mullet of six points counterchanged. The submitter, supported by Eastern Crown and the East Kingdom College, is correct. This is technically clear of Arthur's armory, with one CD for the field (per bend vs. per bend sinister division), one CD for type of half the (only) charge group (mullet vs. dolmen), and a third CD for posture/orientation of half the charge group (bear statant [to dexter] vs. bear statant to sinister). [Arthur Bayn, 05/04, A-East]
[Azure, two fire arrows crossed in saltire argent enflamed gules fimbriated Or, surmounted by an urga argent] The arrows, except for the flames, are argent. Thus, as noted by Ounce, this conflicts with Gillian Olafsdottir d'Uriel: Azure, three staves crossed at the nombril point argent. The urga is essentially a staff, so X.2 does not apply, leaving just one CD for changing the type of two of three charges in a sheaf and nothing for the enflaming nor the point where the charges cross. Ounce is also correct in that this conflicts with Loran Redbow: Azure, three fire-arrows bendwise sinister in bend argent, enflamed proper. There's a CD for arrangement but nothing for changing type of one of three charges in the group (as we are not comparing groups of three arranged two and one).
In addition there is a problem with the use of an urga. This would be the initial registration of the charge. Several commentors noted the need for documentation, but Siren said it best:
While I think we might be slightly more lenient on this sort of artifact, no evidence has been presented that (1) this resembles a modern urga or (2) that an urga is a period object. Brickbat tells us that pictures exist; sharing them with the College, or at least with Wreath would allow a judgement of whether this resembles a modern urga. Brickbat asserts that a modern legend mentioning an urga "given the nature of folklore and legend, [she] would hazard to say was being told to period listeners." However, extensive research by social scientists, ethnomusicologists, and students of literature make it clear that many "ancient and traditional" stories have roots that are very shallow. As an example from folk music, Scarborough Fair only dates to the turn of the century, and Tam Lin only to the 18th century.
Thus, the existence of a modern legend is not sufficient for registration. Further documentation for an urga as a period artifact will be needed in order to register an urga as a charge. [Asha Batu, 05/04, R-Atenveldt]
[(Fieldless) A lion's head cabossed Or sustaining in its mouth a holly branch fructed proper] What the lion has in its mouth is truly a holly branch and not just a sprig as blazoned on the LoI. (Irreverent comment from the peanut gallery: "Ouch?") The holly branch is just big enough to be regarded as co-primary with the lion's head, which brings this submission clear of the various possible conflicts featuring cat's faces as the sole primary charge; in each case there is one CD for number of primary charges and another for fieldlessness.
This is also clear of Tobias of Emerickeskepe: (Fieldless) A lion's head caboshed Or, sustaining in its mouth an oak wreath fructed proper. On that badge, the wreath is a full-circle wreath, easily worth a CD for type against a branch to go with the CD for fieldlessness. [Myrddin ap Maelgwn Coed Du, 05/04, A-Middle]
[Per bend sable and azure, two bones crossed in saltire surmounted by a skull argent and a badger rampant maintaining a mullet Or] This submission violates two different aspects of RfS VIII.1.a, Tincture and Charge Limit. Each violation is sufficient by itself for return. [...]
"[T]hree or more types of charges should not be used in the same group." (This is commonly known as the 'slot-machine' clause.)
The primary charge group here has three types of charge: badger, bones, and skull. This is in accordance with the following precedent:
[Returning Vert, two arrows inverted in saltire Or surmounted by a tower argent] Conflict with a badge of Border Vale Keep (registered in April 1985), 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. [June 2003, Ret-Middle, Nikolai of Trakai]
As the charges in each armory cited in the precedent are considered to be in the same group, so must the skull and bones here. Therefore this clause of RfS VIII.1.a is indeed applicable. [Avilina Andreu, 04/04, R-Atenveldt] <Ed: Returned for this and other reasons>
[Or, in annulo six hurts, the one in chief replaced by a roundel gules charged with a portcullis Or] The roundel in chief is also twice the diameter of the others. Consider the following precedents:
[Returning ...a Maltese cross between four others...] This is being returned for using two difference [sic] sizes of the same charge on the field. [Jun 1998, Ret-Middle, Savaric de Pardieu]
[returning Argent, on a mullet of seven points vert a griffin couchant, wings close, Or, in chief two mullets of seven points vert...] The use of two different sizes of the same charge, especially when they then cause some confusion as to whether there is one group of primary charges or a primary charge and group of secondary charges, as here, has been cause for return in the past. (See, e.g., LoAR of March 1992, p. 15). Drawing all three mullets the same size, or choosing a different set of charges to go in chief, would cure this problem. [Jul 1995, Ret-Caid, Alexandria Elizabeth Vallandigham of Cambria]
While some variation in size among charges in a group is not uncommon, this large a discrepancy in sizes makes this emblazon returnable in accordance with the precedents cited above. [Eleanor of Orkney, 04/04, R-Lochac] <Ed - Returned for this and other reasons>
[Azure, in fess a key palewise wards to chief between two fleurs-de-lys Or] In addition, this conflicts with France Modern (important non-SCA arms): Azure, three fleurs-de-lis Or. As drawn, the charges are closer to being co-primary than they are a primary between two secondaries, so while there is a CD for arrangement of the charges, there is no CD for type of one out of three when that 'one' is not the bottommost of two-and-one. If this same armory is resubmitted on properly sized forms, the submitter should draw the key longer, which would both fill the space better and make it obviously the sole primary charge (leaving the fleurs-de-lys as secondaries), clearing the conflict with France. [Ysabelle d'Angiers, 03/04, R-West]
Chess
Piece
see also
Castle
and Tower
[Per chevron argent and azure, two chess rooks and a winged wolf statant counterchanged] A possible conflict was called with Jessica Rebecca Silvana: Per chevron argent and azure, two castles and a dove migrant to chief counterchanged. The only difference is for change of type of the charges, but X.2 must apply for these to be clear. It is obvious that there is substantial enough difference between a dove and a winged wolf for X.2 to apply as far as the charge in base is concerned. As for the charges in chief, Black Stag has supplied many pictures of chess-rooks from period armorials. As the visual distinction between them and period renditions of castles is quite striking, and as the two charges were considered different charges in period, the difference between chess-rooks and castles is sufficiently substantial for X.2 to apply here as well. Since there are only two types of charge present in each case, all of which are directly on the field, and the type of all the charges has been substantially changed, X.2 applies here, which clears the conflict. [William MacAndrew of Balnagowan, 05/04, A-An Tir]
[Azure, a chevron gules fimbriated Or between three roses argent] This conflicts with Matthais Rosenstern: Azure, on a chevron Or between three roses argent, six mullets azure. Per the LoAR of June 2002 and Laurel precedent before and after that date, an ordinary voided or fimbriated can also be interpreted as an ordinary charged with another of the same type. As noted by Boar, under this interpretation Francesca's submission can be reblazoned as Azure, on a chevron Or between three roses argent a chevron gules, yielding only 1 CD for the changes to the tertiary charges. [Francesca Cesari, 05/04, R-Middle]
[Gules, on a chevron sable fimbriated three wolf's heads couped argent and in chief a rose argent barbed and seeded vert] The chevron need not be blazoned as abased since the charge in chief forces the chevron down. However, this is as low as a chevron can get without being returned. [Ian Gordon, 05/04, A-Meridies]
[Sable, a chevron vair] Please instruct the submitter to draw the chevron higher up on the shield. As drawn, this is as low on the field as a chevron can go without being returned. [Robert of Calais, 05/04, A-Atlantia]
[Purpure, two chevronels inverted and in chief a cloud argent, an orle counterchanged] The counterchanging of the chevronels across the orle is registerable:
The only time we permit a charge to be counterchanged over another is when they are both ordinaries. [Dec 1998, Ret-Artemisia, Crystal Crags, Shire of]
[Registering Or, a pall inverted azure surmounted by an orle counterchanged] We allow an ordinary surmounted by another to be counterchanged. While this is not good style, it is at worst one weirdness. [Aug 1996, Acc-Middle, Pietro Niccolo da San Tebaldo]
[Umm al-Mundhir 'Inan bint Sufian, 05/04, A-Meridies]
[Per pall inverted purpure, counter-ermine and argent, a chevron per chevron argent and gules, in base a triquetra braced with an annulet sable] This violates RfS VIII.3, which states: "Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability." The specific combination and arrangement of the tinctures on this submission make it impossible to tell whether the chevron is of a divided tincture, or simply gules (and on a somewhat unbalanced field): it made almost everyone at the meeting do a mental double-take. The chevron's identifiability is thus fatally compromised. [Fionnghuala de Buchanan, 03/04, R-Caid]
Chief
[Per
chevron gules and sable, three
unicorn heads and on a chief embattled Or three thistles proper]
The question was raised in commentary whether the line of division was
too low on the field. Without the chief, it would be. However, in both
SCA and actual period heraldry, when a chief is present, the area of
the field which is divided is the area beneath the chief (to base of
the bottom of the chief). It does not include the portion of the field
which is overlain by the chief. Thus, for example, a per
bend
line would start at the point where the chief meets the edge of the
shield, and bisect the field as if the field ended at the bottom edge
of the chief. This submission's per
chevron line of division
comes close to bisecting the field as if the field ended at the bottom
edge of the chief as well; sufficiently close that we can register it,
though the submitter should still be advised to draw the line of
division slightly higher. [Gareth
Cambell,
05/04,
A-Ealdomere]
[Or, on a chief triangular gules a hawk close argent] In addition, the "chief triangular" extends down to the center point of the shield; it is not a chief triangular but the top compartment of a per saltire field division. This has long been cause for return:
(Returning Argent, on a chauseé azure an aeolius argent, a laurel wreath vert where the field division started in the top corners and extended to the center point of the shield) The field is not really chaussé; it is not per chevron inverted, it is not a pile, it is not a chief triangular; being somewhere between all of these, we really don't know what it is. Chaussé issues from the corners of the chief and would touch the base point of the shield; per chevron inverted would issue from the sides of the field (rather than the chief corners); a pile would issue from farther in on the chief (rather [than] from the corners) and would almost touch the base point of the shield and would not have room for a charge beneath it; and a chief triangular would not descend the field nearly so far as the one here does. Please have them choose one and reemblazon it properly. (The device was returned for this problem alone) [Oct 1990, Ret-Trimaris, Storm, Shire of the]
This has been reaffirmed by every Laurel since then, and we reaffirm it now.
While the miniature emblazon on the Letter of Intent more clearly shows a chief triangular, it is the full-size emblazon that we consider for registration. Also, significant discrepancies between the miniature and full-size emblazons are cause for administrative return, and such is the case here. [Gavin MacRobert, 05/04, R-West]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
Compass
Star and Sun
see also Mullet
[Paly vert and argent, on a bend sinister purpure a compass star palewise argent] We have reblazoned the tertiary charge's position to match the emblazon. This is clear of Seonaid Fitzalan: Vair en point, on a bend sinister purpure three caltrops argent. There is one CD for the change of field. The other CD must come from differences to the tertiary charge(s). While there is not substantial difference between a caltrop and a compass star, they are sufficiently distinct in appearance to allow for a significant difference between them. That, plus the change in number from one to three, is enough for a CD by RfS X.4.j.i. [Eleanor of Orkney, 04/04, A-Lochac]
[(Fieldless) A compass star elongated to base quarterly azure and argent] This conflicts with Eric Blaxton: Quarterly argent, scaly sable, and azure, a mullet of four points counterchanged azure and argent. There is one CD for the field, but none for type between a mullet of four points and a compass star:
[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. [May 2003, Ret-Atenveldt, Catherine Diana de Chambéry]
[(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). [May 2000, Ret-Atlantia, Chirhart Blackstar]
[a compass star vs a mullet of four points] The overwhelming visual similarities between a mullet of four points and a mullet of four greater and four lesser points/compass star, both of which are non-period charges, mandates against granting a ... CD for this relatively minor difference. [Jun 1995, Ret-Atenveldt, Raffaelle de Mallorca]
The tincture of Eric's mullet is quarterly azure and argent, which matches the tincture of this submission's compass star. Therefore there is no CD for tincture, leaving just the CD for the field. [Oertha, Principality of, 05/04, A-Trimaris]
[(Fieldless) On a sun Or a robin proper] This conflicts with Kriemhild of Stonecroft (badge for the Compagnie du Dindon d'Or): Vert, a mullet of nine points throughout Or, thereon a turkeycock's head [Gallopavo meleagris] erased proper. There is one CD for the (lack of) field. There is no CD for type between a mullet of nine points and a sun. As suns are not eligible for X.4.j.ii, type alone (between the robin and the turkey's head) is insufficient for a CD, and the tincture of both charges is in fact primarily brown:
[Quarterly gules and sable, on a sun Or a wheel proper] Conflict with the badge for the Compagnie du Dindon d'Or (Kriemhild of Stonecroft), Vert, a mullet of nine points throughout Or, thereon a turkeycock's head [Gallopavo meleagris] erased proper. There is a CD for the field, but nothing for the difference between a mullet of nine points and a sun, and nothing for changing the type only the tertiary charges. An examination of Kriemhild's emblazon shows that the head is primarily brown. [Ive Rathbourn, Aug 2000, R-Ansteorra]
[Rebecca Mary Robynson, 03/04, R-Caid]
Complexity
see also Style
[Per bend sable and azure, two bones crossed in saltire surmounted by a skull argent and a badger rampant maintaining a mullet Or] This submission violates two different aspects of RfS VIII.1.a, Tincture and Charge Limit. Each violation is sufficient by itself for return.
"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."
This submission has four charge types and four tinctures, arranged such that two of each are entirely on one side of a per bend division. There is no central focus at all, and the visual impact of every element is greatly reduced; that of the mullet is completely destroyed. While this design has a complexity count of only eight, in combination with its complete lack of unity it is simply too complex.
"[T]hree or more types of charges should not be used in the same group." (This is commonly known as the 'slot-machine' clause.)
The primary charge group here has three types of charge: badger, bones, and skull. This is in accordance with the following precedent:
[Returning Vert, two arrows inverted in saltire Or surmounted by a tower argent] Conflict with a badge of Border Vale Keep (registered in April 1985), 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. [June 2003, Ret-Middle, Nikolai of Trakai]
As the charges in each armory cited in the precedent are considered to be in the same group, so must the skull and bones here. Therefore this clause of RfS VIII.1.a is indeed applicable. [Avilina Andreu, 04/04, R-Atenveldt]
[Per fess with a right step Or and argent] This is clear of Jakob Stiufsun: Per fess with a left step sable and pily bendwise argent and azure. A visual check confirms that Jakob's device has the step going the opposite way from this submission. There is a CD for changing the tincture of at least half the field, and a separate CD for the aggregate changes to the line of division. (There might not be a CD between a simple left step and a simple right step, but the left-vs.-right combined with the pily division in base is sufficient for a CD.) [Cormac Mór, 05/04, A-Caid]
[Sable, a chalice Or, the stem environed of a padlock, a bordure embattled argent] This is being returned for a redraw. The padlock is not identifiable at any reasonable distance; the overlap between it and the bottom of the chalice, with poor contrast between the two, causes important details to be obscured. The embattlements of the bordure are not deep enough and too widely spaced. [Johann von Magdeburg, 04/04, R-Calontir]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
Couped
and Erased
see also Head -- Beast
[Gules, a boar's head erased close and on a chief Or three mullets gules] Parker blazons similarly depicted heads as simply erased. In accordance with SCA tradition for heads couped and with prior registrations we are using the (apparently SCA-specific) term erased close to describe this depiction. [Symon Fitz Gilbert, 05/04, A-East]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
[Argent, a cross indented azure between four fleurs-de-lys purpure] A cross indented does indeed have the outward-pointing points opposed to each other (dancetty would have them in parallel). The indents on this cross, however, are too numerous and too small (each one taking up about 1/12 of the shield side to side or 1/14 of the shield top to bottom), and the center intersection appears to make it nowed of a lozenge (as it were). Ideally a cross indented would look like a cross of lozenges, with a center lozenge, two or three lozenges on the top arm and each side arm, and three to five on the bottom arm, except that instead of just touching at the corners the lozenges overlap a bit. (If the lozenges only touch at the corners, then it's a cross of lozenges/fusils or a cross fusilly.) [Isabetta Delecroix, 03/04, R-Meridies]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
[(Fieldless) On an elfbolt Or a sea-wolf purpure] The tincture of the sea-wolf was not identifiable as purpure: the first three guesses at the meeting were red, murrey and brown. This appears to be the result of a color-printer form (whose emblazon space, by the way, is only barely large enough). [Eckhart von Eschenbach, 05/04, R-Meridies]
[Per pale "brown" and Or, a bird displayed and in base two crescents and a sun counterchanged] Blazoned on the LoI as "sable", the dark colored parts of the field and charges are very much Crayola brown. This appears to be the result of a color printout, color photocopy, or combination of both. [Ruthardus Hruga, 05/04, R-Middle]
[Per fess azure and sable, a harp "Or" strung argent and a lion dormant "Or"] The color of the harp and lion on the forms we received is decidedly orange, not Or. Orange is not a heraldic tincture, and its use in this context is grounds for return. [Eleanor Cleavely, 04/04, R-Atenveldt]
[Per pale sable and "gules", a pale of four lozenges Or, each charged with a rose proper, between in chief an increscent and a decrescent Or] The color of the sinister half of the field on the forms we received is decidedly orange, not gules. Orange is not a heraldic tincture, and its use in this context is grounds for return. [Syele von der Rosen, 04/04, R-Atenveldt]
[Sable, a chalice Or, the stem environed of a padlock, a bordure embattled argent] This is being returned for a redraw. The padlock is not identifiable at any reasonable distance; the overlap between it and the bottom of the chalice, with poor contrast between the two, causes important details to be obscured. The embattlements of the bordure are not deep enough and too widely spaced. [Johann von Magdeburg, 04/04, R-Calontir]
Ermine
Spot
see also Fur
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
[Per bend sinister vert and argent, a swan naiant counterchanged, on a chief argent a feather vert] The feather here has its nib (pointy end) to dexter. According to the Glossary of Terms, this is the default for a feather fesswise. [Mathildis Death, 05/04, A-Middle]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
Field Division -- Bendy and Bendy Sinister
None to date for this tenure
Field
Division -- Chapé
see also Pile and Pile Inverted
None to date for this tenure
Field Division -- Checky and Party of Six
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
[Gyronny of sixteen argent and sable, an annulet within a bordure azure] Discussion of this armory centered around whether it was simple enough to allow a field gyronny of sixteen. The base precedent simply states: "We will register Gyronny of sixteen in simple cases, but nothing more, barring period evidence" [LoAR June 1999]. A later precedent partially addresses the question of what constitutes "simple" for this purpose:
[Gyronny of sixteen argent and sable, a salamander statant regardant gules enflamed Or and a bordure counterchanged sable and Or] 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 [returned for conflict Jan 2001], 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. [June 2002, Acc-An Tir, Johannes Vagus]
As Johannes' device provides a similar motif to the one under consideration here, let us compare them. The current submission uses a bordure of a solid tincture, which is considerably simpler than the already registered bordure (which is gyronny of sixteen, counterchanged to a gyronny of sixteen field). The central charge on the current submission (an annulet) is simpler in outline than the already registered central charge (a salamander), but is also hollow in the middle, letting the complex field show through. So in terms of overall simplicity in context, the annulet must be regarded as having equal or somewhat less simplicity then the salamander.
What the annulet may lack in simplicity compared to the salamander, however, is at least made up for by the greater simplicity of the bordure. Therefore, this badge is comparably simple to the device of Johannes Vagus, Gyronny of sixteen argent and sable, a salamander statant regardant gules enflamed Or and a bordure counterchanged sable and Or, and thus is likewise registerable. It is, however, likewise at the limit of complexity for accepting gyronny of sixteen without documentation showing that the overall design of the armory is consistent with period practice. [Minamoto Genkuro Kagetane, 05/04, A-Artemesia]
Field Division -- Miscellaneous
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
Field Division -- Per Bend and Per Bend Sinister
[Per bend sinister azure and argent, a bear statant contourny and a dolmen counterchanged] This was an appeal of a return made in kingdom by the then Blue Tyger for conflict with Arthur FitzRobert of Wiverneweald: Per bend azure and argent, a bear statant and a mullet of six points counterchanged. The submitter, supported by Eastern Crown and the East Kingdom College, is correct. This is technically clear of Arthur's armory, with one CD for the field (per bend vs. per bend sinister division), one CD for type of half the (only) charge group (mullet vs. dolmen), and a third CD for posture/orientation of half the charge group (bear statant [to dexter] vs. bear statant to sinister). [Arthur Bayn, 05/04, A-East]
Field Division -- Per Chevron and Per Chevron Inverted
[Per chevron gules and sable, three unicorn heads and on a chief embattled Or three thistles proper] The question was raised in commentary whether the line of division was too low on the field. Without the chief, it would be. However, in both SCA and actual period heraldry, when a chief is present, the area of the field which is divided is the area beneath the chief (to base of the bottom of the chief). It does not include the portion of the field which is overlain by the chief. Thus, for example, a per bend line would start at the point where the chief meets the edge of the shield, and bisect the field as if the field ended at the bottom edge of the chief. This submission's per chevron line of division comes close to bisecting the field as if the field ended at the bottom edge of the chief as well; sufficiently close that we can register it, though the submitter should still be advised to draw the line of division slightly higher. [Gareth Cambell, 05/04, A-Ealdomere]
[Per chevron inverted purpure and sable, a chevron inverted between a garb and two bees Or] A chevron inverted must bisect the field regardless of whence it issues. We can do no better than to quote the following precedent:
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, R-Trimaris, Apr 2003]
As drawn, the chevron inverted on this emblazon is too high on the field to bisect the field, and is therefore not an acceptable depiction of a chevron inverted. [Gabrielle von Friedrichsthal, 04/04, R-Calontir]
[Per fess with a right step Or and argent] This is clear of Jakob Stiufsun: Per fess with a left step sable and pily bendwise argent and azure. A visual check confirms that Jakob's device has the step going the opposite way from this submission. There is a CD for changing the tincture of at least half the field, and a separate CD for the aggregate changes to the line of division. (There might not be a CD between a simple left step and a simple right step, but the left-vs.-right combined with the pily division in base is sufficient for a CD.) [Cormac Mór, 05/04, A-Caid]
[Per fess wavy gules and azure, on a mullet Or a laurel wreath vert] In addition, this field has a low-contrast complex line of division that is mostly obscured by an overlying charge. RfS VIII.3 notes: "Armorial Identifiability - Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability. Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by ...being obscured by other elements of the design. 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." Too much of the line of division is overlain by the mullet in this instance. This problem could be solved by (for example) moving the mullet off the line of division, by using a plain line of division, or by using a high-contrast tincture combination (one metal and one color). The question of conflict would still need to be addressed, however. [Rivermoor, Shire of, 05/04, R-Trimaris] <Ed. note: Returned for this and other reasons>
None to date for this tenure
Field Division -- Per Pall and Per Pall Inverted
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
[Lozengy erminois and pean] This conflicts with Jhone de Wodecote: Lozengy vert and erminois. The lone CD is for changing half the tincture of the field. [Lancelot of Windhaven, 04/04, R-Northshield]
None to date for this tenure
[(Fieldless) On a heart sable a crescent argent] This badge has multiple conflicts. It must be checked for conflict as though it were Sable, a crescent argent by longstanding precedent:
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.... [May 1998, Ret-Middle, Skraeling Althing, Barony of]
As a result this conflicts with Adrienne of Toledo, Sable, in pale a cinquefoil, a crescent, and a dagger inverted, all argent, with a CD for removing two of the charges in the primary charge group; with Cadwynn ap Cheshire, Sable, within a crescent argent, a crescent embattled gules, with a CD for removing the tertiary crescent; with Eric Van Roosebeke, Sable, a crescent and a chief embattled argent, with a CD for removing the chief; with Morgaine Aelfdryda ferch Cadfael, Or, on a pile inverted vert a crescent argent, since by considering Morgaine's armory as Per chevron throughout Or and vert, a crescent argent, there is one CD for the field; with Morimoto Koryu, Sable, a crescent surmounted by a ken blade argent, with a CD for removing the overall charge; with Sean Macarailt of Sandyhume: Sable, an increscent argent, with one CD for changing the posture of the crescent; and with Seanach an tSeanachaidhe, Sable, two stags attires Or issuant from between the horns of a crescent argent, with one CD for removing the stags attires. [Fáelán mac Cathail and Alisandre d'Ambrecourt, 05/04, R-Ansteorra]
[(Fieldless) On a heart Or a hand inverted gules] The most recent precedent relevant to this submission is from February 2004:
[Returning (Fieldless) On a heart purpure a compass star Or] ...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.... [Feb 2004, Returns, West, Geoffrey Scott]
Given the recent nature of that decision, this submission is likewise being returned for the same reason.
This appears to be free of conflict even when considered as Or, a hand inverted gules. [Pelacho del Corazón Carinoso, 03/04, R-Meridies][Azure, a bend sinister vert fimbriated Or] This conflicts with Richard Andreivitch of Rus, Azure, on a bend sinister Or an estoile sable, and with Denis Flaxenhelm, Azure, on a bend sinister Or, a goblet upright sable. Per the LoAR of June 2002 and Laurel precedent before and after that date, an ordinary voided or fimbriated can also be interpreted as an ordinary charged with another of the same type. Under this interpretation, Thomas's submission must also be treated as Azure, on a bend sinister Or a bendlet sinister vert. Using this blazon, there is only one CD between Thomas's submission and the two registered armories for changes to the tertiary charges. [Thomas van Lubeck, 05/04, R-Meridies]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
[Per fess argent and azure, a saltire engrailed counterchanged overall a sword inverted and in chief a rose gules] This violates RfS XI.2, Charge and Name Combinations, in accordance with the following precedent which we reaffirm at this time: "As one may not combine the White Rose of York and the name of York, it is forbidden to combine the Red Rose of Lancaster with the use of the name Lancaster." (29 Mar 1987, R-Outlands, Rebecca of Lancaster p. 21)
The overall sword lies overwhelmingly on the azure portions of the saltire and field, including the quillons and much of the hilt, greatly reducing its identifiability to the point where it violates 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 being obscured by other elements of the design." In addition, the saltire is not centered on the shield, being counterchanged across an abased per fess line, causing a jarring feeling of imbalance; raising the line of division and recentering the saltire would cause the sword to be only "half-overall," which is also grounds for return.
Removing the rose, raising the line of division, recentering the saltire, and elongating the sword so that it remain overall would fix the aforementioned style and presumption problems, though it would still need to be checked for conflict.[Michael of Lancaster, 04/04, R-An Tir]
[Per pale dovetailed sable and argent, two roses counterchanged argent and gules, both slipped and leaved vert] This conflicts with Brianna of Wessex: Per bend wavy argent and gules, two roses counterchanged. There is one CD for changing the field. Brianna's field forces her roses into their arrangement; likewise Sadb's roses are forced into their arrangement since one of her roses shares a tincture with half the field. As the move is forced, and slipping and leaving are not worth difference, there is not a CD for either. [Sadb Constance, 04/04, R-Calontir]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
[Vert, a pavilion Or and in chief a foi argent] There was some discussion about the charge in chief. As cited on the LoI, a foi was blazoned as such as early as July 1993 in the registration for Lothar Freund's device: Vert, a fess embattled counterembattled between a foi and a bull's head caboshed Or. [Isabeau Eaglestone of Glinwood and Vivienne de Lampérière, 05/04, A-Caid]
None to date for this tenure
Fret
and Fretty
see
also
Semy
None to date for this tenure
[Or, a New World pineapple vert, on a chief sable a sun in its splendor Or and a moon in its plentitude argent] The bromeliadic fruit used as a charge on this armory was blazoned on the Letter of Intent as simply a "pineapple." However, these are a New World fruit, and the term "pine(-)apple" has often been used in period (non-SCA) blazon to mean the charge which the SCA blazons as a "pine cone." As the fruit was mentioned in period journals and apparently brought back to Europe by early explorers, we will allow it as a registerable charge. To minimize the possibility of confusion we will no longer use the term "pineapple" unmodified. We will hereafter blazon the fruit as a "New World pineapple" and continue to use the term "pine cone" to refer to the seed cases of coniferous trees. The single prior registration of a pineapple (the fruit) has been reblazoned elsewhere in this LoAR (West, Turold of Normandy). [Marsaili inghean Domhnaill, 05/04, A-Middle]
Fur
see also
Ermine Spot
[Vairy en point erminois and azure, a bordure gules] An example is found in Parker of using an ermine variant as part of a vair: Barry of six, vaire gules, and ermine, and azure attributed to Giles de Braose, Bishop of Hereford, 1200-16. With that in mind, it seems appropriate to allow ermine, erminois, counter-ermine, and pean to be part of vairy furs. [Gauvain Eisenbein, 04/04, A-Outlands]
None to date for this tenure
[Gules, a lion rampant to sinister, maintaining a sword fesswise and a shield, its sinister hindpaw resting on a sinister facing helm, all within a bordure embattled Or] While the treatment of the bordure is odd (appearing embattled at the top but raguly near the bottom), it matches the way the bordure is drawn on the submitter's current device, and is thus grandfathered to her. Please advise the submitter to draw the bordure wider and with deeper embattlements. [Coinneach Kyllyr of Kilernan, 04/04, A-Caid]
[(Fieldless) A cross flory azure surmounted by a rose argent barbed vert] The submitter also claimed the right to use this motif by his prior use of it in his device: Gules, a saltire Or surmounted by a rose, on a chief argent three crosses flory vert. The motif in the current submission is not grandfathered to the submitter for two independent reasons. First, designs acceptable on fielded armory are not always acceptable on fieldless armory; since the motif for which the submitter is invoking the Grandfather Clause is on fielded armory, its acceptability there is not relevant to its acceptability on fieldless armory. Second, the original armory had a saltire, not a cross, surmounted by the rose; for the grandfather clause to apply, "Only the actual armorial element from the originally registered submission may be covered by this permission. For example, if an individual had registered armory containing a fimbriated lion many years ago, only that fimbriated lion would be covered under this rule, not fimbriated wolves, eagles, or lions in other postures" (RfS VII.8). Here the "element" in question on the existing armory is the combination of the rose surmounting the saltire, which is not reproduced in the current submission. [Philip Williams of Aston, 03/04, A-Caid]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
Head
-- Beast
see also Couped and Erased
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
[(Fieldless) On a heart sable a crescent argent] This badge has multiple conflicts. It must be checked for conflict as though it were Sable, a crescent argent by longstanding precedent:
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.... [May 1998, Ret-Middle, Skraeling Althing, Barony of]
As a result this conflicts with Adrienne of Toledo, Sable, in pale a cinquefoil, a crescent, and a dagger inverted, all argent, with a CD for removing two of the charges in the primary charge group; with Cadwynn ap Cheshire, Sable, within a crescent argent, a crescent embattled gules, with a CD for removing the tertiary crescent; with Eric Van Roosebeke, Sable, a crescent and a chief embattled argent, with a CD for removing the chief; with Morgaine Aelfdryda ferch Cadfael, Or, on a pile inverted vert a crescent argent, since by considering Morgaine's armory as Per chevron throughout Or and vert, a crescent argent, there is one CD for the field; with Morimoto Koryu, Sable, a crescent surmounted by a ken blade argent, with a CD for removing the overall charge; with Sean Macarailt of Sandyhume: Sable, an increscent argent, with one CD for changing the posture of the crescent; and with Seanach an tSeanachaidhe, Sable, two stags attires Or issuant from between the horns of a crescent argent, with one CD for removing the stags attires. [Fáelán mac Cathail and Alisandre d'Ambrecourt, 05/04, R-Ansteorra]
[(Fieldless) On a heart Or a hand inverted gules] The most recent precedent relevant to this submission is from February 2004:
[Returning (Fieldless) On a heart purpure a compass star Or] ...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.... [Feb 2004, Returns, West, Geoffrey Scott]
Given the recent nature of that decision, this submission is likewise being returned for the same reason.
This appears to be free of conflict even when considered as Or, a hand inverted gules. [Pelacho del Corazón Carinoso, 03/04, R-Meridies]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
Identifiability
see also Rules
Citations
[Per bend sinister gules and azure, a bend sinister Or, overall a horned wolf's head erased argent] This violates RfS VII.7.a, Identification Requirement. Commentors and staff at the meeting found it impossible to identify just what type of head this was, even when they ignored the horns. The aforementioned rule states that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance" and this is not. [Raibeart Ulfr, 05/04, R-Middle]
[Per fess azure mulletty of four points Or and vert, a fess wavy Or, overall a dragon rampant wings displayed argent] This violates RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability, which states in part that "Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability. Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable... by being obscured by other elements of the design." Here, the dragon overlies the fess in such a way as to almost completely obscure its top line, rendering it unidentifiable. [Randall Clark, 05/04, R-Middle]
[Per bend sable and azure, two bones crossed in saltire surmounted by a skull argent and a badger rampant maintaining a mullet Or] This submission violates two different aspects of RfS VIII.1.a, Tincture and Charge Limit. Each violation is sufficient by itself for return.
"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."
This submission has four charge types and four tinctures, arranged such that two of each are entirely on one side of a per bend division. There is no central focus at all, and the visual impact of every element is greatly reduced; that of the mullet is completely destroyed. While this design has a complexity count of only eight, in combination with its complete lack of unity it is simply too complex. [Avilina Andreu, 04/04, R-Atenveldt] <Ed: Returned for this and other reasons>
The overall sword lies overwhelmingly on the azure portions of the saltire and field, including the quillons and much of the hilt, greatly reducing its identifiability to the point where it violates 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 being obscured by other elements of the design." In addition, the saltire is not centered on the shield, being counterchanged across an abased per fess line, causing a jarring feeling of imbalance; raising the line of division and recentering the saltire would cause the sword to be only "half-overall," which is also grounds for return.
Removing the rose, raising the line of division, recentering the saltire, and elongating the sword so that it remain overall would fix the aforementioned style and presumption problems, though it would still need to be checked for conflict.[Michael of Lancaster, 04/04, R-An Tir]
[Per fess azure and gules, four wolves' teeth issuant from sinister all within a bordure Or] Nobody present at the Wreath meeting was able to identify this as a combination of wolves' teeth and a bordure. Most thought it was some odd central charge (perhaps a modernish flame sideways?); others noted remarkable similarity to a modern corporate logo. Most of the commentary on this submission concerned identifiability problems as well. Using a combination of one peripheral charge issuant from another peripheral charge, especially of the same tincture, is something that will require extreme care to maintain identifiability. [Sundragon, Barony of, 04/04, R-Atenveldt]
[Sable, a chalice Or, the stem environed of a padlock, a bordure embattled argent] This is being returned for a redraw. The padlock is not identifiable at any reasonable distance; the overlap between it and the bottom of the chalice, with poor contrast between the two, causes important details to be obscured. The embattlements of the bordure are not deep enough and too widely spaced. [Johann von Magdeburg, 04/04, R-Calontir]
[Per pall inverted purpure, counter-ermine and argent, a chevron per chevron argent and gules, in base a triquetra braced with an annulet sable] This violates RfS VIII.3, which states: "Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability." The specific combination and arrangement of the tinctures on this submission make it impossible to tell whether the chevron is of a divided tincture, or simply gules (and on a somewhat unbalanced field): it made almost everyone at the meeting do a mental double-take. The chevron's identifiability is thus fatally compromised. [Fionnghuala de Buchanan, 03/04, R-Caid]
None to date for this tenure
[Per bend azure, and gules semy of oak leaves, in sinister chief a trefoil knot interlaced with an annulet Or] Questions were raised in commentary about the identifiability of the motif a trefoil knot interlaced with an annulet. We note the recent registrations of a triquetra braced with an annulet (Aoife inghean ui hEaluighthe, July 2002) and a Bowen knot crosswise braced with an annulet (Fergus O'Fey, September 2001). This motif is very similar to those motifs, and is therefore also acceptable. The depiction of this motif in this submission was identifiable as such, so we are registering it. [Fiachra mac Domhnaill, 05/04, A-Middle]
[Or, on a pall azure a trefoil knot inverted Or] Trefoil knots and triquetrae have a single lobe up by default. This submission's knot has the single lobe down, and must be blazoned as inverted. [Thomas Wilkinson, 05/04, A-Meridies]
[(Fieldless) A serpent nowed contourny vert] The serpent is nowed in a Savoy (or Cavendish) knot. These two knots are identical, as noted in August 1993:
[returning (fieldless) A Cavendish knot vert] ... The badge conflicts with the badge of the House of Savoy (Gayre's Heraldic Standards, p.95): A Savoy (or Cavendish) knot. The two knots are identical; as the badge is tinctureless, we can get but a single CD between it and this submission. [Aug 1993, Returns, Middle, Middle Kingdom for the Order of the Cavendish Knot]
This conflicts with the House of Savoy's badge (important non-SCA armory): (tinctureless) A Savoy knot. Past precedents have either not explicitly given a difference, or explicitly given no difference, between a serpent arranged in a specific shape and the shape itself. Given the explicit precedents from Elsbeth and Bruce, we are taking the implication from the first cited decision and making it explicit:
[Registering Argent, two serpents nowed in a Bourchier knot palewise vert, a bordure counter-compony sable and argent.] Versus ... Argent, a Bourchier knot vert, there are CDs for adding the bordure and for the orientation of the knot. [Jun 1994, Acceptances, Atlantia, Duncan MacAdam]
[Returning Per pale sable and vert, a serpent involved in annulo Or] The device conflicts with Vladimir Vitalieich Volkov, Per pale argent ermined purpure and purpure an annulet Or. There is one CD for the field but nothing for involved serpent vs. annulet. [Jul 1999, Returns, Atenveldt, Alexander le Browere]
[Returning ...a snake involved and in chief three annulets] The use of almost-but-not-quite identical charges is unacceptable style; it confuses the eye, where the whole purpose of heraldry is visual recognition. This has been grounds for return ere now (v. the LoAR of 21 May89, pp.18, 25). [Dec 1992, Returns, East, Denewulf Ringmaker]
A serpent nowed in a simple recognizable knot therefore has no significant difference for type from that knot itself. Thus, while there is one CD for the lack of field against the Savoy badge, there is no CD for type, and since the Savoy badge is tinctureless, no difference can be generated from tincture (beyond the one for fieldlessness). [Eve the Just, 03/04, R-Ealdomere]
None to date for this tenure
[(Fieldless) A hawthorn leaf per pale vert and argent] This is clear of Canada (important non-SCA badge): (Tinctureless) A maple leaf. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There is significant enough difference between a hawthorn leaf and a maple leaf to allow a CD for type, providing the second CD. [Avicia le Mey, 04/04, A-An Tir]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
[Per pale azure and purpure, a triskelion with a roundel at each point, a chief Or] The picture is not blazonable as drawn; either the roundels should be firmly attached to the endpoints of the triskelion, or they should be in some other blazonable position per RfS VII.7.b ("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"). [Juliana Macnayre, 04/04, R-Calontir]
[Per pale purpure and
sable, a
lozenge counterchanged fimbriated argent]
This violates RfS
VII.7.b, Reconstruction Requirement. The lozenge
touches the edge of the shield at exactly three points (not four), so
it is not properly throughout, nor is it not
throughout. The
position is unblazonable, and RfS VII.7.b states "Elements must be
reconstructible in a recognizable form from a competent blazon."
Even if drawn properly, this conflicts with Teceangl Bach's badge, (fieldless) A mascle argent, per RfS X.5, Visual Test. The current submission could also be blazoned as Per pale purpure and sable, a lozenge argent voided per pale sable and purpure, and a mascle is the same as a lozenge voided. The visual similarity is overwhelming, all the more because of the extremely low contrast between purpure and sable. [Nigel de Rothewelle, 04/04, R-Meridies]
[Per pale sable and "gules", a pale of four lozenges Or, each charged with a rose proper, between in chief an increscent and a decrescent Or] The bottom lozenge of the group is not whole, being cut off by the edge of the shield; in a design where each lozenge of an ordinary of lozenges is charged, the lozenges should all be complete.[Syele von der Rosen, 04/04, R-Atenveldt] <Ed: Returned for other reasons>
None to date for this tenure
[Vert, on a mirror argent glassed vert, an oak leaf argent] Questions were raised in commentary about whether this armory had four layers (leaf on a cartouche on a mirror on the field). The glass of the mirror is often a different tincture in period emblazons. We even found one period example where a differently-tinctured mirror was charged. Therefore charging the mirror, even when the glass is colored differently from the frame, does not violate RfS VIII.c.ii, Layer Limit.
This is clear of Eva van Oudeachterkol's badge for Embla Willsdottir: Vert, an elm leaf in bend sinister environed of a cartouche voided argent. There is one CD for type between this submission's mirror and Eva/Embla's cartouche voided. There is at least one more CD for the leaves. If we consider Eva/Embla's badge as Vert, on a cartouche vert fimbriated a leaf bendwise sinister argent with the leaf as a tertiary charge, there is a CD for changing the type and orientation. If we considered this submission as Vert, an oak leaf within a mirror voided argent then there would be two separate CDs for type and orientation.[Ailís inghean Mhuirghein, 05/04, East]
None to date for this tenure
[Quarterly argent and Or, a dragon dormant, wings inverted and addorsed, purpure] This is clear of the Barony of Dragonsspine's badge: (Fieldless) A wingless dragon dormant purpure. There is one CD for the field. After a visual check against Dragonsspine's badge, it was decided that this submission's wings, while not as obvious as they might be in a different position, are sufficiently prominent to gain a CD against the wingless dragon, yielding the necessary second CD. [Adriana inghean Labhruinn mhic Fhionguin, 04/04, A-Calontir]
[Gules, a wingless dragon passant between six barrulets Or] The primary charge could not be decisively identified as any specific type of critter. On resubmission it should be drawn more clearly as a dragon if that is the submitter's desired charge.
If we follow the blazon from the LoI and consider this to be a lizard or a wingless dragon, it also conflicts with Joseph the Good: Gules, a Japanese dragon passant Or. The only CD is for adding the barrulets. [Áengus mac Ailpín, 04/04, R-Calontir]
[Per fess azure and vert, a dragon couchant to sinister argent] This is clear of Var of the Ivory Dungeon: Sable, a dragon dormant to sinister reguardant, the tail curled to sinister around the body, the dexter wing lowered to cover the body, the head peeking out to dexter base from beneath the dexter wing, argent spined gules. There is one CD for the field and another for posture of the dragon. Var's dragon is decidedly dormant in roundel (as it were), a position that is no longer registerable; the visual difference between that charge and this dragon is immediately obvious. [Laura Lye of Bowden, 04/04, A-Calontir]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
[Argent, a monster consisting of the upper half of a Moor and the lower half of a tree stump eradicated proper maintaining in its dexter hand a hammer sable, a ford proper] The top half of the primary charge is neither a Moor nor a brown Saracen (however that might be blazoned). Each of those has certain necessary defining features which this charge lacks:
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. [Cover Letter, Dec 2002]
This, therefore, is not blazonable in such a way that it would be "reconstructible in a recognizable form" therefrom (RfS VII.7.b).
The use of a combination half-animal, half-plant creature is also problematic; the "vegetable lamb" appears to be a unique case (and not actually used in period armory). Resubmission of this motif should be accompanied by documentation of similar conjunctions of charges in period armory. [Adam of Enstone, 04/04, R-Aethelmearc]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
Mullet
see also
Compass
Star and Sun
[Per saltire argent and azure, six mullets argent] Conflict with Domenica Farnese: Gyronny vert and azure, a mullet of six points within eight mullets of six points in mascle argent; with Robin Arwood: Per fess gules and vert, five mullets in saltire argent; and with Seitse: Vert, mulletty pierced argent. In each case there is a CD for changing the field, but none for number of charges, as six is not different from five or more. Nor is there a CD for arrangement against either Domenica or Robin, as their arrangements are not reproducible on this field, this submission's mullets being forced into the azure quadrants. Comparing against Seitse's mullets the following precedent applies:
[mullets vs mullets pierced] Current research seems to indicate that mullets and mullets pierced (or spur rowels) were used interchangeably in period. As a consequence, no difference is currently granted between them. [May 1996, Ret-Atlantia, Agnes Daunce]
So there is no CD for not piercing the mullets in this case. [Tatiana Laski Krakowska, 04/04, R-Atenveldt]
[(Fieldless) On a sun Or a robin proper] This conflicts with Kriemhild of Stonecroft (badge for the Compagnie du Dindon d'Or): Vert, a mullet of nine points throughout Or, thereon a turkeycock's head [Gallopavo meleagris] erased proper. There is one CD for the (lack of) field. There is no CD for type between a mullet of nine points and a sun. As suns are not eligible for X.4.j.ii, type alone (between the robin and the turkey's head) is insufficient for a CD, and the tincture of both charges is in fact primarily brown:
[Quarterly gules and sable, on a sun Or a wheel proper] Conflict with the badge for the Compagnie du Dindon d'Or (Kriemhild of Stonecroft), Vert, a mullet of nine points throughout Or, thereon a turkeycock's head [Gallopavo meleagris] erased proper. There is a CD for the field, but nothing for the difference between a mullet of nine points and a sun, and nothing for changing the type only the tertiary charges. An examination of Kriemhild's emblazon shows that the head is primarily brown. [Ive Rathbourn, Aug 2000, R-Ansteorra]
[Rebecca Mary Robynson, 03/04, R-Caid]
[Ermine, on a pile inverted throughout azure, a sun Or] This conflicts with Martin of the Fallen Star: Purpure, in base a mullet of twelve points Or, and with the badge for Chronicler of Ansteorra: (fieldless) A mullet of five greater and five lesser points distilling gouttes Or. The submitter's device can also be blazoned as Per chevron throughout ermine and azure, in base a sun Or, so in each case there is only a single CD for the field. There is no CD for position of the sun, since against Martin the positions are the same, and against the Ansteorran Chronicler one cannot get a CD for position against a fieldless badge. [Sylvie la chardonnière, 03/04, R-West]
[(Fieldless) A hawthorn leaf per pale vert and argent] This is clear of Canada (important non-SCA badge): (Tinctureless) A maple leaf. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There is significant enough difference between a hawthorn leaf and a maple leaf to allow a CD for type, providing the second CD. [Avicia le Mey, 04/04, A-An Tir]
[Argent, a pall sable between a dagger gules and two oak trees vert] Conflict with Cunningham, Earl of Glencairn: Argent, a shakefork sable. There is one CD for adding the secondary charges, but nothing for type between a pall and a shakefork according to the precedent set forth in the Cover Letter to the June 2002 LoAR: "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." [Charles of Westermark, 04/04, R-Calontir]
[Argent, a griffin segreant gules winged sable haloed Or maintaining a rapier all within a bordure sable] Conflict with Pomerania: Argent, a griffin segreant gules crowned Or. There is one CD for adding the bordure. The maintained rapier counts for nothing, nor do the halo or crown. As drawn and colored in this specific instance, the wings constitute considerably less than half the charge, so there is no difference for changing their tincture. [Wilhelm Smydele von Soelinge, 04/04, R-Aethelmearc]
[Azure, in fess a key palewise wards to chief between two fleurs-de-lys Or] In addition, this conflicts with France Modern (important non-SCA arms): Azure, three fleurs-de-lis Or. As drawn, the charges are closer to being co-primary than they are a primary between two secondaries, so while there is a CD for arrangement of the charges, there is no CD for type of one out of three when that 'one' is not the bottommost of two-and-one. If this same armory is resubmitted on properly sized forms, the submitter should draw the key longer, which would both fill the space better and make it obviously the sole primary charge (leaving the fleurs-de-lys as secondaries), clearing the conflict with France. [Ysabelle d'Angiers, 03/04, R-West]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
[Per bend sinister azure and argent, on a dunghill cock contourny an annulet, all counterchanged] The question of offensiveness having been raised in commentary, consensus was that the combination of charges was not offensive in this instance. [Conall Cailech, 05/04, A-Ealdomere]
[Per pale sable and "gules", a pale of four lozenges Or, each charged with a rose proper, between in chief an increscent and a decrescent Or] The bottom lozenge of the group is not whole, being cut off by the edge of the shield; in a design where each lozenge of an ordinary of lozenges is charged, the lozenges should all be complete.[Syele von der Rosen, 04/04, R-Atenveldt] <Ed: Returned for other reasons>
[Argent, a pall sable between a dagger gules and two oak trees vert] Conflict with Cunningham, Earl of Glencairn: Argent, a shakefork sable. There is one CD for adding the secondary charges, but nothing for type between a pall and a shakefork according to the precedent set forth in the Cover Letter to the June 2002 LoAR: "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." [Charles of Westermark, 04/04, R-Calontir]
[Per saltire argent and azure, six mullets argent] Conflict with Domenica Farnese: Gyronny vert and azure, a mullet of six points within eight mullets of six points in mascle argent; with Robin Arwood: Per fess gules and vert, five mullets in saltire argent; and with Seitse: Vert, mulletty pierced argent. In each case there is a CD for changing the field, but none for number of charges, as six is not different from five or more. Nor is there a CD for arrangement against either Domenica or Robin, as their arrangements are not reproducible on this field, this submission's mullets being forced into the azure quadrants. Comparing against Seitse's mullets the following precedent applies:
[mullets vs mullets pierced] Current research seems to indicate that mullets and mullets pierced (or spur rowels) were used interchangeably in period. As a consequence, no difference is currently granted between them. [May 1996, Ret-Atlantia, Agnes Daunce]
So there is no CD for not piercing the mullets in this case. [Tatiana Laski Krakowska, 04/04, R-Atenveldt]
[Ermine, on a pile inverted throughout azure, a sun Or] This conflicts with Martin of the Fallen Star: Purpure, in base a mullet of twelve points Or, and with the badge for Chronicler of Ansteorra: (fieldless) A mullet of five greater and five lesser points distilling gouttes Or. The submitter's device can also be blazoned as Per chevron throughout ermine and azure, in base a sun Or, so in each case there is only a single CD for the field. There is no CD for position of the sun, since against Martin the positions are the same, and against the Ansteorran Chronicler one cannot get a CD for position against a fieldless badge. [Sylvie la chardonnière, 03/04, R-West]
None to date for this tenure
Position
see also Arrangement -- Forced Move
None to date for this tenure
Posture/Orientation
see
also Blazon
Posture/Orientation -- Animate
Charges
see also Blazon
[Per bend sinister azure and argent, a bear statant contourny and a dolmen counterchanged] This was an appeal of a return made in kingdom by the then Blue Tyger for conflict with Arthur FitzRobert of Wiverneweald: Per bend azure and argent, a bear statant and a mullet of six points counterchanged. The submitter, supported by Eastern Crown and the East Kingdom College, is correct. This is technically clear of Arthur's armory, with one CD for the field (per bend vs. per bend sinister division), one CD for type of half the (only) charge group (mullet vs. dolmen), and a third CD for posture/orientation of half the charge group (bear statant [to dexter] vs. bear statant to sinister). [Arthur Bayn, 05/04, A-East]
[Azure, a cat sejant ermine and on a chief argent a cat s'elongeant sable] The lack of detail on the primary cat reduces its identifiability below the point of comfort. The cat on the chief is in a posture for which registration has not been attempted since the 1970's. This s'elongeant posture certainly blurs the distinction between passant/statant and couchant, two posture categories between which we give a CD. Barring evidence that this posture was used in period armory, s'elongeant is hereby declared unregisterable. [Miriel Gard of Yale, 04/04, R-Caid]
Posture/Orientation -- General
see also Blazon
None to date for this tenure
Posture/Orientation -- Inanimate Charges
see also Blazon
[Per bend sinister vert and argent, a swan naiant counterchanged, on a chief argent a feather vert] The feather here has its nib (pointy end) to dexter. According to the Glossary of Terms, this is the default for a feather fesswise. [Mathildis Death, 05/04, A-Middle]
[Gules, a ram's head erased within nine lozenges in annulo argent] No adequate blazon could be found for the position of the lozenges, violating RfS VII.7.b: "Elements must be reconstructible in a recognizable form from a competent blazon.... elements that cannot be described in such a way that the depiction of the armory will remain consistent may not be used." The submitted blazon would result in all the lozenges being palewise, which does not match the emblazon. [Temur Khana, 04/04, R-Atenveldt]
Pretense
or Presumption
see
also Copyright and
Trademark
[Per bend sinister gules and sable, a lion rampant within an orle of lozenges argent] The question was raised in commentary whether this combination of name and armory could constitute a presumptuous claim to be Edward Dymoke, Royal Champion at the Coronations of Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I. This issue was based largely on an online picture of Edward Dymoke (for which the URL was supplied), showing him riding an armorially barded horse. After careful visual study of the online picture, we have concluded that the armory on the horse's barding is (field), a lion passant within an orle of lozenges argent. The appearance of a "lion rampant" seems to be an optical illusion, resulting from a fold in the fabric and some odd angles of perspective. Therefore this combination of name and armory is not a presumptuous combination (as referred to in RfS XI.2). [Edward Dymoke, 04/04, A-Lochac]
[Or, in annulo six hurts, the one in chief replaced by a roundel gules charged with a portcullis Or] The change of color, and charging with a tertiary, of a single charge that is a member of a larger group is a motif we have only found in period as an augmentation. This therefore violates RfS XI.4: "Armory that uses charges in such a way as to appear to be arms of pretense or an unearned augmentation of honor is considered presumptuous." (Emphasis added.) As an administrative note, if the submitter has been granted an Augmentation of Arms and wishes to register the augmentation, the augmentation must be submitted as a separate action on top of the armory being augmented.[Eleanor of Orkney, 04/04, R-Lochac] <Ed - Returned for this and other reasons>
[Per fess argent and azure, a saltire engrailed counterchanged overall a sword inverted and in chief a rose gules] This violates RfS XI.2, Charge and Name Combinations, in accordance with the following precedent which we reaffirm at this time: "As one may not combine the White Rose of York and the name of York, it is forbidden to combine the Red Rose of Lancaster with the use of the name Lancaster." (29 Mar 1987, R-Outlands, Rebecca of Lancaster p. 21)
The overall sword lies overwhelmingly on the azure portions of the saltire and field, including the quillons and much of the hilt, greatly reducing its identifiability to the point where it violates 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 being obscured by other elements of the design." In addition, the saltire is not centered on the shield, being counterchanged across an abased per fess line, causing a jarring feeling of imbalance; raising the line of division and recentering the saltire would cause the sword to be only "half-overall," which is also grounds for return.
Removing the rose, raising the line of division, recentering the saltire, and elongating the sword so that it remain overall would fix the aforementioned style and presumption problems, though it would still need to be checked for conflict. [Michael of Lancaster, 04/04, R-An Tir]
None to date for this tenure
Protected and Protectable Item
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
[(Fieldless) A serpent nowed contourny vert] The serpent is nowed in a Savoy (or Cavendish) knot. These two knots are identical, as noted in August 1993:
[returning (fieldless) A Cavendish knot vert] ... The badge conflicts with the badge of the House of Savoy (Gayre's Heraldic Standards, p.95): A Savoy (or Cavendish) knot. The two knots are identical; as the badge is tinctureless, we can get but a single CD between it and this submission. [Aug 1993, Returns, Middle, Middle Kingdom for the Order of the Cavendish Knot]
This conflicts with the House of Savoy's badge (important non-SCA armory): (tinctureless) A Savoy knot. Past precedents have either not explicitly given a difference, or explicitly given no difference, between a serpent arranged in a specific shape and the shape itself. Given the explicit precedents from Elsbeth and Bruce, we are taking the implication from the first cited decision and making it explicit:
[Registering Argent, two serpents nowed in a Bourchier knot palewise vert, a bordure counter-compony sable and argent.] Versus ... Argent, a Bourchier knot vert, there are CDs for adding the bordure and for the orientation of the knot. [Jun 1994, Acceptances, Atlantia, Duncan MacAdam]
[Returning Per pale sable and vert, a serpent involved in annulo Or] The device conflicts with Vladimir Vitalieich Volkov, Per pale argent ermined purpure and purpure an annulet Or. There is one CD for the field but nothing for involved serpent vs. annulet. [Jul 1999, Returns, Atenveldt, Alexander le Browere]
[Returning ...a snake involved and in chief three annulets] The use of almost-but-not-quite identical charges is unacceptable style; it confuses the eye, where the whole purpose of heraldry is visual recognition. This has been grounds for return ere now (v. the LoAR of 21 May89, pp.18, 25). [Dec 1992, Returns, East, Denewulf Ringmaker]
A serpent nowed in a simple recognizable knot therefore has no significant difference for type from that knot itself. Thus, while there is one CD for the lack of field against the Savoy badge, there is no CD for type, and since the Savoy badge is tinctureless, no difference can be generated from tincture (beyond the one for fieldlessness). [Eve the Just, 03/04, R-Ealdomere]
[Ermine, on an egg gules a fleur-de-lys Or] The egg is a period charge: Woodward cites three examples, one of which (Jaworsky) is found in Siebmacher. [Magdalena Flores, 05/04, A-Outlands]
Rules for Submission Citations
Rules Citations -- RfS VII.7.a (Identification)
[Per bend sinister gules and azure, a bend sinister Or, overall a horned wolf's head erased argent] This violates RfS VII.7.a, Identification Requirement. Commentors and staff at the meeting found it impossible to identify just what type of head this was, even when they ignored the horns. The aforementioned rule states that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance" and this is not. [Raibeart Ulfr, 05/04, R-Middle]
[Per fess azure mulletty of four points Or and vert, a fess wavy Or, overall a dragon rampant wings displayed argent] This violates RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability, which states in part that "Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability. Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable... by being obscured by other elements of the design." Here, the dragon overlies the fess in such a way as to almost completely obscure its top line, rendering it unidentifiable. [Randall Clark, 05/04, R-Middle]
Rules Citations -- RfS VII.7.b (Reconstructibility)
[(Fieldless) A rat sejant erect, paws resting atop a roundel sable] This violates RfS VII.7.b, Reconstruction Requirement. The relative sizes or the roundel and rat generated much discussion as to whether the roundel was sustained or maintained. The size is such that we cannot come up with a blazon that adequately describes this "so that a competent heraldic artist can reproduce the armory solely from the blazon." The roundel should be made either larger (so as to be co-primary) or smaller (to be maintained). In any case it will need to be checked for conflict again, and it would still be necessary to come up with a blazon that would guarantee reproducibility. [Amalric d'Acre, 05/04, R-Atenveldt]
[Argent, a monster consisting of the upper half of a Moor and the lower half of a tree stump eradicated proper maintaining in its dexter hand a hammer sable, a ford proper] The top half of the primary charge is neither a Moor nor a brown Saracen (however that might be blazoned). Each of those has certain necessary defining features which this charge lacks:
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. [Cover Letter, Dec 2002]
This, therefore, is not blazonable in such a way that it would be "reconstructible in a recognizable form" therefrom (RfS VII.7.b).
The use of a combination half-animal, half-plant creature is also problematic; the "vegetable lamb" appears to be a unique case (and not actually used in period armory). Resubmission of this motif should be accompanied by documentation of similar conjunctions of charges in period armory. [Adam of Enstone, 04/04, R-Aethelmearc]
[Per pale azure and purpure, a triskelion with a roundel at each point, a chief Or] The picture is not blazonable as drawn; either the roundels should be firmly attached to the endpoints of the triskelion, or they should be in some other blazonable position per RfS VII.7.b ("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"). [Juliana Macnayre, 04/04, R-Calontir]
[Per pale purpure and sable, a lozenge counterchanged fimbriated argent] This violates RfS VII.7.b, Reconstruction Requirement. The lozenge touches the edge of the shield at exactly three points (not four), so it is not properly throughout, nor is it not throughout. The position is unblazonable, and RfS VII.7.b states "Elements must be reconstructible in a recognizable form from a competent blazon." [Nigel de Rothewelle, 04/04, R-Meridies] <Ed - Returned for this and other reasons>
[Gules, a ram's head erased within nine lozenges in annulo argent] No adequate blazon could be found for the position of the lozenges, violating RfS VII.7.b: "Elements must be reconstructible in a recognizable form from a competent blazon.... elements that cannot be described in such a way that the depiction of the armory will remain consistent may not be used." The submitted blazon would result in all the lozenges being palewise, which does not match the emblazon. [Temur Khana, 04/04, R-Atenveldt]
Rules Citations -- RfS VIII.1.a (Tincture and Charge Limit)
[Per bend sable and azure, two bones crossed in saltire surmounted by a skull argent and a badger rampant maintaining a mullet Or] This submission violates two different aspects of RfS VIII.1.a, Tincture and Charge Limit. Each violation is sufficient by itself for return.
"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."
This submission has four charge types and four tinctures, arranged such that two of each are entirely on one side of a per bend division. There is no central focus at all, and the visual impact of every element is greatly reduced; that of the mullet is completely destroyed. While this design has a complexity count of only eight, in combination with its complete lack of unity it is simply too complex. [Avilina Andreu, 04/04, R-Atenveldt] <Ed: Returned for this and other reasons>
Rules Citations -- RfS VIII.1.c.ii (Layer Limit)
[Vert, on a mirror argent glassed vert, an oak leaf argent] Questions were raised in commentary about whether this armory had four layers (leaf on a cartouche on a mirror on the field). The glass of the mirror is often a different tincture in period emblazons. We even found one period example where a differently-tinctured mirror was charged. Therefore charging the mirror, even when the glass is colored differently from the frame, does not violate RfS VIII.c.ii, Layer Limit. [Ailís inghean Mhuirghein, 05/04, East]
Rules Citations -- RfS VIII.3 (Armorial Identifiability)
[Gules, two battleaxes in saltire Or hafted of wood proper, a chief wavy checky Or and azure] This is being returned for unidentifiability of the axes against the field. RfS VIII.3 (Armorial Identifiability) is relevant: "Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by ... marginal contrast ..." While the most important part of an axe is the head, and these heads have good contrast with the field, the brown wood of the handles all but disappears against the gules field at any distance. As these hafts constitute a significant part of the charge, they must have enough contrast against the field to be identifiable, and they do not. [Ragnsteinn frá Andréssmýri, 05/04, R-West]
[Per fess wavy gules and azure, on a mullet Or a laurel wreath vert] In addition, this field has a low-contrast complex line of division that is mostly obscured by an overlying charge. RfS VIII.3 notes: "Armorial Identifiability - Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability. Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by ...being obscured by other elements of the design. 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." Too much of the line of division is overlain by the mullet in this instance. This problem could be solved by (for example) moving the mullet off the line of division, by using a plain line of division, or by using a high-contrast tincture combination (one metal and one color). The question of conflict would still need to be addressed, however. [Rivermoor, Shire of, 05/04, R-Trimaris] <Ed. note: Returned for this and other reasons>
[Per fess argent and azure, a saltire engrailed counterchanged overall a sword inverted and in chief a rose gules] This violates RfS XI.2, Charge and Name Combinations, in accordance with the following precedent which we reaffirm at this time: "As one may not combine the White Rose of York and the name of York, it is forbidden to combine the Red Rose of Lancaster with the use of the name Lancaster." (29 Mar 1987, R-Outlands, Rebecca of Lancaster p. 21)
The overall sword lies overwhelmingly on the azure portions of the saltire and field, including the quillons and much of the hilt, greatly reducing its identifiability to the point where it violates 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 being obscured by other elements of the design." In addition, the saltire is not centered on the shield, being counterchanged across an abased per fess line, causing a jarring feeling of imbalance; raising the line of division and recentering the saltire would cause the sword to be only "half-overall," which is also grounds for return.
Removing the rose, raising the line of division, recentering the saltire, and elongating the sword so that it remain overall would fix the aforementioned style and presumption problems, though it would still need to be checked for conflict.[Michael of Lancaster, 04/04, R-An Tir]
Rules Citations -- RfS X.2 (Substantially Different Charges)
[Per chevron argent and azure, two chess rooks and a winged wolf statant counterchanged] A possible conflict was called with Jessica Rebecca Silvana: Per chevron argent and azure, two castles and a dove migrant to chief counterchanged. The only difference is for change of type of the charges, but X.2 must apply for these to be clear. It is obvious that there is substantial enough difference between a dove and a winged wolf for X.2 to apply as far as the charge in base is concerned. As for the charges in chief, Black Stag has supplied many pictures of chess-rooks from period armorials. As the visual distinction between them and period renditions of castles is quite striking, and as the two charges were considered different charges in period, the difference between chess-rooks and castles is sufficiently substantial for X.2 to apply here as well. Since there are only two types of charge present in each case, all of which are directly on the field, and the type of all the charges has been substantially changed, X.2 applies here, which clears the conflict. [William MacAndrew of Balnagowan, 05/04, A-An Tir]
Rules Citations -- RfS X.4.j.i (Changes to Charges on Charges - Two or more visually significant changes)
[Paly vert and argent, on a bend sinister purpure a compass star palewise argent] We have reblazoned the tertiary charge's position to match the emblazon. This is clear of Seonaid Fitzalan: Vair en point, on a bend sinister purpure three caltrops argent. There is one CD for the change of field. The other CD must come from differences to the tertiary charge(s). While there is not substantial difference between a caltrop and a compass star, they are sufficiently distinct in appearance to allow for a significant difference between them. That, plus the change in number from one to three, is enough for a CD by RfS X.4.j.i. [Eleanor of Orkney, 04/04, A-Lochac]
[Per pale erminois and pean, on a pale vert a skull argent "transfixed" by a sword inverted argent pommeled and quilloned Or gripped of brown wood proper] This conflicts with Armand Baird: Lozengy vert and Or, on a pale vert, in pale a harp Or and a sword argent. There is one CD for the field. The arrangement of the tertiary charge group is changed, but the type and tincture of only half of it. RfS X.4.j.i states "Making two or more visually significant changes to the same group of charges placed entirely on other charges is one clear difference. Changes of type, number, tincture, posture, or independent changes of arrangement may each count as one of the two changes. Generally such 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." Changing only half of the group is not sufficient to count towards a CD via RfS X.4.j.i, and changing only the arrangement is not enough to get a CD. [Willeam Grenetrewis, 03/04, R-West]
Rules Citations -- RfS X.4.j.ii (Changes to Charges on Charges -- Changes type of all in simple cases)
[Azure, on a pile argent an iris azure slipped and leaved vert, on a chief Or three pheons inverted vert] Under the recently published revision of RfS X.4.j.ii, this submission is simple for the purposes of this rule; thus this is clear of Wuduholt be Secg, Azure, on a pile argent, a Coast Redwood tree couped proper, on a chief Or, three laurel wreaths vert, with one CD for the substantial change in type of the tertiary charges on the chief (from laurel wreaths to pheons), and another CD for aggregate changes to the tertiary charges on the piles. [Eve the Wagand, 05/04, A-Middle]
[Sable, on a compass star argent a Maltese cross azure and in base two swords inverted crossed at the tips argent] The device conflicts with Conner McAuliffe FitzJames, Sable, within a sun throughout argent, eclipsed azure, a goshawk displayed argent, which could also be blazoned as Sable, on a sun throughout argent, a roundel azure charged with a goshawk displayed argent. This emphasizes the quaternary nature of Conner's goshawk, and we ignore quaternary charges completely when checking for conflict. We give no CD between a compass star and a sun, nor for throughout vs. not-throughout for non-ordinaries. Since compass stars are not eligible for X.4.j.ii, there is no CD for type only between a roundel and a Maltese cross. Thus there is only one CD between this armory and Conner's for adding the secondary swords. [John the Wanderer, 05/04, R-Caid]
[Per fess wavy gules and azure, on a mullet Or a laurel wreath vert] This armory conflicts with a badge of Astra Christiana Benedict: (Tinctureless) On a mullet a cross crosslet. While there is a CD for adding the field against a tinctureless badge, tincture cannot contribute to any other CDs, and as a mullet is not suitable for application of X.4.j.ii, there is no CD for changing the type only of the charge on the mullet. [Rivermoor, Shire of, 05/04, R-Trimaris] <Ed. note: Returned for this and other reasons>
[(Fieldless) On a sun Or a robin proper] This conflicts with Kriemhild of Stonecroft (badge for the Compagnie du Dindon d'Or): Vert, a mullet of nine points throughout Or, thereon a turkeycock's head [Gallopavo meleagris] erased proper. There is one CD for the (lack of) field. There is no CD for type between a mullet of nine points and a sun. As suns are not eligible for X.4.j.ii, type alone (between the robin and the turkey's head) is insufficient for a CD, and the tincture of both charges is in fact primarily brown:
[Quarterly gules and sable, on a sun Or a wheel proper] Conflict with the badge for the Compagnie du Dindon d'Or (Kriemhild of Stonecroft), Vert, a mullet of nine points throughout Or, thereon a turkeycock's head [Gallopavo meleagris] erased proper. There is a CD for the field, but nothing for the difference between a mullet of nine points and a sun, and nothing for changing the type only the tertiary charges. An examination of Kriemhild's emblazon shows that the head is primarily brown. [Ive Rathbourn, Aug 2000, R-Ansteorra]
[Rebecca Mary Robynson, 03/04, R-Caid]
RfS Citations -- RfS XI.2 (Charge and Name Combinations)
[Per bend sinister gules and sable, a lion rampant within an orle of lozenges argent] The question was raised in commentary whether this combination of name and armory could constitute a presumptuous claim to be Edward Dymoke, Royal Champion at the Coronations of Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I. This issue was based largely on an online picture of Edward Dymoke (for which the URL was supplied), showing him riding an armorially barded horse. After careful visual study of the online picture, we have concluded that the armory on the horse's barding is (field), a lion passant within an orle of lozenges argent. The appearance of a "lion rampant" seems to be an optical illusion, resulting from a fold in the fabric and some odd angles of perspective. Therefore this combination of name and armory is not a presumptuous combination (as referred to in RfS XI.2). [Edward Dymoke, 04/04, A-Lochac]
[Per fess argent and azure, a saltire engrailed counterchanged overall a sword inverted and in chief a rose gules] This violates RfS XI.2, Charge and Name Combinations, in accordance with the following precedent which we reaffirm at this time: "As one may not combine the White Rose of York and the name of York, it is forbidden to combine the Red Rose of Lancaster with the use of the name Lancaster." (29 Mar 1987, R-Outlands, Rebecca of Lancaster p. 21) [Michael of Lancaster, 04/04, R-An Tir]<Ed. note: Returned for this and other reasons.>
None to date for this tenure
Semy
see also
Fret and
Fretty
[Argent, two goblets in fess vert within a bordure vert semy-de-lys argent] As drawn, the charges on the bordure cannot be identified at any reasonable distance; guesses included ermine spots and quatrefoils as well as fleurs-de-lys. This must be returned for a redraw to make the fleurs-de-lys more identifiable. Making them larger is the primary need. To that end, increasing the size of the bordure a little could help. Drawing fewer fleurs-de-lys would definitely help; the typical number for semy on a bordure ranges from 8 to 16, though larger numbers have been deemed acceptable in the past as long as identifiability was maintained. [Madelina de Lindesay, 04/04, R-Ansteorra]
[Per pale argent estencely azure and azure estencely argent, a fleur-de-lys estencely counterchanged] This is being returned for non-period style. "Counterchanging a semy over an ordinary appears to be modern and not Period style." [Giovanna di Piacensa, R-Trimaris, February 1992 LoAR] Counterchanging a semy across a charge more complex than an ordinary appears to be even further from period style. [Philippe du Rouchard, 04/04, R-Calontir]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
Style
see also Blazon
and Emblazon
and Obtrusive
Modernity
and Weirdness
[Or, in annulo six hurts, the one in chief replaced by a roundel gules charged with a portcullis Or] The roundel in chief is also twice the diameter of the others. Consider the following precedents:
[Returning ...a Maltese cross between four others...] This is being returned for using two difference [sic] sizes of the same charge on the field. [Jun 1998, Ret-Middle, Savaric de Pardieu]
[returning Argent, on a mullet of seven points vert a griffin couchant, wings close, Or, in chief two mullets of seven points vert...] The use of two different sizes of the same charge, especially when they then cause some confusion as to whether there is one group of primary charges or a primary charge and group of secondary charges, as here, has been cause for return in the past. (See, e.g., LoAR of March 1992, p. 15). Drawing all three mullets the same size, or choosing a different set of charges to go in chief, would cure this problem. [Jul 1995, Ret-Caid, Alexandria Elizabeth Vallandigham of Cambria]
While some variation in size among charges in a group is not uncommon, this large a discrepancy in sizes makes this emblazon returnable in accordance with the precedents cited above. [Eleanor of Orkney, 04/04, R-Lochac] <Ed - Returned for this and other reasons>
[Per pale argent estencely azure and azure estencely argent, a fleur-de-lys estencely counterchanged] This is being returned for non-period style. "Counterchanging a semy over an ordinary appears to be modern and not Period style." [Giovanna di Piacensa, R-Trimaris, February 1992 LoAR] Counterchanging a semy across a charge more complex than an ordinary appears to be even further from period style. [Philippe du Rouchard, 04/04, R-Calontir]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
Tincture
see also Contrast
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
[Per bend azure, and gules semy of oak leaves, in sinister chief a trefoil knot interlaced with an annulet Or] Questions were raised in commentary about the identifiability of the motif a trefoil knot interlaced with an annulet. We note the recent registrations of a triquetra braced with an annulet (Aoife inghean ui hEaluighthe, July 2002) and a Bowen knot crosswise braced with an annulet (Fergus O'Fey, September 2001). This motif is very similar to those motifs, and is therefore also acceptable. The depiction of this motif in this submission was identifiable as such, so we are registering it. [Fiachra mac Domhnaill, 05/04, A-Middle]
[Or, on a pall azure a trefoil knot inverted Or] Trefoil knots and triquetrae have a single lobe up by default. This submission's knot has the single lobe down, and must be blazoned as inverted. [Thomas Wilkinson, 05/04, A-Meridies]
[Vert, a dragon passant, on a chief Or three triskelions of spirals vert] The triskelion of spirals is registerable as a weirdness. From the December 2003 LoAR:
The SCA has previously registered one triskelion of spirals.... 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"). [Dec 2003, Acc-West, Ellisif þunnkárr]
As this submission does not include any other steps away from period style, it may be registered. [Gwydion ap Lewelyn, 05/04, A-Outlands]
[Per fess with a right step Or and argent] This is clear of Jakob Stiufsun: Per fess with a left step sable and pily bendwise argent and azure. A visual check confirms that Jakob's device has the step going the opposite way from this submission. There is a CD for changing the tincture of at least half the field, and a separate CD for the aggregate changes to the line of division. (There might not be a CD between a simple left step and a simple right step, but the left-vs.-right combined with the pily division in base is sufficient for a CD.) [Cormac Mór, 05/04, A-Caid]
[Quarterly argent and Or, a dragon dormant, wings inverted and addorsed, purpure] This is clear of the Barony of Dragonsspine's badge: (Fieldless) A wingless dragon dormant purpure. There is one CD for the field. After a visual check against Dragonsspine's badge, it was decided that this submission's wings, while not as obvious as they might be in a different position, are sufficiently prominent to gain a CD against the wingless dragon, yielding the necessary second CD. [Adriana inghean Labhruinn mhic Fhionguin, 04/04, A-Calontir]
The motif of an orle indented on the inner edge is found in Italian armory, though some depictions of it might tempt us to blazon them as an orle of triangles conjoined, points inward...This is clear of Farquhar Finley Farquharson: Gules, a lion dormant within an orle of hearts Or. A visual check of Farquhar's armory shows the hearts to be palewise and clearly separated; thus against the various depictions of an orle indented on the inner edge there are separate CDs for number and type of charge(s). [Bella Lucia da Verona, 04/04, A-Lochac]
[Per fess azure and vert, a dragon couchant to sinister argent] This is clear of Var of the Ivory Dungeon: Sable, a dragon dormant to sinister reguardant, the tail curled to sinister around the body, the dexter wing lowered to cover the body, the head peeking out to dexter base from beneath the dexter wing, argent spined gules. There is one CD for the field and another for posture of the dragon. Var's dragon is decidedly dormant in roundel (as it were), a position that is no longer registerable; the visual difference between that charge and this dragon is immediately obvious. [Laura Lye of Bowden, 04/04, A-Calontir]
[Per pale purpure and sable, a lozenge counterchanged fimbriated argent] Even if drawn properly, this conflicts with Teceangl Bach's badge, (fieldless) A mascle argent, per RfS X.5, Visual Test. The current submission could also be blazoned as Per pale purpure and sable, a lozenge argent voided per pale sable and purpure, and a mascle is the same as a lozenge voided. The visual similarity is overwhelming, all the more because of the extremely low contrast between purpure and sable. [Nigel de Rothewelle, 04/04, R-Meridies] <Ed - Returned for this and other reasons>
Weirdness
see also Style
[Vert, a dragon passant, on a chief Or three triskelions of spirals vert] The triskelion of spirals is registerable as a weirdness. From the December 2003 LoAR:
The SCA has previously registered one triskelion of spirals.... 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"). [Dec 2003, Acc-West, Ellisif þunnkárr]
As this submission does not include any other steps away from period style, it may be registered. [Gwydion ap Lewelyn, 05/04, A-Outlands]
None to date for this tenure
None to date for this tenure
[Per pale azure and argent, three wolf's teeth issuant from dexter and another two issuant from sinister counterchanged] This is being returned for improper drawing and non-period style, stemming from improper use of wolf's teeth.
The examples of wolf's teeth in the Pictorial Dictionary and in Siebmacher show that the teeth invariably extend almost to the center line; where teeth come from both sides they almost touch. Those on this submission do not come close. This is in itself grounds for return.
Furthermore, wolf's teeth appear in groups of three or more; barring evidence of wolf's teeth appearing singly or in pairs, there should be three or more teeth issuing from the same side. The use of fewer than three teeth is a step from period practice. The imbalance between the number of teeth on either side is also a step from period practice, independent of the the number of teeth. Therefore, even if the wolf's teeth were drawn correctly, the use of three on one side and two on the other would not be registerable as the motif is two steps away from period practice. [Dubhagán mac Ruairc, 05/04, R-Meridies]
[(Fieldless) A Maltese cross gules within and conjoined to an annulet sable charged with the words "Antiquity Camaradery Generosity" argent] Words that are used in armory must be period. As the earliest date that could be found for "Camaradery" in any spelling is late 17th century, this word is not allowable on armory barring evidence of its use in period. [Leifr Hrólfsson and Lucia de la Valette, 04/04, A-Drachenwald]
[Sable, a rapier within a laurel wreath, a chief embattled argent] The laurel wreath on these arms is not sufficiently wreathlike. It is round, but not sufficiently closed on top. We note the following precedents:
[a tower sable ... environed in base with a laurel wreath vert] 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. [Apr 2002, Ret-Atenveldt, Hawk's Rest, Shire of]
[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 [Feb 2000, Ret-Middle, Darkstone, College of]
While a sword might be considered thin enough to be allowed between the tips of an open laurel wreath (per the 2002 precedent), the opening must not be large enough to fit a wider charge into. The depiction in the miniature emblazon is a borderline case at best, but the full-color emblazon was "redrawn by Keythong to ... remove 2 leaves of Laurel wreath" which makes it painfully obvious that the wreath's opening is too large. [Noiregarde, Shire of, 05/04, R-Northshield]
[Per pale sable and argent, a tower broken counterchanged and on a base Or two laurel sprigs bases crossed in saltire vert] Also, precedent is clear that this depiction of a laurel wreath must be returned for redrawing:
[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. [Apr 2002, Ret-Atenveldt, Hawk's Rest, Shire of]
...a laurel wreath should have a round shape, rather than a 'U' or 'V' shape, and they should be completely closed, or almost completely closed, at the top. Laurel wreaths in the shape submitted here have been considered sufficient reason for return in the past. [Dec 2001, Ret-Ealdormere, Brant County, Canton of]
Laurel wreaths should be drawn in a basically circular or elliptical shape, and either completely closed or with no room between the tips as to allow placing another charge between them. While some artistic latitude has sometimes been given on the latter point, U- and especially V-shaped wreaths are not allowed. [Saint Basil the Great, College of, 04/04, R-Lochac] <Ed - Returned for this and other reasons>